You shouldn't claim to be an "inclusive" person when what you are really doing is including one group at the expense of another group; especially when there are alternative solutions that do take into consideration the issue of the group being impacted.
What the rulers should do is get together and stage the end of the world. Do the whole Armageddon thing so that we can all move forward. They can then claim that their new world order is ordained by God and gain legitimacy that way. ;)
People are are good at justifying their actions after the fact and seeing faces on things where there aren't any (Like seeing a face on a piece of toast). People are really good at this. The problem with prophecy is that first you have to interpret the prophetic words and make the interpretation fit the current state of affairs. If you want a specific outcome, then you will bend those words to match your desired outcome. Even scientists can fall into this trap which is why their work and their data has to replicated by other scientists who desire a different outcome ;)The other problem is that history seems to repeat itself so it is easy to map a given prophecy to different points in time at the time it is occurring. This is why people have claimed the end of the world is eminent at different points in time.
http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/What_existed_before_the_big_bang_and_where_did_it_come_fromThe first 2 options/possibilities.1. Everything that exists, has
always existed and will always exist. I am unable to wrap my brain
around infinity. But, if it will always exist (and if information is not
lost as theorized by science), then maybe that thing we call "self"
will exist forever and death is just a transition of consciousness.2.
Everything that exists spontaneously materialized. I am unable to wrap
my brain around the concept of something arising out of nothing. But, if
it's possible, we may someday be able to create entire universes. On
that day, we would become Gods.
The 3rd option/possibility:There was/is something that either
always existed or materialized out of nothing. Then that thing created
everything else from either parts of itself, from nothing or a combination of itself and nothing. This option/possibility,
by definition, would constitute a God creating the universe.It is not clear that the first thing (God) can exist forever.It is not clear that the things created (us and the universe) can exist forever.It
is not clear if consciousness (soul?) is physically linked to matter (brain?) in order to exist or if it
can exist on its own. If it can exist on its own (when the physical part dies?), then it is not of this
“material” world and may eventually return to its non-material world (heaven?). If it cannot exist without matter then it should
still be able to exist simply as energy since matter and energy are
Gays refused to accept the words, "Civil Union," and fought for the word, "Marriage."
The government could have allowed religion to have a monopoly on the word, "Marriage," while they themselves used the words, "Civil Union" exclusively for every union (in order to differentiate between a religious marriage and a state sanctioned marriage). But they didn't.
For the longest time, it was called "Gay Marriage." So, now that the law of the land is that the word "Marriage" will be used exclusively by the government to refer to every state sanctioned union, it may be time for the religious die-hards to take matters into their own hands and stop using the word "Marriage." Perhaps they can invent some new word or they can always fall back on the words "Religious Marriage."
Better yet, they can call it a "Holly Union."
Oh, wait.... I got it.... call it a "Proliferating Union." Proliferating because only a man and a woman can "naturally" proliferate and the word, "Proliferate" has the words, "Pro," "Life" and "Rate." Then they can define a "Proliferating Union" as a union between a man and a woman for the purpose of proliferating. Which makes it a Pro-Life Union, meaning that people in a "Proliferating Union" cannot have abortions (everyone else can have all the abortions they want). They can then state that all other unions do not "Rate" (meaning, they are not "real" unions).
A rose by any other name is still a rose.
NOTE: This solution will end the "Gay Marriage" debates AND the Abortion debates once and for all!!! Yay me, for coming up with the final solution!!!
Man! Can I think outside the box, or what?
While everyone else is out partying on this 4th of July, I was diligently sitting here trying to solve the world's problems.
There are 2 components to life.
1. The physical body.
2. That thing we call the self.
Evolution only explains the physical body. Evolution does not explain sentience.
Let's use a computer as an analogy for the human brain.
There are many different types of brains, just like there are many different types of computers. You have PCs, Macs, tablets/phones, tiny, wearable, computing devices, calculators, super computers, etc. So a human brain can be a supercomputer and a dog's brain can be a calculator.
Now, these computers all need an operating system, like Windows, OS-X, IOS, Android, Linux, Etc. The operating system can represent sentience.
But in order for computers to do useful stuff, they need aps, like Microsoft Word, Photoshop, VLC, etc. This can be human knowledge and reason.
Ok. Ready? Here we go.
We are expected to believe that a super computer evolved, with Linux installed and a number of aps? That's Quite a lot to happen all by itself. Can we reasonably expect to find a similar machine on some distant planet, half burried in sand? I mean, don't you find that just as incredible as what religion teaches?
You will find many annoying people on the internet. How do you deal with them? Do you ignore their messages to you? Do you ban them? Do avoid their posts? Do you go to the system administrator and tattletale on them? Or do you try to rile them up?
I guess we have to show that the fetus is only part of the mother so that she can have it removed as one would remove a wart.
We also have to show that the fetus is NOT part of the father so that we can claim that the father has no claim, no rights, no interest, no say in the life/fate of the fetus and that ONLY the mother has the final say in the life/fate of the fetus.
Do you remember this debate?
http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/ What camefirsttheChickenortheegg
In there it talks about the whether the egg shell belongs to the fetus or the mother and whether the eggshell is just a container.
I would argue that the uterus is part of the mother.
I would also argue that the uterus is a container.
I would then argue that the fetus is not part of the father. Just because the father contributed sperm, does NOT mean that the fetus is part of the father.
I would then argue that the fetus is not part of the mother either. I mean, just because she contributed the egg does not mean that the fetus is part of her body. What holds true for the father, holds true for the mother. And science backs me up on this. The mother's immune system would kill the fetus if it weren't for the placenta.
"The placenta functions as an immunological barrier between the mother and the fetus, creating an immunologically privileged site."
If it were not for the placenta, the mother's immune system would kill the fetus. The fetus is its own entity. Once the egg and the sperm fuse, it is no longer part of the father and it is no longer part of the mother. it is its own entity.
But... if the fetus is its own entity, and it is not part of the mother, it cannot be compared to a wart. When the mother has a fetus removed, she is not doing something to her body, she is doing something to another living entity.
That tactics works with other things too. If you dress for the job you want, instead of the job you have, you may end up with that job. And, more importantly, if you pretend to be happy, eventually you start to feel happy. But don't take my word for it. Prove it to yourself. Pretend to be happy and see how long it takes to actually feel happy. Practices makes perfect.