The bible is silly in how it does things, but given the general concept of creation it's not entirely unreasonable to say that some higher-order being somehow set everything in motion according to the accepted laws of physics. It comes down to whether or not it's actions were meaningful, let alone whether or not it is a god.
"Higher" is a tricky word to use because we can never know what it is like to have the conscious experience of a monkey or a bat. And because we can never fully understand the awareness possessed by other organisms other than ourselves, we can only infer or form approximate understandings of these things. And while they might seem to on the level of being "lower" than ours, we can't provide a definitive answer as to whether or not reasoning is different between something like a human or a monkey. it first requires a definition of reasoning. if such a definition entails the processing of relevant information in the organism's environment to arrive at some form of mental state that is directed at something, then the processes that are occurring in the monkey's head are functionally the same as a human's. You'd have to provide a specialized form of defining what it means to reason in order for it to only apply to humans. But doing so would prevent it from being an objective definition. In short, you really can't say that reasoning for a monkey is really all that different from how we reason if you want to talk about a comprehensive understanding of reasoning in both. This right here pertains to what i said in the above. By defining reasoning to be above and beyond anything else other than being a human is to give a narrow and incomplete definition of reasoning. What you are describing is the phenomenological aspect of human reasoning--that is, what it is like to reason as a human. Of course this type of reasoning can't apply to anything else other than a human because you need the conscious experience of a human to have it. Showing that there is a unique experience to human reasoning says nothing about how it might be "higher" in any way. Sure, but you're assuming design. Your retort is just as empty as the thing that prompt it.
The line isn't the best way to word what's going on. It's simply a shift in how the child feels rewarded and good about himself or herself. The stigma should really come from just the lack of physical activity and neglect that can come from being hooked like that. Most parents aren't exactly apt at teaching their kids moderation these days.
It's all a matter of perspective and assumption if you ask me. If no one can ever attest to what hell is like who's to say that it's just one way. Also the bible is a popular because it goes hand in hand with the popularity of the religion and it's variants.
Are you sure you don't mean the future or the past? Because the present moment of time is the only thing we can ever be fully aware of from a sensory level. The present at which this is being typed right to the end of this sentence is more available to you and I than it will be as something typed in the past or an idea in the future. Living in the moment is precisely that. Even if it's a micro-second you have presently occupied and lived in it. No one can deny the the reality of what is in front of them at the exact moment that they perceive it. It is the present!
The truth can be, and IS, played with. You should always be critical about the information and things that are told to you. Passive acceptance is the death of thought.
Unfortunately the human sense of smell is a mere shell of what it might have been for our early ancestors. Sight has become the most depended on of our sense, followed by hearing--but even the former is pretty shoddy at best.
All this classification makes me frown. If you're happy being a cheerleader then that is what should matter. But I digress. Given how serious and how coordinated most cheer-leading teams have become a-la Bring It On style, I don't see how it is any different from the coordination and serious mentality needed for football or hockey. If you're debating what a sport is based sorely on how physically stressed you are after a match, then that's just an incomplete way of classifying sports.
The local pimp Ray-Ray Rufalicious showed me things about life that I will never forget. He taught me how to deal with snitches and homies that try to play you: you simply insert a serrated blade into the middle of the fifth and sixth lumbar while twisting. Also he showed me how to deal with *****es that don't earn their bread and butter on the street corners: a rough chaining to the radiator. I wouldn't be the pimp I am today without him. God bless you Ray-Ray...
What you're saying is that it's easier for YOU to accept something like that. Random chance not only had the current state of the universe as an option but a near infinite possible permutations. there is no "in the end"way to frame it because both equally explain the way the universe is now. It's like saying whether or not you happened to open the fridge and find grape jelly to put on your sandwich or you went out and gathered the grapes and made your own jelly to put on your sandwich: both equally explain how jelly got on your sandwich. Both science and a god can essentially co-exist. Science does not rule out the possibility of an ultimate being somewhere within our universe. it's aim is to provide an empirical understanding of what the universe around is and how it works. It is impossible for science to currently rule out the existence or non-existence of a god. more importantly, science is a continual process that is always revising the information that it has acquired. Even if it does find a being that resembles a god, it would not mean that it would be a god. All it would mean is that by the current standards of scientific rigor are unable to look at every facet of that being. it could be the case that 1000 years later that science could find that being to be nothing more than an average life form. We could spent a millennium looking at a god-like being, and conclude that it is perfect despite the fact that it is just as flawed as we are. And now we get to a problem. Our conception of perfection and what it means to be god-like is empty. we will never be capable of understanding what perfection is. What we might regard as perfect might be utter flaw in the eyes of some other being. if the universe was constructed by some other form of life, it was probably a being far from perfect. I mean, what sort of watch maker blames the watch for shoddy craftsmanship? metaphysics serves to mostly defy much of our scientific conception of the universe. That's merely an illusory comparison. If anything it demonstrates that the macro and the micro are governed by similar constraints or rules.
I don't think the criticism should be of the fact that he is a fallible individual-- this is something that everyone is. The problem is this:
I fail to see how faulty cognition and behaviour constitutes as an excuse to defy human rights and perform unethical experiments.
The Nazi regime did condemn homosexuality among a number of other things. Gays were put in concentration camps too. it's just one of those things that gets overshadowed by the Jewish majority of the camps.
It's a place where people all over the world can share their everyday, more-often-than-not useless crap with the rest of the world in video form. it's good for many things, but terrible for others. In no way does being a make-up fanatic qualify you as a guru.
sorry, do you mind clarifying that a bit?
Devil's advocation aside, the logic is flawed. The assumption is that the qualifications for one kind of relation (concerning fertilization) provide ground for justifying a completely different relation altogether (unfertilized). While it's great to consider additional stances, all this does is contribute to what both sides should be agreeing on: namely, that gametes have no "human essence" to them. Hence this. You're assuming pain is experienced at the time this is done. it's possible you're right if abortions were conducted from 11 weeks onward. Except they're not.
Why do you think they never pick me for this thing?
Molests cats and then rolls around in their excrement.
Drunk as in "We got back from a party"? Or drunk as in "everyday after she comes home"? The latter has a much larger problem to be confronted than the buying of a large dog...
For an organization that prides itself on the truth and morality, the Vatican sure knows how to screw things up. Religious freedom and ideals aside, if you have a trouble-maker employee that's molesting and taking advantage of children you fire them. You don't move them around and hope it goes away. This dude needs to answer for his incompetence and make a public apology, and possibly step down. Instead he hides. Such a poor act to follow John Paul II.
