How To Get To Heaven When You Die

[Saint_Ann]

Learn your hagiography, Saint Ann.

Learning is hard.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Because it has all of it's DNA and has begun to multiply into a human. It doesn't have to be finished growing to be a human. Otherwise, a year old is also not a human because they haven't finished growing.

Yes a year old child is a human being. Not an adult, but a human being. A 3 day old Zygote is not a human being, it is a cluster of cells.

The elderly, sickly can't live on their own. Should we kill them too?

My mother is 92, lives by herself. My father passed away at 94, prior to dying he lived with my mother... shame on you for suggesting to kill the elderly.

It's not the same as apple seeds being apples. The apple seed is not the tree or the fruit.

A Zygote is identical in purpose to an apple seed, with out a Zygote, there could be no child. Without an apple seed, there is no tree, and no fruit.

It's like having an apple seed that has begun to grow into a tree, therefore you have an apple tree.

If there is no tree, there is no fruit...

 

[Fuzzy1975]

And the millions upon millions of things that had to happen just so that you could get to the point of wrinkles is a fucking miracle.

I call it luck, or randomness...

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Yes a year old child is a human being. Not an adult, but a human being. A 3 day old Zygote is not a human being, it is a cluster of cells.

No, it's a human being. What do you think consitutes a human being?

the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”,shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/8

A Zygote cannot survive outside the womb, therefore it is not a Human Being"

The elderly, sickly can't live on their own. Should we kill them too?

My mother is 92, lives by herself. My father passed away at 94, prior to dying he lived with my mother... shame on you for suggesting to kill the elderly.

Shame on YOU for dishonestly accusing me of suggesting to kill the elderly. I asked you a question, should we kill the elderly that cannot take care of theirselves? Are they human beings?

Your post is there, above in full context, in it you suggest killing the elderly...not me, nowhere in any of my posts do I say that. The fact you poorly chose to use an analogy in the context of this to rebut what a Human Being is, is not my fault, it is yours.

A Zygote is identical in purpose to an apple seed, with out a Zygote, there could be no child. Without an apple seed, there is no tree, and no fruit.

A fertilized egg is a developing human being, just as a 5 year old is a developing human being.

That you cannot differentiate between a cluster of cells, and fully formed but growing child is beyond me.

If there is no tree, there is no fruit...

The tree needs to be fertilized by another tree.

If there is no sperm and egg meeting, there is no child.

Did I ever suggest otherwise?

 

[Fuzzy1975]

My response is in bold above.

It is all in bold....

BTW the quoted line is the legal definition of a human being in the United States of America Law. It is not my opinion, and last, show me a post where I ever said anything about Fetus rights, or Abortions...fuck your an idiot....

Just because you disagree on what defines a human being with me, does not imply I am for or against abortion, or women's rights....

 

[Tryharder62]

Interesting point to ponder:

People will always argue about when life begins.

What about our spirit...? If we are mind, body, and spirit.... when do we get our spirit? (Not the holy spirit but our own individual spirit.)

Several places in the bible say that God knew us before we were in our mother's womb. Did he know us because he knew when we would be born and die? Or....does he know us because our spirit has always been and will always be? Hmmmmmm??????

With that in mind....when does life begin?

Another question....Do atheists believe we have a spirit?

 

[phrodeau]

Interesting point to ponder:

People will always argue about when life begins.

What about our spirit...? If we are mind, body, and spirit.... when do we get our spirit? (Not the holy spirit but our own individual spirit.)

Several places in the bible say that God knew us before we were in our mother's womb. Did he know us because he knew when we would be born and die? Or....does he know us because our spirit has always been and will always be? Hmmmmmm??????

With that in mind....when does life begin?

Another question....Do atheists believe we have a spirit?

Spirit is the air in one’s body. Can you guess where bad spirits reside?

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Interesting point to ponder:

People will always argue about when life begins.

What about our spirit...? If we are mind, body, and spirit.... when do we get our spirit? (Not the holy spirit but our own individual spirit.)

Several places in the bible say that God knew us before we were in our mother's womb. Did he know us because he knew when we would be born and die? Or....does he know us because our spirit has always been and will always be? Hmmmmmm??????

With that in mind....when does life begin?

Another question....Do atheists believe we have a spirit?

It is not only at what point does life begin, but also what defines "life". Are bacteria "life"? Is a unicellular organism "alive"?

Life, to me goes way beyond humanity, and religion.

 

[Tryharder62]

Spirit is the air in one’s body. Can you guess where bad spirits reside?

My farts aren't that bad!

It is not only at what point does life begin, but also what defines "life". Are bacteria "life"? Is a unicellular organism "alive"?

Scientists seem to think they are life:

Bacterial evolution refers to the heritable genetic changes that a bacterium accumulates during its life time, which can arise from adaptations in response to environmental changes or the immune response of the host. Because of their short generation times and large population sizes, bacteria can evolve rapidly.

Source:https://www.nature.com/subjects/bacterial-evolution

The first living things on Earth, single-celled micro-organisms or microbes lacking a cell nucleus or cell membrane known as prokaryotes, seem to have first appeared on Earth almost four billion years ago, just a few hundred million years after the formation of the Earth itself.

Source: https://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_life.html

Originally Posted by Fuzzy1975

Life, to me goes way beyond humanity, and religion.

These are the conversations that I really enjoy. Listening to other ideas about life. I would like to hear what you have to say.

 

[MartinHeidegger]

Interesting point to ponder:

People will always argue about when life begins.

What about our spirit...? If we are mind, body, and spirit.... when do we get our spirit? (Not the holy spirit but our own individual spirit.)

Several places in the bible say that God knew us before we were in our mother's womb. Did he know us because he knew when we would be born and die? Or....does he know us because our spirit has always been and will always be? Hmmmmmm??????

With that in mind....when does life begin?

Another question....Do atheists believe we have a spirit?

I'm sure there are some atheists who also believe in spirits. I would guess they're a small minority. Atheism and spiritualism (weakly, a belief in spirits) aren't necessarily exclusive, but some reasons for being an atheist are also reasons for being a naturalist.

 

[Tryharder62]

I'm sure there are some atheists who also believe in spirits. I would guess they're a small minority. Atheism and spiritualism (weakly, a belief in spirits) aren't necessarily exclusive, but some reasons for being an atheist are also reasons for being a naturalist.

So are you a naturalist? Care to share a little about what that means exactly?

 

[MartinHeidegger]

So are you a naturalist? Care to share a little about what that means exactly?

In spirit (heh) I am. I tend to take the weaker position of epistemic agnosticism, which to me means that objects of faith, the transcendental, the divine, the spiritual, are epistemically inaccessible. So that their existence is undecidable except through faith. So in practice this means I only recognize the natural in general, or scientific or formal ontology in particular. If a thing can be an object of a scientific theory, or possibly the object of some philosophical framework, I'll recognize its possible existence.

 

[phrodeau]

Go back up, I edited it and my responses are underlined.

Secondly, I could care less what the "legal" definition of a human being is. I care what the "Biblical" definition of a human being is. They changed their minds continuously, but God doesn't.

You are the idiot, stop being rude.

The Bible states that Adam did not become a living being until he received the breath of life.

Fetuses don’t breathe.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Go back up, I edited it and my responses are underlined.

Your answers follow exactly what you state below. There is no independent FisherAmen thinking, only what you have been programmed to understand by your "church". As such there is no point in continuing to engage in a biological debate with a one who will only offer up a religious view point on the subject.

Secondly, I could care less what the "legal" definition of a human being is. I care what the "Biblical" definition of a human being is. They changed their minds continuously, but God doesn't.

All laws evolve, even the ones in your religion....I would think you had a better grasp on such topics.

You are the idiot, stop being rude.

Me rude? hmmm I think not. Opinionated, that I am...

Do not attribute thoughts to my posts which are not written, such as bringing abortion into a conversation about what defines human being. To use a false equivalency such as "I must support abortion since I do not consider a Zygote to be a human being", and to further insist that due to your way of thinking "I must also favour euthanasia of the elderly?"

That is not rude???

It is not only rude, it is also condescending, it shows that you will hide behind cherry picking of your belief in this ALT version of yourself, as much as you did with your other ALT.

When you at least show me enough respect to debate on the issue at hand, and not bring in false equivalencies, then I may not consider you an idiot. Until such time my opinion stands.

You're a fucking idiot

 

[Tryharder62]

In spirit (heh) I am. I tend to take the weaker position of epistemic agnosticism, which to me means that objects of faith, the transcendental, the divine, the spiritual, are epistemically inaccessible. So that their existence is undecidable except through faith. So in practice this means I only recognize the natural in general, or scientific or formal ontology in particular. If a thing can be an object of a scientific theory, or possibly the object of some philosophical framework, I'll recognize its possible existence.

Very interesting. Thank you!

The Bible states that Adam did not become a living being until he received the breath of life.

Fetuses don’t breathe.

Ummmm...Adam was a little different. He was.....created.....out of dirt! Fetuses get their oxygen from the umbilical cord until the stork comes and delivers them to their mom and dad.

https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-419800eec4cb50c129772fd56b8cae53

 

[phrodeau]

He became alive after God put breath in His lungs.

Fetuses are alive before they breathe air. Plus the Mother gives them oxygen in the womb.

What about the other verses in the Bible that say if you kill a baby in the womb than that man should be killed?

Ex 21:22 ¶ If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,
24 Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
25 Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

OT laws aren’t valid. Your interpretation.

 

[phrodeau]

Didn't you just use the OT as your example with Adam? Double standard? No we aren't under the Mosaic Law anymore, you are right, but it does show God's view on an unborn baby being a human being. It's a very valid point I make.

The Bible calls an unborn fetus a fruit, not a baby.

 

[Tryharder62]

It may come as a surprise to you that there is more than one meaning to the word fruit. It means "Offspring". And if you don't know the difference between a baby and an apple, you have issues.

I was looking around and found some cool things on this topic.

Here could be why we are addressed like we are fruit.

What is the definition of seed: 1. a flowering plant's unit of reproduction, capable of developing into another such plant. 2. a man's semen.

Botanically speaking, a fruit is a seed bearing structure that develops from the ovary of a flowering plant, whereas vegetables are all other plant parts, such as roots, leaves and stems.


So flowering plants have eggs, sperm, ovaries, and have sex!!!

https://www.senecahs.org/pages/uploaded_files/Sexual Reproduction in Plants.pdf

So we really are the fruit of the womb!!(not to be confused with fruit of the loom)

I must have been asleep in school. Anybody who knows botany chime in.

Where is BotanyBoy when you need him. I always learn something when I am trying to keep up with phrodeau's brain.

 

[Brains_N_Boobs]

http://img6.subirporno.com/1a961e4e8b4b5d9f678f0a7ac102fdb3/imagen36.jpg

 

[ishtat]

What is the definition of seed: 1. a flowering plant's unit of reproduction, capable of developing into another such plant. 2. a man's semen.

A mans' semen is not a seed nor many seeds. Neither is spermatozoa a seed(s)

It only resembles the function of a seed immediately after fertilization of and in conjunction with an ova.

 

[ishtat]

I have just finished watching Dr Jonathon Miller's 'Atheism Tapes.' very interesting interviews with exceptional people of very different backgrounds/beliefs. Easily found on Youtube and beneficial to believers of all types.

 

[Tryharder62]

A mans' semen is not a seed nor many seeds. Neither is spermatozoa a seed(s)

It only resembles the function of a seed immediately after fertilization of and in conjunction with an ova.

I just gave the definition of seed in the dictionary but this is interesting:

In the Hebrew language the word seed (zera) doesn’t just describe a part of a plant. A seed is anything that produces new life, so zera (seeds) also refers to human offspring or descendants:

The fact that seed means offspring of both plant and human, makes it ripe (pardon the pun) for metaphor.

Source: https://hebrewwordlessons.com/2019/08/04/zera-a-seed-in-the-garden/

 

[Tryharder62]

I have just finished watching Dr Jonathon Miller's 'Atheism Tapes.' very interesting interviews with exceptional people of very different backgrounds/beliefs. Easily found on Youtube and beneficial to believers of all types.

It looks like there are 6 tapes about a half hour long. Is that right? I'll look at them . Don't know how long it will take but I will let you know what I think. What did you find beneficial?

 

[phrodeau]

I have just finished watching Dr Jonathon Miller's 'Atheism Tapes.' very interesting interviews with exceptional people of very different backgrounds/beliefs. Easily found on Youtube and beneficial to believers of all types.

It looks like there are 6 tapes about a half hour long. Is that right? I'll look at them . Don't know how long it will take but I will let you know what I think. What did you find beneficial?

”The Atheism Tapes” are the interviews collected when Miller was making “A Rough Guide to Disbelief.”

https://youtu.be/Ad_fTX8rEKs

 

[Tryharder62]

”The Atheism Tapes” are the interviews collected when Miller was making “A Rough Guide to Disbelief.”

https://youtu.be/Ad_fTX8rEKs

Thanks for telling me. I watched Colin McGinn's interview.

Just some of my thoughts. Not meant for arguments but for discussion. I am open to learning why others believe the way they do.

1. Colin was taught the bible in a course taught by a charismatic teacher. When he no longer had the teacher and course he stopped studying the bible. He was a believer during the time of the class. He could never find another place to plug into the bible.

2. He instead read the book by Bertrand Russell on why there is no God. The metaphysical side of religion didn't interest him but the ethical and philosophical side did. So he decided to keep the aspects of religion that appealed to him and leave the rest.

3. He discussed ontological arguments for which he concluded "Just because you can't refute it(God) doesn't mean you should take it seriously or develop your common sense or beliefs because of it." --So is he saying he can't refute that there is a God but we shouldn't develop our common sense or belief like there is a God? -- although he decided to keep the ethical and philosophical side of God's teaching.

4. He concluded that the reason there is no God is the problem of evil. Why is there suffering and pain in the world if God is a good God? The answer of free will was easily dismissed. Bringing up sick children seems to be what atheists would call a simple win/ end discussion-but it is not. I would discuss these things with him.

What would you have God do?
​

1. Change everyone's personality so that there is no sin. That there would be no choice between right or wrong? It would affect the deepness that we could have in relationships ---and with God.

2. God could compensate for evil and intervene 100% of the time. It sounds attractive until God infringes on something we want to do.

3.Another choice would be or God to judge and remove those who choose to commit evil acts. The problem being there would be no one left. No one is perfect enough.

We live in the real world where our good and evil actions have direct consequences upon us and those around us. God's desire is that for all our sakes we should obey him. Instead we choose our own way and then blame God for it.

Very interesting interview.
Kath