Its life at conception. But true human life, and the rights that come with it, occurs at birth.Bourbons3

What is the difference between life and true human life? What does one need in order to be considered a true, living human?

At deep dreamer

First off, I'd like to ask you to use the quote system properly. The manner in which you responded to my post could not only confuse people as to who is the author, but it makes it difficult to respond.

No he isn't, life and human rights are two completely different subjects.

Yes, he is. If he admits that life begins at conception, he is thus saying that it is a living human being. This is a quite logical conclusion. And, as such, from its beginning as a single cell to the moment of birth, since it is considered as living, it is secured the exact same rights as any other living human.

How so? Wouldn't he argue that there is a difference, especially when the fetus isn't even aware of itself.

How exactly would you know whether the fetus has self-awareness? Is this an assumption?

Moreover, even if we do assume the fetus has no self-awareness, why should that disqualify it from constitutional protection, or even the acknowledgement of its life? Do you think it would be acceptable to kill a 25-year-old man who is in a serious coma? Does this man, upon his loss of conscienceness and self-awareness, abandon all of his inherent rights? What about a child with a mental handicap? This is the true slippery slope, my friend. If you make self-awareness a necessity for life and the assurance of basic human rights, who knows where it will lead.

Ha, if that's not a slippery slope I don't know what is. You have now left age and awarity considerations out of the window to twist his meaning to your own baffling conclusion, that's truly pathetic.

I have already discussed the matter of self-awareness. Now, are you trying to suggest there are age restrictions to life? Does one not gain its constitutional right to life until 3 weeks? Or how about 1 year? 2 years? Does one lose it at age 90? 100?

This is not only baffling, but extremely scary, and reminiscent of Hitler's attempts to create an Aryan race through removal of any undesirables.

I believe life begins at conception.

At conception life is created. I do however believe that we have the right to end this life.Vfanek

If you believe that life begins at conception, then you are in turn admitting that this unborn being has all the same rights as any other living human being. To support the mother's right to kill what you have admitted to be life inevitably leads to support of murder. So by your own admission, anyone should be able to kill anyone else without consequence, since you support the right of one human being to kill another living human being.

And now we take another loop back to what I previously stated; destiny being decided by chance or not is an opinion, not fact.

My opinion is that the Christian god doesn't exist while your opinion states that such a god does exist. Neither opinion is 100% correct so do not be arrogant to believe that God undeniably exists.

-Jiggles-

Hmmm, logic games.

Well, then, using your logical deduction, your statement "destiny being decided by chance or not is an opinion, not fact." is an opinion, not fact. As a result, it is not to be used as absolute truth as in your last post, and cannot be used as support for a rebuttal. If you can tout your opinions as 100% fact, remind me why I can't tout monotheistic Christianity as 100% fact, again?

Whether destiny should be decided by chance or not is an opinion, not a fact.

-Jiggles-

We are not debating whether destiny should be decided by chance, my friend. I am telling you what God says-that our eternal destiny is decided by one thing, whether or not we trust in Christ's sacrifice to wipe away our inherent sin nature that is deserving of the hellfire. Whether or not you think destiny is decided by chance is irrelevant, the fact is that you have to make a choice: God's grace, or God's judgement.

Yes.

Let's hope I go to nice, happy place, shall we?

-TheSecondSign-

Ah, there is the problem. Your destiny isn't something that should be left up to chance. The good news is that all those who trust in Christ for salvation and forgiveness of their sins will not have to simply "hope" they will end up in a "happy place", they can rest assured that they will spend an eternity with God in an unimaginable paradise.

Do you not wish to reside with God and Jesus Christ?

domatron23

I'm fairly certain that it doesn't bother Crush because he knows that Mormonism is a false cult that is founded on unbiblical beliefs. As a result, he believes in only a literal heaven and a literal hell, and that The Father and The Son reside in the former while Satan and his demons reside in the latter. The doctrine of three "levels" on heaven is unbiblical, and since we know that The Bible is God's complete revelation to man and completely truthful, such a doctrine can be discarded.

Anyone who has truly put their faith in Christ and His sacrifice for redemption will go to heaven when they die, and fellowship with God the Father and Jesus the Son forever in bliss. Anyone who has not will immediately be transported to hell, where they will face not only extreme burning and flesh-eating worms, but an eternity of regret and sorrow for not only their sins, but any time in which they rejected the Lord's messengers and continued on their path to perdition.

Where will you be? Eternity is only a heartbeat away, as they say...

The resurrection of Jesus Christ is one of the best evidenced events in all of ancient history.

blackregiment

Amen to that.

is that because she has high standards of proof, or because what you're arguing for is unprovable? (psst. it's the latter)Mr_sprinkles

Its because it is arrogant to expect God to manifest himself specially on an individual basis. Moreover, it would be useless, as the total revealed presence of God would lead to irresistable conversion, which is not what He wants. Asking God to reveal Himself is not only arrogant, but ignorant. Anyone who says such snubs their nose at all of the existing evidence (changed lives, resurrection, creation, etc.) and asks for an unreasonable form of proof. Why? Because she thinks God won't specially reveal Himself, and as such, as long as she can ignore the sufficient evidence that already exists, she can resist conversion and service of Christ. There is unquestionably sufficient evidence for not only theism, but of the validity of Scripture and the divinity of Christ (especially in a world where people accept evolution based on artistic imaginations envisioned by means of a lone "pig" tooth or otherwise, or where people believe in extraterrestial life simply because there "has" to be life in our massive universe) If one demands more evidence for God (i.e. special revelation) they are simply looking for a way to avoid the plethura of existing evidence.