|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun Aug 07, 2005 8:43 pm
chaoticpuppet NewAgeLink Mechanism See here: Omniscience implies [only one possible outcome for a decision]. No, it means He knows which outcome you will decide to enable. Which implies there is really only one choice to be made, No, there is only one choice that will be made. There is a very distinct difference. chaoticpuppet Quote: Mechanism Free will implies [more than one possible outcome for a decision]. No, free will means you will decide which one to enable. You do realize what you said, does imply that there may be more than one outcome? That's what a choice is, a decision between two possible outcomes. chaoticpuppet If you can choose something, there are at least two outcomes. That's right. There are two outcomes to every decision. Only one outcome will come from any given decision, and God knows which one that will be.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 07, 2005 8:45 pm
Sinner So my dead sister didn't have a soul? What happened to her? From this argument's point-of-view (and I'm not defending it so much as asking what others think of it): If your mother/parents decided to destroy what would have been your sister, then 1. she/they has sinned and 2. it didn't have a soul.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 07, 2005 8:58 pm
NewAgeLink No, there is only one choice that will be made. There is a very distinct difference. Have fun proving the difference. (burden lies on you) Quote: That's what a choice is, a decision between two possible outcomes. Then why did you disagree with Mechanism? Quote: That's right. There are two outcomes to every decision. Only one outcome will come from any given decision, and God knows which one that will be. Not necessarily. There are at least two choices when one comes to making a choice. However, there need not be two different outcomes that go with the choices that can be made. Secondly, God doesn't simply know, he forces. Think of a perfect computer programmer. One who has omniscience, omnipotence, etc. He makes a program, as soon as he makes it, hell, even before he makes it, he knows it will work, furthermore, he knows what it will do. As such, he has predetermined the programs life.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 07, 2005 9:07 pm
NewAgeLink Sinner So my dead sister didn't have a soul? What happened to her? She ate the last slice of pizza. No, seriously, she's alive. Quote: If your mother/parents decided to destroy what would have been your sister, then 1. she/they has sinned and 2. it didn't have a soul. 1. Why? 2. So why can't I just kill them? Why can't I kill young children?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 08, 2005 5:38 am
Please, NewAge, if we're ever going to get anywhere, Respond to my reasoning and argument, not just my conclusion. NewAgeLink Mechanism See here: Omniscience implies [only one possible outcome for a decision].No, it means He knows which outcome you will decide to enable."-If God is omniscient, God knows what decision you are about to make. -There is only one true outcome to your decision. -If you did not choose that one thing, God's 'knowledge' is false, and God wasn't omniscient to begin with." NewAgeLink Mechanism Free will implies [more than one possible outcome for a decision]. No, free will means you will decide which one to enable. "Because, if there's not more than one possible choice, you don't have a choice to begin with." =============================================== NewAgeLink chaoticpuppet Which implies there is really only one choice to be made, No, there is only one choice that will be made. There is a very distinct difference. "to be made" vs. "will be made" In the way that CP said it, I think they mean the same thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 08, 2005 7:50 am
Mystic_moon15 RiebenRyoshi Death T-2 NewAgeLink Sinner According to that premise, fetuses aren't alive (since they haven't yet had a "chance to live") so the entire issue is null anyways. No... I'm not saying we get souls when we're born. I'm saying, "What if God only gives us souls at conception if He knows we're going to have a chance to live?" Why would He allow a fruitless conception? I really don't think God would do that. Personally, I think all children that died before the age of accountability goes to be with Him; fetuses included. yeah I think that too i agree. Same here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 08, 2005 2:35 pm
Sinner "Pro-abortion"? No one in the world is "pro-abortion". We're "pro-keeping abortion legal". And to save pages of idiotic bickering, the abortion issue always boils down to a simple question. Should a fetus be considered a person? If so, then killing it is equal with killing a fellow born human being. If not, it's nothing more than killing a liver or an rat. You confused me there. Aren't people that wanna keep abortion legal for abortion?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 08, 2005 2:39 pm
Chiborino You confused me there. Aren't people that wanna keep abortion legal for abortion? No, we don't want people to have abortions, we want people to be able to have abortions if they choose. Everyone knows that having an abortion can be quite damaging (particularly from a psychological perspective), and there are often better alternatives. But that isn't a good enough reason to ban it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 08, 2005 6:24 pm
Recent health update: hormone-altering pills have been added to the carcinogen list.
I'm going to be very frank. Please beat me up if I am rude.
Personally, I believe contraception is wrong. And I think that it's bordering-on-ridiculous for people to take it for acne and stuff like that. Acne medications overload drugstore shelves, and a healthy diet and exercise program can regulate anyone's weight. I just don't see why people use it like that....
Birth control isn't a cure-all, though some are willing to dispose it as such to keep the pro-abort market afloat. Birth control supports this view of 'free sex' and results in more pregnancies than would've occurred normally.
Besides that, it messes with the body's normal hormone levels and the reproductive system. I wouldn't want to risk damage to my body just to clear up my acne...
My take:1noone takes birth control for acne 2 acne is a facial problem not a wieght problrm dumbass. 3 just because someone takes birth control doesnt mean theu are a whore. couples take birth control so they dont have unwanted children. I hate people who say birth control is bad aND THEN SAY aBORTION IS BAd. WHAT THE HELL DO YOU WANT WOMEN TO DO SIT AROUND AND MAKE BABIES???
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 08, 2005 7:45 pm
chaoticpuppet NewAgeLink No, there is only one choice that will be made. There is a very distinct difference. Have fun proving the difference. (burden lies on you) I don't see what there is to prove. Seems obvious to me. chaoticpuppet Quote: That's what a choice is, a decision between two possible outcomes. Then why did you disagree with Mechanism? Where and about what? chaoticpuppet God doesn't simply know, he forces. Think of a perfect computer programmer. One who has omniscience, omnipotence, etc. He makes a program, as soon as he makes it, hell, even before he makes it, he knows it will work, furthermore, he knows what it will do. As such, he has predetermined the programs life. I don't believe in fate. While yes, God may know how my life will go, I'm the one who lives it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 08, 2005 7:48 pm
Sinner NewAgeLink Sinner So my dead sister didn't have a soul? What happened to her? She ate the last slice of pizza. No, seriously, she's alive. lol... Sinner Quote: If your mother/parents decided to destroy what would have been your sister, then 1. she/they has sinned and 2. it didn't have a soul. 1. Why? 2. So why can't I just kill them? Why can't I kill young children? Because murder is sin. As for the second part of the argument, it is somewhat tricky. It didn't have a soul because they decided to murder it before it had a chance to live. Killing young children and babies, as I've already said, goes with that 'dying before the age of accountability' thing, limbo and all that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 08, 2005 8:03 pm
Mechanism Please, NewAge, if we're ever going to get anywhere, Respond to my reasoning and argument, not just my conclusion. 'kay, I'll try. Mechanism NewAgeLink Mechanism See here: Omniscience implies [only one possible outcome for a decision].No, it means He knows which outcome you will decide to enable. "-If God is omniscient, God knows what decision you are about to make.Correct. Mechanism -There is only one true outcome to your decision. What do you mean by 'true'? It is true that there will be only one outcome to your decision... Mechanism -If you did not choose that one thing, God's 'knowledge' is false, and God wasn't omniscient to begin with." I don't quite see why you say this. While you are free to make either choice, God knows which one you will choose. You are correct in saying this, but what you are describing is an impossibility; you can't "trick" God. Mechanism NewAgeLink Mechanism Free will implies [more than one possible outcome for a decision]. No, free will means you will decide which one to enable. "Because, if there's not more than one possible choice, you don't have a choice to begin with." Right... I fail to see your complaint/argument. 1. You can walk through door one or door two. 2. God knows which door you will choose. 3. You choose [this door.] 4. God knew which door you would choose. You had the choice of either door, and you decided. God wasn't incorrect, nor did he force you to choose. =============================================== Mechanism NewAgeLink chaoticpuppet Which implies there is really only one choice to be made, No, there is only one choice that will be made. There is a very distinct difference. "to be made" vs. "will be made" In the way that CP said it, I think they mean the same thing. The way I read it, it seemed he was trying to say God wasn't letting you choose.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 08, 2005 8:07 pm
NewAgeLink As for the second part of the argument, it is somewhat tricky. It didn't have a soul because they decided to murder it before it had a chance to live. Killing young children and babies, as I've already said, goes with that 'dying before the age of accountability' thing, limbo and all that. Okay, this doesn't really address the problem. Either you're just not being very smart, or you still don't quite get it. Why would a fetus who was only alive for a month or so not have a soul, whereas a baby who was alive for a year does?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 08, 2005 8:14 pm
Sinner No, we don't want people to have abortions, we want people to be able to have abortions if they choose. Right. When I say "Pro-Abortion" I mean it to say, 'for the right for women to have an abortion.' I don't agree with the term 'Pro-Choice' because a) I believe abortion to be murder and so b) "Pro-Choice" seems like "for the choice to murder." (While I understand that this is not so from a legal, secular perspective, I have trouble adapting my mind.) And finally, I believe "Pro-Abortion" and "Anti-Abortion" is simpler and clearer than "Pro-Choice" and "Pro-Life," as pro- you're for it, and anti- you're against it, and everyone knows about the abortion controversy by now. (In other words, I'm trying to cut down on all the verbiage. I want to keep it simple.) To be so literal that 'Pro-Abortion' means 'for aborting every child' is idiotic, and it seems that's your problem half the time: you want to be excruciatingly literal; a "either 100 or 0, 1-99 do not exist" sort of thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 08, 2005 8:16 pm
Ice Princess Bergy: This thread is meant to be more about the idea that God doesn't give souls to children who will be aborted, not abortion in general. Please read the thread! sad
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
