Smithca,
I appreciate your taking time to respond to the questions I posed. I notice in your answers, as well in your previous posts in this thread, an apparent assumption on your part which keeps resurfacing. The assumption is that [color:red]you are capable of fashioning a universal ethic based on the impossibility of a solution to your proposed
conundrum, while you simultaneously restrict the conundrum's
data to information which [color:red]you can understand:
This is just a conundrum that can produce enlightening insights when you try to explain it.
In fact, if one of the eggs died, we wouldn't have the conundrum...
I am trying to find an explanation that fits the facts. I reject the position that she has two out of hand as being just too outrageous.
...in my personal perspective, I was not able to honestly and consistently apply all conservative doctrine in my life and faith.
This particular issue ... is extremely important in our society today.
I do not see how it is possible that you can be sure that every person born came from a fertilized egg which joined to a soul at the moment of conception and at the same time think that the question about spontaneous abortions is one of the secret things that Deuteronomy 29:29 speaks of.
It seems to me that the same ethic should apply to both ends of life with no difference in the ethic.
I can’t define what comprises ALL SITUATIONS. I can think of various situations and ask how the ethic applies to it. That is what I have done here.
I only have one. I think that everybody has one.
Obviously, you have three choices. Explain how the ethic works in these difficult situations and prove the quality of it. Change the ethic. Or ignore the questions.
I can’t know that my answer is perfectly correct. My answer is based on several things, mainly faith, logic and the test of reasonableness.
Do you see how you constantly revert to
your own understanding as the final authority in this thread?
The reason you are unable to resolve "the conflict you feel" is because you are attempting to dissect a mystery of God while leaving what [color:blue]God Himself has said about it out of the equation. You reject at your peril the prohibition of Deuteronomy 29:29, for elsewhere God declares this issue veiled in mystery:
[color:blue]You have hedged me in behind and before,
And laid Your hand upon me.
Such knowledge is too wonderful for me;
It is high, I cannot attain to it.
:
I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
Marvelous are Your works,
And that my soul knows very well.
My frame was not hidden from You,
When I was made in secret,
And skillfully wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.
Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed,
And in Your book they all were written,
The days fashioned for me,
When as yet there were none of them. (Ps. 139:5-6,13-16)
We have been given sufficient revelation of this matter that we are without excuse to treat the unborn as un-souled, but that revelation is only partial. Further astounding understanding of DNA will not pull back the curtain, either. Had David known what is now known, his response of awe and worship would not be less. Is this your attitude in the matter, smithca?
[color:blue]Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out? For who has known the mind of the Lord?
Your "ethical tension" must be solved by acknowledging that the Sovereign Lord who created You is not bound by your so-called "conundrum". He declares individuals alive at conception; He commands that we care for them as we have opportunity; He commands that we trust Him to do what is right.
The fatal flaw in these liberal (it's ok--I was one for many years!) ethical challenges is that they
ALWAYS leave the Sovereignty of God out of the equation, both in His knowledge and power. That inevitably leads to an unworkable ethic--as you have acknowledged--which is then used to adduce relativism. I sincerely hope you don't go any further down that path.
