Ah, but that’s the problem with being a scriptural literalist: Someone will invariably trot out contradictory verses that you must either ignore, tortuously interpret–or else agree that the contradicitons make the matter less conclusive than you suggest. For example, Romans 11:22:
Or Galatians 5:4 (again, Paul):
Or 1 Corinthians 9:27 (our buddy Paul again):
As noted on the site where I found this, “this is not the language of ‘once saved always saved.’”
Yeah, good ol’ Paul. How might things have been, if Saul of Tarsus had taken that left turn at Alburqueque, and never gotten on the road to Damascus. Guy was a real pain.
Well, it’s not a guarantee he was a good prophet, but haven’t most of them met this description?
And hey, compared to Elisha and some of the others, Paul was a paragon of social grace, if a bit stern.
There are no contradictions in the Bible, only apparent contradictions. If one follows the principle of right division (2 Tim. 2:15), considering the context of the scripture in question, these apparent contradictions fall away.
The context of Galatians 5 is established in verses 1 & 2:
"Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. Behold, I paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing."
This is not about losing one’s salvation; it’s about losing the liberty which that salvation provided these Galatians, which they were, according to Paul, giving up by observing the law.
If salvation is what is being lost here, how do you explain what it clearly says in 1 Cor. 3?
**10 According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.
11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
12 Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble;
13 Every man’s work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man’s work of what sort it is.
14 If any man’s work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.
15 If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire. ** (1 Cor 3:10-15)
The fire is going to burn the bad works, not the individual believer. 1 Cor. 10:23 says: “all things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient.” If we are under grace we cannot be condemned by (transgressing)the law (Rom. 8:1); “for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.” (Gal. 2:21) That which is not expedient (profitable, beneficial), would be doing anything–including going back to the observance of the law–that is contrary to the spirit of grace.
The word “grace” in Gal. 5:4, simply means “benefit,” or “blessing.” Those Galatians who were observing the law were fallen from the liberty that made them free, i.e., the blessing of their salvation, but not the salvation itself. There are to many other places that say salvation is disconnected from works for this to be the case (e.g., Eph. 2:8,9; Titus 3:5; Romans 3:20-22; 4:4,5; 11:6; Gal. 2:16)
Paul put his flesh under subjection so he could finish his course and obtain the “crown of righteousness,” which is “the reward of the inheritance” (Col. 3:24; 1 Tim. 4:7), not salvation.
Salvation is of God, through Christ’s work at Calvary. All we must do is receive it. (1 Cor. 15:3; Col. 2:6) From that point on–if we desire to get the reward of the inheritance (which we are already in–by virtue of our salvation), then we must “walk worthy of the vocation wherewith we have been called.” (Eph. 4:1)
**
“Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.”** (2 Tim. 2:15) (KJV)
While Reagan did send the first US ambassador to the Holy See, it’s had “permanent observer” status at the UN since 1957 (It probably could have member status, but it wants to maintain neutrality), and Pope Paul VI addressed the UN in 1965, praising its work and calling for an end to war and poverty and for universal recognition of human rights.
Ah, I see you’ve chosen tortuous interpretation. All things mean what they literally state, except when they don’t. And I never use the principle of right division when analyzing scripture. I’m partial to the new math.
Anyway, Merry Christmas to you as well.
And a Serene Solstice to you as well, friend Strato.
God bless us, everyone. 
That parenthetical comment always trips me up. Is that, then, the criterion you set for obtaining legal rights?
Daniel
No. It serves quite nicely, though, in determining if something is human (in the same way it can confirm that some entity is a tiger or a sea slug or a three-toed sloth).
Were you poised to make the, “So, then you must believe that a human hair has legal rights” counter?
No, I prefer the, “So, then you must believe that a tumor has legal rights?” counter. I find the chromosomal makeup of a being (or its possible lack of genes) to be wholly irrelevant to whether it deserves rights. If the sentient gasclouds of the Orion Nebula turn out to have self-awareness, desires, fears, a sense of identity over time, and interests, I’ll treat them as possessing rights. To the extent that a fetus lacks these traits, I’ll treat it as not possessing rights. To the extent that a tumor lacks these traits, I’ll treat it as not possessing rights.
Like I said, it trips me up.
Daniel
My point was that DNA is actually a very good way of determining whether or not something is human. That’s not controversial, is it? I bring it up when people make statements like, “A fetus is not a human being.” As I stated, you can try to assign rights to different categories of human beings, but that won’t make them something other than human. If that trips you up, oh well.
Does an adult who is temporarily lacking brain activity–a documented though rare circumstance–possess rights? Or could we kill that adult while he was in that state without moral reservation, even if we could be reasonably certain he would regain brain activity?
Maybe. We’ll see.
Not a bit (assuming you consider tumors to be human)–which is why I didn’t ask you anything about that. I asked you whether you were taking the next step. Let me repeat:
Not “is that the criterion you set for being a human.” Very different question. Which you answered with, “no.” What, then, DO you use for determining whether an entity should receive legal rights?
No, of course not, no more than we’re ethically allowed to kill someone while they sleep. The adult who temporarily lacks brain activity has an identity, has desires, has goals, has fears, has interests. She may temporarily lack self-awareness, and her desires, goals, fears, etc. may not be currently expressed, but they existed and they exist and they will most likely continue to exist.
A fetus may, at some point in the future, have an identity, desires, goals, fears, interests. It has never had them before; it does not have them currently. If you kill the fetus, it never will have them. No actual identity is thereby snuffed out; no actual goals are thereby thwarted; no actual interests are thereby squelched.
To put it in less metaphysical terms, Bob over here is in a coma, and we’re trying to decide whether to murder him. Let’s see:
Then there’s this fetus in Janet’s womb. Let’s see:
With Bob, I know what to do. Bob definitely desires to learn to dance. If I kill him, I thwart that desire. I thwart his desire to watch good movies, to be in a physical relationship, to listen to Rush, to meet this long-distant woman. I make it impossible for him to resolve his issues with his dad, to say goodbye to his grandmother.
With the fetus, it’s similarly clear. If I kill the fetus, no desires (of the fetus) are thwarted. No interests are squelched.
Bob’s coma makes a tiny difference: if I have to choose between Bob’s death and the death of someone not in a coma, all other things being equal, I’d choose Bob’s. But that’s a pretty rare circumstance. While he isn’t currently experiencing any of those fears, desires, etc., they are well-formed. They’ve existed in the past, and it’s very likely that they’ll exist in the future; the fact that the existent desires, fears, etc. are suspended is immaterial.
Daniel
Let me repeat. No.
Yes, indeed it is. I brought up the DNA point in response to a comment along the lines of, “A fetus is not a human being.” Had I cited this point in reponse to something along the lines of, “Where is the undisputed boundary that marks legal rights,” that would have invited comments asking whether tumors or stray hairs possess rights.
Depends upon the legal right.
No, I’m sorry they do not exist. By definition. I’m not referring to a comatose patient. I refer to situations where a person temporarily loses all brain activity–i.e., he is a “flat-liner.” Certain people rescued from severe hypothermia, for example, have been in this condition, then regained brain functions.
But while his brain activity was absent, that person simply lacked the capacity for desires, to conceptualize a goal, to fear anything at all, to hold an interest in anything. During this period, the patient cannot desire to learn to dance. He has no knowledge of any long-term relationship. As far as his brain activity goes, he is simply a mass of cells with the potential for future sentience. That’s all. He may, at some point in the future, have an identity, desires, goals, fears, interests. He has none at the moment.
Wait, is the presence of some form of brain activity a requirement for rights, or isn’t it? Remember your position:
Sorry, but your position seems as incoherent as Senator Kerry’s.
Fair enough–but I think you misunderstood the person you were responding to. They weren’t suggesting that a fetus isn’t a human being; they were suggesting that there’s very little that’s human about a fetus. The adjective’s definitions include such phrases as:
Conflating the metaphorical with the genetic is your mistake, not mine.
No, I’m sorry, they do exist. You missed Bob, didn’t you? Even if Bob is legally brain-dead, I can tell you specifically what fears, desires, beliefs, interests, and so forth he’ll have when his brain resumes activity. Those specific neural pathways are established in his brain. They are not established in a fetus’s brain, so I can tell you almost nothing about the fetus’s potential fears, desires, beliefs, and interests if the fetus brain at some point in the future regains activity.
Yes, Bob can’t learn to dance now. But we know that he wanted to, and that he will want to if he resumes brain functioning. Again, the patterns are set for Bob. The patterns for a fetus are nonexistent.
Snarky insult for snarky insult: your wllful lack of understanding does not equal incoherence on my or Kerry’s part. Now that we’re square, I’ll lay off the insults if you will.
Daniel
I am conflating nothing, though you seem very much to want me to take a position I have specifically disavowed. I am not assigning a human personality to a fetus. I am saying that to assert that a fetus is absent of anything human is flat out a mistatement, in that the friggin’ little guy is, well, a human. I have clarified this for the last time.
Listen, the forms of certain verbs here are key to the particular debate we’re having, given your original assertion. Bob was conscious. He is currently without consciousness. Bob desired certain things. He currently desires nothing–indeed, he lacks the the capacity to desire anything. This is not a trivial point. He currently lacks anything resembling a personality, your ability to predict what he will want when he regains consciousness notwithstanding. He is a mass of cells, with brain activity comparable to the pre-sentient gasclouds of the Orion Nebula. If he never regained brain activity, would you consider him worthy of rights? If not, why, considering the fact that we know what he used to like and need?
And, BTW, why would the ability to predict what he’ll want be important? Can you elaborate? A fetus will almost invariably develop specific wants, needs, and aspirations. The fact we don’t know the specifics of these things is important, why? Suppose a test could predict accurately from the fetus’s DNA (there’s that pesky DNA again) his likes and propensities. Would that change the fetus’s status somehow?
No, there are patterns present in his DNA and developing brain (depending upon which fetus you’re considering) that would (if we could discern them) undoubtedly and inexorably lead to certain characteristics specific to this entity.
No snarkiness intended on my part. I’m sorry, but your argument seems incoherent when you hold this position…
…and simultaneously hold that a “brain dead” adult, who also lacks these traits, does possess rights. You then concede that the adult does indeed lack these attributes now, but since we know what they’ll be when he regains consciousness, that somehow gives him rights that exist even given your concession.
So, my comment on your argument was nothing personal; I simply find your positions impossible to reconcile. Perhaps you can convince me otherwise, but you haven’t yet. Your ad hominem attack, however, was personal. It was also beneath the argument you were making, one that I was enjoying being a part of. (Notice how I willfully ended that last sentence with a preposition. The horror continues.)
…hopefully because you just realized that you’re attacking a straw man, and that nobody disagrees with the DNA of the fetus, and that nobody was claiming the fetus lacks human DNA; they just deny that DNA has much to do with the relevant definition of “human.”
Hope springs eternal.
It all depends on what the definition of “is” is, huh? Okay, I can work with that.
If we know for a certainty that Bob will never regain brain activity, then no, Bob no longer has any rights whatsoever. What desire of his can we possibly violate at this point? We can’t violate his desire to learn to dance, because that existent desire is already violated by virtue of his never waking up. And so forth.
But if we don’t know that, then we CAN violate these existent desires. Again, those neural pathways are there: they’re likely to start back up again. They’re suspended right now. It’s no different from if I were able to stop time with a Twilight Zone stopwatch: I certainly wouldn’t be thereby granted the right to go on a killing spree, just because the existent desires were suspended.
There is a difference between suspended and nonexistent that seems to be escaping you and leading you to see a contradiction where none exists.
Jamie over here is suspended from Anderson High School for a week. Her teachers prepare for her return, and well they should: she’s been to specific classes, she’s got a schedule, she’s got goals.
Frank here has never been to Anderson High School, and his family is still deciding whether to move to that district. His parents aren’t preparing for his arrival, and rightly so: they don’t know whether they’ll ever have him as a student at all. They only need to prepare for his arrival once they know he’ll be coming, and at that point their preparation is very different from that for Jamie, since Frank will come in a blank slate without class schedule, goals, etc.
Do you see the difference between a suspended student’s schedule and a potential student’s schedule? Do you see how the teachers need to take Jamie’s schedule into account but not Frank’s?
Thus it is with a person in a coma versus a fetus.
Daniel
On the contrary: I believe your lack of understanding is willful, and I believe you’re searching for a way to shoot down an argument instead of considering it fairly. Your protestations of your own innocence ring hollow and disingenuous. Have the courage of your snark at least.
Daniel
Sorry, you found me out. You’re just too much to me. Excuse me while I run sobbing to my bedroom in shame.
Well, THAT makes a lot of sense.
Tragically, I’m about to go on vacation, so I’ll be away from the boards for a week. Cheers, all!
Daniel