![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2020\/11\/EsauJacob.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Atheist and anti-theist<\/span>\u00a0Bob Seidensticker<\/a>,\u00a0who was<\/span>\u00a0\u201craised Presbyterian\u201d<\/a>,\u00a0runs the influential<\/span>\u00a0Cross Examined<\/em><\/a>\u00a0blog. He asked me there,<\/span>\u00a0on 8-11-18<\/a>:\u00a0\u201cI\u2019ve got 1000+ posts here attacking your worldview. You just going to let that stand? Or could you present a helpful new perspective that I\u2019ve ignored on one or two of those posts?\u201d<\/span>\u00a0He added in June 2017<\/span>\u00a0in a combox<\/a>:\u00a0\u201cIf I\u2019ve misunderstood the Christian position or Christian arguments, point that out. Show me where I\u2019ve mischaracterized them.\u201d Delighted to oblige his wishes . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Bob (for the record) virtually\u00a0begged<\/em>\u00a0and\u00a0pleaded<\/em>\u00a0with me to dialogue with him in May 2018, via email. But b<\/span>y\u00a010-3-18<\/a>,\u00a0following<\/span>\u00a0massive, childish name-calling attacks<\/a>\u00a0against me,\u00a0 encouraged by Bob on his blog, he banned me from commenting there. I also banned him for violation of my rules for discussion<\/a>, but (unlike him)\u00a0provided detailed reasons<\/em><\/a> for why<\/em> it was justified.<\/span><\/p>\n Bob\u2019s cowardly hypocrisy knows no bounds.<\/span>\u00a0On 6-30-19<\/a>, he was chiding someone for something very much like his own behavior:\u00a0<\/span>\u201cSpoken like a true weasel trying to run away from a previous argument. You know, you could just say, \u2018Let me retract my previous statement of X\u2019 or something like that.\u201d<\/span>\u00a0Yeah,\u00a0Bob<\/em>\u00a0could!<\/span>\u00a0\u00a0He still hasn\u2019t yet uttered one peep in reply<\/a>\u00a0to \u2014 now \u2014 61 of my critiques of his atrocious reasoning.<\/span><\/p>\n Bible-Basher Bob reiterated and rationalized his intellectual cowardice yet again on 10-17-20:<\/span> \u201cEvery engagement with him [yours truly]<\/span> devolves into pointlessness. I don\u2019t believe I\u2019ve ever learned anything from him.\u00a0But if you find a compelling argument of his, summarize it for us.\u201d<\/span> And again the next day:<\/span> \u201cHe has certainly not earned a spot in my heart, so I will pass on funding his evidence-free project. Like you, I also find that he\u2019s frustrating to talk with. Again, I evaluate such conversations as useful if I can learn something\u2013find a mistake in my argument, uncover an error I made in Christians\u2019 worldview, and so on. Dave is good at bluster, and that\u2019s about it.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Bible-Basher Bob\u2019s words will be in<\/span>\u00a0blue<\/span>.\u00a0To find these posts, follow this link:\u00a0<\/span>\u201c<\/span>Seidensticker Folly #\u201d<\/a> or see all of them linked under his own section on my<\/span> Atheism page<\/a>.<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n The following is a critique of Bob the Bible-Basher\u2019s article, <\/span>\u201cAbortion: Does the Bible Say When Life Begins?\u201d<\/a> (11-1-20).<\/span><\/p>\n Does the Bible say that life begins at first breath? If so, that strengthens the pro-choice argument. . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n [A]ctor and political commentator John Fugelsang, . . . attacked the popular Christian claim that life begins at conception with<\/span>\u00a0this tweet<\/a>:<\/p>\n Well don\u2019t tell God [that life begins at conception], bc the Bible says Life begins at First Breath. . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Fugelsang is probably referring to this verse from the Garden of Eden story: \u201cThen the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils\u00a0the breath of life<\/em>, and the man became a living being\u201d (Genesis 2:7). . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Breath is central to the Genesis idea of life. In the verse above, \u201cthe man became a living being,\u201d is literally translated as, \u201cthe man became a\u00a0breathing creature.<\/em>\u201d Breath is roughly synonymous with life.<\/span><\/p>\n Not only does the Bible say that the \u201cbreath of life\u201d is what living things have, it\u2019s what they\u00a0don\u2019t<\/em>\u00a0have when they die. This is what the dying animals during the Flood lost: \u201cEverything on dry land that had\u00a0the breath of life<\/em>\u00a0in its nostrils died\u201d (Gen. 7:22). Another example is from the Canaanite genocide: \u201cBut as for the towns of these peoples that the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, you must not let\u00a0anything that breathes<\/em>\u00a0remain alive\u201d (Deuteronomy 20:16). One<\/span>\u00a0commentary says<\/a>, \u201cBreath is understood to be essential to life; and that when the breathing stops, life ends.\u201d . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cYou formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother\u2019s womb\u201d (Psalm 139:13). . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n First, \u201cknitted\u201d<\/span> (Strong\u2019s #05526<\/a>) is more literally \u201cwove,\u201d as would be done with a protective screen or fence woven from branches, and by implication it can mean to fence in, cover, or protect. Yes, it\u2019s important for a fetus to be in a protective womb when it is developing, but this simply acknowledges the gestation process. During that process, you aren\u2019t you, but (with luck) you will be by the end.<\/span><\/p>\n The fallacy here is thinking that breath is all there is<\/em> to a living being \u2014 the totality of its \u201cliving principle\u201d \u2014 , or that the Bible supposedly states that. The Bible simply notes the obvious fact that a living person breathes and that a dead person ceases to breathe. But does this logically deny or preclude other<\/em> factors such as brain waves and a heartbeat? No.<\/span><\/p>\n Breath (logically) cannot be the only criterion of what constitutes a living person, by the simple fact that there are instances of non-dead people not being able to breathe:\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n 1) a person who has the breath temporarily knocked out of him.<\/span><\/p>\n 2) a person who temporarily can\u2019t breathe due to an obstruction in their throat.<\/span><\/p>\n 3) a person who needs a ventilator in order to breathe (or in the old days, a lung machine).<\/span><\/p>\n 4) a person in the process of drowning, who is not breathing; or afterwards on the shore when they are still not breathing, but are revived.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n None of these people cease to become persons during these times when they can\u2019t breath. Therefore, personhood cannot be determined solely<\/em> by breathing. The Bible is very phenomenological in its language. It observes that living people breathe: as a general proposition<\/em>, which is true, as far as it goes. But this doesn\u2019t preclude other<\/em> attributes of a living person.<\/span><\/p>\n If I say, for example, \u201call baseball pitchers are able to throw a baseball,\u201d I state a true and universal statement regarding baseball pitchers. But I have not exhausted all<\/em> that they have to do to pitch with any success. They also have to 1) control the ball (i.e., throw strikes, and try to throw down and away, inside and outside, etc.), 2) be able to throw fast, 3) be able to throw a curve ball, and 4) be able to combine different pitches, to fool batters.<\/span><\/p>\n Likewise, if I say, \u201call persons who are alive breathe\u201d I haven\u2019t exhausted all that is true about them; most notably, that they must also have brain waves and a heartbeat.<\/span><\/p>\n Bob wants to play games with Psalm 139:13, but neglects to see the obvious presupposition that the Bible is obviously equating<\/em> the preborn person with the person who continues to grow before birth and is eventually born, since the writer, King David, refers to \u201cmy<\/em><\/strong> inward parts\u201d and \u201cyou knitted me<\/em><\/strong>\u201d and \u201cmy mother\u2019s womb<\/em><\/strong>.\u201d\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n It\u2019s simple logic:\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n 1) I am \u201cme.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n 2) If I refer to myself before I was born as \u201cme\u201d, it must refer to the same person.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n In other words, if a = b and b = c, then a = c. It\u2019s one of the most basic rules of logic (called the transitive law<\/a>):<\/span><\/p>\n 1) Preborn baby [A] = \u201cme\u201d [B] (as referred to by a person [C] after they are born, referring to himself as a preborn baby).<\/span><\/p>\n 2) The same person [C] may refer to himself after he or she is born as \u201cme\u201d [B]<\/span><\/p>\n 3) Both A and C = \u201cme\u201d; therefore, they are equal to each other. It\u2019s the same person before or after birth.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Bob opines:<\/span> \u201cyou aren\u2019t you, but (with luck) you will be by the end.\u201d On what basis can he say<\/em> this? It has to reduce to a purely arbitrary line, as to when he begins to exist. Pro-lifers make the obvious scientific (genetic) observation that a person\u2019s entire collection of DNA is present at the moment of conception. After that, only time and nutrition are needed for that fetus \u2014 from the beginning \u2014 to grow into a human adult. It\u2019s the same person all the way through. There is no point other than conception that can objectively and without sheer arbitrariness be called the point at which Person X began.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n But that is Bob providing his own philosophy. The argument in his paper, however, ultimately has to do not with his own<\/em> views, but about what the Bible<\/em> says about the beginning of human life and human personhood. It\u2019s easy to show that the Bible regards the preborn person as a person, indistinguishable in essence from a born person. I already showed how Psalm 139:13 presupposes this, by very basic logic. But there are more passages along these lines:<\/span><\/p>\n Genesis 25:21-22 <\/b>(RSV)\u00a0<\/b>And Isaac prayed to the LORD for his wife, because she was barren; and the LORD granted his prayer, and Rebekah his wife conceived. [22] The children struggled together within her<\/em><\/strong>; . . . \u201cChildren\u201d in 25:22 is the Hebrew word ben<\/em> (<\/span>Strong\u2019s word #1121<\/a>). This is referring to the twins, Jacob and Esau. The same word is used hundreds of times in the Old Testament to refer to children who are born. Therefore, the Bible regards preborn and born children as the same in essence (\u201cchildren\u201d). If a = b and c = b, then a = c.<\/span><\/p>\n Numbers 5:28<\/b>\u00a0But if the woman has not defiled herself and is clean, then she shall be free and shall conceive children<\/strong><\/em>.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n \u201cChildren\u201d here is the Hebrew word zera<\/em> (Strong\u2019s #2233<\/a>). It has the meaning of \u201cdescendants\u201d in Genesis 9:9; 12:7; 13:15-16; 15:5, 13, 18; 16:10; 17:7-9 (see all 230 instances<\/a>). Obviously, then, there is no distinction made between preborn and born persons. The Bible doesn\u2019t play the game that so-called \u201cpro-choicers\u201d do of calling preborn persons a different name, to try to pretend that they aren\u2019t persons (often fetus<\/em>: which is simply Latin for \u201clittle one\u201d). \u201cDescendants\u201d is the translation of zera<\/em> used in the RSV in Numbers 9:10; 13:22, 28; 14:24; 16:40; 25:13.<\/span><\/p>\n Judges 16:17<\/b>\u00a0And he told her all his mind, and said to her, \u201cA razor has never come upon my head; for I have been a Nazirite to God from my mother\u2019s womb. . . .\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n