Debatetag:www.spiritualtramp.com,2008:/debate//42008-07-11T20:41:16ZThis is the blog where we debate stuff!Movable Type 3.32Sid's 1st Rebuttaltag:www.spiritualtramp.com,2007:/debate//4.1992007-04-26T21:55:10Z2007-05-07T18:01:33ZHello Scott, For simplicity’s sake, may I refer to your position as the Sanctity of Life Ethic (SLE for short)? I’ll use that title in this counter-rebuttal and replace it with a title that you prefer if necessary. You may...Sid Faiwu
Hello Scott,
For simplicity’s sake, may I refer to your position as the Sanctity of Life Ethic (SLE for short)? I’ll use that title in this counter-rebuttal and replace it with a title that you prefer if necessary. You may refer to my position as the Quality of Life Ethic (QLE), if you’d like. I will first critique your opening position and then move on to your first rebuttal.
what criteria would you suggest we use to determine when a fetus earns a right to life? Based on your statement, “we are the most like God than any other creature. That lends a great deal of value to all human lives”, the criteria seems to involve how ‘God-like’ a being is. When you say that humans are ‘created in the image and likeness of God’, you seem to mean that we are like God in the sense that we can think, reflect on those thoughts, and morally judge our own and others’ actions. If it is in this sense that we are God-like, than ‘God-likeness’ is very similar to my definition of ‘personhood’. Also, it is clear that not all individuals are like God to the same degree. It would be ridiculous to claim that God is as much like a brain-dead individual as God is like you or me. Furthermore, under any reasonable and non-physical explanation of how we are like God will admit that there are degrees of God-likeness or personhood within our species.
Your first rebuttal was well written and brought up some very interesting and important points. To start, let me remind you that personhood is not my ‘sole measuring stick’ for moral consideration. It is only a modifier within my QLE framework; the ability to suffer plays a primary role. My main point was that one’s degree of personhood often affects one’s ability to suffer, which is why it needs to be taken into account. Thus only differences in personhood that effect suffering are important in drawing ethical distinctions.
Considering this clarification, your objection based on the reduced personhood of people with lower IQ or physically disabled is addressed. The differences between a physically normal person and a quadriplegic person have no impact on their ability to suffer. Therefore, they both are entitled to the same moral consideration. The same is true for IQ differences. Unless someone’s IQ is severely impaired, the person’s ability to suffer is not affected.
Another object to the QLE that you present is that our culture values saving the lives of children and elderly over saving the lives of able bodied adults. This seems to suggest that we intuitively value the lives of those will less personhood than those with more. I would argue that what we really value is the person’s willingness to save those unable to save themselves. What we are doing as a culture is relying on intuition that approximates a complex moral calculation. On average, those with high degrees of personhood are more likely to be able to save themselves. Thus we reserve greater praise for someone who doesn’t waste effort saving an individual with a high chance of survival and instead spends that effort saving someone with a lower chance. The net effect on a grand scale is that more people survive.
Another of your objections has some validity. A reason that we might value the life of a child over the life of an adult is because the potential personhood a child possesses. This is the argument from potentiality. This argument states that a fetus has the potential to become a full person, thus a fetus/unborn child should have the same rights as a person. The problem with this line of reasoning is that it can be used to justify giving fewer rights to beings as well as more. I have the potential to become a corpse, yet no one (I hope) would claim that I should have the same rights as a corpse! Clearly one’s potential cannot be the only criteria on which we grant moral worth.
Despite this problem, I think that potential personhood must play some role in the calculus of the QLE. On this, we agree. The problem is determining what role. Any inclusion of potential must be modified by the probability of achieving that potential. For this reason, I would agree that a blastocyst shouldn’t receive the same moral consideration as a third trimester fetus/unborn child since the blastocyst has much lower of a chance of realizing its potential personhood. As a result, actual personhood should receive more consideration than potential personhood. Thus even with taking potentiality into account, a mother’s suffering carries more moral weight than that of her fetus/unborn child.
Does motivation play into my thoughts? The simple answer is yes. It matters in its relation to suffering, of course. I’ll give an example in relation to abortion. Consider two expecting women. Woman A suffers from minor but chronic back pain while pregnant. Woman B suffers from brittle bone disease. Carrying a child to term would be extraordinarily painful and would likely cripple her permanently. These two women would have very different motivations for having an abortion. Clearly having an abortion would reduce the suffering of woman B far more than it would for woman A. Therefore, woman B has far more moral justification for an abortion than woman A. Is it morally permissible for mother A to have an abortion? Well that leads to your other question...
At what point does the life of a fetus/unborn child gain its own importance? Well, the moment it can suffer. The real question is at what point does the fetus/unborn child’s potential personhood carry as much weight as the mother’s suffering? It depends on the level of suffering. I think that the mother is best able to answer the question. She is best able to determine her own level of suffering and thus has the most information to perform the moral calculus.
I eagerly await your response.
]]>
Scott's Response tag:www.spiritualtramp.com,2007:/debate//4.2042007-05-07T17:58:17Z2007-05-07T17:59:19ZI really need to come up with catchy/significant titels for these posts. Anyway, here's my response. SLE vs. QLE is good enough shorthand. You asked what criteria I would suggest we use to determine “personhood”. For purposes of this discussion...Scott Rochehttp://www.spiritualtramp.com
I really need to come up with catchy/significant titels for these posts. Anyway, here's my response.
SLE vs. QLE is good enough shorthand. You asked what criteria I would suggest we use to determine “personhood”. For purposes of this discussion and to avoid this blowing up into a debate that involves euthanasia (though that could certainly be grist for future mills here) I would say that at the point the fetus becomes viable outside the womb is the point at which it has the rights of a person. Before then, which as best I can tell given current levels of technology is twenty-two to twenty-three weeks, I still believe that it is a person, but it becomes more difficult for me to tell someone that they are committing an immoral act in having an abortion. When a mother loses her baby naturally at a very early stage I would perfectly understand them mourning the loss. So I do believe that conception is the point at which life begins, but while they are completely dependent on the womb environment the rights of the mother take precedent. During that time it is as much a part of her body as any other. Once it is capable of independence, it should be granted that possibility.
When I talk about us being created in the image and likeness of God, I don’t necessarily mean that the more like God one is the more of a person they are. Considering I believe that God is so much more, infinitely more than we are, we can’t approach what God is. As such I don’t think that an adult is more like God than a child or if they are then it’s a matter of an infinitesimal difference. It comes back to that matter of potential, I suppose. In regards to a brain-dead individual, I would say that they are not like God of course since they don’t even have the potential to reason, emote, etc. So for me at least, one is either a person or one is not, there are no degrees per se.
So speaking of that let’s talk a little about potential. You talk about the likelihood for that argument to grant us fewer rights. After all, you say, you have the potential to be a corpse. I’ve often heard this brought up and I’d say that’s not a potential, that’s a certainty. In our culture even corpses have rights, but no one argues that you should have the same rights as a corpse, because a corpse is not a person. No one argues that they are, so this strikes me as a bit of a red herring. Now if the corpse had potential to become a person I could see an argument for giving corpses the same rights as a person, but not the other way ‘round. In my mind a fetus is a person, so the potential is not the possibility that they will become a person. It’s not a serious state change (dead to alive), but the idea that given time they will come to be someone just like you or I. It’s a matter of degrees. Even if that baby will come out with Down’s Syndrome, that doesn’t mean that they lose the chance to experience existence as best they can. When you say a” blastocyst has much lower of a chance of realizing its potential personhood”, I assume that you’re talking about statistical chances. For me that doesn’t really enter into the equation. I always try to assume what the best case scenario would be when I make a moral decision. If there is any chance that the baby can come to full development, then it should be allowed to. Of course things are never that simple and if, as in your examples of woman A and woman B, there is near certainty that it would cause a great deal of harm for a woman to carry to term, I think it would be morally permissible for her to abort so long as she did it early on. Of course, in my opinion it would be better for her to take every possible precaution not to get pregnant including, but not limited to sterilization.
I’d be interested in hearing more from you concerning the idea of suffering. What does it mean to suffer? Is it strictly speaking mental? If I were to assault someone who was unable to feel the pain physically, but was still mentally acute or vice versa is this different morally from assaulting someone who had all of their faculties? And while the mother can certainly determine her level of suffering, how certain can she be of what level her child is capable of? Should she always assume that her level would outweigh that of her child’s? I can’t help but think that this sort of reasoning could extend beyond the point of a child being born. If a two year old is causing their mother to suffer, should the mother be allowed to take extreme action to end it? And then you need to examine the mother’s ability to ascertain their own level of suffering. A fourteen year old doesn’t usually possess the tools necessary to make that assessment. Given that, would it be moral for a teenage mother to abort? So this adds another question to our discussion. It’s not just, at what point is it no longer moral to abort given the baby’s level of development, but also at what point does a mother lose or gain the ability to make that decision?
Sid's 2nd Rebuttaltag:www.spiritualtramp.com,2007:/debate//4.2212007-05-23T21:11:02Z2007-05-24T04:25:39ZIf I understand you correctly, you are claiming that personhood, in practice, is a binary variable; either one is a person or one is not. You deny meaningful degrees of personhood because your basis of comparison, God, is infinite. Since...Sid Faiwu
meaningful degrees of personhood because your basis of comparison, God, is infinite. Since God has so much more personhood than anyone else, the minor difference in personhood between two humans is negligible.
But if we follow this reasoning a little further, I think we will reach a conclusion unacceptable to both of us. We would be forced to equate our personhood to that of a dog, for instance. After all, when we consider the difference between our personhood and a dog’s, it is nothing in comparison with God’s infinite personhood. Denying degrees of personhood between humans based on comparison with infinite personhood also denies degrees of personhood between species. A proponent of SLE would be forced to conclude that humans are not deserving of any special moral consideration based on our likeness to God. I assume that you do not agree with this conclusion thus you must accept that the premise is faulty. Therefore meaningful degrees of personhood (or God-likeness, for the religiously inclined) exist between some humans.
You do have a valid point in your rebuttal to my ‘potential corpse’ reasoning. The state-change from living to dead is (often) such a drastic difference that moral comparisons may not be applicable. Still, the argument for potential can be used to justify the restriction of rights. All of us have the potential to become senile, yet no one claims that we should have the same rights of the mentally incompetent. Again, I can see potential playing some role in moral considerations, I just don’t know exactly what it is and am hoping you can shed some light on this.
This leads me to another train of thought. I’m confident that you would agree that one who is senile is still created in the image and likeness of God (a person), yet we don’t grant them the rights of a mentally capable adult; the power of attorney, for instance. Nor do we grant equal rights to children based on their potential to become adults. If not degrees of personhood, what criteria are you using to justify the differing moral rights?
You legitimately ask me to define my use of the term ‘suffering’. Since my QLE is rooted on this concept, I should have carefully defined it at the outset. Suffering occurs when any entity cannot fulfill any of its interests. Anything that lives has an interest in not dying, anything that can feel pain has an interest in not being in pain, anything that is hungry has an interest in feeding, etc. An otherwise normal person who cannot feel pain has only one less interest than the rest of us, that individual doesn’t have an interest in avoiding pain. He/She will still have an interest in avoiding injury, scars, bruises, wasted time, the emotional impacts of being a victim, and so forth. Thus assaulting this individual would only be marginally less immoral than anyone else.
Another question you asked is how a woman can determine the level of suffering her fetus is capable of. Well, we need to take into account the varying interests at play here. As a living thing, a fetus has an interest in living and, after a certain amount of development, a fetus has a central nervous system and has an interest not experiencing pain, but that seems to be the extent of it. I know of no evidence of any other interests of a human fetus. An adult woman, by way of contrast, has both of these interest plus many more, such as an interest in avoiding the pain, expense, inconvenience, emotional hardships, and health risks of childbirth. Her multitude of interests trumps those of the fetus.
Using this version of the QLE, it is easy to see why a woman’s prerogative does not extend to after the birth of the child, at least not in our modern society. The main suffering a postpartum mother would experience result from the on-going care of the infant. Infanticide is not justifiable because our society provides an alternative that does not infringe upon the infant’s interest in survival and does not require the mother to assume additional suffering; adoption or foster care. There is no question that these options are morally superior to infanticide since they reduce the suffering experienced by the infant without significantly increasing suffering for any other person. For this reason, post-birth is the rational point to grant a human a moral right to life.
]]>
Miraclestag:www.spiritualtramp.com,2007:/debate//4.3812007-12-13T16:38:10Z2007-12-13T16:44:52ZThis series of posts will be to preserve an interesting discussion had on my main blog regarding miracles. This was my original post. What follows after are comments made on this post. Back in October I said that I would...Scott Rochehttp://www.spiritualtramp.comThis series of posts will be to preserve an interesting discussion had on my main blog regarding miracles. This was my original post. What follows after are comments made on this post.Back in October I said that I would post something on miracles. This was, as best my memory can recall, "inspired" by a conversation I'd had with Sid over lunch. Recently I read a challenging post on Steve Sensenig's blog titled You Might Be Misrepresenting God If…. Steve and challenging posts go together like peanut butter and chocolate but this one was particularly good. Drawing from Jeff Foxworthy for format, if not inspiration, he posited this, "If you believe that sight to the blind, hearing to the deaf, freedom to the captives, and walking to the lame were only for first-century “verification of the message”, you might be misrepresenting God."
So here we are. Miracles.
Miracle has got to be the most over used word in the entirety of the English language. How's that for hyperbole? People talk about how miraculous a baby's birth was or the rising of the sun. These things are wonderful and inspiring, sure, but miraculous? Hardly. I'd call a miracle an event that happens in which the natural laws of the universe are set aside or overridden by God; raising people from the dead, the above mentioned sight to the blind, etc.
Steve's point is that miracles still happen today. I'm not so sure that's the case. He challenged me to show him a "biblical defense of cessationism and how it’s not taken out of context". I'm not so sure I can do that since I'm not a hard core cessationist when it comes to the miraculous. I do think that it's possible for God to continue to perform miracles. I'm not, as commenter Phil Hawkins said, "telling God how He’s allowed to operate". All I said to Steve was that I don't see them happening today. Sure I hear second hand stories about churches in third world countries doing great things, but nothing here outside of the usual suspects on the fringes of Charismatic space.
Steve posited that because of a lack of faith on the part of us here in the west, we shouldn't expect to see miracles. It is true certainly that when Jesus and the boys performed miracles, faith on the part of the recipient and in some cases even the region they were in was required. He calls cessationism "a self-fulfilling belief system". He says that we should be teaching miracles as part of the message and that not to do so is "brushing them aside and saying they don’t have relevance for today" and that someone who doesn't teach them is altering the gospel. He does agree that the miracles are not the most important part of the message, but they're there for a reason and we ignore that at our peril and/or detriment.
I agree with him that they're there for a reason and that they shouldn't be ignored. I said this regarding cessationsim, “I think that a fair amount of accusations of scripture twisting goes on on both sides to no one’s advantage. I’ve witnessed things in my life that I would term miraculous. Not on the “level” of blind seeing and lame walking, but certainly events where people were cured of afflictions wherein God played a large part. So, on this matter I sort of straddle the fence. I’m not aware of dead folks walking or lepers being made whole in the present day, but I think that the greatest miracle is men like you and I coming to Christ.” And I stand by it.
I think that on this, as is the case with a number of Biblical issues, folks engage in cherry picking scriptures to support what they believe. Steve hasn’t done that to my knowledge. I will say that the cessationist folks are guiltier of that, but to be fair most of the charismatics that I’ve run across in arguing this point simply say, as Steve has, that what cessationists have amounts to an argument from silence. So there’s no need to bring scripture in to defend their pov.
Here’s what I believe regarding the miracles in the Bible and the present day. I think that the Biblical miracles really happened. I think that God can continue to perform miracles as he sees fit. After all, as the writer of Hebrews said, “God also testified to it [great salvation] by signs, wonders and various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will.” So who am I to say any different? I think that miracles still happen and will continue to do so. I don’t think that most Christians who say that they’ve spoken in tongues really know what the Bible means when it talks about that. I don’t think that we’re seeing fewer miracles today because of the state of faith in our world. Miracles are by definition rare things. So to have this thing occupy a major portion of your theology and to go around in circles looking for support one way or another is indeed wasting cycles, if that’s all you’re doing.
Christ said “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do, he will do also; and greater works than these he will do; because I go to the Father.” Does that mean that next week I can raise someone from the dead? No, I don’t think so. What I think it means is that this week I can talk to people about my faith. It means that I can love the people in my community sacrificially. What does he mean by “greater works”? Frankly, I don’t know. I think that greater might mean greater in scope. We have the opportunity to take the message of God’s love into places unheard of in Jesus’ time. I’m more than willing to admit that I could be wrong though. If you are hardcore one way or the other I’d be curious as to know why.]]>
First Comment Stringtag:www.spiritualtramp.com,2007:/debate//4.3822007-12-13T16:45:11Z2007-12-13T17:18:27ZPosted on December 10, 2007 14:09:55 sidfaiwu: As you know, Scott, I take neither side of the cessationist debate. From a materialist's perspective 'miracle' means a rare, unlikely, and unexplained event. No supernatural causation or suspension of the rules is...Scott Rochehttp://www.spiritualtramp.com
Posted on December 10, 2007 14:09:55
sidfaiwu:
As you know, Scott, I take neither side of the cessationist debate. From a materialist's perspective 'miracle' means a rare, unlikely, and unexplained event. No supernatural causation or suspension of the rules is necessary.
Your mention of Steve's challenge caught my attention. Paraphrasing, he said "Show me a biblical defense of cessationism and how it’s not taken out of context". This challenge is only persuasive if one is a strict constructionist of the Bible. That is, if one believes that all things that are true are contained within the Bible.
I would argue that a strict constructionist interpretation is the incorrect one. There are certainly things that are true that are not contained in the Bible. Take for instance the Fundamental Theorem of Algebra (simplified): a polynomial of degree n has at most n real roots. Thus it is possible that cessationism is both true and not in the Bible.
One might limit their strict constructionism to theology. In other words, one can say that the Bible contains all theological things that are true. I would respond to this with a challenge of my own. Show me a biblical defense of the Trinity and how it’s not taken out of context.
Posted on December 10, 2007 14:09Steve Sensenig:
Some great thoughts here. First of all, to answer Sid in the comment above, I am not a strict constructionist. The point in asking for a biblical defense of cessationism is not because I believe the only proof for continualism lies in scripture, but because cessationism usually is tied to a particular view of scripture being the ultimate authority (i.e., the "sufficiency" of scripture). On that basis, I prefer to discuss cessationism with cessationists on the basis of biblical support, taking the argument onto "their turf", so to speak. Does that make sense?
Scott, my reply to you is too lengthy for the comment stream, so I'll post it on my blog.
Posted on December 10, 2007 20:31Steve Sensenig:Here ya go, bro (link to my response)
Posted on December 10, 2007 21:15Steve Sensenig:
By the way, Scott, do you have any sources for "miracles by definition are rare"? I'm having trouble finding that as a definition of "miracle". God intervening in natural affairs, yes. Rare? Not seeing that.
Posted on December 10, 2007 21:21Scott:
Well Merriam says this:
1: an extraordinary event manifesting divine intervention in human affairs
2: an extremely outstanding or unusual event, thing, or accomplishment
If you're looking for something more Biblical the word itself and the events described as miraculous are pretty rare. You have a better definition w/ sources?
]]>
Second Comment Stringtag:www.spiritualtramp.com,2007:/debate//4.3832007-12-13T16:58:48Z2007-12-13T17:17:29ZPosted on December 10, 2007 21:57 Steve Sensenig: Well, the definitions I was looking at (via dictionary.com which culls from many different sources, including the one you quoted) emphasize the supernatural aspect of a miracle, rather than the frequency of...Scott Rochehttp://www.spiritualtramp.com
Posted on December 10, 2007 21:57
Steve Sensenig:
Well, the definitions I was looking at (via dictionary.com which culls from many different sources, including the one you quoted) emphasize the supernatural aspect of a miracle, rather than the frequency of it. However, I see what you are inferring from the bolded words there.
One thing that may be interfering here is the use of the word "miracle" itself. But if we are talking about the same thing, I'm not sure how you are concluding that healings, etc. described are "rare" in the accounts of the gospels and Acts. It appears to me, without publishing a full list of references here, that there is a tremendous amount of ink spilled in the gospels detailing healings that were performed. Am I exaggerating the case?
In fact, what's even more interesting to me is how casual the writers often are. For example, Matthew 8:14-16 speaks rather casually about the fact that Jesus healed Peter's mother-in-law, and then many were brought to him to be healed. And he healed them all. Matthew sounds very matter-of-fact about it. But he doesn't use the word "miracle", so maybe that's what's throwing us off in this discussion.
Another case could be made from the fact that when Matthew 13:58 says that Jesus didn't do many miracles in Nazareth because of the unbelief, would this not imply that doing "many miracles" was a regular part of his ministry elsewhere? For example, Luke 7:19-22 says (again rather casually) that Jesus healed many people of diseases, illnesses, and evil spirits in a particular situation.
The matter-of-fact method of reporting these healings seems to discount the notion that they were "rare", wouldn't you say?
Through all of this, though, we're losing the original question that started this whole conversation this time around. Were those healings that Jesus and his disciples did solely for the purpose of authenticating the message (a role purportedly supplanted by the completion of canon)? Or are they part of the actual message of the kingdom that is announced?
We won't "waste cycles" if we get back to that question :)
Posted on December 11, 2007 07:49 Scott:
I'd say regarding the rarity of miracles that there was certainly a veritable plethora of miracles surrounding Jesus and his apostles. In the larger scope of the world though they were certainly rare and special. But you're correct, we could chase our tails for hours on nailing down a strict definition.
I think a large part of the purpose behind them was to authenticate Jesus and his messengers. I understand that there were a number of messiah claimants around Jesus' time and following. And of course we're told that there will be more and that they/he will perform miracles to "prove" he is who he says he is. So we can't discount that.
Is that the only reason? I'd say no. Jesus also perrformed miracles because he loved these people. He wants them whole. They want to be whole and believe that he can heal them. Part of the message is that wholeness that a relationship with Jesus can bring. I won't limit that to some sort of "spiritual" wholeness either, but I think that the spiritual part is more important. Just as Jesus performed these miracles he also spoke strongly about people who sought him out just for the signs and wonders he could perform.
So, the miracles are part of the message absolutely. The resurrection is part of the message. Remaining broken and seeking God's grace in our brokeness (sic) is part of the message. Anything that's part of the grand story put forth in the Bible is part of the message. Does that mean that the miraculous healings, speaking in tongues, etc. are now or should be now a part of everyday Christian life? Should miracles of those sorts be something that we should expect? Should we question our faith if an annointing of oil doesn't cure someone? Should we question theirs? I don't have the answers for those questions. ]]>
Third Comment Stringtag:www.spiritualtramp.com,2007:/debate//4.3842007-12-13T17:05:40Z2007-12-13T17:16:37ZPosted on December 11, 2007 09:14 Steve Sensenig: So, the miracles are part of the message absolutely.... Does that mean that the miraculous healings, speaking in tongues, etc. are now or should be now a part of everyday Christian life?...Scott Rochehttp://www.spiritualtramp.com
Posted on December 11, 2007 09:14
Steve Sensenig:
So, the miracles are part of the message absolutely.... Does that mean that the miraculous healings, speaking in tongues, etc. are now or should be now a part of everyday Christian life?
If it's part of the message, I think it makes sense to respond to your question with: why not? That's really the whole point of my initial question. On what basis do we 1) not teach about them (apart from historical referencing), and/or 2) not expect them?
BTW, I'm not sure I see where you get the "remaining broken" concept from scripture. How can being whole and remaining broken co-exist in the same message? I don't ever see remaining broken being preached by Jesus or his apostles, but I'm possibly missing something. Care to elaborate? Or do you want me to leave you alone now? ;)
Posted on December 11, 2007 09:29Kansas Bob:
As a 30+ year charismatic I guess I am somewhere in the middle on miracles.
I think that the mainstreaming of miracles by certain sects of Christianity keeps people in denial and doesn't help them grieve the loss of life changes and life itself.. Christian Science, Jehovah Witnesses and some Word of Faith theologies come to mind.
Having said that I always come down on the side of prayer.. my first wife was blind and was healed in her left eye when people prayed.. it just is not a formula.
And about the connection of faith and miracles.. I am okay with people talking about it as long as they don't start spiritual detective work when the miracle doesn't come.. Job shows us that bad things happen even when there is faith and no sin.
Posted on December 11, 2007 11:39Scott: So we come again to the question, when you say "teach about them" what does that mean/look like?
Re: brokeness, the last half of Romans 7 is a good start.
Posted on December 11, 2007 12:24Larry Eiss:
With regard to the last half of Romans 7:
As I know you understand, Paul is talking about the struggle between his flesh and his spirit. This struggle remains because it is the spirit that is re-created at the new birth. We have the same old flesh until the day of glorification. Yet when Jesus healed, He made the blind see, the deaf hear, the lame walk, and the physically dead live.
To me the only sort of brokeness (sic) being dealt with in regard to what we call miracles is physical. We generally do not discuss regeneration as miraculous--though it is without a doubt the biggest miracle of all.
Of course never having facilitated or observed a bona-fide "miracle" in the physical realm myself, what do I know?
Grace and peace Brother, and thanks for the interesting discussion!
]]>
Fourth Comment Stringtag:www.spiritualtramp.com,2007:/debate//4.3852007-12-13T17:09:46Z2007-12-13T17:15:38ZPosted on December 11, 2007 14:19 Scott: Thanks Bob! I agree that we have to be careful not to try and explain that which we cannot know (why someone is struggling, why a paryer "didn't work", etc.). Posted on December...Scott Rochehttp://www.spiritualtramp.com
Posted on December 11, 2007 14:19
Scott:
Thanks Bob! I agree that we have to be careful not to try and explain that which we cannot know (why someone is struggling, why a paryer "didn't work", etc.).
Posted on December 11, 2007 14:34Scott:
Larry, I appreciate you stopping by. When I talked about remaining broken I feel the need to clarify. I wasn't talking about remaining broken on purpose. Also I think the brokeness (is that spelled right?) can be physical or spiritual. Paul prayed for a removal of a thorn and some believe that was a physical affliciton, others don't. Either way I know I've prayed for removal of my own thorns. Some God saw fit to remove. Others he's given me grace to deal with. That's what I mean there.
Posted on December 11, 2007 14:38Scott:
Brokenness. Boy that just doesn't look right.
Posted on December 11, 2007 14:41pinakidion: Steve: I read from your post the hows of a miracle.
The people receiving the miracle believed it was possible, and
The person facilitating the miracle (or at times, someone on their behalf) believed it was possible. That seems to be an incredibly common factor throughout. Enough of a factor that I don’t think we can dismiss it too easily.
With these criteria, the Widow of Nain miracle is an odd event. It was done without the faith of those present.
When Paul cast out the demon from the fortune-telling slave girl, her owners certainly did not have faith. In fact, they did not even want the spirit out of her. Paul did it to basically silence the spirit, even though it was giving positive testimony about Paul and his companions.
If the faith of the facilitator is all that is needed, then Jesus would have been able to perform miracles in Nazareth, despite the lack of faith.
Back to the Widow of Nain for a moment. When the people declared that a great prophet was amongst them, there is no record that Jesus corrected them. To say that this miracle was for the Kingdom message, it would seem odd that the people were not corrected in their error.
Along those lines, maybe Paul wasn't so pragmatic as to allow a spirit to testify to his message.
It could be that the Widow of Nain miracle was done for the faith of John the Baptist. (Luke 7:14 - 23 follows the text of the Widow of Nain) I would still like to believe that it was done because, and only because, Jesus had compassion on a woman that literally lost everything she had when her only son died.
As for my view, I'd do the best I can. In short, God's will is not subject to our control. We cannot make God heal someone. Fact is, there are some people he does not heal despite prayers, faith, testimony, and the like. No one knows why except God alone.
Point is that miracles are like any other prayer. God can say 'no'. Why he didn't say 'no' to Paul or early Christians is his prerogative. He said yes to a church during Irenaeus's time. To quote:
But so far do they come short of raising the dead, as the Lord raised them, and the apostles through prayer. And oftentimes in the brotherhood, when, on account of some necessity, our entire Church has besought with fasting and much supplication, the spirit of the dead has returned, and the man has been restored through the prayers of the saints.
So that leaves me to believe that miracles are the realm of the God's Will. Not the message, the promise, the evidence or the anything else...
]]>
Fifth Comment Stringtag:www.spiritualtramp.com,2007:/debate//4.3862007-12-13T17:20:07Z2007-12-13T17:23:14ZPosted on December 11, 2007 15:27 Steve Sensenig: I have been away from the computer for most of the afternoon and evening, so I am behind on comments. I'm sorry, guys. I simply responded with another post because I had...Scott Rochehttp://www.spiritualtramp.com
Posted on December 11, 2007 15:27
Steve Sensenig:
I have been away from the computer for most of the afternoon and evening, so I am behind on comments. I'm sorry, guys.
I simply responded with another post because I had way too much to say to both the comments here and the comments on my blog.
Sorry about that.
Posted on December 11, 2007 21:32Scott:
Well then you're fired. ;-)
Posted on December 11, 2007 22:24pinakidion:
Steve: I'm answering here because this is my friend Scott's site and the source of the original question.
Before responding, brother Steve, I feel it necessary to say that tone doesn't always come across in comments. I want to be clear, but not antagonistic. I do not agree with you in some points, but it does not mean that such an issue needs to divide. You have very good-naturedly asked men and women of faith to think. I have, but have arrived at different conclusions than you. That's not always a bad thing and it doesn't mean that I am right.
1. Those of you who believe that God is not always willing to heal, can you explain to me the basis for that belief?
In Luke 4, Jesus says
I assure you that there were many widows in Israel in Elijah's time, when the sky was shut for three and a half years and there was a severe famine throughout the land. Yet Elijah was not sent to any of them, but to a widow in Zarephath in the region of Sidon. And there were many in Israel with leprosy in the time of Elisha the prophet, yet not one of them was cleansed—only Naaman the Syrian.
From a modern perspective it is from observation. Faithful men and women have prayed and believed for healing and it did not come. Sometimes it did come and I rejoiced with them. My father has been healed. Other friends and family have also. Some have not and I mourn their loss. On a personal note, my two children have not been healed despite the prayers and faith of many.
This has lead me to Romans 9 where the clay cannot ask the potter, "Why did you make me this way?". This would be depressing had it not been preceded by Romans 8:28. I take great comfort that all things will work out for the good.
2. Those of you who believe that faith is not an important part of receiving a healing, can you explain to me how you answer the numerous times (and they are quite plentiful — just read through the first four books of the New Testament) that Jesus mentions faith with regard to the healing?
Intentionally or not, you are presenting this as an all or nothing statement. The Widow of Nain's son was healed without faith, but through compassion of our Lord. The fortune telling spirit of the slave girl was cast out when her owners clearly didn't want her to be 'healed'. This means that until these two exceptions are addressed,it cannot be said that faith is a requirement of healing. Address these two clear examples first.
3. Those of you who believe that the completion of the canon supplanted the healings and miraculous events of the first century, can you explain the basis for that belief, please?
I don't believe this totally. As I mentioned, there was a resurrection during Iraneus' time (although that was before the canon was set.) I'm just answering here for completeness.
]]>
Sixth Comment Stringtag:www.spiritualtramp.com,2007:/debate//4.3872007-12-13T17:23:40Z2007-12-13T17:29:15ZPosted on December 12, 2007 01:51 Steve Sensenig: pinakidion, even though Scott has fired me, I wanted to take a moment to respond to you! ;) Thank you for your gracious response. Using your numbers: 1. I'm not positive that...Scott Rochehttp://www.spiritualtramp.com
Posted on December 12, 2007 01:51
Steve Sensenig: pinakidion, even though Scott has fired me, I wanted to take a moment to respond to you! ;)
Thank you for your gracious response.
Using your numbers:
1. I'm not positive that your take on Luke 4 takes the context of that comment of Jesus fully into consideration. In the context, he is talking about the fact that a prophet is not welcome in his own town. The point of the comments about Elijah are that there were miracles done for people outside of Israel. Why? Contextually, because Elijah was not welcome in Israel. It's not talking about people in Israel asking for miracles or healing, and God denying their request.
Experience is a hard thing to argue with, and I am trying to be careful with my words. I, too, have prayed for healings/miracles that never happened. But I can say this, based on my own experience: I was always taught to pray (and did, in fact, pray) along the lines of, "God, if it is your will to heal here..." with the net effect that I was never fully convinced that it actually was. I think that culturally, we experience a whole lot more unbelief than we even realize.
For example, when James says that a sick person should call for the elders, etc., he doesn't say, "And if God chooses to, they will be healed." He says simply, "And they will be healed." Yet, I hear this passage explained away by saying, "This really means that if it's God's will..." Why can't we just take what it says?
There is a very well-known quadriplegic who has stated with certainty that they don't want God to heal them because they are afraid they would not be as close to God. Then that person is held up as an example by others of someone that God has "chosen not to heal". Huh? This person has said they don't want to be healed!! Is it any wonder that they aren't?
A friend of mine spent some time in Africa. She reported when she came back some pretty phenomenal things. She said that she was actually afraid to talk about them here in the US because people were cynical about what she shared. We asked her why she thought those things were happening there, and she said, "The people there expect these things. There's no question of whether or not they will happen. They just believe." That seems to match biblical accounts, in my opinion.
With regard to Romans 9, again, I think there is a very important context to that highly-debated passage. I'll be the first to admit that I don't have nearly all the answers on Romans 9, but again, as I've tried to point out, why base our belief on something that is not clear? Romans 9 is not referencing physical healing at all! It's talking about salvation, etc. James 5:14-16 talks specifically about healing. The gospels talk specifically about healing. And none of those passages that speak specifically about healing ever give any "loopholes" that I can see with regard to what God desires to do, and what God chooses to do when asked. As I challenged in my last post, show me one place where someone asked for healing and God said "no".
Might Romans 9 have bearing on the subject? Maybe! :) But like you said on number 2, I'll say to you. Unless you first deal with the very clear passages regarding healing, I don't think we can adequately pull Romans 9 into the discussion.
2. I think you misunderstood what I was trying to get at. I was not saying that healings or miracles never come without faith. Rather, I was saying that those appear to be the exception, rather than the rule. My question was addressed to those who challenged my use of "faith" in the discussion at all by saying that gives credit to man (a common false dichotomy in theological discussions). I wasn't trying to ignore your point, but just felt that your point lies outside the scope of the point I was trying to make. Does that make sense?
Also, I never pointed this out in my ramblings on this subject, but when I studied healing in the gospels and Acts, the "faith" aspect only ever seems tied to physical healing. Casting out demons seemed to be handled differently than physical healings in that permission was never sought, or faith never questioned with regard to whether or not Jesus or the disciples were going to cast them out. It's impossible to ask a demon-possessed person if he wants to be free, and it's pretty futile to ask a demon if he wants to be cast out! ;)
3. You said you weren't really responding to my question, so I don't need to clarify anything here.
Scott, I'm SO sorry for the length here. I keep trying to keep it brief, but there is so much to be said.
]]>
Seventh Comment Stringtag:www.spiritualtramp.com,2007:/debate//4.3882007-12-13T17:30:05Z2007-12-13T17:31:16ZPosted on December 12, 2007 09:45 pinakidion: Length? Who cares about length? RSS feeds make it pretty readable. :) I agree that there is a lack of faith in the US. I agree that more needs to be taught about...Scott Rochehttp://www.spiritualtramp.com
Posted on December 12, 2007 09:45
pinakidion:
Length? Who cares about length? RSS feeds make it pretty readable. :)
I agree that there is a lack of faith in the US. I agree that more needs to be taught about faith, not just theology.
At a fundamental level, Steve, you and I practice a different hermeneutic. As such, I think we can quote a lot of Scripture and still speak past each other. Too many things are interconnected in my mind to narrow the scope down to what you are suggesting. Besides, I think that your position leads to Christian Science beliefs and the like. It leads to questions of using medicine at all, visiting doctors, blood transfusions, etc.
There is no verse that states my position directly. In this regard, it is similar to my belief in the Trinity. No verse says "Jesus is God, separate but equal" or "The Holy Spirit is God, separate from the Son and the Father, but still one." My belief in the Trinity comes from Jesus' indirect claims.
1. With all the sick in Jerusalem and elsewhere, God chose to heal a foreigner, Naaman. Naaman was not a man of faith, he was upset at the instructions given. A servant advised him to try dipping in the river 7 times because it wouldn't hurt anything to do so.
Naaman was not healed by his faith, but his obedience. This deals more with question 2, but is fruitful to point out here.
Elisha was given the power to heal only two people. The Shunammite son and Naaman. With all the other sick in Israel, Elisha was not given power to heal any of them. This makes God selective. Does God say, "NO"? It doesn't say. It only shows that God selectively heals.
This leads into question 2. Is faith the criteria that makes God's healing selective? No. Healings have been performed without faith being present. Naaman was not faithful. The Shunammite woman was bitter. The man at the pool of Bethesda was discouraged. The Widow of Nain didn't even ask.
Let's look at the issue a different way, the blind man of Bethsaida required two touches to be healed. Is this because of an incomplete faith the first time? Is this because of an incomplete faith of his friends that begged Jesus to heal him? Why was Jesus' power limited the first time?
Faith is a common element to most of the healings in the NT. I agree with you in that. However, it is not common to all healings. Because it is not common to all healings, I cannot in good conscience teach someone that God wants to heal them (your words) because I do not know the will of God in this matter. I can say that God wants to give them good things and point them to the parable you mentioned. However, I do not consider myself smart enough to read God's mind to know what those good things are.
What is common to all healings in the NT and OT is the sovereign choice of God. For whatever reason, (So that they will know that God is in Israel, confirmation that Jesus' message is from God, convenience, etc.) The Sovereignty of God is more crucial to me. As I read Romans 9 in relation to his Sovereignty and not just salvation, I connect it with the whole question of healings.
In regards to the passage in James, I'm certain that the elders could heal the sick in Jerusalem. I'm sure that when the brothers and sisters confessed their sins, they were able to be healed by the elders. It applies to the recipients of the James' letter.
My church has no elders. Does that mean no one can be healed? I don't think so. The point appears to be that the prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective as evidenced by Elijah. Prayers of righteous people have healed my father and others I know. Prayers by these same righteous people have not healed my children. What else can I conclude other than God is selective? I would like to avoid ugly questions like "Am I more faithful about my father than my children?" "Do my children need some sort of faith to be healed? (They are 7 months and 25 months old.) Who sinned? Me or my children?
I do not believe that God puts people in situations where it is somehow their fault that God has not healed certain people. Again, this leads me to the sovereignty of God.
I hope this makes my position clear. I believe I understand yours, but as I said earlier, I cannot agree as I currently understand it.
]]>
Eigth Comment Stringtag:www.spiritualtramp.com,2007:/debate//4.3892007-12-13T17:31:30Z2007-12-13T17:32:19ZPosted on December 12, 2007 10:36 Steve Sensenig: pinakidion, I do appreciate the tone with which you have engaged this topic with me. I don't hold any illusions of being able to convince you otherwise. And I specifically want to...Scott Rochehttp://www.spiritualtramp.com
Posted on December 12, 2007 10:36
Steve Sensenig:pinakidion, I do appreciate the tone with which you have engaged this topic with me.
I don't hold any illusions of being able to convince you otherwise. And I specifically want to be very careful in dealing with this issue not to imply that I'm questioning anyone's faith. I think you still may be reading statements into my position that aren't there, but it's ok.
Different hermeneutics definitely can pose difficulty in discussions such as this, and I recognize that we would probably continue to talk past each other because of that.
I would simply point out that I think it's worth looking at how much of one's hermeneutic is piecing together things that aren't said vs. dealing with what is actually said. You have acknowledged that some key beliefs you have do not have direct biblical support, and I think that's at least helpful that you recognize that.
The problem often comes in when we draw some inferences out of some not-so-explicit passages and then use those inferences to interpret explicit passages contrary to what is actually stated in them. In those situations, I think we might end up doing more damage to the text than we intend.
At any rate, faith and theology always come down to the very personal level, in my opinion, and at that level, I want to say that I appreciate your openness about your children, and I am praying for you and them. If there is anything specific that you would like me to be praying for, please don't hesitate to email me at steve(at)theologicalmusingsblog(dot)com.
Thanks again for the great discussion. May God bless you and your family.
]]>
Ninth Comment Stringtag:www.spiritualtramp.com,2007:/debate//4.3902007-12-13T17:32:38Z2007-12-13T17:33:26ZPosted on December 13, 2007 07:14 pinakidion: Steve: I have also appreciated your tone as well in this discussion. I do not feel that you have ever questioned my faith or hurt my feelings. Thank you for the prayers. I...Scott Rochehttp://www.spiritualtramp.com
Posted on December 13, 2007 07:14
pinakidion:Steve: I have also appreciated your tone as well in this discussion. I do not feel that you have ever questioned my faith or hurt my feelings. Thank you for the prayers.
I would like to point out that part of one's hermenutic is thinking through the implications of what is taught and an individual's convictions. There are consequences to firmly held beliefs. I believe in adult immersion. One of the implication of that belief is that those that 'pray Jesus into their heart' are not Christians. This can and has been a dividing point. It is imperative for me to think through the implication and consequences of this belief in order to care for the hearts and faith of others.
If I say, "God wants to heal you," there is an implications to how that applies in a person's life, particularly in regards to the medical profession. In not thinking through the implications and consequences of our doctrine, I think we do damage to people's hearts and personal faith more than we intend. Part of any hermeneutic should be an examined faith.
Thank you for the discussion. As always, I will consider what you have thoughtfully shared. I hope the Lord will make it clear to me in His time. I have no doubt that He will. I hope in time to believe differently, to be honest. God bless.
As far as specific prayers, my daughter has had nine surgeries to open the airway in her nose. We are scheduling what may be number ten today. She was born with what is called choanal atresia, or blockages, of both nostrils. She would have died in minutes had she not been tested for it. Because it is so rare, many hospitals do not normally test for it.
My son was also born with choanal atresia (thus the doctor's tested my duaghter) as a part of Goldenhar's Syndrome. His case is mild, but he has some internal skull deformations (though you can't tell from his outward appearance) and moderate deafness in both ears due to a lack of ear canals. He will also probably need to be treated with human growth hormone as he does not produce very much right now.
My son's chonal atresia (nose blockage) was successfully treated after one surgery.
]]>
After much consideration...tag:www.spiritualtramp.com,2008:/debate//4.4462008-02-06T17:16:55Z2008-02-06T17:46:25Zaka laziness, I think I'm ready to respond. Regarding our personhood in relation to God, maybe an analogy will help. I create a clay sculpture in my image. Some are larger, some are smaller. I consider all of them to...Scott Rochehttp://www.spiritualtramp.com
This leads me to another train of thought. I’m confident that you would agree that one who is senile is still created in the image and likeness of God (a person), yet we don’t grant them the rights of a mentally capable adult; the power of attorney, for instance. Nor do we grant equal rights to children based on their potential to become adults. If not degrees of personhood, what criteria are you using to justify the differing moral rights?
So given what I said above, both the senile and the young have a right to live. "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" are among the inalienable rights that the DoI says that we have. I suppose we have branched out from the right to simply exist as a person to other rights, which makes this more complex. For these other rights then it becomes not about someone's personhood, but about qualities that a person has, maturity, intelligence, etc. This gets to how that potential is realized. In my opinion this doesn't make someone more or less deserving of life itself. It only limits how they may express that life, or live it out. The right to power of attorney or to go buy a beer or those sorts of things isn’t inalienable in our society.
Given that, when you say "An adult woman, by way of contrast, has both of these interest plus many more, such as an interest in avoiding the pain, expense, inconvenience, emotional hardships, and health risks of childbirth. Her multitude of interests trumps those of the fetus." I rebut that this woman isn't guaranteed by anything I'm aware of to avoid certain expenses, inconveniences, hardships, etc. Naturally she may want to, but what moral law do you use to ascribe those rights to her? The above "inalienable rights" or only guaranteed insofar as we don't abridge the rights of others. And now this is getting out of moral and into legal areas I think.
Finally given your final paragraph:
Using this version of the QLE, it is easy to see why a woman’s prerogative does not extend to after the birth of the child, at least not in our modern society. The main suffering a postpartum mother would experience result from the on-going care of the infant. Infanticide is not justifiable because our society provides an alternative that does not infringe upon the infant’s interest in survival and does not require the mother to assume additional suffering; adoption or foster care. There is no question that these options are morally superior to infanticide since they reduce the suffering experienced by the infant without significantly increasing suffering for any other person. For this reason, post-birth is the rational point to grant a human a moral right to life.
would you say that given our current level of technology and ability to keep a child alive starting some time in the late second trimester that performing a C-section and letting the child have a shot to live would be morally superior to having an abortion since it actually has the same affect of removing the baby from the mother's womb and keeps the baby from losing that one thing it has? That is assuming that the mother wouldn't be liable for expenses incurred.
]]>
Sid's 3rd Rebuttaltag:www.spiritualtramp.com,2008:/debate//4.5992008-07-11T20:35:57Z2008-07-11T20:41:16ZI’ve finally taken the time to respond. I apologize for the wait. Basically, you’ve defined ‘God-likeness’ as “that which is unique to humans”, but never explain what “that” is. Since ‘God-likeness’ is at the heart of your SLE, it is...Sid Faiwu
no ability nor potential to express these qualities. With no other way to measure ‘God-likeness’, we must conclude that people have differing degrees of whatever it is that enables people to do philosophy, art, etc. If these abilities are not sufficient to gauge one’s ‘God-likeness’, what is sufficient? The SLE fails to give any measure which doesn’t vary to meaningful degrees within our species.
In contrast, I have laid out a clear definition of what personhood is: “the extent to which a being is able to sense the world, react to it, think, and reflect on their actions.” Varying degrees of personhood easily explains the differences in the ability to express philosophy, art, etc. It also admits to differing degrees of personhood, hence differing capacities for suffering and thus differing moral considerations.
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that my version of the QLE states that one’s level of personhood influences their right to live. One the contrary, every living thing has an interest in living and thus should have some right to live. All personhood does is affect one’s capacity for suffering. Suffering is the common denominator for moral consideration and occurs when a being is unable to pursue its interests. When interests are in conflict, as they are in many circumstances, the most moral action is the one that minimizes suffering across all entities involved.
There is one section of your most recent response that I object to strongly. “I rebut that this woman isn't guaranteed by anything I'm aware of to avoid certain expenses, inconveniences, hardships, etc.” Surely, you are not saying the woman can be forced to experience avoidable expenses, inconveniences, hardships, etc? She does have moral and legal guarantees that she can’t be forced to experience such things when they are avoidable. Otherwise we may mug this woman with impunity since she has no moral guarantees of escaping expenses, hardships, etc. What moral law do I use to ascribe her those rights? Why the QLE, of course. Experiencing those things causes suffering, which is the unit of moral consideration.
Finally, allow me to answer the question, “…given our current level of technology and ability to keep a child alive starting some time in the late second trimester that performing a C-section and letting the child have a shot to live would be morally superior to having an abortion since it actually has the same affect of removing the baby from the mother's womb and keeps the baby from losing that one thing it has?”
My answer may surprise you. If any woman chooses to carry a fetus to term, it is morally superior if she does so, even if she incurred the expense. Why? Since the woman chooses to carry a fetus to term, she is stating her interests. Having an abortion would deny her pursuit of her interest and thus cause additional suffering. The question really is, “is it morally superior to force a woman to undergo a c-section when the fetus is viable outside the womb?” My answer is no, even when the woman is spared the financial burden. There is still the suffering that would result from anxiety over the risks of the operation, the pain of the surgery itself, and the scaring that would result.]]>