By that statement I mean that there isn't some kind of 'man conspiracy' going on and everybody is out to put down woman. Often you'll find that men deal better with positions of power (though not always) as they are able to dominate a situation more effectively. I am not pro-man though, I feel that both genders are of equal importance but feminists have to realize that recognizing that different genders do different things better is not sexism, it is realistic.
Stalin would definitely the best man to push USSR forward as a nation and into industrial success, there is no doubt about that. Trotsky was more of an intellectual, he wouldn't have been able to hold the fort down as well and was too self-aware to have been able to create a cult of personality, something that was necessary for USSR success. Though I think, had Trotsky been leader, it would have been a much more longer lasting nation and something which would have followed Communist aims more so than the Stalin-USSR.
yet I would consider myself a good person
How are you a good person? Without a God, how can you consider yourself a good person as there is nothing to set yourself against and therefore you a just a person. Without a base set of something you cannot be good or bad; you are as good a person as Hitler in that regard, unless you claim that you are a good person because you do certain things that you claim are universally 'moral'.
you cannot say that religion is the source of morality
Religion IS the source of morality. It gave people, who believed in them, a base set of what is moral and had them follow the rules etc. to live a relatively moral life (with reference to their particular religion). Also, most things people consider 'moral' today just stem from the 10 commandments which was usher in by a religion.
First of all, most people who claim religion to be a negative thing talk about the number of wars it has caused etc. which is false and so takes away a large backbone in the 'negative' argument.
Secondly, let us look at the other side of the coin. Has atheism benefited us more? Look as the USSR, with Stalin killing millions under his atheist state, North Korea letting a large proportion of its population starve. Religion more often than not provides a moral compass for nations and (although this isn't always true) it helps a country to act morally.
Thirdly, religion has often been responsible for education facilities and promoting thought, something which is inevitably good for humanity as it advances our thinking and our perception on different situations.
Thirdly, look at the 'great' societies throughout history, most of them have been grounded in religion. One can surely build from this that religion has brought people together as it allows them to have common ground. It also allows a framework for a successful nation to be built upon. You can even look at modern nations, as most of them have a religious grounding. Without the nations we have had, it would have been harder to people to discuss ideas, test theories and move forward as a human race and so from this one could claim that religion has been a positive influence.
You wildly claim that most wars have been a result of religious intentions, which is false, and I think only reaffirms the stereotypes associated with religion held by many ignorant people.
Well your point about Galileo is valid for that period in time, but religion as a whole exists in a much larger boundary than that moment in time. To say that religion has been a negative effect on science would mean one would have to know how every religion has countered with science. Also, the Church today (as you know) takes measures into promoting compatibility with science and was even humbled a few years ago when it accepted that Galileo was right. You should also take into account that 'religion' doesn't necessarily mean believers of God, but could also mean somebody with a set of beliefs or rituals - something that is common to many people and it could be argued that science itself is a religion based off the search for truth, evidence etc. which would create the paradox of something itself leading to it's own demise, which doesn't make sense.
You haven't really disputed anything, just claimed speculation. And just because a religious authority rejects a notion doesn't make the world a more negative place, I think it in fact improves it as 'just as iron sharpens iron, so a man sharpens another' it could be argued that if ideas were commonly accepted they may not have been pushed to find true groundings and factual evidence. I think it was positive for them to have been disputed.
It was going along the logic that he said he wouldn't convert because it is frivolous and that if somebody felt the pride or duty to be willing to die for the faith in a God they deserve to die. Maybe I interpreted it wrong, but in the way and atmosphere it was presented it seemed to be deeming a faith stupid.
It would be a damn shame if someone felt compelled to die due to some ignorant sense of pride or duty. Then again, perhaps if someone were willing to do that, then they disserve what they get in the end, a bullet delivered straight into their empty, useless brain cavity.
On the one hand, it could be argued to be a good thing as it has allowed people to live longer lives. Assuming that it is better to be alive than dead, this is surely a positive. It has also opened up the possibility of a greater life for the disabled. For example, people with previously 'untreatable' illnesses are now cured and can lead presumably better lives.
No, I don't think that such a thing could, by itself, cause bad behaviour in a child. It is more likely to be an assimilation of different factors that constitutes the 'badness'. We shouldn't be asking whether the video game causes bad behaviour, but instead whether the fact that the child grew up in an environment where they could buy a violent game contributed to the badness.
Surely you must understand though that, even if they are empty shells, it is the symbolic nature of the event that makes it horrible. Using your logic, is it then OK to rape a dead body? Because you say that they are 'empty shells' and so, from what I can assume, you would believe that once one 'dies' there body becomes yet another object. Would you be fine with your mother's body (if dead) getting raped?
I think it is wrong because, personally, I think every person deserves respect in death. By urinating on the corpses it immediately takes that respect away. It doesn't matter if they were members of the Taliban, a person is a person at the end of the day. Also, what point does it serve? They weren't really gaining anything from it and so were most likely doing it to cause a fuss and/or seem superior which is just plain silly.
I think the poem is cool it definitely helps people to look as Christianity for what it really is, because of course the Church is going to screw up (it is run by humans) and that often gives a bad image of Christians as many people just assume all of them are the same (which isn't true), but in the end it is all about following Jesus and trying to have a relationship with Him.
Cannabis is used for medical reasons as it helps relieve pain and what not. And you misunderstand where I am coming from... I agree that drugs are bad for you (I would never take them myself) but it should be a person's right to consume whatever they want as long as it doesn't hurt other people. Why should it be illegal for a human to smoke something when it is their own body! If they aren't hurting anybody (only themselves) it just doesn't make sense to ban it. And I personally think that there should be no cut off; if you cigarettes and alcohol are legal so should cannabis meth etc. be. Also banning it doesn't stop people from doing it.
"Dear Hhioh,
I suspect it is a school in Croatia using the site for their students. I am in the process of trying to contact them to see if I can get them to create their own community. Please be patient as I do not turn anybody away from the site unless they are breaking a rule.
Thanks,
Andy"
You say that these drugs should be based off the premise that they are bad for your physical and mental health, so I'm assuming you also agree that chocolate should be banned because that is bad for your health. And also violent video games because they can also affect your mental health. Your points don't add up. Also on the crime front, that is a big and unsupported statement to say that without drugs all crime will go down. Also caffeine is a drug, and you said get rid of drugs, so no more coffee, tea, red bull or even medical drugs which save lives! You obviously haven't thought this through as many drugs can be positive.
I think this is theologically wrong as, with all respect, I believe God is always there, to suggest He goes away from people and comes close again only when they worship Him is silly. In my opinion, God is always there and it is only people who go away in their own mindsets. A Christian, to God, is as valuable as a prostitute.
I think ideas are one of the most important things man has as it separates us from animals. I would like to believe that I would not give up my idea in return for something because, at the end of the day, you are selling yourself out. Also, as famously said in V for Vendetta: 'ideas are bulletproof', though money is.
For me personally, I would find adulation to be a much more motivating factor as it of more worth than money. Sure, with money you could buy things, but at the end of the day is that really why we are here? Adulation reaches for something more than money and gives us a better satisfaction (especially if it is from somebody you respect / are in awe of)
Whilst I agree that all life is equal in the sense that a life is a life, I think the value of life changes. I personally believe that, as we were created in the image of God and given dominion over the Earth, that humans have higher value in 'life'. Whilst it is horrible for any life to be taken, I would rather a fly dies than a human.
As a Christian, I believe that the ultimate moral authority is God and that we base our morals off of him and so in that sense the ultimate moral authority is set in stone. I will concede that, on a personal level, it is relative as (because we were given free will) a person can choose to do what they want and many find pleasure in unjust things.
Yes, I think the perception of punishment is relative, as are most things in life. It really all depends on who you are and what you perceive to be of worth. For example, if you find no value in a guitar and as a result of your doings your guitar gets taken away, you haven't really lost anything of value; the same can be said for fines etc.
If you are living in a relatively free society though, a constitutionalists approach may prove to be more effective. This is largely due to the fact that it garners public support due to your peaceful methods. Take, for example, Hitler who found he could not gain power through revolutionary methods and instead was only successful with constitutional ways. Also note Gandhi, Nelson Mandel etc.
It really depends on the situation, but if you are living in an oppressed and corrupt regime revolutionary ideals are more likely to flourish as they can get the job done. Trying to be a goody two shoes in a dictatorship may largely be ineffective in changing anything.
