Incoming E-mail: There are studies that have shown that the level
of adrenaline in a fetus' body and its heart rate increase during an
abortion. This shows that they can feel fear quite early in gestation. Does
this not prove that they are human?
Our response: No matter what the stage of pregnancy, a newborn,
fetus, embryo and pre-embryo are definitely all human life. That is, they
are alive. Unlike viruses, ova, spermatozoa, they meet all of the scientific
requirements to be classified as a form of life. Also, their cells contain
human DNA. So they are definitely human life.
The question underlying many of the abortion debates is when human life, in
the form of a just-fertilized ovum becomes a human being. People have a
great diversity of belief on this critical matter. Some people feel that it
happens:
At conception;
When the embryonic heart starts beating;
When the fetus loses its gill slits and tail;
When its face looks vaguely human;
When its higher brain functions start working so that it can sense
the environment, think, be conscious, etc. for the first time;
When it is half emerged from the woman's body; or
When it is separate from its mother and breathing on its own.
People have made cases for all of these as being the appropriate time for
the transition from human life to human personhood.
There have been reports of an increase in adrenaline and an increase in
heartbeat rate by a fetus in early gestation during invasive procedures. But
researchers -- at last those who are not pro-lifers -- generally attribute
these to automatic processes within the fetus. The fetus only becomes
conscious at about 26 weeks; that is when the higher brain functions first
turn on, so that the fetus can become genuinely aware of its surroundings,
and might be able to feel fear, pain, etc.
Only about 1% of all abortions are done in the third trimester -- usually
in cases of severe genetic malformation of the fetus or in a crisis
situation. Common medical practice is to anesthetize the fetus so that it
cannot feel pain, if there is any chance that it's higher brain functions
are functioning at the time.
Incoming E-mail: When does a couple choose to have a child?
Contraception methods occasionally fail. When they engage in protected
sexual intercourse, they both know that there is a remote possibility that a
conception will occur. Haven't they already made the choice to possibly have
a baby at that time?
Our response: Let's take an example. Imagine a couple whose
relationship has developed to the point where they want to engage in sexual
activity, but haven't yet decided to make a lifetime commitment to each
other. Or suppose that they are committed to each other, they are not in a
situation where they cannot afford the time, effort and/or money to have a
child at this time. They engage in intercourse. Having no desire to have a
child together, the woman takes birth control pills, the man uses a condom
and they use a spermicide. But somehow, in spite of the odds, conception
occurs. The woman discusses the situation with her boyfriend, with her
physician, and perhaps her spiritual adviser. She might decide that the
least worse option is to have an early abortion.
We can ask whether the couple is ethically bound to continue the pregnancy.
Alternatively, we can ask whether the state should step in and prevent the
woman from terminating the pregnancy and forcing her to continue the
pregnancy until childbirth.
As in so many abortion-related questions, the answers depend on when one
feels that human life, in the form of a just-fertilized ovum becomes a human
person.
If you believe that this happens at conception, then all abortion is
murder -- no matter what the stage of gestation. A case can be made the
couple to continue the pregnancy or for the state to intrude and make
childbirth compulsory for the couple. They may not have intended to
create a baby. But due to contraceptive failure, they did. And so they
should continue the pregnancy.
If you believe that personhood is achieved later in pregnancy, then
a case can be made that an abortion up to that time is an ethical option
for the couple. Such an abortion does kill a human life. But it does not
murder a person; it only kills a potential person. They did not intend
to create a baby and thus should not be ethically bound -- or forced by
the state -- to have continue the pregnancy.
So it all comes back to when human life becomes a human person. And that
is an irresolvable dilemma over which a consensus appears impossible.
Incoming E-mail: Removing A.D. from the date is just another
example of 1st John 4.3 the spirit of the anti-Christ. The anti-Christ will
put himself above God and claim himself to be god.
Our response: That is certainly one way of looking at it. But there
is a funny thing about matters like this. One can choose a different
starting point and end up with an entirely different conclusion.
Consider Jesus' prime directive: to love each other and to love God. Couple
this with the Good Samaritan parable, and it is clear that "each other"
means every human on earth. Then there is the Golden Rule which commands
everyone to treat everyone else in a decent manner. For a Christian, that includes
other Christians, as well as Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews,
Wiccans, Zoroastrians and followers of a few hundred other religions.
To better judge what this implies, imagine being a member of one of these
non-Christian religions, and being faced with the notations AD (which is an
abbreviation of Anno Domine; Latin for "Year of the Lord"), and BC (which is
an abbreviation for "Before Christ"). The use of these notations forces one
to acknowledge that Yeshua of Nazareth (Jesus) is both God and Christ, the
Messiah. Imagine how you would feel. It can cause a member of one of these
religions as much pain to be forced to acknowledge that Yeshua is God and
the Messiah as it can for a Christian to deny that Yeshua is God and the
Messiah.
Then go back and read the prime directive, Good Samaritan and Golden Rule
and see if you really want to use AD and BC in the future.
Incoming E-mail: The seminary that I want to attend has a special
admission requirement: Applicants must write an essay describing three
theological beliefs about which they will not compromise. Do you have any
suggestions?
Our response: It seems to me that an honorable person must be willing
to follow the truth wherever it leads. If this means that they have to
be prepared to abandon a particular theological belief if new evidence emerges that shows
it to be false.
Asking you to declare certain theological beliefs as
being off limits to change is, in essence, asking you to be willing to be
prepared to lie some time in the future.
To close off the
possibility of future change is to die intellectually. It means that there
is no possibility that the Holy Spirit will make new revelations available
to humanity. But the past history of the Christian Church has shown that
change is continual. The Church reversed its stand on human slavery in the
19th century. It started to reverse its stance on special privileges for
males in the 20th century. Its liberal and mainline wings are now starting
to reverse its stance on special privileges for heterosexuals. I have no
doubt but that this process will continue.
Take God for example. If
one reads the Old Testament without preconceptions, one concludes that the
ancient Hebrews looked upon Yahweh as a male super-human with a body --
feet, eyes, hands, voice, legs, backside, ears, etc. The New Testament view
of God changed him into a bodiless spirit. Now, some Christian theologians
are talking about a God who is not a personal God.
However, if you
tell this to the seminary admission folks, it would probably wipe out your
chances of being admitted.
Yet I cannot honorably suggest that you
lie in order to be accepted.
So I guess that I have no suggestions to offer you. Sorry.
Incoming E-mail: Re: "Inerrancy. The answer to this is very simple – The
Bible is errant, but there is no way of
determining where the errors occur.
To prove the Bible is not inerrant one needs only to prove one error.
Pick up a copy of the New International Version, there are within, footnotes
highlighting variations between various source manuscripts (ie the verse ‘for
God so loved the earth that he gave his only begotten son’ does not occur in all
manuscripts). Since where this happens both versions of the manuscript cannot be
correct one has to be in error…..
This shows that God has failed to prevent 'inerrant copying/propagation' the
Bibles text, and therefore some manuscripts are in error.
Further we have no way of telling which version is correct, and worse they might
all be incorrect, with the original 'correct' version lost. Hence every verse of
the bible must therefore be treated as suspect and so the whole thing is the
next best thing to 'completely bloody useless/.'
Also given the above even if the original was inerrant, we have no way of
knowing what it said……….. "
Our response: I disagree.
The term "inerrancy," as defined by essentially all Christians, refers only to the
original, autograph copies of each book in the Bible being without error. Of
course, none of them exist today. "Inerrancy" says nothing about subsequent copies
which probably do contain errors. Some errors are simple copyist mistakes.
Others involve the incorporation of margin notes written by someone other than
the author into a copy of the text. Some are intentional forgeries. And so on.
However, I agree with you that a case can be made that the Bible is errant. Some
might argue that the term "inerrancy" is meaningless when there is no consensus
on what the Bible actually means; the Bible is clearly ambiguous. Jewish, Muslim
and Christian theologians approach the Hebrew Scriptures with different
foundational beliefs and thus interpret passages in the Bible very differently.
Even among fundamentalist and other evangelical Christians, there are often
major disagreements about what the Bible means. InterVarsity Press, Zondervan, and
other publishers produce books that illustrate this. One is the book by Robert & Bonnidell Clouse titled: "Women
in ministry: Four Views." In this type of book,
a number of leading evangelical Christian theologians explain their diverse
personal views on a specific topic, and critique each others beliefs.
It is worth noting that each of the authors is intelligent, sincere, serious,
devout, thoughtful and supremely confident that their own belief is the only one
that is biblically based. Yet, their conclusions conflict with each other. This
series of books illustrates very clearly some of the ambiguities which are found
in the Bible. It is difficult -- impossible for some -- to harmonize a Bible
that is both ambiguous and inerrant.
