Evidence for God from Science

I guess that poses the question on whether this earth was ever meant to be our perfect and true home. And I would be lying if I said I knew for sure exactly what God knows and thinks about. We all would. I guess I just never thought he would need to think about what could have happened if he knows what WILL happen and what he WILL do.

inlovewiththe44 wrote:I guess that poses the question on whether this earth was ever meant to be our perfect and true home. And I would be lying if I said I knew for sure exactly what God knows and thinks about. We all would. I guess I just never thought he would need to think about what could have happened if he knows what WILL happen and what he WILL do.

Well it stems to reason that God knows WHY something is wrong and doesn't just say or expect His children to believe simply for the "because I say so" answer...right? Logically then God knows what could/would happen if...

True, true. But if He knows everything, then it follows that He knows who and who won't be in hell already. Not to say He's forcing them to be there, but He certainly knows what people will choose.

And sorry for hijacking this thread guys

Look back at the Jewish view of life it starts at birth.

In the Jewish tradition, only a few texts relate to the fetus, and thus to abortion. The Talmud states that for the first forty days, the fetus should be considered mere fluid in the womb (Yevamot 69b). Elsewhere, the Talmud twice (Hullin 55a; Gittin 23b) describes the fetus as "part of the mother" (ubar yerekh imo; the Latin counterpart is pars viscerum matris), which indicates the dependence of the fetus on the mother and, like Exodus 21:22-23, implies that the fetus has no legal personality of its own. The debate in Archin 7a on whether a condemned women who is pregnant should be executed immediately or after she has given birth seems to confirm that the fetus is not an independent entity, since the commentators tend to recommend immediate execution. Further support is lent by the interpretation given in Sanhedrin 76b on Leviticus 24:17: "If one smite any human person, then one is culpable." The "any" is understood to include the day-old child but exclude the fetus, for the fetus in the womb is "not a person," until born. Commenting on this verse, Rashi states that only when the fetus "comes into the world" is it a "person."

The pivotal rabbinic text on abortion is found in Mishnah Oholot 7:6.

If a woman was in hard travail [such that her life is in danger], the child must be cut up while it is in the womb and brought out member by member, since the life of the mother has priority over the life of the child; but if the greater part of it was already born, it may not be touched, since the claim of one life cannot override the claim of another life.

UsagiTsukino wrote:Look back at the Jewish view of life it starts at birth.

In the Jewish tradition, only a few texts relate to the fetus, and thus to abortion. The Talmud states that for the first forty days, the fetus should be considered mere fluid in the womb (Yevamot 69b). Elsewhere, the Talmud twice (Hullin 55a; Gittin 23b) describes the fetus as "part of the mother" (ubar yerekh imo; the Latin counterpart is pars viscerum matris), which indicates the dependence of the fetus on the mother and, like Exodus 21:22-23, implies that the fetus has no legal personality of its own. The debate in Archin 7a on whether a condemned women who is pregnant should be executed immediately or after she has given birth seems to confirm that the fetus is not an independent entity, since the commentators tend to recommend immediate execution. Further support is lent by the interpretation given in Sanhedrin 76b on Leviticus 24:17: "If one smite any human person, then one is culpable." The "any" is understood to include the day-old child but exclude the fetus, for the fetus in the womb is "not a person," until born. Commenting on this verse, Rashi states that only when the fetus "comes into the world" is it a "person."

The pivotal rabbinic text on abortion is found in Mishnah Oholot 7:6.

If a woman was in hard travail [such that her life is in danger], the child must be cut up while it is in the womb and brought out member by member, since the life of the mother has priority over the life of the child; but if the greater part of it was already born, it may not be touched, since the claim of one life cannot override the claim of another life.

I'm assuming what you wrote is accurate because I don't know. But since when is the Talmud inspired? You're basing your belief on an uninspired text. It would be like me basing a belief on the writings of Joseph Smith. It just makes no sense.

As an atheist, I have no religious objection to abortion.

I see it as a most terrible moral dilemma.

We are charged in nearly every culture with the responsibility to look our for the least among us.

An unborn baby is the most precious and vulnerable among us!

Yet I fear that the world is being devoured by too many people, and that we are bringing down massive death upon ourselves.

A lesser concern is that some individuals will be born so defective as to be unable to benefit from life ( yes, I know, that can be argued) but also the resources that went to support this person could have saved the lives of many others if properly applied.

My hope is that some day people will be civilized enough that abortion is unthinkable.
For now it may be a most regrettable necessity, in some cases.
Like war, that way. Regrettable necessity, but only because we are so uncivilized.

Audie wrote:As an atheist, I have no religious objection to abortion.

I see it as a most terrible moral dilemma.

We are charged in nearly every culture with the responsibility to look our for the least among us.

An unborn baby is the most precious and vulnerable among us!

Yet I fear that the world is being devoured by too many people, and that we are bringing down massive death upon ourselves.

A lesser concern is that some individuals will be born so defective as to be unable to benefit from life ( yes, I know, that can be argued) but also the resources that went to support this person could have saved the lives of many others if properly applied.

My hope is that some day people will be civilized enough that abortion is unthinkable.
For now it may be a most regrettable necessity, in some cases.
Like war, that way. Regrettable necessity, but only because we are so uncivilized.

Audie wrote:As an atheist, I have no religious objection to abortion.

I see it as a most terrible moral dilemma.

We are charged in nearly every culture with the responsibility to look our for the least among us.

An unborn baby is the most precious and vulnerable among us!

Yet I fear that the world is being devoured by too many people, and that we are bringing down massive death upon ourselves.

A lesser concern is that some individuals will be born so defective as to be unable to benefit from life ( yes, I know, that can be argued) but also the resources that went to support this person could have saved the lives of many others if properly applied.

My hope is that some day people will be civilized enough that abortion is unthinkable.
For now it may be a most regrettable necessity, in some cases.
Like war, that way. Regrettable necessity, but only because we are so uncivilized.

Abortion isn't a religious issue: http://www.secularprolife.org/
It is a human life issue.