Originally posted by BigDoggProblemLike I said, it is a process we take part in. We have no control over the
Let's see how the word 'create' is being used.
http://nces.ed.gov/nceskids/Graphing/
http://www.createbands.com/
http://www.unicef.org/publications/index_4423.html
http://www.mcgillreport.org/phengta_profile.htm
Perhaps the wording you are looking for is "creating life from scratch" (or nothingness).
outcome of if a child is started or not, some people want them and
are not able to get pregnant, some kill what was started in the womb,
because our desires play only a little part of the process. Either God
allows us to have children or not, it isn't by the will of man you were
born the way you are; it isn't the will of man anyone is born the way
they are. There is some human input, but it is small and again it is
simply playing with the process that man did not start, man only has
a small part in.
This quite different than someone writing a song, painting a picture,
doing something creative, it is more like planting a garden. There is
an element of human input, as in the arrangement of the plants, but
man does not control much beyond that. Man can play with the DNA
of the plants, but basically man does not create life only tweak the
parts of life that he can play with, nothing more.
God deals in life’s creation, man basically does not, and man does not
even heal life, but attempts to make that process easier; if the living
systems do not do the work, it does not happen.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayWe do have control over whether a child is started or not. Not total control, of course, but control to an alarming degree. We can look at the gender of the child and abort it based on sex selection. We can determine that it may have degenerative disease or retardation and abort based on that. You call this 'play(ing) a little part of the process', but I still can't see how it's little. It's an example of humans showing their power by snuffing out a life.
Like I said, it is a process we take part in. We have no control over the
outcome of if a child is started or not, some people want them and
are not able to get pregnant, some kill what was started in the womb,
because our desires play only a little part of the process. Either God
allows us to have children or not, it isn't by the will of man you were ...[text shortened]... ake that process easier; if the living
systems do not do the work, it does not happen.
Kelly
Again, it is not correct to say that only God can kill. I'm sure you would want to blame the parents for aborting their child, right? If God is the only one who can kill, wouldn't the blame for an abortion shift to God?
I believe man heals life with heart transplants and selection of the right drugs. Since there is no edict from God in the bible how to do this, I credit man for figuring some of it out for himself. Even if he uses elements of the earth created by a God, man is still doing the healing. I pity the poor patient if he tried to get healed without the help of man.
Well, in the end, I will still hold to my broader definition of the word 'create', and you'll probably hold to your definition, but it was interesting discussing it anyway.
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemIt is right to say that only God can be justified by taking a life and yet he is without sin.
We do have control over whether a child is started or not. Not total control, of course, but control to an alarming degree. We can look at the gender of the child and abort it based on sex selection. We can determine that it may have degenerative disease or retardation and abort based on that. You call this 'play(ing) a little part of the process', ...[text shortened]... , and you'll probably hold to your definition, but it was interesting discussing it anyway.
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemWe are talking about creation, ending the process by killing what
We do have control over whether a child is started or not. Not total control, of course, but control to an alarming degree. We can look at the gender of the child and abort it based on sex selection. We can determine that it may have degenerative disease or retardation and abort based on that. You call this 'play(ing) a little part of the process', ...[text shortened]... , and you'll probably hold to your definition, but it was interesting discussing it anyway.
is inside the woman isn't the power of creation but death. Having
sex does not create a child, the process happens or it does not,
it is not the will of man that does it! It can happen when you want
it too, but that is not the same thing as saying your will caused it
or created it. So I hope you see the difference between being able
to snuff out a life as you say and actually creating one by one's
will.
I said that God does not murder, anyone can kill there is a difference.
Man assists in the healing of our bodies, but if the body does not
do the work it dies, man plays with the process again man does not
do the actual healing.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayKellyJay,
Having sex does not create a child, the process happens or it does not,
it is not the will of man that does it! It can happen when you want
it too, but that is not the same thing as saying your will caused it
or created it.
Let's pretend that I am a pretty good golfer (which I am
not). Let's say that, 9 times out of 10, I can land my
ball on the green on my first shot on a par 3 hole. Did
I do it, or 'did the process happen or not.' That doesn't
necessarily mean that if I miss, it is my fault. A gust of
wind could come out of nowhere after I hit it and knock it
off course to the green.
Having sex is a procreative act; that is, it is the chief act
for the creation of a child. The processes which happen
after ejaculation are biological. Like the wind blowing my
golf ball off course, when conception doesn't happen, it's
a natural event. When it does happen, it is as the direct
result of the conjugals (just like the ball's landing on the
green is the direct result of my hitting it with my 4-iron),
also a natural event.
The will to have sex causes things to be set in motion for
conception. Ejaculation is as far removed from conception
as the swing the golf club is from landing the ball on the
green (well, not distance-wise, but you see my point).
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioYou can pick up the ball and place it where you want, you can hit it
KellyJay,
Let's pretend that I am a pretty good golfer (which I am
not). Let's say that, 9 times out of 10, I can land my
ball on the green on my first shot on a par 3 hole. Did
I do it, or 'did the process happen or not.' That doesn't
necessarily mean that if I miss, it is my fault. A gust of
wind could come out of nowhere after I hit it an ...[text shortened]... from landing the ball on the
green (well, not distance-wise, but you see my point).
Nemesio
and it will land where it lands; one is an exact act of will one is not.
Sex is a procreated in that we by our actions help set things in
motion, we do not get so say when it will happen or how. My point
is that God alone does that not man which takes us back to where
man and God are different. Man can put fertilized eggs inside a
woman in hopes of her getting pregnant but that does mean it
she will become pregnant. I hope you see the difference!
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayMaybe I was not clear.
You can pick up the ball and place it where you want, you can hit it
and it will land where it lands; one is an exact act of will one is not.
Sex is a procreated in that we by our actions help set things in
motion, we do not get so say when it will happen or how. My point
is that God alone does that not man which takes us back to where
man and God are ...[text shortened]... regnant but that does mean it
she will become pregnant. I hope you see the difference!
Kelly
1. Sex leads to 2. ejaculation leads to 3. sperm floating around
leads to 4. conception (maybe).
1. Swinging club leads to 2. ball taking off leads to 3. ball flying
around leads to 4. landing on green (maybe).
We have direct control of #1 which directly controls #2. #3 is
the product of #2, and #4 happens when conditions are right.
We cannot fully control the expression of #4, but we can do things
to optimize it.
I see the analogy as very tight (not to mention that golf is a
common metaphor for sex, which gives me style points).
My point is that God alone does that not man which takes us
back to where man and God are different.
I don't follow what this point means.
Nemesio
1 edit
Originally posted by NemesioThe disscussion is/was about man and God, how they differ in terms
Maybe I was not clear.
1. Sex leads to 2. ejaculation leads to 3. sperm floating around
leads to 4. conception (maybe).
1. Swinging club leads to 2. ball taking off leads to 3. ball flying
around leads to 4. landing on green (maybe) ...[text shortened]... fferent.
I don't follow what this point means.
Nemesio[/b]
of creation. Everything you have described even with your style points
are simply man acting out his part of a process, a process that man
does not have total control over.Man may do all the right things and
it still does not work, man is not the one really doing the creating,
but instead is simply setting that part of the process in motion that
God has given Him to do. God is the one who forms us in our mother's
wombs, holds us together by the power of His Word and so on. These
things are not up to man. The difference is one of acting out part of
the process and the other creating the process and seeing it through
once it starts.
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayIn this thread we've been discussing both creation and death. So I will dismiss your attempts to claim that death is no longer part of the picture. My point remains that humans constantly exhibit the ability to create and destroy life. I still can't accept the statement that only a god can do it.
We are talking about creation, ending the process by killing what
is inside the woman isn't the power of creation but death. Having
sex does not create a child, the process happens or it does not,
it is not the will of man that does it ...[text shortened]... with the process again man does not
do the actual healing.
Kelly
You said before that only god can make life and kill. Now you have said, "I said that God does not murder, anyone can kill there is a difference." This sounds contradictory.
Let's say a heart patient will die without a transplant. Only man can make that happen. If man finds a donor and performs the surgery successfully, he deserves credit for healing that patient. The body can't take sole credit, because it would have failed without the man. Is man part of a process? Sure. The healing process.
One definition of heal is
1 a : to make sound or whole <heal a wound> b : to restore to health
1b especially applies to man's role in my example.
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemNo, those are not my points.
In this thread we've been discussing both creation and death. So I will dismiss your attempts to claim that death is no longer part of the picture. My point remains that humans constantly exhibit the ability to create [b]and destroy life. I still can't accept the statement that only a god can do it.
You said before that only god can make life ...[text shortened]... ole <heal a wound> b : to restore to health
1b especially applies to man's role in my example.[/b]
I will give them to you again and if you want to double check my
previous posts to make sure I have not changed my stance please
do so.
1. God does not murder.
2. God and only God creates life.
a. Man takes part in life creation only where man takes part in
the process that God setup, and God maintains.
b. Man does not affect life by procreation by an act of his will,
he could get lucky in getting what he wants but it is not man's
will that drives the process. Just as man cannot drive the healing
process so that we can heal ourselves at will.
3. Man kills and man murders
4. God may kill, but at no time when He kills is it murder.
a. God gives and God takes away
b. Man does nothing but act out in the universe through processes
that God sets up and maintains.
c. Man may break something of the process like murdering life,
but at no time does man have the ability to setup the process on
his own.
As far as your post on the heart transplant goes, if the body does not
accept what is given to it, it dies. The processes of life either goes
on or it does not, it is not by the will of man that occurs, or no one
would die. When your time or my time comes it comes and nothing
you or I can do will change that. Being mortal that happens.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayIn your post on 01 Mar '05 at 08:37 (GMT - 7),
No, those are not my points.
I will give them to you again and if you want to double check my
previous posts to make sure I have not changed my stance please
do so.
1. God does not murder.
2. God and only God creates life.
a. Man takes part in life creation only where man takes part in
the process that God setup, and God maintains.
b. Ma ...[text shortened]... omes it comes and nothing
you or I can do will change that. Being mortal that happens.
Kelly
you said "God kills and makes alive, people do not do that."
"2. b. Man does not affect life by procreation by an act of his will,
he could get lucky in getting what he wants but it is not man's
will that drives the process."
LOL. Man's will to get in a woman's panties is the primary cause of life creation in the modern age. Luck ain't got nothin' to do with it.
But if it does, my state has a terrible case of bad luck. We have a high rate of teen pregnancy. Just think, all those horny teenagers, and they keep getting blamed for the problem when in reality it's just bad luck. 🙄 God must have a wicked sense of humor letting a 16-year-old girl get 'lucky' like this.
"The processes of life either goes on or it does not, it is not by the will of man that occurs, or no one would die."
Yeah, keep kidding yourself. Pretend that the will of man never found an answer to Rabies, Polio, etc. No lives were saved by man's will! It's all a lie told to you by humanistic pseudo-scientists that wanted to deprive a god of his glory.
Seriously, man does not have to be 100% successful to claim that his will saves lives. The lives that we have already saved prove this.
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemYou should go play golf with Nemesio.
In your post on 01 Mar '05 at 08:37 (GMT - 7),
you said "God kills and makes alive, people do not do that."
"2. b. Man does not affect life by procreation by an act of his will,
he could get lucky in getting what he wants but it is not man's
will that drives the process."
LOL. Man's will to get in a woman's panties is the pri ...[text shortened]... uccessful to claim that his will saves lives. The lives that we have already saved prove this.
I did say that God kills and makes alive, people do not do that.
It is like a crap shoot with sex and starting the process of life
within a woman, it isn't an act of human will outside of having
sex, beyond that nothing is up to man. Man does not through
an act of will start life, man basically only hopes it happens
when the will and the act are in agreement.
Like I said man's will does not have anything to do creation of life,
the sex act yes, but that is not again starting life, that is simply
attempting to get the process going, or hoping it happens nothing
more.
Like I said earlier, man attempts to help the body heal itself, but
man does not heal the body. Tell me about man saving lives again,
there is still death among us correct? Not much of a record for man
being able to save lives, when they all die at one time or another.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayIf men don't create life, and they don't preserve life, then doesn't it follow that men don't take life away? People can cut other people up, hit them, drop them from airplanes...but it's really God doing the killing by this logic.
You should go play golf with Nemesio.
I did say that God kills and makes alive, people do not do that.
It is like a crap shoot with sex and starting the process of life
within a woman, it isn't an act of human will outside of having
sex, beyond that nothing is up to man. Man does not through
an act of will start life, man basically only hopes it happe ...[text shortened]... f a record for man
being able to save lives, when they all die at one time or another.
Kelly