I'd say considering the USSR were basically on their own, yet the USA had the British, and minimal French forces to help out, they were the better side. If Germany could focus all their efforts on one front, then either side probably would have been crushed. That's not to say that America wasn't key in the war, as Britain really didn't have the resources to push back through France on their own, and could barely defend themselves.
But, the USSR just kept getting pushed back, until they finally gained the advantage deep into Russia, then the steamroller tactic started to excel, and without that, the rest of the Allies would have been crushed.
If your definition of good is that they are cheap and efficient, then yes. They produce a lot of food, which feeds most of the population, and are very cost effective due to the limited space. Without them, the human population would probably have levelled by now, making it incapable of increasing, so it has technically given life to many throughout the world. If it were used in every country, there probably wouldn't be the problem of famine, but many countries don't have the resources, organisation or money to be able to use this.
Is it God that murders the "children"? No, it is humans that do it. Is it God that changes morales? No, it is humans that cannot be good enough, considering we are all imperfect. There was so much sin in the world, that He had to send his child down to save us.
He was there before time was invented, making him timeless. He has saved us countless times from sin, but people still don't listen to His teachings, so things have to change. Since when has He become any less good over time?
..What missing scriptures? There are some books that have been left out of the Bible, but that was because they weren't legitimate. The books that were included, were written either by the apostles, or by friends of the apostles, who know what had happened. To make them correct still, they were written while under the influence of the Holy Spirit (God). Those books that have been "missed out" were written by people who had not know the apostles, had not been under the influence of the Holy Spirit, and had not written the correct versions of what happened.
By omnibenevolent, we mean that God is perfect, and He is also morally good.
A) He is obviously perfect, as He created everything, and does nothing wrong, as we saw when Jesus was sent down onto earth to save us all of our sins.
B) It's not an error. It is exactly what is meant to be said there. In the Bible, it says you must respect your parents, as they brought you into the world, and so without them, there would not be a 'you'. People's definitions of "good" differ, depending on their theological views. By cursing your parents, you are disobeying a direct order from God. Since He is the creator, and He is perfect, you must be punished for it. Now considering how much times have changed, opinions on certain areas have also changed. Back then, people would be put to death for this, but now, the way we live our lives has changed a lot, so that is not accepted in our culture, but our culture is not God's culture.
- Also, a point on that. That verse is in the Old Testament (All to do with Judaism). In Christianity, we are told to love each other as we love ourselves. Christians and Jews have the same God, but He sent His son to die for us, which created Christianity, but Judaism remained as they still believe in God, but not in Jesus. He is good, and very good. Don't remember the last time someone sent their perfect son to die for everyone on the planet, and everyone who was to be, just so that they could be let off the hook for their sins, just by asking forgiveness? Does that sound like an omnibenevolent God? I think so.
Check the verse before that...
Genesis 1:3 - Then God said "Let there be light", and there was light.
Genesis 1:4 - And God saw the light was good. Then He seperated the light from the darkness.
Genesis 1:5 - God called the light "day" and the darkness "night". And evening passed, and morning came, marking the end of the first day.
What you've got there, is the beginning of seasons. There was already light, and darkness, which let plants grow. If you read the very first part of it, you'd see that it does make sense. God made a light and darkness, but then after he made plants, He changed it to the Sun and the Moon, so that it could rotate, and as we know, the distance the sun is away from the Earth changes with the seasons.
Therefore, your points are mostly correct, but your fundamental argument is wrong. I repeat, read the Bible properly, not just 3 or 4 verses of it.
There is such a system, but it's very difficult to achieve. If you take it from Adam Smith, then he says that there should just be a free market system, due to the "invisible hand" that will sort things out. I personally don't know whether it would really work, but the one thing it does do well, is encourage people to work harder. People can't just sit around on unemployment benefits, waiting for the right opportunity to be placed infront of them (Granted, some people really can't find jobs, and do try hard to find them). But I have mixed views on whether it would work.
I guess he did say he was a Christian in many quotes. Now whether he acted as a Christian should, is another question. Obviously not, because as Christians, we don't have anything against Jews. I don't remember anywhere in the Bible, where it says that we should try and eradicate them. It goes more on the side of living side by side, but yes, I guess he was a Christian.
Another error here. Go and check the Bible. Read the very first few parts in Genesis. First He created the Heavens and the Earth, so the whole Universe. Then, He said "Let there be light", and there was light. (AKA, the sun.) Plants came on the later days, while light came on the second. Make sure you check these things before you decide to post them.
Should be whether He was the greatest human to ever live, which would be yes. Jesus is God in human form, and God is perfect. Therefore, Jesus is perfect. He created Christianity, by dying for us, to save us all of our sins. Without that, a lot of us would probably go to hell, considering how imperfect we all our (myself especially included).
I know some people don't believe in God etc, but if you put yourself into the position where you do, there's a heck of a lot of evidence to suggest Jesus is not even close to the worst human ever, but the best.
As a Christian, I would say there aren't any. Others can dispute this, but what I know is that people wrote the Bible while under the influence of the Holy Spirit (AKA, God). Considering God is perfect, that means that what He wrote, is what happened. Also, considering God is there at every point in time, He knows exactly what happened. Scholars have studied the Bible, a lot, and they cannot find errors in it, other than the fact that some of them think there is no God.
I guess so? If you start upping jail times, then maybe it would convince people to stop committing crimes. However, when people commit murder, they obviously want to do it. I don't think upping a life sentence will really change much.. You never know though. If you up the sentence for smaller crimes, such as drink driving, shoplifting etc, then I reckon those would start to decrease, but only if you made it obvious to criminals that this was the case.
There are a few problems I have with nuclear energy.
A) Chernobyl? Fukushima? Yeah, not exactly the best representations of a safe and reliable source of energy. You could put nuclear plants in areas that are very much risk free, such as the UK, some areas of the US (That don't get devastated by storms), and Germany, but not areas where there is a chance of an earthquake, or tsunami etc.
B) There are plenty of other sources. We could easily use wind power, solar power, tidal power, wave power instead of this, and they would all give out much more put together than nuclear energy.
C) It's not really renewable, is it? Once you run out of the radioactive materials needed, you can't gain anything more from it. We would just have the same problem that's been created by fossil fuels, but maybe not with the same impact on the environment.
Granted, it is a good source of power, and can produce enough juice to turn the Sahara into a Garden of Eden, but the risks are too high, and it wouldn't last for long enough.
Depends on what extent this is. If a footballer (Or soccer player) is worried about injuring someone, because they could be sent to jail, then what kind of sport is it? Many sports, like rugby, American football (Sorry, I'm British), and waterpolo involve contact. If players are worried about a jail sentence, then the sports are less interesting, as they just wouldn't go in for tackles at all, and we lose a valuable source of entertainment.
Granted, if someone on a sports pitch went up and punched someone in the face, feel free for them to get done for assault. Things that happen on purpose, with the intention of hurting someone else, should be prohibited.
In a way, it's not good. You could say that Hitler had a strong dictatorship, as did Stalin. Were they good societies? Not really.. Granted, Hitler brought Germany out of hyperinflation, and stabilised the country, but there's always the chance of a power trip. Also, with Stalin, nearly 50 million people were killed due to starvation and being killed by soldiers.
Whether a weak democracy is better though, is another question. I guess there's room for improvement? Can't really think of any benefits of a weak democracy.
Yes, they should be kept as pets. The real question should be WHO gets to keep animals as pets. There's a heck of a lot of animal abuse, which is disgusting. I have a dog, and the thought of someone attacking her is just horrible. Some animals probably wouldn't be able to survive in the wild. Can you imagine a chihuahua hunting for food? If we feed them, give them shelter, and care for them, then it's all good, as we're just preventing the extinction of some species.
Personally, I don't think there's much wrong with it. It's their choice in the end what they do, and if someone is attracted to the same gender, then so be it. Not our place to go and persecute them for it.
However, I am a Christian, and in the Bible it says that being homosexual is okay, unless you act upon it. So I have mixed views on the topic really.
Sorry, misread it a bit. I thought you meant it as a requirement. It would be good as an option for some people, as some have their hearts set on a subject, and others have their parents hearts set for them. I personally wouldn't have chosen that kind of option, as I'm in lower sixth and still don't have a clue what I want to do! And not necessarily. So many people may be good at English, but find it very tedious and wouldn't take it. That's just what I've seen, but you could have those who would do what they are good at, as it would make life easier in a way. However, teachers tend to stress the idea of doing what you enjoy, and what people enjoy and what they're good at could always be different. It could work, I'm not saying that it wouldn't. I'm just saying that the system works very well for myself, and many others who I currently study with.
