I believe the Catholic church now believes in evolution...which now makes me wonder why we even have Pope in modern times. Any theist can apply their deity to any scientific concept that doesn't outright discredit them. All you have to say you is, "God/Allah/Buddha/etc. made it happen."
Basically anything I'm not fully or near fully informed in, because then it'd just be my opponent educating me and that's no good if it begins to get heated. As long as I'm informed, anything goes.
They're doing a pretty shitty job with their normal pistols and stun guns. Before we start issuing better guns, we need to issue better police. Then again, I don't even live in America so I'm only going on the news I see on the internet.
Well I am feeling better than I have in a long while. I think I am getting close to finding my mojo again.
That's good. I know little about you but you seem like someone who deserves to feel good.
When I think of special, I think of everyday interactions with my daughter, my sister and my two nieces.
Well I guess that is special when it makes you so happy. They must be great people.
Besides that, I made what I think to be some pretty good progress on my Free Press Bible project
The project sounds like a nice project from what I understand. You seemed to have put a lot of work into it and it seems to have come off really nicely. How long have you been working on this project?
How have you been?
I'm curious as to why you ask, since I haven't seen you ask anyone else on this topic anything. I'm thinking it may be because I'm the only one on this topic that you don't know but I may be wrong. Well, I've been doing okay. Been having a few problems this year but I guess not every period in life can be nice. I mean, that's what makes life interesting right? The mix of the bad, good and neutral.
Do you have any dreams you are still trying to realize?
Well, I'm trying to prepare for college. I'll be trying to get a bachelor's in musical theatre or performing arts. Money is tight but I do believe I'll get in soon. A Buddhistic law is comforting me right now. Do nothing. I believe it says that anything that will happen has already happened, therefore its best not to worry about anything. If its meant to happen, it will and has. After that, just the usual get a job, get married, have children, grow old, retire. I mean, except there'll be a lot of things between them and I'm probably not going to marry until I'm in my early to mid 30's, since I want to live and learn as much as I can before I settle down.
Did you have a divorce or were you never married? What did you want to do when you were younger that you haven't accomplished? Any advice you'd like to give to me, a person much younger than yourself?
How've you been this past month?
Anything special happen?
How many children do you have?
What exactly is your definition of a loser? My answer depends on the definition you're using. But if I'm using my definition, then yes, losers have no place in the world.
When its totally not under their control or its necessary, yes.
Do you think it's impossible that some Christians believe Jesus was more of less biblically misrepresented?
But then how could you think Jesus was any different from what he was in the bible if the bible is the only place his works were recorded in. I'm assuming its the only place you can find Jesus' life story. If one does think he was different, one would need some kind of other reference book to base one's theories on.
Maybe each and every persons religion is somewhat unique
You've got somewhat of a point, but for two peoples' religions to be the same there has to be some connection. That's where we get all the sects in Christianity. If it strays too much from the original idea, its a different religion. All of the sects in Christianity deem the bible to generally be true, just different interpretations.
I suppose they could be shown by example and it wouldn't require parroting verses from any bible
Shown? One would not be a part of a religion just because their role model has good values that may have came from that religion and I'm certainly sure they wouldn't join because they saw strange rituals pertaining to their role model's religion that they know nothing about, that is, unless they're truly mindless sheeple. Having good values and being a good role model has nothing to do with a religion.
You can't be a Christian and not believe in the bible. It'll be a different religion. If not for the bible or someone speaking the words of the bible, how would one even know how to be a Christian?
Definitely, but in conjunction with educating the public on overpopulation. Its not working in China because china isn't so friendly towards females. Laws must be adapted to fit the need of the population of the country, not just thrown into law and expected to thrive like what happens with most laws in most countries.
I think this phenomena is largely overrated, and at the same time promoted by the said agenda
Do you mean transgenderism or the issue of transgenders and bathrooms?
this law can also cause psychological damage to non - transgender children, who, as you understand, are the overwhelming majority.
How so?
The facts are, 95% of all assailants are men, and 32% of all victims are boys. Given the fact that about 4% of men are gay, there is a significantly higher rate of pedophilia among gays, than among straights.
Don't they do background checks on the troop leaders before they hire them? I'm sure a paedophile would have a history of paedophilia before he had the requirements to apply for the job of troop leader. Also, I'm thinking a closeted homosexual would be more likely to be a paedophile than an open homosexual. It gives them more cover if they're not even associated with sexuality toward males. The out homosexuals should be less likely to be a paedophile for this reason, people would expect him to be a paedophile.
Its psychiatric status was removed by APA, but I think this organization is dubious to say the least. Please check the following links, and try not to pay attention to the sites domain, the information speaks for itself:
I do not believe the people who have been "cured" of homosexuality are actually cured. I believe they are basically brain washed into thinking that sexual interactions with the same sex is disgusting and, as a result, try to stay away from it all together. I've read of many stories where these psychiatrists used brainwashing (for lack of a better word) methods to "cure" homosexuals of their homosexuality. It seems its all based on the fact that the human brain can be taught to believe anything, one just has to find out how. Increasing self hatred to the point of total, irreversible disgust seems to be the name of the game, a bit like the catholic church and left handed people. Keep in mind that I've never met someone who's done this procedure and I've never done it myself, though I intend to try just to see how it goes.
Are you sure they are psychologically and emotionally damaged, only because of hate? In my country, I did not see much hate towards gays, until they started trying to copy the Western gay agenda.
I can only speak about what I've seen in my own country. Maybe it is only when they began speaking out that they started receiving clearly visible hate in your country. In my country, homophobia is the norm so its not really viewed as hate or even noticed by those who do not experience it.
You've got a point. Though I do agree on some of the achievements of the LGBT movement, I do believe they have an agenda. Thank you for not equating the people categorised within a movement, to the actual movement. The movement is very pushy and I do think a number of things they push for have underlying motives. Regarding a few of their achievements, all of the ones you've named do seem for the better of the LGBT community, not so much the movement's agenda.
The toilet law only applies to transsexual persons, I'm assuming. That's fine, since the gender of that person is not their sex. It would cause them psychological damage if they had to use the gender bathroom that they didn't identify with.
I'm not familiar with the forced watching of gay porn incident. Could you educate me more on this?
There will be gay troop leaders regardless of if it is allowed or not. I'm assuming that law just allows openly gay troop leaders. Gay does not equate to paedophile, so I don't see the problem.
I do not agree with forcing hotel owners to service gays, but I'm guessing that came from how tired the LGBT were about not getting services just because of who they love or have intercourse with. I can see the motive was not so evil, but they do need to realise that its their choice because its their business.
Well, I understand outlawing psychiatrists that "deal" with homosexuality. I mean, its not a psychological disorder anymore, right? So why still have those who specialise in "getting rid" of it. I do still believe in choice so I do not agree with this either, unless the psychiatrists are pushing gays to "become" straight.
I completely do not agree with attacking Christian preachers for preaching against gays. Its their own religion and their own sermons based on their own opinions. I don't agree with this, however, I also completely understand. A lot of Christian and former Christian LGBT members have been hurt emotionally, psychologically and sometimes physically by the church. I, myself, have experienced the torment of growing up in a church and being made to go every Sunday to be told how I am going to hell for who I fall in love with and am sexually attracted to. I hated myself for years and tried everything I could possibly think of to "get rid" of my homosexuality. About 3 years of total self hatred and a suicide attempt later, I am absolutely fine with my sexuality. Though I am no longer hurt by the church's teachings, I get over things more easily than most other people I've met. Some people just don't let go of things quickly. So, yeah, that's not so evil either.
The public citing outlawing is another response to hate, so is the statistical lying, though I think that could have some underlying motives.
I believe the LGBT are being led by someone or some people with ulterior motives. The only way to stop these people from manipulating a group of people who are so psychologically and emotionally damaged that they can't see the manipulation is to stop the hate.
Its not racist in the slightest. I mean, if you grew up around Caucasians then that's fine. I'm black and I think the people I talk to online are white, by default. No big deal. No brainwashing needed. If you were this concerned about it, you're not racist.
Nah. Its the person's choice to go go to fast food restaurants. Don't make the restaurants suffer financially for the lack of control of the public.
Other than the birth defects, I don't think there's anything wrong with it. I mean, I don't think incestuous marriage has a chance in the western world at the moment because of the current morals of western civilization. Maybe in Canada? I don't know. I see little problem with it than any other relationship.
I think they'll get work done regardless. I can't really debate this topic anyway because I know very little about it, but a very brief trip to google shows me that they use the umbilical cord and not the actual zygote now. At birth, the umbilical cord is stored and sent to science labs because they're rich in stem cells. That okay with you?
They're probably gonna get aborted anyway. Might as well use it for the betterment of mankind.
A nerd isn't necessarily intellectual. He's/She's academic. That's not gonna help much in a fight, if we're talking about fighting. There's also many different types of geeks, since a geek is more of a person who invests most of their time into one thing and are generally experts in that area and little else, like a drama geek or a tech geek. Given these definitions I'm using, the geek would win.
Kinda, I mean yes...kinda. Depends on your definition of "nothing" I guess. I mean, "nothing" used to encompass dark matter and that's a thing...isn't it? Or is it not?
Thank you. I try to be as open minded as possible to see from all points of view.
I understand what you're saying. Being a homosexual male myself, I am aware and slightly fearful of the diseases and health complications that come with homosexual intercourse. I will not be participating in much, if any, sexual activities you've named and/or eluded to. This, however, does not mean I do not condone these sexual practices. When done safely, certain "harmful" sexual practices are almost as safe as vaginal sex. Most people who practice these activities take the utmost care in the beforehand preparation. I do not believe that we have to ban these practices, but educate on them. I do believe a lot of the diseases spread through homosexual intercourse is done out of ignorance rather than the acts themselves. We can slow down the spread of these diseases by educating the masses about the dangers and how to safely practice them, because whether we ban it or not, its gonna be done anyway (by both heterosexuals and homosexuals). In fact, because its banned, it makes the sex all the more thrilling, which doesn't help your cause at all. I believe its named somewhere along the lines of "The Romeo and Juliet effect" or something like that.
I do agree on your views on incestuous marriage, though I only discussed sex, and not love unions. I see the complications in homosexual intercourse, but not in gay marriage. Care to share your views on that, as well?
Definitely reheat! I like steam reheating it instead of microwaving since microwaving kind of disgusts me.
There are different kinds of love. As previously stated, you may love a family member, but you probably wouldn't marry them. And not everyone wants to get married anyway.
But what harm does homosexuality, homosexual incest or heterosexual incest with use of contraceptives do to anyone? I'm not trying to be hostile or anything, I'm just trying to see your point of view.
My family being of poor financial state, the uniform allows us to not have to spend a lot of money on clothes. Honestly, who wants to go to a non uniform school and wear the same outfit every other day. Its a saviour to the poor but its not necessary when one is financially well off enough to afford good clothes. So its good when its needed but, otherwise, its best to go without uniform.
The only ones that do that are closed minded people or "die-hard" religious people. We can't get along religiously because religion is a very strong believe system. People are too caught up in thinking that they're right that they don't think that they may be wrong, because that's blasphemous in most religions. The world would be an immensely better place if we had less of "You're wrong and I'm right" and "I respect your wrong decision", and more of "I acknowledge that either of us could be right or wrong."
So you're basically saying that they exist in the minds of those that believe in them but they don't exist in reality. They're imaginary friends, that's what I'm getting from your statement. So, no, you're not a theist.
Well, I mean you've just taken the "need" out of it. Anything else would be a want.
Polygamy does hurt someone. It hurts the children and the wives, if the relationship has children and multiple wives. The multiple wives will eventually, if not immediately fight for the man's love, which puts a burden on the man and causes stress for all parties of polygamous marriages. Stress causes many medical, emotional and psychological problems, so its hurting them. The wives will scorn the children of the other wife/wives in the relationship which will hurt the children psychologically and sometimes even physically. The wives may develop inferiority complexes while the male may likely develop a superiority complex. Of course, these things don't have to happen, but they tend to when looking at other polygamous engagements. And I only spoke about polygamy with one man and multiple women, I acknowledge this.
Heterosexual incest creates children that have genetic, physical and mental complication. I don't think I have to elaborate on that any further, but I can if I need to. Homosexual incest...I actually don't see the problem with. Bestiality and Paedophilia are harmful for obvious reasons that I can explain if asked. Regarding the question, BLTPIG would be a better acronym but regarding the description, I do not agree with the acronym.
I see your point, though not because of your arguments. I did a bit more research on polygamy. I still say to let each person decide for themselves, but I see what you're getting at. And the Golden Rule is no longer the Golden Rule once made opposite. Just saying. I yield to your point, though don't think of it as a triumph since you yourself did not convince me.
Polygamy has its faults, but everything does. Once laws are put in place with it, it should be fine.
Morality does not exist. It also is subject to change with each culture, community and individual. Illegal drugs are banned because they harm the human body and can make the drugged person harm others. Tell me who polygamy harms and how it harms them, please.
A simple solution would be that one cannot marry more than one person without the consent of all spouses. If that law is implemented with polygamy, it would be the wife's or wives' only fault(s) if they start competing for the man or the man begins thinking of them as collections. Also, it isn't assured that the man will think that way or the women act that way. And who says the children will compete for their father's attention? The children will be competing no more than they would in a monogamy. I believe they should make it legal in at least one state in the U.S.A. just to see how it goes. I mean, that's what the various states are for, see what works for which group of people so everyone who wants to do one thing can go to a state that accepts their views legally.
I remember reading a study that stated that when a child is taught not to speak to strangers, he develops a kind of fear for them. This fear of strangers, no matter how small, turns into a hate of strangers. You know who are the "strangers" in adulthood? Foreigners. Children who are taught to stay away from strangers are more likely to develop of a fear or hatred or unnecessary dislike for most foreigners. I'd rather teach my children to be wary of strangers that to straight up avoid them.
It was a different time back then. Punishment should happen but not death.
Honestly, I don't see the big problem. Why can't consenting adults get married to each other. I honestly think there should be a limit of how many wives or husbands or both one can take up, but only if that becomes a problem. And I'm sure it won't mess with the children. Children can adapt to most non-threatening or non-damaging situations, and polygamy is neither of those. I really don't see why not.
Okay, I'm having a difficult time trying to understand you. Please take care in your typing.
I would not expect any other argument of an atheist that is why Christians should be hated by the world.
You're saying that you think I'm an atheist? I'm not. I also don't hate anyone because of their religion, unless they take it too far. Christians are hated because they impose their religion and religious views on everyone else.
And FYI people did not write what they thought, no before the bible there was revelation.
Could you educate me more on this? I don't quite understand.
You may be an arse to God. See it like this he has control of everything and you do not. You may perceive him as bad, that is called human nature but you are just rejecting a eternal gift.
If he has control over everything, then free will is a myth. This means that he's making me "be an arse to" him, as you state I may be. This also means he makes people not believe in him so that they may go to hell. So, apparently, he creates people to go to hell. That isn't an arse? I think its more of a douche. And also, its not a "gift" if I don't know what the alternative is. It means he pushed this "gift" onto me, giving me no other choice but to take it. That's not very nice, is it?
I'm not sure if this is a troll or what. Is it a troll? If its not, then...I don't know what. I'm black. :/
Honestly, I wouldn't know what the alternative of life would be. Non-existence, maybe? I wouldn't have known about life unless he/she/it created me so better to live in non-existence than life. Less hassle. And who are the people in the bible to decide what God does and doesn't want? Jesus did not address every problem in the world. People just wrote down what they thought God would and wouldn't want. Some of them may have been told by God to write it down, but I'm a lot of them weren't. So who's to say the bible and the way Christians think God is, is right? All I'm saying is, by my definition of an arse, the God of the bible is one.
Nah. That wouldn't work. You'd still be lusting over men in your head/heart. Lust is a sin and lusting over a man is another sin, so there. The only people who are safe are asexuals and eunuchs, I guess.
Living in Caribbean black country, I see ghetto booty all the time. Guys and girls.
For you, maybe, but for me, no. Too many discriminatory rules to live by and the Christian God is kind of an arsehole, or at least how he/she/it is portrayed.
I love rain, especially in storms...unless the sky isn't filled with rain clouds. I don't much like those rain that go on with just a few clouds...or liquid sunshine. That's not good either.
What would be the point in talking to myself if I didn't debate and argue about things? I mean, its how I make hard decisions. Some might call me crazy but I'll just cross this thin line right here and say I'm a genius. :)
It couldn't be the other option. If the greatness of a nation depended on how rich the rich are then think of this scenario. The richest man in the world decides to make an army to take over, lets say, The Gambia. He takes it over and leaves the Gambians in poverty. He is now the richest leader in the world. Is that now the greatest nation in the world?
I just looked up "go to sleep" and it scared the shit out of me. Why, AveSatanas, WHY!?!?!
I'm just trying to say that they do not have existence, according to the definition of existence. They may "exist" legally and morally but that doesn't mean they really "exist". Its like if I had an imaginary friend. I love the imaginary friend. It makes me feel safe from bad things. It's real to me. That doesn't mean it's real, its just real to me, in one subjective aspect of my reality. I do not dispute that rights are great things that I am immensely happy to have, but just because they exist to me or a group of people, that doesn't mean they exist. I guess I don't know how to fully explain it either. Agreeing to disagree seems like the best option.
Morality and Legality does not exist either, according to the definition. They cannot stand alone without human thought. Please clarify if I am wrong or if I misunderstood you in any way. If those realities were created by human thought, does it still exist? Also, both realities are subjective, not objective. Objectivity is key in existence unless we're going by the theory that "perception is reality" in which each person has their own reality.
Hope you don't mind if I butt in.
Here's the definition of existence.
the fact or state of living or having objective reality
Now, here is the definition of objective.
not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts
And then Reality
the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them
I could go on defining words but I won't. Now, if we're going by these definitions, rights cannot exist because they are subjective and relative. I could believe one thing is a right, you another and we both could be "wrong" according to the government, who creates these "rights". Rights cannot survive independently of human thought and therefore do not exist.
See, if you go by some other definition that supports your side then we can also say that dreams, fantasies, ideas, everything that has to do with human thought "exists". If you do believe these things, your perception of reality is clearly different from mine, as your definition of it.
(http://oxforddictionaries.com)
Homosexuality isn't something that really should be taught. They'll learn it one way or the other. I mean, you don't see transgenderism or foreplay or anal/oral intercourse being taught. Its a topic that comes under sexuality, which should not be taught in schools because its a thing that has more to do with one's self and one's preferences than it has to do with books or mentors. They should just stick to reproduction and leave sexuality out of it.
Where in the bible does it say that Jesus had long hair? If there is a passage or some hint to it, I've never seen it. Care to show me the passage?
One of the many reasons I don't microwave. I just heat things up in a pan. Its quite easy, gets the job done and has way less radiation. Yay!
I don't like candy. It tastes too sugary, for me. Cake has way more variety than Candy will ever have.
Saying "I do not believe that God is real", looking at it in a technical sense, can either mean that they do not have sufficient evidence to draw a conclusion or that they just do not have the belief. Saying "I believe that God is not real", looking at it in a technical sense, means that you have analysed both possibilities and have came to that conclusion. One has come to a conclusion while there's a possibility the other has not.
Well, I believe in a higher being. I don't believe in any religions I've encountered because there's too many rules. I guess you could say I believe in the Universe or Multiverse as the unconscious or conscious being and that we all are one with everything else because of it. Don't know if that counts as a religion but what makes it different is that it has almost no rules to it and it can include most other religions.
Indeed, though he never mentioned that they shall not suffer. Also, I wonder, why would God name the price of sin to be his son, Jesus, when it is said that Jesus is God himself. He gave up himself for sin? And why would God keep a fallen angel, Satan, in existence if he knew he would mess with his creation. Wouldn't it make more sense if Satan is actually just the angel of trials and not The Devil? And why would he put a tree right in the middle of a garden with an evil snake and two humans without knowledge/wisdom? It seems he either wanted us to sin in the first place or he did not predict the outcome, which would mean he is either "evil" in our understanding of the word or he does not know everything, which Christians claim he does. So many questions that so many Christians are insulted to answer. Will you attempt?
No. Mistakes happen and you don't know the story of why the people act like they do or do what they do. Also, its sexist since men that do the same or more would be labelled with terms of endearment and heroics rather than terms like "whore" and "slut".
Its quite easy as long as religion doesn't get involved. I'm a bit neutral because mega theists or mega atheists can't live with the opposite. Once both Atheists and Theists understand that just because they have an opinion, doesn't mean it has to be right, they can live in...harmony. "Good Faith" is a very poor choice of words.
Currently its this mash-up with Zedd and Coldplay called Viva La Clarity. The chorus is perfection.
I get what you're saying. I can't really give a complete opinion about this because I'm not from the U.S. and I haven't watched television in about two years now.
Now, I do believe that Black people should be portrayed in negative roles if the case is that they are almost never being portrayed negatively. I do not believe, however, that race relations have progressed enough to begin to show Black people negatively in a near equal amount to White people. Racism towards Black people is still alive and well in the United States. I can't 100% vouch for my opinion since I don't live there and I don't experience racism toward Black people in my country, but the Paula Deen thing has tested inter-racial relations. I'd say that about half of the people would support Paula Deen not because the food network channel stripped her of all associations with them, but because they don't think that what she said and how she allegedly acted was wrong. If a White person is portrayed as a burglar on television, people will shrug it off as "just a commercial". If a Black person is portrayed as a burglar, it will help to deepen a lot of White people's fears about Black people. Again, this is coming from someone who doesn't watch television.
Just taking a crack at this. Yes, he would allow his Word to be tampered with. He gave humanity free will and that includes tampering with his word. Correct me if there's anywhere in the bible that states he wouldn't.
You can still be in a vegetative state without dying. Just saying.
No. As soon as you know, you cannot prevent it. The world is what you make it but if you know the future, you cannot change it.
Only when completely necessary. As in, if you catch a bomber he has planted bombs around the city and refuses to tell you where they were placed, torture is fine. He brought it upon himself. Only in situations where others lives are at stake, the quality of their lives are drastically threatened or nature may be drastically damaged would torture be justified. Otherwise, no.
If you hate the people in the religion and don't believe in the current translation of the bible then why be Christian? Its not like you have the original text so you don't know if the translation is correct or not. And even so, ALL translations are not 100% or even 90% correct considering some languages do not have words that other languages do. You are questioning God's word by questioning the bible because its the only tangible word from the Christian god. Your god is whatever you perceive him to be regardless of religion. You perceive him to be a god of love, the bible perceives him to be not so loving. Deal with it, leave your religion or create a new one.
No. Can't do it. I can't deal with someone I don't like, even if it gets me ahead. I'd rather strive to be the best person I can be and the best in my area of expertise than kiss up to someone who's a complete cunt. A person I like, I'd make them my friend. But kissing ass? Never!
Can we think this through? Immortality has nothing to do with cellular regeneration. If you get your leg cut off, its cut off for good. Turn into a vegetable? Have fun never being able to die. Coma? Not even pulling the plug can save you. Buried alive? Burned alive? Submerged in water? The pain with never end and you'll be miserable for all eternity. All loved ones will die right before your eyes. You'll eventually find nothing and no one attractive because you did not grow up with certain concepts and they'll seem so foreign to your immortal brain that you'll probably end up a hermit. That's another thing. You'll hate everything because you eventually won't be able to adapt to the new world. Forever an old timer never understanding anyone. Don't forget the boredum. You'll eventually end up with a hatred of humanity and will end up trying to destroy it. Good luck, slugger. I'll be here with my riches, donating to charities and random people on the street and buying things I want. You're gonna have to work long and hard. And I do mean long.
There was a terrible study done on babies. One baby was fed and taken care of without any human contact. In fact, they wore gloves when feeding it. The next baby was taken care of with sufficient human contact. The baby without the human contact died within months while the other developed normally. I believe the scientist(s) was/were charged for cruelty or murder or something but the study was still successful. There also was one with chimpanzees but that's less human touch and more how a mother treats the baby.
I based my rebuttal on my understanding of grammar and English, the most popular alternative of saying the Christian god (God) and my interpretation of the question based on those two factors and maybe a few others I haven't thought about. Neither of us 100% know that the poster meant the the Christian god as in God (though I'm 95% certain since he claims to be Christian and has been posting questions about Christianity a lot) because neither of us has asked and gotten a response (unless you have asked and gotten an answer that makes you argument correct, nullifying mine). Its basic reasoning. Try it.
Its taught that each part of the Trinity is just a separate part/aspect of a whole. God would be him in dominant, controlling form(Like a father), the Holy Spirit would be God as manifested on earth in spiritual form and Jesus would be God as manifested in physical form. I guess, and I'm not sure if this is quite clear, that you can say its cutting a key lime pie in three, equal slices. You wouldn't say that its not all the same key lime pie, you'd say it was split in three slices. And if you combine the slices, they make the same key lime pie as before.
If he said the Christian god, then it means God. Its like saying the Pastafarian god instead of saying The Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Cartoons were made for entertainment purposes and that's what they need to be used for. If we start chucking education in the cartoons, they become cliché, boring and counter-productive. Didn't the Little Einsteins tapes actually hinder learning? Not sure if that's true but I think I remembered reading that somewhere. Anyway, education is always best when its done hands-on, person to person. Children can't learn with cartoons because of how fast-paced everything is. They need time to gradually take things in and a 30 minute flashing box will not provide that.
I'm neutral on this but leaning more toward no. I believe that oral sex and manual sex is fine before marriage because it helps you get more accustomed to being intimate in that way. What I don't agree with is having anal or vaginal sex before marriage. I mean, you usually get attached to the person you lose your virginity to so I believe you should lose your anal or vaginal virginity to the person you're going to spend the rest of your life with.
Honestly, does anyone remember being in the womb? I mean actually remember, not just have been told some stories by family members or seen some pictures. I'm 95% certain that none of you do. That being said, a human foetus is a human, I admit. Where we need to make the distinction is whether it is a person. The foetus has no personality. It is in a subconscious state. Since it has real consciousness or personality yet, it cannot be considered a person. That being said, I don't agree with abortion, but that wasn't the question.
