Not So Long Ago the Bible Said Life Began at Birth, Not at Conception
Until perhaps the 1970's, the most powerful voice in Protestant Christianity was a magazine called Christianity Today. It was in our house when I was growing up and in my early years of marriage. In 1968 it hosted a conference on reproduction which included prominent Protestant theologians of the time. They issued a joint statement at the end reflecting , "the conservative or evangelical position within Protestantism." The statement read, "From the moment of birth the infant is a human being with all the rights which Scripture accords all human beings." It continued, "God does not regard the fetus as a soul no matter how far gestation has progressed."
The largest Protestant denomination, Southern Baptist Convention, issued a statement in 1971 urging liberalization of abortion laws. A former President interpreted the SBC's position , "...Genesis 2:7 as a statement that the soul is formed at breath, not with conception."
In time all these Protestant institutions switched Scriptures. They moved from Genesis 2:7 to Exodus 1:22-23. The latter discusses killing a fetus. The history of this bit of Scripture, however, has a checkered history. In the Latin version of Exodus from the 400's CE, this was referred to as a miscarriage. Step by step over the centuries new Bibles referred to it differently. By the 1950's killing the fetus became killing "a life."
When Presidential Candidate Pete Buttigieg referred to the Christian view that human life begins with the first breath he was correctly quoting the Bible. When a storm of criticism came down on him they, also, were quoting the Bible but another passage with questionable origin.
I've been asked many times, "When do you think human life begins?" I don't answer because it is the wrong question. The right question is, "Is there one definition of the beginning of human life that will work in all cases at all times in history?"
The answer to that is no.
CE - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CE_marking
ReplyDeleteYou need to get in the mainstream. A.D. - in the year of our Lord was in use well over 1000 years before 'you know who' introduced CE.
I think I'll pass on Pete Buttigieg's apologetics and theology.
As for those Christian denominations you deride for inconsistency, you have some small percentage of truth in your analysis. It's the much larger percentage of untruth that sticks out, though.
I'm happy you did not try to pick on Catholicism.
You might want to research the 1932 Lambeth Conference regarding artificial birth control. Up until that point, all of Christianity opposed abortion and contraception as both took human life. Let's just say the liberalization of contraception started there for Protestants.
Soooo your defending the Catholic position on birth control Matt? What do you say about the 67% of conceived eggs that never make it no matter how much a baby might be wanted? Most lost of course not long after conception? What do those facts teach us about God's opinion on the value of fertilized eggs?
DeleteMatt--"I'm happy you did not try to pick on Catholicism." I'm wondering which of the two bogus passages Catholics hang there hat on for the view human life begins at conception. Or, is it that one which says, "I knew you in the womb." Of course, that one also does not say human life begins at conception. Anyone can use the most popular phrase in Christianity, "What that means is...." The Bible does not say anywhere a human life begins at conception. It was something made up by some Christians for their own purposes.
DeleteUnknown.,8:03 am: If you first answer the following question, I will answer your question in full.
DeleteWhat do you say about 3rd trimester abortions and the radical Gov. Northam who backs infanticide? The 'we keep the baby comfortable' and let him or die.
Jon 10:44 (sounds like a bible verse): "... there hat ..." sounds like hillbilly slang. 'Their hat ..." would be a better reflection on a retired Economics perfesser.
DeleteYour question sounds less like a sincere question and more like an accusation. The absence of the "?" punctuation was my red flag.
You obviously have a computer and the Internet. Check on Catholic theology for abortion and contraception. Get back to us with sincere research results.
Ever wonder why expectant mothers and fathers start picking out baby names upon learning of the pregnancy? Come on, you know the answer.
Deletewho would have thunk it? Good old Jon is now quoting Scripture to support his view that "life" begins at birth. How many times has he told us that the Bible is a pack of lies and fairy tales. Now he wants us take those lies and fairy tales seriously! Of course the Bible doesn't say that life begins at conception. Those folks then didn't know about conception. That wasn't discovered until the 19th century. But let that pass: let's get to the heart of the matter. Jon says that he won't discuss the "life" issue because nobody has ever figured out when life (human life that is) begins. First, I don't know what he means by "life". Does he refer to the first amoeba that popped up in the pre-Cambrian soup? I don't think so. In his confusing way, he seems to be talking about human fetal life. The fetus is not alive?? Is it then dead? Or is it something like a tadpole or a jelly fish? Could have fooled me: I thought that humans reproduced humans, not tadpoles. Silly me, guess I do not understand Jon's Alice in Wonderland universe. That said, I think that Jon avoids the "human life" issue, not because of his agnostic take on the matter, but because he is afraid of where any honest discussion might lead. One normally doesn't want to set forth a view that might make one look foolish. BTW Jon, the ancient Stoics also thought that human life began with the baby's first breath. That, I suppose, puts you in good company with ancient philosophers that you so roundly despise.
The Trump administration says life begins at conception. The jet-setter Tom Price’s brief stint at Health and Human Services resulted in an HHS Strategic Plan replete with anti-choice language.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.vice.com/en_us/article/yw397w/government-hhs-now-says-life-begins-at-conception It used to be cradle to grave now it’s conception to grave. Trump, Americans United for Life, Susan B. Anthony List and the like have expropriated the fetus inside a pregnant woman’s uterus and assumed authority over her ability to manage her own fertility. This from the champions of limited government.
Matt 8:03: Does the Catholic Church ever do funeral celebrations for aborted fetuses. If so does Preface 1 of the liturgy for the dead apply? “Indeed for your faithful, Lord, life is changed not ended, and, when this earthly dwelling turns to dust, an eternal dwelling is made ready for them in heaven.” Or isn’t an aborted fetus considered one of the faithful? Are they considered soulless?
ReplyDeleteFrom: https://www.catholic.com/qa/a-funeral-for-an-aborted-baby
DeleteQuestion: Can a mother who aborted her child have a funeral for the child?
Answer: A funeral Mass could be held for any deceased child, even one who died due to abortion. If a woman regretted her abortion and wished to have a funeral Mass for her deceased child, she could certainly do so. The funeral Mass would use the readings and prayers of the “Mass for Children Who Died Without Baptism.”
You ask a few questions and I think better sources than me can answer them. However, I know that a soul enters a person at conception. I also know that some priests consider an abortion a baptism of blood, thereby assuring that the aborted baby will be welcomed into Heaven. As for the baby being "faithful", as you say, logic implies that they are without reason. However, "faithful" has several meanings. In this case, I think the answer is 'yes'; they will be in Heaven.
The theology, for me, gets a bit involved. There is Limbo, Purgatory, Heaven and Hell. Aborted babies could in any of the first three but eventually will be in Heaven. Hell, not. The Devil knows he can't pull the baby to Hell. The Devil is working on the mother, father, abortionist and a whole lot of other people; trying his best to bring them to Hell.
Ardy B--re: Are there funerals for fetuses??---Being an old guy with decades of experiences in this stuff, a recollection comes to mind. I suppose this goes back to the 1970's. There was a well-known character in Fargo, Dr. Georgie Burt. Her medical practice specialized in adolescent women. She was a Republican conservative to the core except for one issue, abortion. She was loud and aggressive advocating for abortion rights. The question occurred to her also, do right to life families have funerals after miscarriages? She called all the funeral homes in Fargo-Moorhead and not one had ever held such a funeral. That may have changed later but at that time, no funerals, a human had not died.
DeleteLimbo was thrown out in in 2007. Look it up. I shall not address purgatory as the RCC didn't get the memo 500 years ago, even though they softened their stance of it being a money maker.
DeleteThe only way a person can be condemned is by rejecting salvation, as do the atheists. I don't see the unborn or born before baptism rejecting. The RCC has the teaching of baptism by intention. So, does one HAVE to be baptized? Consider the one thief on the cross. On the other hand, why would one reject baptism if available?
Thank you Jon and Matt for taking the time to reply to my query. The reason I asked if a fetus was considered without a soul was the historical association of the word soul (Greek ‘psyche’) with breath or to breath. I am aware that opinions vary on when the human soul is acquired. As a non-theist it is plausible that the soul, as some sort an immaterial essence of a person, our personality, is activated at birth with our first breath when we actually join the family of humankind. Thanks again.
Deletelittle helper 5:54: Thanks, I looked up Limbo and it was seemingly thrown out in 2007 with Pope Benedict's proclamation.
DeleteAs for Purgatory, the problem with Protestants and purgatory is that their Bible - the Luther Bible - eliminated the sacred books that hold the theology for Purgatory. After all, why pray for fallen soldiers on the battlefield, as was told in Maccabees, unless there is hope that prayers can help their souls enter Heaven?
"Rejecting salvation" is surely not the defining way to enter Hell. The Devil doesn't reject salvation. He works diligently to tempt people to reject salvation. The Devil believes in the saving power of the Cross. He hates Christ and chooses evil and Hell.
How many funerals have pastors and friends proclaim, "Old so-and-so is looking down on us from heaven ...". As if they know the state of so-and-so's soul at the time of their death! The sin of presumption is rampant in society. If only the virtue of charity were as rampant.
Ardy B 6:57 pm: Breathing is a peculiar thing. It is the processing of acquiring oxygen and processing it to maintain life.
DeleteIn other words, unborn babies in the womb process oxygen to maintain its life.
When a person is put on oxygen in surgery, in an emergency situation, in an ordinary circumstance to maintain some sort of quality of life or at the end of life, are they any less human?
"As for purgatory" The problem is; The intetestimental books, (deuterocanonical / apocrapha) were not in the Hebrew Bible, but were inserted in the Greek translation of the OT via the Septuagent , and were not declared part of the canon by the Magicsterium until the Council of Trent. Look it up. In those books some Greek mythology was included, which formed the foundation of purgatory, and supported the growing Marian Tradition. As for praying and PAYING for the dead to get to heaven is pure wishful thinking. I guess the Greeks thought it was a neat idea.
DeleteYour 3rd paragraph is an oxy-moronic. Oxymoron-look it up.
It is indeed a presumption on your part and the RCC to think that your prayer can speed a dead person into heaven. Nor how many Masses you have done in their name. It's their faith alone, not yours that does it. For by Grace have you been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves for it is the gift of God.
If only the virtue and charity of God was recognized, you would not presume YOU could save anyone.
Re. "Luther eliminated"...No he did not. He translated it into the German and placed it in the back of the Bible. He clearly stated those books were worth reading, but that no doctrine should be derived from them. Look it up Even the Catholic church recognizes the difference between the Hebrew , (Old Testament) and the apocrapha by it's very name; "dutercanonical. Look it up.
Comment removed by blog administrator, Must have made old Jon feel a tad uncomfortable.
DeleteUnknown--"Must have made old Jon feel a tad uncomfortable." I've been doing this blog for several years. There have been something like 20,000 comments. If you want to feed your own ego with the thought that your comment was so powerful it made me take it down please feel free. Almost every time, I mean EVERY TIME, I reject a post the writer tells me he has defeated me and that is why I took it down. I reject posts to make the site more attractive to casual readers. I don't like repetitive posts or ones that take up space that could contribute better to the site. I try to manage the site to increase readership and it is growing.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteUnknown--You left an acre of spaces under your comment. Try to be careful about that.
DeleteMatt 8:08pm: “Breathing is a peculiar thing” In a context other than that of an unborn child, our discussion prompted me to do some reading on “breath” in your tradition. After God shaped and molded the first human from dust He “breathed” life into His creation, that is, the “Breath of Life”. What made Jesus of Nazareth the Lord Jesus Christ was another kind of breath, from the same source, namely, the Holy Spirit. If I have this correct, the aforementioned divine “Breath of Life” spawns the immortal human soul. The divine breath, as in the Holy Spirit, speaks to the deep eternity of Jesus Christ, The Word, we find in John 1:1. Mysterious and interesting. Still to me that first breath of life at birth is not the culmination of conception but the real beginning of life and personhood.
ReplyDeleteClassical example here of a literalism that fails to recognize symbolic/analogical poetical expression. yes the breath of God has a deep symbolic meaning but it not to be taken literally. Literally the breath of God is there from the beginning of each human life: there would be no life without it. Or to put it another way, breath has a profound and beautiful meaning but when you literalize it you go badly off the track.
DeleteArdy B 8:42: Book of Jeremiah 1:4-5,
ReplyDeleteThe word of the LORD came to me [Jeremiah]:
[God, "] Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I dedicated you, a prophet to the nations I appointed you.["]
I'm quite sure that Jon the Censor will not post this. I will try anyway. Have you noticed that Jon, in his desperation to "prove" that human fetal life is worthless or worse, keeps coming back to his assertion that it is "absurd" to think that each human life begins at conception. No real argument, just a pastel of dogmatic assertions. I once posted a reference to a study that indicated that 70+ percent of medical scientists disagree with him. Guess what: no post. Very sad to know that for Jon ideology and hate trump common sense, empirical evidence and decency (abortion at any stage of pregnancy is not pretty).
Delete"..that 70+ percent of medical scientists disagree with him." I did not post it because you did not post the source. What is you definition of a "medical scientist?" Was it in a medical journal or a religious publication?
Delete"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, ...." I read this and the commentary as to what it was supposed to have meant. It referred to Jeremiah specifically, not all fetuses. This is in no way a statement that all human life begins at conception.
ReplyDeleteI see even the Catholic News Agency uses the bogus "I knew you" to justify the Catholic position against abortion. Matt is in good company.
DeletePs. 139 from the 1979 BCP: …..for you yourself created my most inward parts, you knit me together in my mother's womb.
ReplyDeleteI will thank you because I am marvelously made.....my body was not hidden from you while I was being made in secret. and woven in the depths of the earth.
Your eyes beheld my limbs, yet unfinished in the womb.
all of them were written in your book
they were fashioned day by day...………...
Doesn't say the fetus is a human being. Sorry.
DeleteUnknown--I did not put up your post about Steven Jacobs. He did not refer to the fertilized cell as a human being. Thus, the results have nothing to do with the abortion debate. I know you will say I dumped your post because it was so powerful. In fact, it was garbage and the Jacobs' "research" has been dumped as well. There has never been an article published in an established scientific journal finding that a human life begins at conception. I certainly will post one if you find it.
Deleteyou are certainly a sorry, sorry case. I don't know whether to pity you or to roundly dislike you. And right now I am disposed (agape aside) to the latter. All that he said was that each human life begins at conception (according to the biologists. surveyed). In any case all I did was to cite one study, telling you that you could easily look up a lot of other studies on the subject. BTW who or what trashed the Jacobs study?
DeleteUnknown about the Jacobs guy--I'm running out of patience with lots of other things to do. I'll try to state this in the simplest of terms. Someone sending questionnaires to scientists is not a scientific study establishing that life begins at conception. You have not provided an article in an established scientific journal explaining why one fertilized cell is a human being. Then you wrote he said "each human life begins." That is not exactly what he asked in his questionnaire. He asked if the embryo was "life." Of course it is "life." The term "life" is different than the term "human being." My finger nail is a form of "life". It by itself is not a human being. Slipping between these two term is a trick anti abortion advocates use. This Jacobs guy was caught doing that trick.
DeleteThis doesn't merit a blog, but some might find it interesting. A group is trying to raise money to market a new board game. The game involves competing religions trying to out wit and fight off other religions. Each player draws a god and will be that god. Then, he/she draws opportunities to take followers away from other gods or kill them. Sounds like it is based on the history of religion: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1088603431/indoctrination?fbclid=IwAR01MtSKxLoYAWYLk55fwe0vwQkolxj_wnapJsb3maiUJ-iCHZb0t-gBtBI
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteThis is for Matt. Does it ever occur to you that we are dealing here with some really strange birds. Folks like Jon who are pre-occupied with religious issues that they understand imperfectly, based on mostly hostile commentary. To be honest, I find it a bit sick but tragically representative of the insanity that has come to dominate so much of today's political discourse. Very sad, very sad.