Who give human life?

The zygote's rapidly forming specialization depends heavily upon the mother's genetic information. Were the zygote independent of the mother, then the zygote would only possess enough information to form biological life, but not enough to become an individual human being. The zygote has not yet become a union of the immortal soul and the material matter that constitute a human being. This is only the beginning of biological life.

Some Creationists argue that God imparts soul life to the embryo when it is first formed from the specialized cells. The Bible refutes this idea. Human life does not begin during pregnancy. That which is developing in the womb is mother-dependent, and is biological life only. Human life begins at separation from the mother. While in the womb, we see potential life, only: biological alive, genetically informed, yes, but sans soul life and dependent upon the mother.

While the soul lives forever, biological life begins in the womb, and terminates at the point of physical death. At such time, soul life and biological life once again separate (Ecc. 12:7). Paul touches on this same topic in 2 Cor. 5:8.

How are inherited mental and behavioral traits explained, if God is indeed creating the soul of every human being at birth, immediately?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
You concede the 'may' part of the issue. For me, it comes down to statistics. I look at the statistical aspect of the sundry explanations of life's origins and attendant standards/values, and find only the Bible adequate in its explanation of/for the same.

You find any one, a few, or many of the sundry explanations outside of the Bible more plausible, ...[text shortened]... ore than able to reconcile the same with their understandings of the workings of nature.

So, quite apart from how little of that I understood, I did understand the first bit.

Now, I'd like your calculations that lead you to believe that god is the only tangible explanation. How do you calculte the likelihood of god. I want all your working and your assumptions so that I can refute it piece by piece.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
So, quite apart from how little of that I understood, I did understand the first bit.

Now, I'd like your calculations that lead you to believe that god is the only tangible explanation. How do you calculte the likelihood of god. I want all your working and your assumptions so that I can refute it piece by piece.

Start another thread, relative to the statistical probabilities of anything related to 'big bang,' onward.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
So, quite apart from how little of that I understood, I did understand the first bit.

Now, I'd like your calculations that lead you to believe that god is the only tangible explanation. How do you calculte the likelihood of god. I want all your working and your assumptions so that I can refute it piece by piece.

Actually, the crux of Freaky’s argument here is not that God is the “only tangible explanation” for anything. He is making a rather unique (for on here anyway) argument, strictly from a Christian sola scriptura tradition, using a theory of “ensoulment,” that abortion is not murder—since, from a Biblical perspective—human life is properly soul-based and not simply a biological phenomenon.

His presentation began in an abortion thread in the Debates Forum. A couple of us found it intriguing and suggested that he continue it in greater detail here. The force of his argument will naturally carry no weight with anyone outside that tradition, because they will not begin with his basic presuppositions—the existence of God as described in the Judeo-Christian scriptures and the authority of those scriptures. It is to people within that tradition that his presentation is aimed. His first post on this page indicates that he is anticipating some of the arguments he is likely to receive from that direction.

I am myself not in that tradition (which Freaky knows), but I find his argument interesting and his close reading of the Hebrew texts thus far to be very good. The main difference that I see thus far between his argument and what seems to be the main Jewish tradition is that the latter takes a progressive view, as the fetus becomes less and less “mother-dependent,” especially, I believe, after the first 40 days from conception. The following site offers a brief overview of Jewish perspectives: http://www.religioustolerance.org/jud_abor.htm.

Originally posted by vistesd
Actually, the crux of Freaky’s argument here is not that God is the “only tangible explanation” for anything. He is making a rather unique (for on here anyway) argument, strictly from a Christian sola scriptura tradition, using a theory of “ensoulment,” that abortion is not murder—since, from a Biblical perspective—human life is properly soul-based a ...[text shortened]... offers a brief overview of Jewish perspectives: http://www.religioustolerance.org/jud_abor.htm.

Thanks for the explanation - it just seemed such an aberration....

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Thanks for the explanation - it just seemed such an aberration....

Understandable: you just didn't know the history... 🙂

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
The zygote's rapidly forming specialization depends heavily upon the mother's genetic information....

Not true. At the moment of fertilization, the ovum, that is the zygote, has all the genetic information it needs. Theoretically, the zygote could be matured inside an artificial womb. No additional genetic informations is added to the information the zygote possesses.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
...That which is developing in the womb is mother-dependent, and is biological life only. Human life begins at separation from the mother. While in the womb, we see potential life, only: biological alive, genetically informed, yes, but sans soul life and dependent upon the mother....

The life is physically dependent on the mother for nutrition and protection, but that does not have any bearing on the humanity of the fetus. Would a person who depends on a dialysis machine lose his humanity? What about Siamese twins with shared vital organs? Why should biological dependancy dictate a lack of a soul?

Originally posted by Coletti
Why should biological dependancy dictate a lack of a soul?

He is not saying that biological dependency dictates a lack of a soul. There is no causal
relationship between the two. He is saying that, as Adam took his first breath and was
ensouled, so, too, is an infant ensouled at the moment it takes its first breath.

Nemesio

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
The zygote's rapidly forming specialization depends heavily upon the mother's genetic information. Were the zygote independent of the mother, then the zygote would only possess enough information to form biological life, but not enough to become an individual human being. The zygote has not yet become a union of the immortal soul and the material matter ...[text shortened]... aits explained, if God is indeed creating the soul of every human being at birth, immediately?

You was trippin' balls when you wrote this stuff ,huh dude?

Originally posted by Coletti
Not true. At the moment of fertilization, the ovum, that is the zygote, has all the genetic information it needs. Theoretically, the zygote could be matured inside an artificial womb. No additional genetic informations is added to the information the zygote possesses.

Slight clarification on the dependency of the zygote. The dependency of the zygote is relative to the continued formation, as it relates to an environment. Biological life is being formed at this stage, but it is at the union of the immortal with the corporeal that human life begins.

Furthermore, the charge that an artifical womb could be employed does not negate a separation from the womb. While highly unlikely that such an occurrence will ever take place, the formula would otherwise remain the same.

Until separation from the womb, the embryo and fetus are potential life: biologically alive, genetically informed, but without soul life, and dependent upon the mother.

The question of how to explain inherited mental and behavioral traits is answered in the concept of a format soul.

In the development of the biological life within the mother's womb, the fetus is developing within the brain a biological home for the soul, called the format soul. This emerging home, which is awaiting the impartation of the immaterial soul, consists of a genetic format inherited through the joining of the genes from each of the parents. In addition to the physical characteristics, the fetus contains the potential to acquire similar mental and personal traits from this combination of genes. The soul, while not part of the material brain, manifests itself via the brain's biological faculties.

The format soul is biological life, consisting of material developing within the brain. Following birth, the material brain becomes the vehicle through which the immaterial soul expresses itelf. Nephesh, the Hebrew word most often translated 'soul' or 'life,' refers to the immaterial essence that God provides at the moment the spark of life is imparted. The format soul provides the home for this impartation, at which time, the format soul is ignited, and the biological life becomes a living human being.

In the same way that the format soul is inactive until such time as it ignited with the spark of life, the sin nature is dormant. The corrupt nature of man is commonly referred to as the sin nature. The sin nature resides in the cell structure of the human body. The Scripture uses bodily references for the same, such as:
flesh (Rom.7:7-18; 8:3-5)
body of sin (Rom. 6:6)
sin reigns[s] in your mortal body (Rom. 6:12)
and as such, contact or compromise with the same would be excluded for God's perfect character. Therefore, God uses the laws of nature to form biological life, as opposed to direct creation.

The sin nature is not active during formation within the womb (Ps. 58:3), and the Scripture nowhere teaches that two (or more) sin natures operate in a pregnant woman. This, obviously, eliminates the Traducianist view. Once soul life and biological life are united, the format soul and the sin nature become active. At this point, the sentence of spiritual death is pronounced, and compromise of God's character is avoided.

At birth, the sin nature is imputed with Adam's original sin. The sin nature is the home for Adam's sin, owing to the affinity which exists between the two. We are born physically alive, and spiritually dead. In justice, God imputes Adam's original sin only where human life exists: at birth. This imputation and condemnation at the simultaneous creation of our soul make God responsible for the spark of human life, but not for the sin committed by Adam. The cause of our imperfection is not God, but our position in Adam.

Our souls are created without depravity and are imparted to the biological format soul, as we emerge from the womb. At the same time, we are imputed with the guilt of Adam's original sin. God's perfect justice and righteousness, therefore are not compromised. We are seminally in Adam. God's provision does not make him responsible for our depravity any more than it makes Him responsible for Adam's original disobedience. Therefore, God is not the perpetrator of sin, even indirectly. The originator of sin and corruption/depravity has always been Adam's volition.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
The question of how to explain inherited mental and behavioral traits is answered in the concept of a format soul.

In the development of the biological life within the mother's womb, the fetus is developing within the brain a biological home for the soul, called the format soul. This emerging home, which is awaiting the impartation of the immaterial so The originator of sin and corruption/depravity has always been Adam's volition.

Our souls are created without depravity…

Interesting. In traditional Judaism, there are levels (or perhaps aspects or layers) of “soul.” Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan describes them thus:

“The soul consists of three parts which are called by the Hebrew names, nefesh, ruach and neshama. The word neshama is a cognate of nesheema, which means literally "breath." Ruach means "wind." Nefesh comes from the root nafash, meaning "rest," as in the verse, "On the seventh day, [God] ceased work and rested (nafash)." (Exodus 31:17).

"God's exhaling a soul can be compared to a glassblower forming a vessel. The breath (neshama) first leaves his lips, travels as a wind (ruach) and finally comes to rest (nefesh) in the vessel. Of these three levels of the soul, neshama is therefore the highest and closes to God, while nefesh is that aspect of the soul residing in the body. Ruach stands between the two, binding man to his spiritual Source. It is for this reason that Divine Inspiration is called Ruach HaKodesh in Hebrew.

"The neshama is affected only by thought, the ruach by speech, and the nefesh by action.”

http://www.aish.com/literacy/concepts/The_Soul.asp

[NOTE: I read all this more allegorically than Kaplan appears to. Also, the yetzer ha’ra is a far more complex concept than he indicates in this article, and “ra” does not refer strictly to moral badness—in fact “evil,” while being the common translation, is probably not a good one, at least in modern English—as I have said often elsewhere.]

With all that said, your statement quoted above reminded me immediately of the Jewish morning prayer: Elohai neshamah shenatata bi t’horah hi—“My God, the soul [neshamah] you have given me, she is pure!”

Judaism of course does not have the same notions of original sin and sin nature as Christianity; nevertheless, at least some (if not most) authorities hold that neshamah is not tainted by sin—hence the daily affirmation in the above prayer.

Originally posted by vistesd

"God's exhaling a soul can be compared to a glassblower forming a vessel."
It's been years since I've heard that analogy... in fact, I'd all but forgotten it until your post. Good stuff, and I thank you for the same.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
The zygote's rapidly forming specialization depends heavily upon the mother's genetic information. Were the zygote independent of the mother, then the zygote would only possess enough information to form biological life, but not enough to become an individual human being. The zygote has not yet become a union of the immortal soul and the material matter ...[text shortened]... aits explained, if God is indeed creating the soul of every human being at birth, immediately?

Never mind.