Abel's Total Depravity?????

[TedT]

So we learn from Jesus' indignation, first, that Jesus loves children, and, secondly, that Jesus affirms and respects the personhood and spirituality of children.In saying, "for to such belongs the kingdom of God," he affirms their full spirituality. They are the hearts he takes to himself! Christ affirms and proclaims the spiritual capacity of children.

Sure, OR, He loves all the sinful people of HIS kingdom this way...iow, He is telling His listeners how to act, not necessarily precisely defining the children as innocent of sin ie not under the consequences for sin, suffering and death, but as merely trusting and compliant, not yet hardly leavened by sin at all, 1 Cor 5:8, Matt 16:6&12, pointing to the familial and ordinary experience of young children, not the theology of their creation and fall.

But it does NOT explain the knowledge the twins had about their existence and their future in that existence.

 

[TibiasDad]

So you're one of those evil men that believe that a child can't use senses in the womb? Just rip a fetus into pieces right?

Senses are not rational choices. “Before they did anything good or bad”! Not because they didn’t sense anything or feel calm or anxious.


Doug

 

[TibiasDad]

Even a child in the womb learns. Believe whatever you want to believe but you're horribly wrong.

Cognizance = the mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding through thought, experience, and the senses.

Life begins at conception when the seed of the man and the seed of the womb are joined. Just like when Christ was joined Incarnate to Mary's seed.

It really is crazy how we (mankind) hold on to traditions to comfort our own minds in failures.

“Last of all to mature is the cerebral cortex, which is responsible for most of what we think of as mental life–conscious experience, voluntary actions, thinking, remembering, and feeling. It has only begun to function around the time gestation comes to an end.” (Emphasis mine)

John was probably 3-6 months in his development when Mary arrived, and his capacity for conscious awareness was yet to be developed. It is not a matter of faith, it is a matter of the process of physical development. If the child learns, who is his teacher? The child develops as his DNA instructs him, so it’s not really “learning” but just developing according to plan. Thus, breathing, sucking his thumb, and other actions within the womb are, aside from any birth defect, written in his DNA and don’t need to be learned.

I have never mentioned, much less denied that “Life begins at conception when the seed of the man and the seed of the womb are joined.” So I don’t find any value in that barb.


Doug

 

[TibiasDad]

...the basic word is to crush to pieces...it is only struggle in translation when it seems inappropriate to go with the base meaning of crushing to peces.

But that still does not explain their preternatural knowledge of their existence and future...

See my post to @praise_yeshua, #43.

Doug

 

[TibiasDad]

But it does NOT explain the knowledge the twins had about their existence and their future in that existence.

And you have not demonstrated that they had any knowledge about their future. Nothing says they “knew” anything, only that God knew what their future was going to be and that he revealed it to Rebekah. You are reading into the text.


Doug

 

[TibiasDad]

The refusal to accept scripture to define our understanding of the cognitive awareness of babies and to use these biblical understandings of the cognition of infants to offset our pre-orthoxy conceptions and prejudices, is only one of the definitions orthodoxy fails in their understanding of our reality.

Truth, regardless of its source, is truth. Thus, what the Bible says and means will match what other sources of truth say about the things the Bible talks about.

“The heavens proclaim the glory of God”, thus, what the heavens tell us scientifically is truth that is equal to truth in scripture. Therefore, the scientific knowledge of fetal development is just as valid as a non-scientific source like scripture. In other words, truth is truth and all sources that are truthful will agree with each other.


Doug

 

[TibiasDad]

...the basic word is to crush to pieces...it is only struggle in translation when it seems inappropriate to go with the base meaning of crushing to peces.

But that still does not explain their preternatural knowledge of their existence and future...

We’re either of them “crushed to pieces”? If not, then the literal definition is meaningless!

Doug

 

[praise_yeshua]

Senses are not rational choices. “Before they did anything good or bad”! Not because they didn’t sense anything or feel calm or anxious.


Doug

Deception on your part. You rejected a clear English definition of Cognizance which requires learning from senses. Every argument you're making now is full of evil and deception.

A fetus is clearly a cognitive being. Only a desperately evil man would make such a claim. You can't love God and make these arguments you're making. It is beyond any sense of divine service to claim a fetus is not a cognitive human being.

 

[praise_yeshua]

“Last of all to mature is the cerebral cortex, which is responsible for most of what we think of as mental life–conscious experience, voluntary actions, thinking, remembering, and feeling. It has only begun to function around the time gestation comes to an end.” (Emphasis mine)

Should I bow to your appeal to evil sources. I made a argument relative to the Christ. You're ignoring this. Was Christ a "lump" of cells without a developed cerebral cortex?

Besides you didn't make any distinction between development stages of life. No. I don't believe your "source" knows what they're talking about. Just like you don't.

John was probably 3-6 months in his development when Mary arrived, and his capacity for conscious awareness was yet to be developed. It is not a matter of faith, it is a matter of the process of physical development. If the child learns, who is his teacher? The child develops as his DNA instructs him, so it’s not really “learning” but just developing according to plan. Thus, breathing, sucking his thumb, and other actions within the womb are, aside from any birth defect, written in his DNA and don’t need to be learned.

DNA doesn't exclude the aptitude to learn. In fact, it establishes it.

I have never mentioned, much less denied that “Life begins at conception when the seed of the man and the seed of the womb are joined.” So I don’t find any value in that barb.


Doug

Your position requires it. I know you've haven't had this discussion before. You're just "making this up as you go". You're relegated human existence in the womb to nothing more than an "idiot" level existence that only develops cognitive traits in late stages of development.

Not that you started with this, You didn't. Your position is changing. At least be a honest man and recognize that it is.

You've went from demanding there is no cognitive life in the womb to "hedging" on development stage. Novices to the discussion do this. My position has remained the same.

 

[TibiasDad]

You rejected a clear English definition of Cognizance which requires learning from senses.

When did I deny that cognizance requires learning from the senses? I only said that senses are not rational choices. They are separate things.

And I have shown you that cognizance in the developing fetus is not physically capable of volitional choices until time of birth. Thus, there is no cognitive awareness of choosing one thing over another until after we are born.

You can't love God and make these arguments you're making. It is beyond any sense of divine service to claim a fetus is not a cognitive human being.

1) Where, in any recognized source, is the issue of the cognitive ability of a fetus a test of whether one can love God?

2) Where have I claimed “a fetus is not a cognitive human being”? (Don’t fret, I’m not holding my breath!)

3) Am I to assume you have the divine power to understand my heart in relation to God?


Doug

 

[TedT]

And you have not demonstrated that they had any knowledge about their future. Nothing says they “knew” anything, only that God knew what their future was going to be and that he revealed it to Rebekah. You are reading into the text.


Doug

If they did not now of their future why were they fighting strongly enough about it to have Rebecca cry out to the Lord about it? And why did HE use their future as the cause for their fighting if they knew it not?

 

[TedT]

We’re either of them “crushed to pieces”? If not, then the literal definition is meaningless!

Doug

They were infants in the womb!!! How could they possibly have fulfilled their desire to ensure they became first born?

 

[TedT]

“Last of all to mature is the cerebral cortex, which is responsible for most of what we think of as mental life–conscious experience, voluntary actions, thinking, remembering, and feeling. It has only begun to function around the time gestation comes to an end.” (Emphasis mine)

Their spirit that is the essence of their identity as person was a mature spirit who knew things and acted (or tried to) upon that knowledge...but because it was in a new body that was not yet developed enough for them to fulfill their choices they failed.

Their struggle was partly against a body interface failure, not a failure of awareness.

Berean Standard Bible
Psalm 51:6 Surely You desire truth in the inmost being; You teach me wisdom in the inmost place. IF some can learn wisdom in the womb, they must be cognizant, intellectually aware. Psalm 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies. from does not necessarily mean their going astray started at birth and not before but that they could only act upon their desires to go astray once they were born.

Berean Standard Bible
Ecclesiastes 7:29 Only this have I found: I have discovered that God made men upright, but they have sought out many schemes.” If some were being taught wisdom in the womb and these others were seeking out many things to go astray, then why do we think some can be taught in the womb but others were not able to think and seek sinful ways?

 

[TibiasDad]

If they did not now of their future why were they fighting strongly enough about it to have Rebecca cry out to the Lord about it?

They are fighting by the nature of their being. They didn’t know their future any more than they knew why their heart was beating, or what their heart even was.

Rebecca was pregnant for the first time, and didn’t understand anything about what was happening in her body. The twins were as ignorant of what was happening as their mother was.

And why did HE use their future as the cause for their fighting if they knew it not?

With all due respect, that is not a wise question!

Since when does God’s knowledge of something demand that we must also know it? God knows all things, does that necessitate that we know all things too?

Moreover, if we, as adults don’t know what our futures are (which God certainly knows), how can a gestating fetus whose brain isn’t fully developed know what their future is?

What happens after birth that we suddenly lose all that knowledge about our future?

Doug

 

[TibiasDad]

Their spirit that is the essence of their identity as person was a mature spirit who knew things and acted (or tried to) upon that knowledge

I’m sorry, but that is as true as the moon is made of cheese! You have no proof of this, nor is there any way to demonstrate it as being true. If this is the foundation on which you interpret scripture, then I am at a loss as to how to converse with you.


Doug

 

[TibiasDad]

They were infants in the womb!!! How could they possibly have fulfilled their desire to ensure they became first born?

They couldn’t, and nobody said who would be first, only that the younger one would rule over the older one born first.

Where did I imply such a thing?

Doug

 

[TedT]

Since when does God’s knowledge of something demand that we must also know it?

Ummm, HE said they were fighting because they knew about their possible futures and were trying to force what they wanted.... HE didn't say I know their future but they don't, HE said they were fighting to become the head of the family...their possible future.

 

[TibiasDad]

Ummm, HE said they were fighting because they knew about their possible futures and were trying to force what they wanted.... HE didn't say I know their future but they don't, HE said they were fighting to become the head of the family...their possible future.

Quote the scripture that says that….not holding my breath.

Doug

 

[TedT]

They couldn’t, and nobody said who would be first, only that the younger one would rule over the older one born first.

Where did I imply such a thing?

Doug

YOU DIDN'T - i was agreeing with you that they could not have killed each other in the womb but my conclusion was that their inability was meaningless and so the fact they were not successful did not prove that they were therefore not trying to crush each other to pieces at all as you contend in post #47.

 

[TedT]

You have no proof of this, nor is there any way to demonstrate it as being true.

All bible interpretation is by eisegesis, finding a definition of what WE think the verse means that best fits with OUR preconceived world view - a world view we believe by faith NOT PROOF. I put my faith without proof in one interpretation of bible doctrine and you put your faith in another interpretation without proof...having a strong conviction and a strong faith does not prove we believe the truth or the fervent Muslim or Hindu would be in the truth.

I don't present a verse as proof my interpretation is true (do you?) but to share with you an alternative understanding of the truth a verse might hold so you can cut the truth more finely...