@@Mark73 The irony, right? The problem is not that fundamentalists read the Bible. The problem is that they read it very selectively. And, sure, we all do that. But at least progressives are willing to admit that we read it that way. We're quite comfortable saying that we follow the parts we agree with, and reject what we don't agree with. But fundamentalists are so dishonest that they claim to read it objectively and without bias, while doing the exact same thing.
The fetus was property of the husband who would determine the fine... clearly the bible is presenting the "way" of ancient peoples... not the "way" of some imagined omni god.
Except God isn't omni. Dan has already shown to debunk this. BEcause also.. the Bible is God's word right? Too bad so sad. God is ok with it, because the bible says so.
Correct! And to add more: the fetus is ALWAYS alive, according to science. The debate is WHEN personhood starts. some religious people think life and personhood are exactly the same. This is demonstrably false, in the real world. not even our legal system espouses that personhood and life are the same
Science doesn't determine morality anyway. Humans decide what the moral standard is. Science can help in determining if something meets the moral standard but it can't tell us what the moral standard should be.
Pump the brakes. "Science" does not have a settled definition for life. There are a series of characteristics which are most commonly associated with things that exhibit the property of being alive. But dig into the philosophy of science debates on the subject and you'll find a lot of this is uncertain. Fetuses are not always alive according to science. Some scientists grant that they are, others don't. The reason for granting this varies as well. There's really no consensus here.
Thank you for this video. I'm not a Biblical scholar, but I have been arguing about "life starting at birth with the 1st breath" and death occurs when the "last breath leaves the body". For me as an uneducated person when it comes to religion makes sense. If life starts at conception, does that mean that the mother has two souls within her body? To me that seems complicated. Again thank you for posting this video on this controversial topic
This also applies to her husband, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, bruise for bruise, life for life. Teaches them empathy towards one another. For men however, best to go out into the wilderness or hang out on the roof corner.
every time you say "the quickening", I hear Sean Connery saying it in Highlander ("The Quickeniiing!!!!") and you say it like a few dozen times in this video so i just keep hearing that clip over and over again 😂
Spanish "alma" (and similar cognates from other romance languages). It comes from latin "anima/animus", that comes from greek "anemos", that means breath, wind, breeze. Animal= a being that breathes Animated = lively Anemometer = a device to measure the speed of wind
There is a political side to this, and we need to go back in time because we are dealing with during the maccabean/herodian period with people who had been forcibly converted and may have had alternative views of the law, one view was that a new born infant male was not fully human until circumcized, generally around day eight, he might not even be named. Among first born children previously sacrificed. This may have been a way to do with percieved infidelity of women, and it may not be clear that the women was a virgin (adolescent females sometime rupture their hyman prior to intercourse, and sometimes the hyman doesnt break during first intercourse). As a consequence the father could opt out of caring for the child by sacrificing him, by giving him to the temple, or by paying the priest. As a consequence we see the evoloution of the treatment of the rights of infants over time, and it appears that law in the torah is a later version of this code. But the issue here is not what the torah is, but how people behaved, and so behavior may have varied, and I doubt, outside of Judea, that Jews had the same opinion of the law and enforcement, alot of what is in the text of the gospels is interrogation, not enforcement. And so we get to the Jesus followers in greco-roman empire. These followers believed the end was coming and many gave much of what they had without benefit. But the greeks at the sametime sometimes threw the girl babies in the trash heap. Again service to widows and orphans, you can call a heaped baby an ophan. For a christian helping the orphan girls was a great way of promoting their belief, since they satisfy obligations of poverty at the same moment of recruiting and obligate new member. And these girls in a few years could attract male suiters to the church. And so they have an even closer political reason by creating a pejorative against abortion, adopring orphans into the cause. And this is one point you see Paul, use guilt of sin as a selling point for salvation. But in this case you dont need to actually peddle salvation, sell the idea of sin, particularly killing fetuses, and then a good chance youll find a baby at your doorstep. The sociopolitics of reproduction, how to focus the growth of larger society on the cukt growth.
As far as i manged to find (as a native hebrew speaker, im open to correction since biblcal hebrew is different from modern hebrew though) the only way to relate נפש (nefesh) with breath is through assyrian, nefesh is more closely related to the root that refers to resting (for example exodus 31:17) Ruakh (רוח) is more closely referring to wind rather than breath in fact i would argue that the word neshama (נשמה) that means soul helps dans case more than both ruakh and nefesh since it literally comes from the hebrew root that means to breath (נ.ש.מ לנשום נשימה) But regardless that argument is predicated on the notion thqt because people associated certain words with the same sementical field that it can help us understand their worldview which is a false assumption, you can create a variety of theories for why certain words are semantically and etymologically close, at best it demonstrates that dans notion can be consistent (yet not definitively true) with the etymology of these words.
5 หลายเดือนก่อน +1
If a human body does not have a soul, then it is simply corrupt matter. So doesn't the Bible teach us that a human fetus, devoid of a soul, is simply corrupt matter? 💙
Where does the Bible teach that - I'm not aware of any passage that does such?
2 หลายเดือนก่อน
@@VeridicusMaximus The reason the there is a government agency in Israel which helps Israeli women terminate their pregnancies before life begins with the first breath. Is because Genesis 2: 7 makes it clear that life does not begin with conception but rather with the first breath. Because it is only with the first breath that Yahweh inserts a human soul into the human body thereby making it a human being. This is why Ruth Bader Ginsberg's perspective on abortion was Biblical while Amy Coney Barrett's is not. Barrett's perspective is Roman Catholic but it is not Biblical. As with much of Roman Catholicism. Like the Trinity. Jews understand what the so-called Bible means since they wrote over 9O% of it.💙
@@stevesmith291 I am sure that is true, but looking at a lot of modern Catholic pro-life activists…they really do not. You don’t need the Bible to tell you something is a bit unsettling about abortion.
@@cinnamondan4984 I am Catholic and I employ such tactics, but this is a video about the Bible. It is distinctly not Catholic to interpret the Bible with no regard to tradition (here's another encyclical for you: Dei Verbum). I believe this man is a Mormon, and Mormons believe that Bible was corrupted (just one of their unhistorical beliefs). So maybe this man is inclined to try to present that Bible is immoral, or maybe it is his genuine interpretation unconstrained by belief in the Bible. Whatever it is, such misinterpretation only can only "benefit" the pro-abortion crowd however
@@paxcoder Although he identifies and is presumably active in the LDS Church his views do not reflect a very common understanding of the church. Essentially he sees the LDS Church and all faiths as social constructs and nothing more. You can see his Mormon Stories interview (it is a channel popular among ex-Mormons and non-Mormons who have disdain for religion).
Everyone will have to excuse me but if I'm going to believe in a whatever, I'm going to believe in the best possible whatever. No worries, best possible for me is very nice and friendly. It doesn't want me dictating to anyone. It's all good. 😅
@@Cloudryder The Bible is anything but inerrant but I've known Jesus through The Spirit since 1986. Jesus baptizes those with faith with The Spirit into his Body which is The Church (a spiritual body of believers / no denominations). This is the essence of the born-again or born-from-above experience discussed between Jesus and Nicodemus in (John 3). Actually its not being in any way 'born-again' but rather essentially being spiritually born for the first time. But Jesus withholds from me far more than he enlightens me. I have no idea when human life begins but I figured out this much....life (human life) does NOT begin at 'moment of conception.' "In nature, 50% of all fertilized eggs are lost before a woman's missed menses." (University California at San Francisco). Or you can just Google-Search it for yourself from a great variety of sources. That aside, can you not see the horrific theological problems this apparent fact creates for Christians who believe that life begins at the moment of conception? Half the people who were ever 'conceived' (human life begins) were never born, estimated to be over 100 billion souls, based on the estimated number of homo-sapiens who have lived and died upon this earth. Where are they? Where did these 100 billion people go? Reincarnation? The "Well of Souls?" A reference to Indiana Jones and "Raiders of the Lost Ark" (1981). In addition, on several occasions Jesus said things like, 'It would have been better if that man were never born.' What's so bad about NOT being born? And as I've already shown, half of the people ever conceived were never born anyway. That aside, I believe reincarnation is definitely possible based on the fact that Rabbi (teacher) Jesus did NOT correct his disciples in (John 9.1-3). For its obviously impossible for a 'baby' to sin in the womb and this 'illogical position' goes against what Jesus made clear in the following scriptures. (Matthew 19.13-15), (Mark 10.13-16) and (Luke 18.15-17). PS: Be careful how you hear. The Old Mosaic Covenant is null and void!
Yes, it is life conception. In Jeremiah 1:5, God told Jeremiah he knew him before he was in his mother's womb. God predestines each child born they are born.
@@VeridicusMaximus I get you, but the political issue is based in a biological procces of a specifc biological species; so it is its rooted primarly on a biological issue.
@@ZelgiusK No, it (biology) is either irrelevant or conflated with other issues. The issues of legal and moral personhood are separate from biology because biology is not about those things. Thus, if personhood at birth was taken as a legal and moral fact then yes it would be allowed - if not then nope. And since everyone is arguing over this it is a politicized issue in our society. Only religious nutters try to conflate the issue of biological conception being 'life' and then necessitating moral and legal personhood. This is foolish and conflates these issues. What constitutes personhood cannot be grounded in the biology of something being merely 'alive.' There must be other attributes that are overlaid onto this life that constitute personhood and when that takes place and to what degree so that we can morally and legally afford that life with rights that protect it!
@@ZelgiusK That's debatable. It can be consciousness and/or self awareness, reason, a fully developed nervous system, fully developed body parts, the quickening, when en-soulment takes place (if you believe in them) etc. Can a dog get personhood - depends on how you define your terms and make your arguments and persuade people that they should have the same rights. Usually 'person' is about humans and their capacities which are different from culture to culture and different in their laws. Again, these are steps far from something having a biological life status!
@@denniswakabayashi9000 yes, it says Adam became a living soul after he began breathing. Doesn't mean that this statement would apply to everyone else. I mean, it didn't say that of Eve.
@@pythondrink "and I didn't say that" Didn't you imply that Eve didn't take the breath of Life When you posted "I mean it didn't say that of Eve." What did you mean then?
Also, idk if all Jews hold that belief. I read once that they also believe it not a life until 30 days after birth Idk if this is just Ben Shapiro’s personal view but he believes in life at conception and he’s a practicing Jew
Are there any mentions of spontaneous abortion/miscarriage? If life begins at conception, shouldn't miscarriage be at least involuntary manslaughter? And if approximately 1 in 3 conceptions result in miscarriage, wouldn't this affect a large fraction of women?
The Bible speaks specifically of abortion in Numbers 5:11-28 whereby a priest gives the woman a potion containing myrrh, an abortifacient. And like many other ancient rituals, it was a roulette spin that relied on a bunch of factors outside of their control. If the woman is unlucky and miscarries due to the potion, then it's "God's judgement" that she was guilty of adultery. If woman lucks out and doesn't miscarry well then it's "God's judgement" that she was innocent of adultery.
Damn, you make a lot of sense and you have much expertise in the field of biblical scholarship. But your facts contradict the identity I’ve built for myself so I’m going to angrily deny everything you say and call you a fraud. Then I’m going to excuse my rude actions as “Christian love”.
This would make sense in terms of English etymology. The word "quickening" refers to life, just as in the creed where we talk about "the quick and the dead."
Interesting. The umbilical cord supplies the oxygen to the fetus until it is severed at birth. I think there could be an argument made that life begins at conception or at the time the umbilical provides the breath of oxygen to the fetus. Thanks for sharing your vast amount of knowledge concerning the Bible.
Simple biology destroys the belief that the conception/zygote is already a human being Since 2 or more human beings can come from the same conception/zygote cell. The fetus receiving oxygen through the umbilical cord is not the same as breathing through the nostrils/lungs.
The Holy Spirit conceived Jesus Christ. The Holy Spirit didn't implant his soul and spirit when he was born. God "breathed" life into the baby at conception.
Amen lachlanstatter! Now, I know these none believers are going to ignore your commentary. "The Holy Spirit conceived Jesus Christ. The Holy Spirit didn't implant his soul and spirit when he was born. God "breathed" life into the baby at conception." But the thing is; it's not man's perspective of when life begins, but it's God's perspective. And sense the Bible is His word; let's see what says He? But let's 1st set the seen... Having learned from the angel that she will give birth to the Son of God, Mary hurries to visit her pregnant relative Elizabeth in the hill country. As it is written "Luke 1:41: "When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the {BABY} leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. And of course it doesn't say a [CHOICE] leapt in the womb, or that a squirrel leapt in the womb. It says the BABY leapt in the womb. Now, that BABY was John the baptist. She also recognizes that Jesus Himself is ALIVE inside of Mary. As it is also written...Luke 1:43 "But why am I so favored, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" Of course, under normal circumstances an adult woman should not have called a fetus “my Lord,” as honor is given by children to their parents (and elders), not parents to children. Jesus was a fetus and not yet anointed as a king. Nevertheless, she calls him “my Lord” in recognition that He is the promised King Messiah. So the Bible is communicating here in a kind of implied way that what's in the womb is a BABY. And if a BABY is in the womb; the baby ought to be protected by "THOU SHALT NOT MURDER" Amen.
Breath often symbolises life, without necessarily leading to the implication that breath is necessary for life. A modern evangelical favourite, “In Christ Alone” says: “From life’s first cry to final breath, Jesus commands my destiny”. But I don’t think many who sing it would interpret it as saying that life begins at first breath. The Bible also often uses blood to symbolise life. And that obviously precedes the first breath. I think the verse, “you knitted me together in my mother’s womb, I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made”, suggests that there is a special care and attention of God on us as we are growing in the womb. I think it’s most reasonable that this care and attention begins at conception - as opposed to something like “I grew for a bit in my mother’s womb, and after a few days/weeks you started knitting me together.”
Psalms 139 is not a discourse on personhood in the womb. The Psalmist is describing his own biological development on the way to becoming a human being/person AND not that all zygotes or embryos or fetuses are already ensouled human beings/persons. Most conceptions/fertilized eggs will not result in a successful birth but will be spontaneously aborted mainly due to genetic defects. How does "fearfully and wonderfully made" apply to all those lost conceptions??? In verse 16 How many days were ordained and recorded in the Book for all those lost conceptions that NEVER saw the light of day??? What does the Bible say about distorting scripture?
@@denniswakabayashi9000 I think Psalm 139 assigns with our intuitions, that God took care over our development in the womb, and it doesn’t seem particularly intuitive that God would say, “ah, this clump of cells has a beating heart, now I shall begin taking care to knit it together”. I don’t have a quick answer for why some human beings don’t reach birth, but I think it doesn’t pose any new challenges but already raised by the Problem of Evil. I would say there are good answers to the PoE. But also that humans never reach a point where they can’t suddenly die, but we don’t conclude that their life hasn’t begun yet. I can perhaps concede that God may not ensoul a person as soon as they begin to exist as a zygote, and so perhaps before that point, the problems with abortion might perhaps just be: - Choosing to terminate a developing child, knowing that it is epistemically possible that they are killing it. - Taking a body and potential life that God is working carefully on, and basically throwing it in the bin.
@@MatthewFearnley Simple biology destroys the belief that the zygote or early embryo is already an individual human being Since 2 or more human beings can come from the same conception/zygote or early embryo. AND do you believe most people will be killed off before being born?
The word "slave" denotes a person. You can't be a slave without being a person. Whereas science/biology DESTROYS the belief that the conception is already an individual human being/person Since 2 or more human beings/persons can come from the same conception/zygote.
@@denniswakabayashi9000 No, the word slave denotes a property, persons cannot be slaves. Humans can be slaves, but persons can't, slaves are not persons, they are property. That is the fundamental idea behind slavery
@@ZelgiusK You have to be a person to be a slave Since the very word denotes a person. I don't know of any slave who wasn't a person. Slaves and free blacks were acknowledged as persons under the Constitution. Article one section two. Whereas the fetus has never been treated as a person under the Constitution Where this current US Supreme Court AFFIRMED that precedent WHEN allowing doctor assisted abortions in Mississippi (Dobbs).
I like Bill Maher's take on this subject. He says Abortion is murder, I just think that is murder that is acceptable in certain circumstances." I don't agree with his position of abortion, but I do appreciate that he doesn't try to make up stupid rules around what life is. He just called it justifiable murder.
I respectfully disagree with Maher's usage of the term murder. Murder is a legal term & by definition is unlawful. Killing, I will argue is a more correct verbiage.
It doesn't matter, because he's discussing matters of what the biblical text says or doesn't say. He's not tackling issues of theology. There's a difference.
When does the "soul" attached to the body according to Christianity? Because i hear from many places that life starts when God assigns the soul to the body.
But that's meaningless because something can be assigned to something else before that something else even exists. For example, in December 2012 it was announced that the third Ford Class aircraft carrier was assigned the name "Enterprise" and number CVN-80. Actual construction didn't begin until 10 years later in 2022, and it won't even be afloat until 2025. And that "assignment" will still have happened even if, for some reason, the construction is cancelled or there's some accident which prevents completion of the ship.
The Embryo THE more man learns about how the fetus develops, the more he is confronted by evidence showing that, from early on, it is a gradually unfolding life with feeling, hearing, sight, movement, and other functions. He continues to be startled by discoveries showing that it is more than a mere collection of cells and tissue. In Chatelaine, a Canadian women’s magazine, Anne Beirne sets out what is now known. Moving: Though the mother may not feel it, the fetus starts to move its muscles as early as eight weeks-and its heart is already beating! “By 28 weeks, a normally developing fetus moves at least ten times every 12 hours.” Feeling: At 16 weeks, it reacts to pain, even kicking if stuck by the needle used in amniocentesis. Hearing: It can hear its mother’s heartbeat at 24 weeks and responds to loud sounds, music, and voices. “It can even bounce in rhythm to its mother’s voice.” Seeing: “By 16 weeks, its eyes have developed to the point where they can move around; by 24 weeks, . . . the fetus is able to detect light through the uterine wall.”
So when Mary became pregnant with Jesus she could have killed Jesus by aborting Him and she would have not committed murder and because it was her right to decide if Jesus lives or dies either way it would be a good thing?
The glory of Mary is BECAUSE she chose to give birth. If Mary was forced to give birth. Then Mary gets no credit. The anti-abortionists are not following Christ.
Sorry not, but you base all your declarations on what you read in a book written by a consortium of men who proclaim they know God because they read a book about God written by men who all agreed that they know God. Every rule put forth in the Bible was agreed upon by the same Rabbis
Make sure to remember any lies u ever told and to share food with the poor and never lie reverse all lies ever told very important for soul survival tell elder's to share food with the poor and never lie reverse all lies ever told very important for soul survival
Appreciate your fairness and thoroughness!
Fairness is when you give the opposition its fair shake.
@@cinnamondan4984Yep! Glad we agree!
@@philosophiabme IKR
Thank you 🙏🏼♥️
Makes sense. May this find its way into the hearts of dogmatic bullies.
It won't, because they don't care about what the Bible says.
@@Mark73 The irony, right? The problem is not that fundamentalists read the Bible. The problem is that they read it very selectively. And, sure, we all do that. But at least progressives are willing to admit that we read it that way. We're quite comfortable saying that we follow the parts we agree with, and reject what we don't agree with. But fundamentalists are so dishonest that they claim to read it objectively and without bias, while doing the exact same thing.
@@Mark73 and they shouldn’t as it does not take a Bible to tell one abortion is wrong.
The fetus was property of the husband who would determine the fine... clearly the bible is presenting the "way" of ancient peoples... not the "way" of some imagined omni god.
This is why the Bible shouldn't be the reasoning for the laws of today.
Except God isn't omni. Dan has already shown to debunk this. BEcause also.. the Bible is God's word right? Too bad so sad. God is ok with it, because the bible says so.
@@AeonStaite I agree with you. Edited original post for clarity.
🙃
Correct! And to add more: the fetus is ALWAYS alive, according to science. The debate is WHEN personhood starts. some religious people think life and personhood are exactly the same. This is demonstrably false, in the real world. not even our legal system espouses that personhood and life are the same
Science doesn't determine morality anyway. Humans decide what the moral standard is. Science can help in determining if something meets the moral standard but it can't tell us what the moral standard should be.
Thankfully not everyone agrees with your narrow minded view of what human life is.
@@colinsmith1288My kidney is not a person, Colin!
@@colinsmith1288 what's my narrow minded view?
Pump the brakes.
"Science" does not have a settled definition for life. There are a series of characteristics which are most commonly associated with things that exhibit the property of being alive. But dig into the philosophy of science debates on the subject and you'll find a lot of this is uncertain.
Fetuses are not always alive according to science. Some scientists grant that they are, others don't. The reason for granting this varies as well. There's really no consensus here.
Thank you for this video. I'm not a Biblical scholar, but I have been arguing about "life starting at birth with the 1st breath" and death occurs when the "last breath leaves the body". For me as an uneducated person when it comes to religion makes sense. If life starts at conception, does that mean that the mother has two souls within her body? To me that seems complicated. Again thank you for posting this video on this controversial topic
Oh no, the undergrad philosopher child will have to refute you on TikTok again.
Love that tshirt!
Tiny microphone is extremely tiny. Adorable.
It’s just really far away. (A “Father Ted” joke, brilliant British comedy)
Holding the mic... Next you have to do the MTV camera trick. Good video as always.
This also applies to her husband, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, bruise for bruise, life for life. Teaches them empathy towards one another. For men however, best to go out into the wilderness or hang out on the roof corner.
every time you say "the quickening", I hear Sean Connery saying it in Highlander ("The Quickeniiing!!!!")
and you say it like a few dozen times in this video so i just keep hearing that clip over and over again 😂
Life began once, about 4 billion years ago.
The English word “Spirit”. It comes from the Latin word “Spirare”. “To breathe”…
Spanish "alma" (and similar cognates from other romance languages). It comes from latin "anima/animus", that comes from greek "anemos", that means breath, wind, breeze.
Animal= a being that breathes
Animated = lively
Anemometer = a device to measure the speed of wind
People had no idea how conception occurs nor how to detect it until very recently.
The quickening is closest to the majority view of the point at which abortion should be made illegal among both Christians and non-Christians.
🤘
There is a political side to this, and we need to go back in time because we are dealing with during the maccabean/herodian period with people who had been forcibly converted and may have had alternative views of the law, one view was that a new born infant male was not fully human until circumcized, generally around day eight, he might not even be named. Among first born children previously sacrificed. This may have been a way to do with percieved infidelity of women, and it may not be clear that the women was a virgin (adolescent females sometime rupture their hyman prior to intercourse, and sometimes the hyman doesnt break during first intercourse). As a consequence the father could opt out of caring for the child by sacrificing him, by giving him to the temple, or by paying the priest.
As a consequence we see the evoloution of the treatment of the rights of infants over time, and it appears that law in the torah is a later version of this code.
But the issue here is not what the torah is, but how people behaved, and so behavior may have varied, and I doubt, outside of Judea, that Jews had the same opinion of the law and enforcement, alot of what is in the text of the gospels is interrogation, not enforcement.
And so we get to the Jesus followers in greco-roman empire. These followers believed the end was coming and many gave much of what they had without benefit. But the greeks at the sametime sometimes threw the girl babies in the trash heap. Again service to widows and orphans, you can call a heaped baby an ophan. For a christian helping the orphan girls was a great way of promoting their belief, since they satisfy obligations of poverty at the same moment of recruiting and obligate new member. And these girls in a few years could attract male suiters to the church. And so they have an even closer political reason by creating a pejorative against abortion, adopring orphans into the cause. And this is one point you see Paul, use guilt of sin as a selling point for salvation. But in this case you dont need to actually peddle salvation, sell the idea of sin, particularly killing fetuses, and then a good chance youll find a baby at your doorstep.
The sociopolitics of reproduction, how to focus the growth of larger society on the cukt growth.
OMG Are you wearing an "Emet" shirt with the aleph starting to be erased?!? The truth comes out: Dan is actually a golem!
Well presented. The claim that abortion is murder is not a Biblical teaching.
As far as i manged to find (as a native hebrew speaker, im open to correction since biblcal hebrew is different from modern hebrew though) the only way to relate נפש (nefesh) with breath is through assyrian, nefesh is more closely related to the root that refers to resting (for example exodus 31:17)
Ruakh (רוח) is more closely referring to wind rather than breath in fact i would argue that the word neshama (נשמה) that means soul helps dans case more than both ruakh and nefesh since it literally comes from the hebrew root that means to breath (נ.ש.מ לנשום נשימה)
But regardless that argument is predicated on the notion thqt because people associated certain words with the same sementical field that it can help us understand their worldview which is a false assumption, you can create a variety of theories for why certain words are semantically and etymologically close, at best it demonstrates that dans notion can be consistent (yet not definitively true) with the etymology of these words.
If a human body does not have a soul, then it is simply corrupt matter. So doesn't the Bible teach us that a human fetus, devoid of a soul, is simply corrupt matter? 💙
Where does the Bible teach that - I'm not aware of any passage that does such?
@@VeridicusMaximus The reason the there is a government agency in Israel which helps Israeli women terminate their pregnancies before life begins with the first breath. Is because Genesis 2: 7 makes it clear that life does not begin with conception but rather with the first breath. Because it is only with the first breath that Yahweh inserts a human soul into the human body thereby making it a human being. This is why Ruth Bader Ginsberg's perspective on abortion was Biblical while Amy Coney Barrett's is not. Barrett's perspective is Roman Catholic but it is not Biblical. As with much of Roman Catholicism. Like the Trinity. Jews understand what the so-called Bible means since they wrote over 9O% of it.💙
🖖🏾🤘🏾✊🏾
I like the Catholic approach. It does not try to use the Bible to justify its moral objection to abortion.
Yes, they do. Look at the encyclical Evangelium Vitae by Pope John Paul II in 1995.
He cites Bible verses copiously.
@@stevesmith291 I am sure that is true, but looking at a lot of modern Catholic pro-life activists…they really do not. You don’t need the Bible to tell you something is a bit unsettling about abortion.
@@cinnamondan4984 I am Catholic and I employ such tactics, but this is a video about the Bible. It is distinctly not Catholic to interpret the Bible with no regard to tradition (here's another encyclical for you: Dei Verbum). I believe this man is a Mormon, and Mormons believe that Bible was corrupted (just one of their unhistorical beliefs). So maybe this man is inclined to try to present that Bible is immoral, or maybe it is his genuine interpretation unconstrained by belief in the Bible. Whatever it is, such misinterpretation only can only "benefit" the pro-abortion crowd however
@@paxcoder Although he identifies and is presumably active in the LDS Church his views do not reflect a very common understanding of the church. Essentially he sees the LDS Church and all faiths as social constructs and nothing more. You can see his Mormon Stories interview (it is a channel popular among ex-Mormons and non-Mormons who have disdain for religion).
@@cinnamondan4984 Thanks for the info!
Everyone will have to excuse me but if I'm going to believe in a whatever, I'm going to believe in the best possible whatever.
No worries, best possible for me is very nice and friendly. It doesn't want me dictating to anyone. It's all good. 😅
I love the fact that the early authors did not believe in the afterlife.
One problem....they were as wrong as they could be.
@@clarenceday4773 Glad you don’t believe that the bible is inerrant tho.
@@Cloudryder The Bible is anything but inerrant but I've known Jesus through The Spirit since 1986. Jesus baptizes those with faith with The Spirit into his Body which is The Church (a spiritual body of believers / no denominations). This is the essence of the born-again or born-from-above experience discussed between Jesus and Nicodemus in (John 3). Actually its not being in any way 'born-again' but rather essentially being spiritually born for the first time. But Jesus withholds from me far more than he enlightens me.
I have no idea when human life begins but I figured out this much....life (human life) does NOT begin at 'moment of conception.' "In nature, 50% of all fertilized eggs are lost before a woman's missed menses." (University California at San Francisco). Or you can just Google-Search it for yourself from a great variety of sources. That aside, can you not see the horrific theological problems this apparent fact creates for Christians who believe that life begins at the moment of conception?
Half the people who were ever 'conceived' (human life begins) were never born, estimated to be over 100 billion souls, based on the estimated number of homo-sapiens who have lived and died upon this earth. Where are they? Where did these 100 billion people go? Reincarnation? The "Well of Souls?" A reference to Indiana Jones and "Raiders of the Lost Ark" (1981). In addition, on several occasions Jesus said things like, 'It would have been better if that man were never born.'
What's so bad about NOT being born? And as I've already shown, half of the people ever conceived were never born anyway. That aside, I believe reincarnation is definitely possible based on the fact that Rabbi (teacher) Jesus did NOT correct his disciples in (John 9.1-3). For its obviously impossible for a 'baby' to sin in the womb and this 'illogical position' goes against what Jesus made clear in the following scriptures. (Matthew 19.13-15), (Mark 10.13-16) and (Luke 18.15-17).
PS: Be careful how you hear.
The Old Mosaic Covenant is null and void!
Does your shirt say I'm 5' feet tall in Hebrew?
Wait till you become "gods" you will know all the answers of life for sure.
Yes, it is life conception. In Jeremiah 1:5, God told Jeremiah he knew him before he was in his mother's womb. God predestines each child born they are born.
What about חיים? Is it ever used in the Bible?
Life doesn't "begin", life is passed on.
If personhood is not granted until birth, why do we not legalize abortion until the ninth month of pregnancy, what is the problem?
It's a political problem (governed by religious and philosophical issues and a whole host of nuts) not a biological one.
@@VeridicusMaximus I get you, but the political issue is based in a biological procces of a specifc biological species; so it is its rooted primarly on a biological issue.
@@ZelgiusK No, it (biology) is either irrelevant or conflated with other issues. The issues of legal and moral personhood are separate from biology because biology is not about those things. Thus, if personhood at birth was taken as a legal and moral fact then yes it would be allowed - if not then nope. And since everyone is arguing over this it is a politicized issue in our society. Only religious nutters try to conflate the issue of biological conception being 'life' and then necessitating moral and legal personhood. This is foolish and conflates these issues. What constitutes personhood cannot be grounded in the biology of something being merely 'alive.' There must be other attributes that are overlaid onto this life that constitute personhood and when that takes place and to what degree so that we can morally and legally afford that life with rights that protect it!
@@VeridicusMaximus what kind of attributes? Can a dog get personhood?
@@ZelgiusK That's debatable. It can be consciousness and/or self awareness, reason, a fully developed nervous system, fully developed body parts, the quickening, when en-soulment takes place (if you believe in them) etc. Can a dog get personhood - depends on how you define your terms and make your arguments and persuade people that they should have the same rights. Usually 'person' is about humans and their capacities which are different from culture to culture and different in their laws. Again, these are steps far from something having a biological life status!
Definitely no. A more interesting question would be "Does the Bible say that life begins with the first breath?" as some pro-choicers say.
It says Adam became an ensouled human being.
@@denniswakabayashi9000 yes, it says Adam became a living soul after he began breathing. Doesn't mean that this statement would apply to everyone else. I mean, it didn't say that of Eve.
@@pythondrink
The Bible doesn't say Eve didn't take the breath of life after being formed by God
@@denniswakabayashi9000 and i didn't say that. Are you incapable of understanding my point?
@@pythondrink
"and I didn't say that"
Didn't you imply that Eve didn't take the breath of Life
When you posted
"I mean it didn't say that of Eve."
What did you mean then?
Also, idk if all Jews hold that belief. I read once that they also believe it not a life until 30 days after birth
Idk if this is just Ben Shapiro’s personal view but he believes in life at conception and he’s a practicing Jew
Are there any mentions of spontaneous abortion/miscarriage? If life begins at conception, shouldn't miscarriage be at least involuntary manslaughter? And if approximately 1 in 3 conceptions result in miscarriage, wouldn't this affect a large fraction of women?
The Bible doesn't speak specifically of abortion. These biblical assessments of the beginning of life are outside of the context of abortion.
The Bible speaks specifically of abortion in Numbers 5:11-28 whereby a priest gives the woman a potion containing myrrh, an abortifacient. And like many other ancient rituals, it was a roulette spin that relied on a bunch of factors outside of their control. If the woman is unlucky and miscarries due to the potion, then it's "God's judgement" that she was guilty of adultery. If woman lucks out and doesn't miscarry well then it's "God's judgement" that she was innocent of adultery.
Damn, you make a lot of sense and you have much expertise in the field of biblical scholarship. But your facts contradict the identity I’ve built for myself so I’m going to angrily deny everything you say and call you a fraud. Then I’m going to excuse my rude actions as “Christian love”.
I enjoyed the tiny mic perspective near the end, made you look a bit like a giant golem
This would make sense in terms of English etymology. The word "quickening" refers to life, just as in the creed where we talk about "the quick and the dead."
Interesting. The umbilical cord supplies the oxygen to the fetus until it is severed at birth. I think there could be an argument made that life begins at conception or at the time the umbilical provides the breath of oxygen to the fetus.
Thanks for sharing your vast amount of knowledge concerning the Bible.
Simple biology destroys the belief that the conception/zygote is already a human being
Since 2 or more human beings can come from the same conception/zygote cell.
The fetus receiving oxygen through the umbilical cord is not the same as breathing through the nostrils/lungs.
Yes, there's always an argument that somebody could make to support whatever it is they want to believe. It doesn't mean it's a good argument.
and then in the 19th century........Americans
The Holy Spirit conceived Jesus Christ. The Holy Spirit didn't implant his soul and spirit when he was born. God "breathed" life into the baby at conception.
Most conceptions will be lost naturally via spontaneous abortion.
Do you believe most people will be killed off before being born???
Amen lachlanstatter! Now, I know these none believers are going to ignore your commentary.
"The Holy Spirit conceived Jesus Christ. The Holy Spirit didn't implant his soul and spirit when he was born. God "breathed" life into the baby at conception." But the thing is; it's not man's perspective of when life begins, but it's God's perspective. And sense the Bible is His word; let's see what says He?
But let's 1st set the seen... Having learned from the angel that she will give birth to the Son of God, Mary hurries to visit her pregnant relative Elizabeth in the hill country.
As it is written
"Luke 1:41: "When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the {BABY} leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. And of course it doesn't say a [CHOICE] leapt in the womb, or that a squirrel leapt in the womb. It says the BABY leapt in the womb. Now, that BABY was John the baptist.
She also recognizes that Jesus Himself is ALIVE inside of Mary. As it is also written...Luke 1:43 "But why am I so favored, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?"
Of course, under normal circumstances an adult woman should not have called a fetus “my Lord,” as honor is given by children to their parents (and elders), not parents to children. Jesus was a fetus and not yet anointed as a king. Nevertheless, she calls him “my Lord” in recognition that He is the promised King Messiah.
So the Bible is communicating here in a kind of implied way that what's in the womb is a BABY. And if a BABY is in the womb; the baby ought to be protected by "THOU SHALT NOT MURDER" Amen.
@@robertanderson6730 Thank you for this, God bless.
Breath often symbolises life, without necessarily leading to the implication that breath is necessary for life.
A modern evangelical favourite, “In Christ Alone” says: “From life’s first cry to final breath, Jesus commands my destiny”.
But I don’t think many who sing it would interpret it as saying that life begins at first breath.
The Bible also often uses blood to symbolise life. And that obviously precedes the first breath.
I think the verse, “you knitted me together in my mother’s womb, I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made”, suggests that there is a special care and attention of God on us as we are growing in the womb.
I think it’s most reasonable that this care and attention begins at conception - as opposed to something like “I grew for a bit in my mother’s womb, and after a few days/weeks you started knitting me together.”
Psalms 139 is not a discourse on personhood in the womb.
The Psalmist is describing his own biological development on the way to becoming a human being/person
AND not that all zygotes or embryos or fetuses are already ensouled human beings/persons.
Most conceptions/fertilized eggs will not result in a successful birth but will be spontaneously aborted mainly due to genetic defects.
How does "fearfully and wonderfully made" apply to all those lost conceptions???
In verse 16
How many days were ordained and recorded in the Book for all those lost conceptions that NEVER saw the light of day???
What does the Bible say about distorting scripture?
@@denniswakabayashi9000 I think Psalm 139 assigns with our intuitions, that God took care over our development in the womb, and it doesn’t seem particularly intuitive that God would say, “ah, this clump of cells has a beating heart, now I shall begin taking care to knit it together”.
I don’t have a quick answer for why some human beings don’t reach birth, but I think it doesn’t pose any new challenges but already raised by the Problem of Evil. I would say there are good answers to the PoE. But also that humans never reach a point where they can’t suddenly die, but we don’t conclude that their life hasn’t begun yet.
I can perhaps concede that God may not ensoul a person as soon as they begin to exist as a zygote, and so perhaps before that point, the problems with abortion might perhaps just be:
- Choosing to terminate a developing child, knowing that it is epistemically possible that they are killing it.
- Taking a body and potential life that God is working carefully on, and basically throwing it in the bin.
@@MatthewFearnley
Simple biology destroys the belief that the zygote or early embryo is already an individual human being
Since 2 or more human beings can come from the same conception/zygote or early embryo.
AND do you believe most people will be killed off before being born?
Ah....the Bible doesn't mean what it says.....
Got it.
@@grendlsma Yeah. Please don’t think you have to be a hyperliteralist to be a Christian. I don’t know of any that are.
Ought we to recognize life @ conception like we do slaves now since the science and biology do? 🤔
The word "slave" denotes a person.
You can't be a slave without being a person.
Whereas science/biology DESTROYS the belief that the conception is already an individual human being/person
Since 2 or more human beings/persons can come from the same conception/zygote.
@@denniswakabayashi9000 No, the word slave denotes a property, persons cannot be slaves.
Humans can be slaves, but persons can't, slaves are not persons, they are property.
That is the fundamental idea behind slavery
@@ZelgiusK
You have to be a person to be a slave
Since the very word denotes a person.
I don't know of any slave who wasn't a person.
Slaves and free blacks were acknowledged as persons under the Constitution.
Article one section two.
Whereas the fetus has never been treated as a person under the Constitution
Where this current US Supreme Court AFFIRMED that precedent
WHEN allowing doctor assisted abortions in Mississippi (Dobbs).
@@denniswakabayashi9000 What is a person?
@@ZelgiusK
A human
A human being
A man, woman or child.
The Constitution acknowledged blacks, free or slave, as persons.
Article one section two.
I like Bill Maher's take on this subject. He says Abortion is murder, I just think that is murder that is acceptable in certain circumstances."
I don't agree with his position of abortion, but I do appreciate that he doesn't try to make up stupid rules around what life is. He just called it justifiable murder.
I respectfully disagree with Maher's usage of the term murder. Murder is a legal term & by definition is unlawful. Killing, I will argue is a more correct verbiage.
If it's justifiable, it ain't murder.
Ok quick question, i dont know anything about Dan, couldnt find a description on his channel. Is he atheist, christian apologist, etc?
He's an academic.
@@20quid so all angles??
@@frozentspark2105Yes, Dan tries to be objective and scholarly in his approach. As for his personal beliefs, he is a member of the LDS
@@peanutmurgler ok cool. Thanks for the info 👍
It doesn't matter, because he's discussing matters of what the biblical text says or doesn't say. He's not tackling issues of theology. There's a difference.
When does the "soul" attached to the body according to Christianity? Because i hear from many places that life starts when God assigns the soul to the body.
But that's meaningless because something can be assigned to something else before that something else even exists. For example, in December 2012 it was announced that the third Ford Class aircraft carrier was assigned the name "Enterprise" and number CVN-80. Actual construction didn't begin until 10 years later in 2022, and it won't even be afloat until 2025. And that "assignment" will still have happened even if, for some reason, the construction is cancelled or there's some accident which prevents completion of the ship.
What's "Christianity?" You need to specify your denomination or sect.
@@digitaljanus i dont have it im an atheist but i hear it in lots in youtube videos and abortion discourses, that's why i wanted to know the details
He just said. In traditional Christian belief the soul enters into the fetus at quickening.@@fixpontt
The Embryo
THE more man learns about how the fetus develops, the more he is confronted by evidence showing that, from early on, it is a gradually unfolding life with feeling, hearing, sight, movement, and other functions. He continues to be startled by discoveries showing that it is more than a mere collection of cells and tissue. In Chatelaine, a Canadian women’s magazine, Anne Beirne sets out what is now known. Moving: Though the mother may not feel it, the fetus starts to move its muscles as early as eight weeks-and its heart is already beating! “By 28 weeks, a normally developing fetus moves at least ten times every 12 hours.” Feeling: At 16 weeks, it reacts to pain, even kicking if stuck by the needle used in amniocentesis. Hearing: It can hear its mother’s heartbeat at 24 weeks and responds to loud sounds, music, and voices. “It can even bounce in rhythm to its mother’s voice.” Seeing: “By 16 weeks, its eyes have developed to the point where they can move around; by 24 weeks, . . . the fetus is able to detect light through the uterine wall.”
Science tells us that the early embryo cannot already be an individual human being
Since 2 or more human beings can come from the same embryo.
So when Mary became pregnant with Jesus she could have killed Jesus by aborting Him and she would have not committed murder and because it was her right to decide if Jesus lives or dies either way it would be a good thing?
The glory of Mary is BECAUSE she chose to give birth.
If Mary was forced to give birth.
Then Mary gets no credit.
The anti-abortionists are not following Christ.
You apparently haven't thought about the pointlessness of Jesus. He was completely unnecessary.
@Kyeudo And you have obviously not thought about what a grave sinner you are and that you need Jesus.
Sorry not, but you base all your declarations on what you read in a book written by a consortium of men who proclaim they know God because they read a book about God written by men who all agreed that they know God. Every rule put forth in the Bible was agreed upon by the same Rabbis
Life begins when the couple decides to get in the back of the '57 Chevy. 😅
😂
Jesus's pre incarnate soul was seen as the star of Bethlehem, which entered his body with the first breath at birth, thus providing further evidence.
OK, indulging this nonsense for a second: Then why was the star still visible to the Magi 12 days after his birth?
Ooh! Now I get to make a weird claim with absolutely nothing to back it, then call it further evidence!
None of that is Biblical. If you want to believe it, fine. But it’s not in any Christian source texts.
Hearsay dismissed. Magical Thinking dismissed.
Verse? Also, even if that were biblical, then that just proves it was true for Jesus.
Science says life begins at conception
But science cannot say when “personhood” begins.
Science says life began over 3 billion years ago.
right, just not life that we care about. a clump of cells is alive but you don't really care about a clump of cells, unless maybe you're Buddhist
Sooooo... Judaism and Christianity have been wrong for the last several millennia? If so, why should we start believing religious zealots now?
... life begins at conception because before that eggs and sperm are not alive.
... oh wait.
Make sure to remember any lies u ever told and to share food with the poor and never lie reverse all lies ever told very important for soul survival tell elder's to share food with the poor and never lie reverse all lies ever told very important for soul survival