Comments on: The New Materialists http://blog.evangelicalrealism.com/2010/01/23/the-new-materialist/ The theology of Reality Sun, 11 Sep 2011 22:49:16 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1 By: Jer http://blog.evangelicalrealism.com/2010/01/23/the-new-materialist/comment-page-1/#comment-20159 Jer Mon, 25 Jan 2010 14:54:42 +0000 http://blog.evangelicalrealism.com/?p=1215#comment-20159 <i>Good point. I think the other reason they don’t try to argue that the soul enters the body at conception is because they can’t really back it up with anything more than speculation. It’s not a doctrine that has been written anywhere in any significant scripture.</i> Until contraception became a widespread thing, the Catholic Church and most Christian denominations that I'm aware of taught that the soul didn't enter a body until "Quickening" - i.e. when the mother first started feeling the baby move within the womb. IIRC this happens sometime around month 4 to month 6. When birth control and women's suffrage started to become political issues supported by liberal Protestant churches, the Catholic Church decided that life began at conception and that birth control was interfering with God's Will. There is no Scripture to back this up because the Catholic Church insists that authority can't come from Scripture but only from Apostolic tradition so they don't bother combing through Scripture performing textual exegesis to try to justify their doctrines - Jesus established the apostles as his heirs on Earth after all, not the New Testament. So by Catholic teachings what the Pope says has authority in Heaven as on Earth with no scouring of ancient texts to figure out what God wants required. I find it somewhat hilarious that the evangelical Protestant community in the US has latched onto what is essentially a bit of Catholic doctrine that was created specifically to smack the Protestants across the face. Of course the doctrine is unbiblical - it's a Papist doctrine. I'll bet the current Pope gets a lot of giggles out of the whole thing too, because you know he understands what it really all means. Good point. I think the other reason they don’t try to argue that the soul enters the body at conception is because they can’t really back it up with anything more than speculation. It’s not a doctrine that has been written anywhere in any significant scripture.

Until contraception became a widespread thing, the Catholic Church and most Christian denominations that I’m aware of taught that the soul didn’t enter a body until “Quickening” – i.e. when the mother first started feeling the baby move within the womb. IIRC this happens sometime around month 4 to month 6. When birth control and women’s suffrage started to become political issues supported by liberal Protestant churches, the Catholic Church decided that life began at conception and that birth control was interfering with God’s Will. There is no Scripture to back this up because the Catholic Church insists that authority can’t come from Scripture but only from Apostolic tradition so they don’t bother combing through Scripture performing textual exegesis to try to justify their doctrines – Jesus established the apostles as his heirs on Earth after all, not the New Testament. So by Catholic teachings what the Pope says has authority in Heaven as on Earth with no scouring of ancient texts to figure out what God wants required.

I find it somewhat hilarious that the evangelical Protestant community in the US has latched onto what is essentially a bit of Catholic doctrine that was created specifically to smack the Protestants across the face. Of course the doctrine is unbiblical – it’s a Papist doctrine. I’ll bet the current Pope gets a lot of giggles out of the whole thing too, because you know he understands what it really all means.

]]> By: John Morales http://blog.evangelicalrealism.com/2010/01/23/the-new-materialist/comment-page-1/#comment-20084 John Morales Sun, 24 Jan 2010 04:58:23 +0000 http://blog.evangelicalrealism.com/?p=1215#comment-20084 Nemo <blockquote>Of course this is still unbiblical</blockquote> Heh. I first misread this as 'umbilical', and thought "yeah, so?". :) DD: <blockquote>Well, that’s easy, we’ll just say that “life begins at conception.” Sperm + egg = human life and therefore it’s murder if you take that life.</blockquote> Of course, gametes (both the egg and the spermatozoon) are <i>already</i> alive, so there's merely a continuation, rather than a genesis of life. Nemo
Of course this is still unbiblical

Heh. I first misread this as ‘umbilical’, and thought “yeah, so?”. :)

DD:

Well, that’s easy, we’ll just say that “life begins at conception.” Sperm + egg = human life and therefore it’s murder if you take that life.

Of course, gametes (both the egg and the spermatozoon) are already alive, so there’s merely a continuation, rather than a genesis of life.

]]> By: Deacon Duncan http://blog.evangelicalrealism.com/2010/01/23/the-new-materialist/comment-page-1/#comment-20080 Deacon Duncan Sun, 24 Jan 2010 00:55:23 +0000 http://blog.evangelicalrealism.com/?p=1215#comment-20080 Good point. I think the other reason they don't try to argue that the soul enters the body at conception is because they can't really back it up with anything more than speculation. It's not a doctrine that has been written anywhere in any significant scripture. It's just another one of those "arguments of convenience" that Christians invented on the spur of the moment to try and justify their superstitions about abortion. Good point. I think the other reason they don’t try to argue that the soul enters the body at conception is because they can’t really back it up with anything more than speculation. It’s not a doctrine that has been written anywhere in any significant scripture. It’s just another one of those “arguments of convenience” that Christians invented on the spur of the moment to try and justify their superstitions about abortion.

]]> By: Hunt http://blog.evangelicalrealism.com/2010/01/23/the-new-materialist/comment-page-1/#comment-20079 Hunt Sun, 24 Jan 2010 00:03:12 +0000 http://blog.evangelicalrealism.com/?p=1215#comment-20079 I think the reason Christians don't use the "soul insertion" argument publicly is because they know it won't fly in open discourse. It's interesting that even Christians know that some of their arguments are so tenuous and metaphysically vague that they are essentially unusable. Instead they resort to the sort of hand waving arguments that present embryos as fully human, not just potentially human. But if they don't want to endorse the metaphysical aspect, this argument is no good, since the sperm and egg as a system with two components is as much a human as the fertilized egg, minus the process of union. So they've already conceded that "process" is a part of becoming human. I think the reason Christians don’t use the “soul insertion” argument publicly is because they know it won’t fly in open discourse. It’s interesting that even Christians know that some of their arguments are so tenuous and metaphysically vague that they are essentially unusable. Instead they resort to the sort of hand waving arguments that present embryos as fully human, not just potentially human. But if they don’t want to endorse the metaphysical aspect, this argument is no good, since the sperm and egg as a system with two components is as much a human as the fertilized egg, minus the process of union. So they’ve already conceded that “process” is a part of becoming human.

]]> By: exrelayman http://blog.evangelicalrealism.com/2010/01/23/the-new-materialist/comment-page-1/#comment-20075 exrelayman Sat, 23 Jan 2010 23:15:58 +0000 http://blog.evangelicalrealism.com/?p=1215#comment-20075 Neat. So the pawns don't know they've been pwned. No pun intended. Neat. So the pawns don’t know they’ve been pwned. No pun intended.

]]> By: Arthur http://blog.evangelicalrealism.com/2010/01/23/the-new-materialist/comment-page-1/#comment-20066 Arthur Sat, 23 Jan 2010 19:49:33 +0000 http://blog.evangelicalrealism.com/?p=1215#comment-20066 <blockquote>But that's what happens when you try to obey the voice of a God Who isn't there, and is easily imitated. You become a pawn, a tool...</blockquote> Maybe this isn't such a big deal to people who believe that moral behavior means obeying the dictates of some outside source. I mean, they already believe that they're <i>someone's</i> pawn, unless I misunderstand.

But that’s what happens when you try to obey the voice of a God Who isn’t there, and is easily imitated. You become a pawn, a tool…

Maybe this isn’t such a big deal to people who believe that moral behavior means obeying the dictates of some outside source. I mean, they already believe that they’re someone’s pawn, unless I misunderstand.

]]> By: Nemo http://blog.evangelicalrealism.com/2010/01/23/the-new-materialist/comment-page-1/#comment-20063 Nemo Sat, 23 Jan 2010 19:27:47 +0000 http://blog.evangelicalrealism.com/?p=1215#comment-20063 Funny. But my outsider's understanding of this has always been different: I thought that the slogan "life begins at conception" was based on the doctrine of "ensoulment" -- the supposed moment when the soul enters the body -- occurring at conception. Of course this is still unbiblical, but it's not materialistic. We rarely hear the word "ensoulment", but that's because it's blatantly religious, while "life begins at conception" is something that they want to write into the (secular) law. I'd think that they were trying to appeal to non-Christians, too, but little else they do suggests that. Funny. But my outsider’s understanding of this has always been different: I thought that the slogan “life begins at conception” was based on the doctrine of “ensoulment” — the supposed moment when the soul enters the body — occurring at conception. Of course this is still unbiblical, but it’s not materialistic. We rarely hear the word “ensoulment”, but that’s because it’s blatantly religious, while “life begins at conception” is something that they want to write into the (secular) law. I’d think that they were trying to appeal to non-Christians, too, but little else they do suggests that.

]]>