»
Discussion
»
Philosophy 101
»
Was god ever a zygote?
| Philosophy 101 |
|
Was god ever a zygote? |
|
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
This is one of those things that just occured to me the other day in my med ethics class, and I haven't been able to shake it. Biblically speaking, we are all made in God's image. I'm not sure where it says this in the Bible, but pretty much every (christian) church will tell you we are precious human lives from the moment of conception, and that is why asbortion is not permissable. My first question is this- what is it that makes us precious as humans? Is it that we're made in God's image, simply that God made us, our soul, our intellect, something else? Secondly, if we are made in God's image- was God ever at physical and emotional stages in growth? Did he start as a fetus and grow up, and will he eventualy age and die, like us? Or are these developmental stages specific to humans (and other forms of life)? If so, why did he give them to us? Why not just design us to mitotically divide and produce new adult humans? My third question, which I think I know what the answer will be, is this: If God was never a zygote or a fetus, then are zygotes and fetuses made in god's image also? If not, how do we justify calling them precious human life? I'm pretty certain the answer will be that we become a fully functioning person made in god's image, therefore are precious from conception, but I thought it was worth asking anyway. |
||
| © Copyright 2004 hush - All Rights Reserved | |||
Michelle_loves_Mike
since 2003-12-20
Posts 1189Pennsylvania |
Hush You will no doubt get a ton of answers to your questions. Mine is from my world alone,,, it can be taken many ways, the whole "in his image" thing. 1. made too look like Him/Her 2. made to be spiritual creatures (since animals supposedly dont have such status) I've seen it put forth as like when we have a child,,they are in our image, since we are all supposedly "his" children. One thing that makes me wonder, is the whole angel thing,,,we are made to be above them, but below god,,,go figure,,, So, if nothing else, dogma says,,were better than animals and better than angels,,that hang with him all the time,,,, Was he a zygote? supposedly, hes always been there, and is a sprit being,,so, most likely not. Michelle I wish all could find the true happiness I have found,,in the eyes of Mike |
||
|
Toerag Member Ascendant
since 1999-07-29
Posts 5622Ala bam a |
Uh...yea...what Michelle said...yea, that's it.... |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Men have a theory that seems to propose that some things are not living at all, or at least don't have spiritual "threads" at all, yet or anymore. But that is a theory that has no completeness, especially when the same people scientifically show and tell us that all forms of matter, even most mute and motionless, and the smallest, always still seem to have forms of energies on certain levels; or religiously claim they believe God is omnipresent. What are moving these energies if not a form of "Spirit"? That any thing may be completly detached from Godspirit, or spiritual energy, substance, worth, is far unproven. Therefore, a "zygote" as part of existance, I believe has spiritual thread, as well as a natural one, and both make a precious signifigance, of a small thing, to the larger being of a man, or creature; perhaps even to God. Each thread has signifigances for the web. [This message has been edited by Essorant (05-29-2004 11:06 PM).] |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Hush, I want to respond to this ... Why do you guys post these kinds of threads on the weekends when I work? (Oh yeah, most people are NOT working on the weekend)  As startling as it is, Christian doctrine is exactly that God did pass through all of the stages of humanity ... that he "descendend into the lower parts of the Earth", so to speak, in the incarnation, when Mary was impregnated with Christ. But if human life is valued as sacred (even apart from that fact), I think that there are other good and philosophical reasons as to why it is an error to define humanity by mere qualities. Scott Klusendorf presents the best case I've ever heard, as to why it is more reasonable to define human life at conception than to establish arbitrary standards like consciousness, abililty, location, viability, etc... I will respond more later. Gotta go to work. (and if you're interested in hearing Scott, I can get some of his audio to you. Just email me. Might be good for discussion in your class.) Stephen. |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
Suprisingly enough, Stephen, I work weekends too. Both jobs. And as far as discussion material for the class? I actually hate the class. This thread is just a product of my mind wandering. |
||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
Hush -- the phrase you refer to is from Genesis 1:26 My thoughts on this subject are at: /pip/Forum75/HTML/000806.html /pip/Forum8/HTML/000510-2.html#32 Of course, my thoughts are also growing. |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
