Welcome to Gaia! ::

I think I have figured out where our misunderstanding is resulting from. When I say that God knows the future, you are picturing Him simply predicting it in advance, but this is not quite the case. Allow me to explain.

Since God created time, God is not limited by time. In fact, God actually encompasses all of time at once. You can think of time as a line segment written on a page. God, being infinite, would encompass the entire page, and thus the entire line segment. God encompasses all of time at once. Therefore, at any given time, God is... right now. Look at what Christ said Himself:

John 8:58 - Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

Before Abraham was, Jesus is. Keep in mind that Jesus is God, as a part of the Trinity. So, many years ago, God is. Right now, God is. Centuries in the future (if there will be such a time), God is. Thus, when we refer to God as knowing the future, it does not mean that He is simply predicting the future. Actually, God knows the future now, because He is there in the future now. At all times, He is.

(Note: it is very difficult to express this matter in words, since we are not capable of thinking outside of time, and our language requires the use of time words, which really do not apply to God.)

1. God knows all all of the events of time, at once, and accurately.
2. Any event that God does not know would be untrue.
3. A freely willed choice involves several possible decisions.
4. God knows one of these possible decisions to be true; the decision which is made.
5. All of the other decisions are then untrue and impossible.
So the person didn't really have free will in the first place.

What range of time God knows is irrelevent; any knowledge that He has must be certain, if it is knowledge, and if it is certain, it cannot be anything else, and there can be no variable decisions made by people.

It depends. Do they have a thinking capacity that is greater than a fetus's? Though, the qeustion of whether we have methods to accurately determine thinking capacity now comes into the question.

Are the mentally handicapped subhuman? Well, one of my qualifications is competely severed from all conections to the womb, so, right now it looks like person.

Do they breathe like I do? Yes, they have the ability to, and do in fact use their lungs.

Do they have a heart that is currently beating, with a functioning brain? Yes, and by functioning brain, I mean one that merely allows the physical body to survive.

Are they thinking? Well, I cannot answer that one for anyone except myself...(this is meant philosophically)

Do they get nourishment from a source that is not there mothers own food? Yes.

Do they perform a function to society that is usefull? Depends.

Do they meet all the qualifications for life (by life I mean basic survival, e.g. can they process the energy from the food they eat, etc.)? Yes.

Are they living (philosophicaly)? I have no idea. Living is all subjective, I cannot answer what living is for anyone except myself.

My conclusion: it appears they have some basic differences from a fetus, thus they are human enough.

Edit: I would like to point out, that no one has touched these, even though they may be absurd.

Think about this:
1. This reality is false.
2. We are merely mental beings, and this reality is all just a farce to decieve us.
3. The only way to truly live, is to sever all physical attachements, in other words, true life comes only after death.

Forgot you took that literally. I see the end differently.



Since we're talking with biases here, then I'll continue with mine. The death of the fetus will ultimately effect the mother in some way (the father as well if he's not a rapist). The death of the mother, however will effect so many more lives - her parents, her friends, her family, her spouse - everyone who has come to know her and love her. I know I'll be asked by someone: Who am I to judge that the fetus be killed over the mother? So I'll ask the same about the mother. Why should she die over a person no one has known? It's not our choice to make.

You are exactly right that it is not our choice to make. Yet, I am not the one supporting the killing of one of them.

I guess I was confused since earlier you had said something about being "truly human." It seemed to me that you were debating that a fetus was non-human, rather than non-living. However, I think it would be a very bad idea to try to justify killing something which could very likely be a living human, just because your own perceptions of life and/or humanity do not include it.



This is not what I am saying; although, it is probably true that God would know such things, being omniscient. My point in the debate above is that God knows which choices we make.

Ah, good, I think that this is actually moving forward.
Apologies to everyone that this isn't actually directly related to abortion.

In order for God's knowledge to agree with every possible choice, God would have to have to "know" several things which conflict with each other.
God would have to know, for example, that "Billy will eat" and "Billy will not eat". In order for these to be knowledge, they'd have to both be true.
And something can not be true and false in the same way at the same time: that's contradiction, and is fallicious.

...If God knows what happens at every moment, and to God, the future can be recalled like the past, then your choices are already determined...

Maybe this really isn't moving forward.