Martin Q. Blank said:

---

fat girlfriend said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

fat girlfriend said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

fat girlfriend said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

fat girlfriend said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

fat girlfriend said:

---

Zobel said:

---

This takes a platonic and reified view of the soul which isn't particularly Christian. Soul just means life. The soul of a thing is that which makes it alive and not dead. When you die and your soul leaves your body, that is not a <<thing>> that comes out of you. And that soul is definitely not you. It has nothing to do with a person. That's Plato talking, pagan philosophy, not Christianity.

The soul that leaves your body on death is your life. Your body is no longer ensouled because there is no life in it. It is dead, the life is gone.

So the moment the thing is alive it is ensouled by definition.

---

Christian theology entails substance dualism. Even Aquinas insisted that a person can exist without their body. He insisted that we don't stop existing at our death. But if *I* can exist without my body, then my body is (by definition) not part of my essence, not essential to me.


(That's not at all to deny that I will once again have a body again at some point! We are, after all, embodied souls.)

---

The soul separated from the body is an intermediate state until the resurrection. It doesn't mean your body stops existing. In fact, the Bible in several places says it sleeps in Christ until the resurrection.

---

If I am existing in this intermediate state, and if this is the case even if, say, my body is disintegrated by a nuclear blast, then, by definition, I can exist without my body. This result is simply a logical consequence of the meanings of these words.

---

Your soul exists apart from the body, and the body exists (sleeping) apart from the soul. We would say *you* were disintegrated by a nuclear blast.

---

So *you* don't exist in the intermediate state at all, then, according to that parsing.

---

I can go to an open casket funeral and equally say that the deceased is asleep in the coffin and in glory with the Lord.

---

Look, this is straightforward, and you're just closing your eyes to it. Either I exist in the intermediate state, or i don't. Historical Christianity says I do, and this is the case even for people whose bodies are disintegrated. If I can exist even when my body has been disintegrated, then I can exist without my body. End of story. That's it. It's a logical entailment.

When Jesus spoke with Moses on the mountain, the earthly body of Moses was still in the ground where God buried him.

---

Do you believe in the resurrection?

---

Yes, though perhaps not as you mean it. I don't believe the literal atoms of the disintegrated earthly bodies of nuclear blast victim Christians will be reconstituted. Maybe so, but I doubt it.

---

Well now you're talking about what makes our body our body. Regardless, is God capable of raising you from the dead even if you were disintegrated?

---

Of course God can raise me. He will do so, giving my my immortal body. Until that time, I will exist without a body. I will exist without a body. I will exist without a body. Hence, I can exist without a body, Hence, substance dualism is entailed by Christian theology.

In my opinion, the medical strides in keeping earlier and earlier pregnancy babies alive, along with the much more widespread use of higher quality ultrasounds, have woken up allot of people to the fact this is a human. I think that is the main reason for the decrease in abortions.

I can say, as a Catholic, that masturbation is still viewed as sinful, but it's never been a sin because half a human person is wasted. It's considered a sin because it's a misuse of our special desires. Sex makes babies. That's what it's supposed to do. Sure, sometimes you have sex when the woman is not fertile, but you didn't intentionally prevent it or intend to not get pregnant. With masturbation, you aren't coming together with another in love, open to life. Your doing a solo act meant for two people.

Masturbation misuses that urge in one way, and contraception misuses it in another way, which is also sinful. Bor we want to enjoy each other, but are not willing to allow another human into the world to enjoy what the world has to offer. We want to enjoy God's gifts to us, but not allow Him a new human to work with.

All that said, masturbation is very different from abortion because a life isn't eliminated. I would never suggest outlawing it. I would consider outlawing contraception in two grounds:

1. Several varieties do cause abortion.
2. In 3rd world countries where contraception is introduced, the abortion rate immediately skyrockets. It does eventually start slowing as people get better at using it, but never back to its original rate. The theory for why this happens is because the idea that sex makes babies is interrupted. Now sex is for fun, and only for babies when you agree to the baby. That is a problem because it's scientifically inaccurate. Contraception is the only product on the market intended to stop a normal, healthy bodily function. This is why even the secular left are coming up with technology to help women cycle track. What Catholics have called natural family planning forever, liberal non-theists that are health conscience are beginning to embrace.

We're pretty close to having artificial wombs. At that point, we'll see for sure just how much the pro choice crowd is really motivated by a woman's autonomy over her body.

fat girlfriend said:

---

We're pretty close to having artificial wombs. At that point, we'll see for sure just how much the pro choice crowd is really motivated by a woman's autonomy over her body.

---

Another point I was going to make. I'm very convinced that once artificial womb technology is perfected, abortion will still be seen as necessary because "what are we gonna do with all the kids no one wants"?

fat girlfriend said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

fat girlfriend said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

fat girlfriend said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

fat girlfriend said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

fat girlfriend said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

fat girlfriend said:

---

Zobel said:

---

This takes a platonic and reified view of the soul which isn't particularly Christian. Soul just means life. The soul of a thing is that which makes it alive and not dead. When you die and your soul leaves your body, that is not a <<thing>> that comes out of you. And that soul is definitely not you. It has nothing to do with a person. That's Plato talking, pagan philosophy, not Christianity.

The soul that leaves your body on death is your life. Your body is no longer ensouled because there is no life in it. It is dead, the life is gone.

So the moment the thing is alive it is ensouled by definition.

---

Christian theology entails substance dualism. Even Aquinas insisted that a person can exist without their body. He insisted that we don't stop existing at our death. But if *I* can exist without my body, then my body is (by definition) not part of my essence, not essential to me.


(That's not at all to deny that I will once again have a body again at some point! We are, after all, embodied souls.)

---

The soul separated from the body is an intermediate state until the resurrection. It doesn't mean your body stops existing. In fact, the Bible in several places says it sleeps in Christ until the resurrection.

---

If I am existing in this intermediate state, and if this is the case even if, say, my body is disintegrated by a nuclear blast, then, by definition, I can exist without my body. This result is simply a logical consequence of the meanings of these words.

---

Your soul exists apart from the body, and the body exists (sleeping) apart from the soul. We would say *you* were disintegrated by a nuclear blast.

---

So *you* don't exist in the intermediate state at all, then, according to that parsing.

---

I can go to an open casket funeral and equally say that the deceased is asleep in the coffin and in glory with the Lord.

---

Look, this is straightforward, and you're just closing your eyes to it. Either I exist in the intermediate state, or i don't. Historical Christianity says I do, and this is the case even for people whose bodies are disintegrated. If I can exist even when my body has been disintegrated, then I can exist without my body. End of story. That's it. It's a logical entailment.

When Jesus spoke with Moses on the mountain, the earthly body of Moses was still in the ground where God buried him.

---

Do you believe in the resurrection?

---

Yes, though perhaps not as you mean it. I don't believe the literal atoms of the disintegrated earthly bodies of nuclear blast victim Christians will be reconstituted. Maybe so, but I doubt it.

---

Well now you're talking about what makes our body our body. Regardless, is God capable of raising you from the dead even if you were disintegrated?

---

Of course God can raise me. He will do so, giving my my immortal body. Until that time, I will exist without a body. I will exist without a body. I will exist without a body. Hence, I can exist without a body, Hence, substance dualism is entailed by Christian theology.

---

God can raise who?? *You* are a disembodied soul in heaven.

< deep sigh >

Quote:

---

Look, this is straightforward, and you're just closing your eyes to it. Either I exist in the intermediate state, or i don't. Historical Christianity says I do, and this is the case even for people whose bodies are disintegrated. If I can exist even when my body has been disintegrated, then I can exist without my body. End of story. That's it. It's a logical entailment.

When Jesus spoke with Moses on the mountain, the earthly body of Moses was still in the ground where God buried him.

---

This is not the historical teaching of Christianity. I'm sorry but you are not correct.

You're saying existence is existence is existence, which is not true. The you that is you is a sum total of your body, your experiences, and your relationships. Any one of those things changes and you are no longer you. You are choosing to identify the self with a thing called the soul, which is non-Christian philosophy. Christianity does not teach this, has never taught this. It is Platonism.

The self is not the soul. As soon as we take this (incorrect) dogma off the table, everything you're saying is no longer a given.

That a person's life is continued in Christ, because He is the Resurrection and the Life, means they continue to live, but not in the same way. Or, put another way, they are not themselves - precisely because they lack a body. In the Resurrection, they will be alive, as themselves, in their body. Otherwise they would not be themselves. At no time ever can a human being be anything other than a creature with a body. A human being cannot exist without a body. The pre-existence of souls is Origenist (and Platonic!) nonsense.

Your entire premise nullifies the central claim of Christianity which is the bodily resurrection.

The Lord spoke with Moses on the mountain - therefore Moses had a body. Otherwise it would not have been Moses! How would you know it was Moses?

Quote:

---

Or, put another way, they are not themselves - precisely because they lack a body

---

Interesting. So they exist, then they don't exist (instead something that is not them exists), then they exist again.

And you claim the authority of historical Christianity?

Quote:

---

Now sex is for fun, and only for babies when you agree to the baby. That is a problem because it's scientifically inaccurate. Contraception is the only product on the market intended to stop a normal, healthy bodily function.

---

This is profound to me, as far as understanding Catholic thought and theology. God, I love the internet sometimes.

Let me give you the evangelical version:
Sex is designed to be fun by God so that Mommies and Daddies will stay together and raise their kids together. Under this ethos, how much sex you have, whether your use contraceptives or not, as long as sex is between a husband and wife and used to make the bond of parenthood stronger, it is a good thing. This is very different than what is quoted above.

Distilled:
1) Catholics: Sex good => makes more souls for Christ.
2) Evangelicals: Sex good => helps parents stay together and be good parents.

Probably both are right. Catholics probably believe #2, but emphasize #1. From my experience, Evangelicals believe #1, but emphasize #2. Probably a lot to learn from each other.

Comments? Where am I wrong?

Sure, Catholics definitely believe #2. Nothing wrong with that part of it. But #2 without the openness #1 is disordered.

ETA: me saying "sex is for fun" was too flippant. You were correct there. I can see where that suggested it did not serve the purpose it does in reason #2. That's my bad

Gods first commandment was to be fruitful and multiply, and we know there is only one way to do that. While Catholics do not state you have to have as many kids as physically possible, the idea that you would specifically enjoy that multiplying action while denying the potential multiplying effect would be contradictory to God's plan for humans, our natures and our bodies.

When I speak to people that contracept (both Catholic against their faith and Protestant with no controversy) the reason is always along the lines of what they think they can afford, have patience for, have time for, etc. I think this limits God's ability to bless you with what you need to provide for the children He gives. I think it all boils down to "parenting is hard and I don't want anymore than I have". While that is problematic, I don't think it's the worst thing in the world, if you were to stop or limit sex in your marriage. But when you freely engage in the gift God gave you with none of the willingness to allow Him more souls to enter into existence, this is what we would call sin. It's the definition of self centered. I want what I want, but I refuse to allow another human to come into existence that may one day enjoy this too because that makes life harder. And I don't mean "self centered" offensively. Every single Christian denomination agreed with this until the 1930s. The idea that sex can be good while intentionally preventing new creation is very, very modern, but widespread enough that Christians that fall into this camp are simply misled, in my opinion. I don't think they do it because they are bad people. I think the Catholics that contracept are much more wrong than Protestants that do for that very reason.

This has also led to a sort of commodification of children. While I think most professing Christian's do not, in any way, commodify their children, the effect is still there. "I want x number of kids". It's never "how many kids does God want to give me?" I'm not saying it's easy to have a large family or trivialize the reasons for not having more, but I am saying it goes against at least the first 1900 years of Christianity.

Again, I don't mean to give any offense to anyone reading this as if I'm judging you for your *potentially* small family. My mom is #10 in her family, and even she couldn't contain herself recently when asking if I'd really, actually consider a 6th kid. I was surprised and said that if her mom and dad weren't open to life, neither she or I would be here to even have this conversation. I also told her that her new granddaughter wouldn't be here if we wanted to stop when I felt like stopping... It went no where with her. It just didn't click. Society has so fully bought into the idea that your #2 can be done apart from #1 that to even suggest it can't be is very foreign now. So if what I'm saying sounds harsh, I don't mean it to be. I would just like people to consider strongly what they're doing when they're telling God "no more kids. It's almost guaranteed somewhere down your ancestral line, you easily would not have existed had contraception been ok.

ETA #2: because I'm now realizing I didn't address this part directly: parents can stay together and be good parents without sex. We see this with people when one becomes disabled, etc. We know that it definitely helps with the pair bonding of the spouses, but that is more the bonus than the focus. It's like how food is enjoyable, but the focus is nourishment. When we invert those two, it becomes problematic

fc2112 said:

---

fat girlfriend said:

---

Surely the fetus is a life, correct?

---

If a fetus were discovered on Mars, scientists would say we'd discovered life on another planet.

QED

---

They'd say the same thing if they found blood or hair or teeth because that would be an undeniable sign of life. It wouldn't mean that the tooth is an independent person in of itself.

Rocag said:

---

fc2112 said:

---

fat girlfriend said:

---

Surely the fetus is a life, correct?

---

If a fetus were discovered on Mars, scientists would say we'd discovered life on another planet.

QED

---

They'd say the same thing if they found blood or hair or teeth because that would be an undeniable sign of life. It wouldn't mean that the tooth is an independent person in of itself.

---

If we found a multi celled organism living on Mars, how much care do you think we'd take to make sure it wasn't destroyed? Teeth, hair, etc don't count because those aren't organisms like a fetus is

It would be a unique research subject, so yeah of course they'd want it preserved. Completely different reason for judging it to be important.

This is a very poor argument for your case. That doesn't mean you're wrong, just that this is an unconvincing way of supporting your position.

Zobel said:

---

Christianity has ineffable mysteries not explained by logic. Wait til you hear about the person who is simultaneously God and Man.

You're also messing around with linear time which is also not applicable.

Believe what you like, but what you're talking about is Plato, not Christ.

---

This is a diversion. Of course any attempt to understand God will be met with mysteries. Of course. Also, God gave us our reasoning faculty, and he means us to use it in the pursuit of truth. When we come up to mysteries like the Trinity, which doesn't seem to quite entail a contradiction, but certainly is deeply mysterious, we prayerfully accept the limits of our understanding.

That's not what you are doing here at all. You are rejecting the claim that human person can exist spiritually without a body for at least an intermediate period, and you are rejecting this merely on the grounds that you don't like Plato.

(You have, I should add, given no reason for rejecting that claim; you have merely asserted over and over - without evidence - that the claim is opposed to historical Christianity.)

Nm

My friend, what is the basis for your claim that the soul is a thing that can exist apart from the body? This is not supported in scripture or tradition, yet you take it as axiomatic and build your logic from it. The source for this axiom is Plato.

Likewise for the idea that personhood belongs to this thing you call the soul.

What does "exist spiritually mean" without this axiom? I'm not rejecting your logic, I'm rejecting your premise.

To add - lest you think this point is not relevant - by this idea of the soul and this alone you are justifying abortion before a certain point. And for this reason alone I say we must never abort a child, period, from conception.

Which position, mine or yours, do you think is the ancient one?

Zobel said:

---

My friend, what is the basis for your claim that the soul is a thing that can exist apart from the body? This is not supported in scripture or tradition, yet you take it as axiomatic and build your logic from it.

---

You ask me for arguments while supplying none for your own view. Instead, you simply repeat your unsupported claim.

I have provided an argument from Christian theology for substance dualism. Your only recourse to the argument was to appeal to mystery.

You are the one who made the argument, you have the burden of proof.

You said:

Quote:

---

I think humans are divinely ensouled by God sometime later in the process. Here is a reason from Christian theology to doubt that an 8 day old fetus is a human person....

---

This has nothing to do with Christian theology. This is just your own happy thought. It begins with your opinion. Your opinion is not supported by Christian scripture or tradition. All you've done is vaguely waved to Aquinas. You have yet to support dualism whatsoever.

The problem is your opinion is not a blatant contradiction because you take your opinion for granted. If a soul is that which makes a thing alive, then the moment a thing is alive it is ensouled. Which, of course, breaks your argument. So the only question, then, is your starting premise - that a human is ensouled at some point. You can find this in Plato, but not the scriptures.

So, I appeal to scripture. When God creates living creatures they're literally described as living souls. This is true in the Hebrew, the Greek, and the Latin. The soul is the breath of life, it is that which makes something alive. There is nowhere in the scriptures, nowhere, that describe the soul as a thing apart from the body.

Here's a great podcast on the subject.
https://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/lordofspirits/who_stole_the_soul/

It doesn't really matter what you think. It matters what the One who created thinks. I wouldn't want to be on the wrong side of this one. I think you are on the wrong side.

Zobel said:

---

To add - lest you think this point is not relevant - by this idea of the soul and this alone you are justifying abortion before a certain point. And for this reason alone I say we must never abort a child, period, from conception.

Which position, mine or yours, do you think is the ancient one?

---

Not sure what you mean by which is more ancient? Platonism is older than Christianity, and there have been Christian Platonists from the very beginning of the faith all the way up to the late medieval period. You could find Christian Platonist theologians even for decades after Descartes in the west. That doesn't mean it's correct, but it's certainly ancient. The whole idea of a transcendent immaterial existence is Platonic, and it's almost impossible to describe heaven in other terms.

As far as any sort of ancient view on pregnancy and abortion, why would we credit them? After all, most people didn't know they were pregnant until they could feel the baby kicking, and that's already halfway through a pregnancy. They had no conception whatsoever (pun intended) of the processes of reproduction before that and really not much for the period after that. We are unbelievably better equipped to understand and discuss this issue than anyone in the ancient world. Deferring to ancient men that didn't know anything about sperm, eggs, fertilization, or implantation is complete abdication of our moral responsibilities. It would be like deferring to St Paul on the subjects of social media and nuclear weapons.

The more ancient one with regard to Christianity. Not in general. And I would argue that Platonism is not older than Christianity, as long as we agree that Christianity is the true worship of the one God.

As for Christianity and Platonism... the two are mutually exclusive.

See:
https://texags.com/forums/15/topics/3393627/replies/65443119

Why do we credit the ancient view of abortion? Because the Church has a consistent teaching against abortion and against chemical abortifacients and contraceptives since the earliest times.

And because the ancient understanding of body and soul stands absolutely against a distinction between physical life and ensoulment, which is consistent.

If soul is synonymous with life, and a living soul is a living creature - which is 100% how it is translated in the scriptures into English - then abortion at any stage kills a living human being, and is absolutely against the teaching of the Church. There's no need to have some deeper scientific understanding, and it doesn't change the relevant point.

Which is why, unsurprisingly, the OP's entire argument comes down to precisely this point.

Thank you for this post. It was insightful.

I generally agree with the sentiment that it is better to trust God and not ourselves. But, I don't see contraceptives as sin. I'm not going to say anything bad about those that take the "I'll trust God" approach on kids, either, though.

I will say that there are people that I think shouldn't be bringing kids into the world, but, hey.

One interesting note is that the idea of having kids as being charitable has some ties to the beatitudes. The phrase in English we use "poor in spirit" has some ties in arameic to people who love God enough to have more children, even though that will split up the birthright of each child.

I just can't get on the same page with you about the joy of sex not being used as a tool to keep parents together, even if they don't want more kids.

Divorce ****ing sucks. For everyone involved.

Agilaw said:

---

It doesn't really matter what you think. It matters what the One who created thinks. I wouldn't want to be on the wrong side of this one. I think you are on the wrong side.

---

Where am I on the wrong side?

Should we be waging war with China to stop abortion there?

Is this your statement?

"Therefore, I think that if a woman wants to get an abortion, she should have that legal right if the majority of the people in the place where she lives think that she should. I'm not even sure that this is a good thing to decide at the state level, but maybe the county level. But, in my mind, every abortion is still killing a baby Person. It's as tragic as any other miscarriage in my eyes, and nothing will ever change that in my mind. But I don't see the mother as a murderer, just lost. How can I call her a murderer when she has no respect for the soul?"

BusterAg said:

---

Thank you for this post. It was insightful.

I generally agree with the sentiment that it is better to trust God and not ourselves. But, I don't see contraceptives as sin. I'm not going to say anything bad about those that take the "I'll trust God" approach on kids, either, though.

I will say that there are people that I think shouldn't be bringing kids into the world, but, hey.

One interesting note is that the idea of having kids as being charitable has some ties to the beatitudes. The phrase in English we use "poor in spirit" has some ties in arameic to people who love God enough to have more children, even though that will split up the birthright of each child.

---

All I'll say is this: whatever denomination you are (or if non-denom, what denom your group split from) your Christian heritage called it a sin. It was universal. I advise every Christian to deeply consider that, pray on it and understand that there's a very good chance your view of contraception is influenced more by modernity than your faith, and you probably don't even know it. From the beginning of Christianity to the 1930s, this view was rejected completely. You can find writings on the subject all along the way. And you can have sex, have a reasonable shot at avoiding children and not use contraceptives. The difference is that you are relying on your passions, your intellect and the random chance of untimed fertility instead of artificial hormones that sterilize the woman, and a surgery to sterilize the man. One still cooperates with the nature God gave us. The other intentionally thwarts what He created.

And to tie both of your posts into one: I'm a child of divorce. I know it sucks. We have had to abstain many times in our own marriage. That also sucks. Sex is in marriage is great and everyone should do it a lot. I think a lot of wives are poorly formed in the importance of sex in a marriage, and that can cause marital strife. But not using contraception does not equal don't have sex. You work together on it. Like I said earlier, even atheists and agnostics in Europe are coming around to this, albeit for health reasons.

dermdoc said:

---

Abortion is the only medical procedure that ends a human life. And the doctor gets paid for it.

---

And the death penalty

Pro Sandy said:

---

fat girlfriend said:

---

I do not think that an 8 day old fetus is a human PERSON, though. I just don't. I think humans are divinely ensouled by God sometime later in the process. Here is a reason from Christian theology to doubt that an 8 day old fetus is a human person:

A very large percentage of fertilized eggs are naturally interrupted from growing, maybe even a majority of them. If all fertilized eggs are ensouled human people, then the majority of the citizens of heaven would be people who were never born. That seems silly to me.

We should be cautious, however, since it is beyond us to know when a fetus becomes a person. We should restrict abortion totally at about 8 weeks at the latest, and pray that we are getting it right!

---

I feel the mindset of "I don't know if it is a human or not," should lead to an absolute ban on abortion. I don't understand you can be OK with just hoping you aren't either murdering someone or supporting the murder of someone.

---

Yeah, in any other case where a person's actions might result in another person's death, we wouldn't so callously err on the side of death. Imagine this playing out at a demolition site.

"Three...two..."
"Wait! I think I see someone still inside the building!"
"Who cares? We've got a schedule to keep. (Pushes detonator.)"