Life, and blood.

Status
Not open for further replies.

ModernPuritan?

Puritan Board Freshman
Lev 17:11, the life of the flesh is in the blood.

So

1) if I have no blood, am i alive or dead (from the phyiscal standpoint of course)?


(more questions to follow, dont worry :lol:)
 
Lev 17:11, the life of the flesh is in the blood.

So

1) if I have no blood, am i alive or dead (from the phyiscal standpoint of course)?


(more questions to follow, dont worry :lol:)

Hm. The text from Leviticus isn't a scientific claim, so whether you would be alive or dead physically without blood isn't really pertinent to understanding the meaning of the text.
 
1) if I have no blood, am i alive or dead (from the phyiscal standpoint of course)?
Is this a basic questions because if not I fail to see the point?

If you drain yourself of blood then yes you die. That is why we try and stop people bleeding when they get wounded so they don't loose too much.
 
while contextually Lev 17:11 is not a sciene statement, none the less it is scientifically accurate. we know not to drain "bad blood" from patients we know that if we take the blood out and dont put any back in- they die.

next question

at what point in the womb, does a embryo get blood? what week?
 
while contextually Lev 17:11 is not a sciene statement, none the less it is scientifically accurate. we know not to drain "bad blood" from patients we know that if we take the blood out and dont put any back in- they die.

Actually it's not scientifically complete. There are plenty of living things that do NOT have blood. (but again, a scientifically complete statement is not the goal of Lev. 17:11)

next question

at what point in the womb, does a embryo get blood? what week?

Can you get to your point? Are you trying to argue that an embryo before such and such a time is not alive? This kind of questioning is neither forthright nor honest. It's the kind of questioning someone does that is trying to get someone to logically conclude (from a logically disconnected series of questions) something that they do not hold to.
 
And you please expend the effort to write in adult English? Otherwise I will no longer spend the time to interact with you.
 
I'm watching this thread brother Jeff and I'm not in the very best of moods. Get to the point. This thread has neither life nor blood and I'm about to pull its plug.
 
while contextually Lev 17:11 is not a sciene statement, none the less it is scientifically accurate. we know not to drain "bad blood" from patients we know that if we take the blood out and dont put any back in- they die.

Actually it's not scientifically complete. There are plenty of living things that do NOT have blood. (but again, a scientifically complete statement is not the goal of Lev. 17:11)

next question

at what point in the womb, does a embryo get blood? what week?

Can you get to your point? Are you trying to argue that an embryo before such and such a time is not alive? This kind of questioning is neither forthright nor honest. It's the kind of questioning someone does that is trying to get someone to logically conclude (from a logically disconnected series of questions) something that they do not hold to.

IM sorry you dont like my way of questioning.and please prove to me from scripture where My questioning method is sinful, and please prove to me that my intent is to get one to logically assert a position they dont hold.


but my final question would be, isnt there a plausible case for "abortion" up to the time the embryo is infused with blood?

sure its not complete, but i dont really care about the things that dont need blood, within the human race it is accurate and complete. human flesh can not live with out blood period(.)

btw, if i dont ask questions that way, then the entire thread tends to get :offtopic:
 
Last edited:
okay, i perhaps see how my post in the other thread was slightly confusing from a grammatical standpoint. Somehow, i dont think my posts in here are confusing from a grammatical view.

furthermore, thread is not about grammer, but Life, and Blood.
 
Jeff, before Bob commits euthanasia on your thread, which has neither life nor blood; the abortion issue isn't about whether the fetus is alive at a particular point, before it gets blood it has the potential to become "alive" and it's human. Humans aren't animals that overpopulate and need to be culled, they are providentally created by God for His purposes, which in many cases, I'm afraid, I couldn't presume to know. It's not up to any of us to decide who should be born.

I don't think there's a case for abortion. There is a case for good grammar; it goes out the window when typing, I realize, but we should attempt it.
 
Jeff, you began this thread with a false premise. You intended all along to make a case for abortion based on blood not being present in the first few days following conception. When does life begin? Jeremiah knew. "Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you." Life falls under God's will of decree from eternity past. To reduce the discussion of the sanctity of life to pre-natal development displays a tremendous ignorance of the word of God.

I have little tolerance for those who attempt to rationalize abortion, either outright or as an intellectual exercise. Proceed carefully on this subject, there are other mods and admins who aren't as charitable as I am.
 
well, Im not trying to change anyones mind on abortion. my veiw is probably in line with most everyones here. I guess i mis understood folk on this board, As i had the impression that it was acceptable to contemplate and deal with other ways people look at things, and to ask questions about why we believe.

so euthanise the thread for all I care. I dont mind questioning what i beileve and why i beileve it. I dont mind using my "evil logical method" against myself, as i do it daily.
 
Are we attributing motives here or do we actually have a pro-choicer among us?

im not pro choice for the record. But, i dont mind looking at cases for pro choice. The whole reason i asked the question, was too see if perhaps there was some what of a case for it though.

so yes, i think they are trying to attribute motives and jump to conclusions about my method. perhaps they got duped into swallowing cool aid a long time ago with my method of question asking, if thats the case i understand their objections to my methods.
 
well, Im not trying to change anyones mind on abortion. my veiw is probably in line with most everyones here. I guess i mis understood folk on this board, As i had the impression that it was acceptable to contemplate and deal with other ways people look at things, and to ask questions about why we believe.

so euthanise the thread for all I care. I dont mind questioning what i beileve and why i beileve it. I dont mind using my "evil logical method" against myself, as i do it daily.

Jeff -

If you only want to consider other people's opinions on the matter, then why not come right out and ask what people think about the opinion you wished to talk about????

Your method of questioning (and you've done this elsewhere before) is problematic because it is two-faced, or double-tongued, if you want a Scriptural argument about it. You are trying to get at one question while asking things in a feigned manner - that is the very heart of what Scripture calls speaking with two tongues. It is a lack of forthrightness, and I am surprised that I have to point out to you why Scripturally this kind of thing is totally out of line (not to mention very annoying).

To answer your question about abortion - I really don't think any abortion-rights advocate goes to Leviticus to try to explain why they think fetuses aren't alive.

And to go further with the OP, the lack of blood does not mean that the fetus is not an independent human being. The moment the first cell is formed that has a different DNA signature than the parents do, it is a live human being worthy of all human rights and dignity.
 
Jeff, I am really trying to understand what you are saying but you do have an unusual way of communicating. Swallowed the 'cool-aid'? Slow down and do some more reading on the board and get a feel for the way we interact. Blessings.
 
no, Im trying to see how much is agreed on before hand.

I could ask "do you beileve mary was a virgin after she gave birth to Christ" and you could say "no, your a pagan catholic if you beileve that" which would effectively end the discussion as weve just resorted to name calling and assuming bad motives about the poster.
so instead, I would ask "in the origianl languages, can the words for "brother and sister" have wider meanings beyond what we would define as brother and sister?""

the answer to the second question would be Yes, if memory serves. then, that would allow for the possiblity that mary could of remained a virgin after giving birth. but thats Off topic, hopefully though you now atleast understand a little more about why i ask questions that way.

im done here, might as well delete post now, seems useless, imply whatever you want about my methods, and about my intents.
 
Jeff, Todd has already answered why that mode of questioning is disingenuous, dangerous, lacks efficacy, wastes time, stirs up impatience and is otherwise foolish. Use it sparingly in the world, don't use it at all here, just won't put up with it.
 
no, Im trying to see how much is agreed on before hand.

I could ask "do you beileve mary was a virgin after she gave birth to Christ" and you could say "no, your a pagan catholic if you beileve that" so instead, I would ask "in the origianl languages, can the words for "brother and sister" have wider meanings beyond what we would define as brother and sister.

Why not just ask people to explain why some believe Mary was perpetually virgin? Why not ask people to explain why some argue that there is a case for abortion to be made in Scripture? When you come in with a planned series of questions as you did that might lead to a particular foolish point of view, without any preliminaries, without asking any global question, you are coming at things in a non-forthright manner. If you really want to explore some point of view or another, the forthright and open thing to do is just to come right out and say what it is you want to discuss. If people make improper assumptions about you based on open and honest questions, then that is their problem, for which they should be rebuked. However, if people make improper assumptions based on an obscure and backward way of walking into a particular discussion, the fault is not all theirs. You have given them reason to stumble. Just ask questions openly and honestly.
 
This is the Puritan Board. I very much doubt you'd find people here, though there may be, who believe Mary was a virgin after she gave birth to Christ. Yes, we've heard of it; yes, you could get some interaction. But why ask a bunch of Reformed people if they believe in Mary's perpetual virginity? Seems an odd way to put it...can you really not see why?
 
while contextually Lev 17:11 is not a sciene statement, none the less it is scientifically accurate. we know not to drain "bad blood" from patients we know that if we take the blood out and dont put any back in- they die.

Actually it's not scientifically complete. There are plenty of living things that do NOT have blood. (but again, a scientifically complete statement is not the goal of Lev. 17:11)

next question

at what point in the womb, does a embryo get blood? what week?

Can you get to your point? Are you trying to argue that an embryo before such and such a time is not alive? This kind of questioning is neither forthright nor honest. It's the kind of questioning someone does that is trying to get someone to logically conclude (from a logically disconnected series of questions) something that they do not hold to.

IM sorry you dont like my way of questioning.and please prove to me from scripture where My questioning method is sinful, and please prove to me that my intent is to get one to logically assert a position they dont hold.


but my final question would be, isnt there a plausible case for "abortion" up to the time the embryo is infused with blood?

sure its not complete, but i dont really care about the things that dont need blood, within the human race it is accurate and complete. human flesh can not live with out blood period(.)

btw, if i dont ask questions that way, then the entire thread tends to get :offtopic:


Babies are the image of God from conception.

In Psalm 51:5 David says that he was "conceived in sin". From the moment of conception, David was the image of God; the fallen image of God.

Please read the other thread on this topic.

Thanks,
 
The moment the first cell is formed that has a different DNA signature than the parents do, it is a live human being worthy of all human rights and dignity.

Todd,
I've been trying to come to a definition of life like this for some time now. Can you give me a simple explanation of this statement?
 
The moment the first cell is formed that has a different DNA signature than the parents do, it is a live human being worthy of all human rights and dignity.

Todd,
I've been trying to come to a definition of life like this for some time now. Can you give me a simple explanation of this statement?

This is the crux of a devastating blow to the woman who claims that the fetus is "part of my body". It's simply not. When a baby is conceived, there is an initial cell that is formed, whose nucleus contains the genetic information from which the cells produced through division of this initial cell are copies. That first cell has DNA that is a combination of the two parents' DNA signatures.

The fact that the DNA is different, even from the OUTSET indicates that the mother who makes the foolish "it's my body" argument, is outright wrong. That baby - even at the first cell stage - carries a unique human signature - his or her OWN DNA, that is like no other in the whole world. It's a human being, alright, and a unique one, who has his or her own unique characteristic DNA from the get-go. Whether it is viable or not is irrelevant, of course.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top