?

I often hear from skeptics that saying God does not need a beginning while everything else does is a kind of special pleading. Of course, I do know many things about God surpass human logic, otherwise he would not be worth worshipping, since we would know everything about him. So, If God does need a beginning, how would we then explain how he is eternal, as there is the saying "everlasting to everlasting"?

For example, "No True Scotsman". I am sorry, but people with purely ulterior motives behind setting up or running churches should not be counted among the people with genuine faith in their beliefs and higher beings. Back in the Medieval Era, it was not uncommon for clergy and popes to satisfy sadistic or lustful tendencies under the guise of faith. In fact, remnants of such a past are still here in some shape or another.

Need I mention the Rule of Harlots, or the fact medieval Italian families used the Catholic papacy as a puppet for earthly gain? And, what about Jim Jones, whom preached things not at all found or supported by the Bible itself whilst resorting to other forms of corruption behind closed doors? And, do not get me started on Westboro, whose heresies and blasphemous acts are so obvious it is not a laughing matter in the slightest.

People can claim to be something all they want, but without the proof, which can easily be found in scripture (if you read it in its proper context, which can only be done by looking at more than one verse related to the topic (knowing all such verses is critical, as they are all tied together, or should be)) in regards to belonging to a certain faith, the claims hold no water.

It seems more than half of those questions are only to prove a point, or merely for entertainment purposes, which is kind of irritating, because this site was not meant to be that way. It is for gathering information only, the asker wanting answers from the answerer genuinely, and not just what they want to hear.

What will it take for the staff to smarten up and crack down on rule breakers?

It's annoying to me that I have found the ictus and the cross were both originally used in pagan rites. Is there a symbol I can use that is purely Christian?

Keep in mind that I am not asking these things as part of a political debate, since I believe topics of faith should remain personal and without government involvement if that can be helped. This is from a spiritual and philosophical standpoint:

1) Pro Choice often point towards the communities destroyed to beat down Christian Pro-Lifers' statements in regards to abortion murdering an innocent life. Are there any counter-arguments to this commonly used pro-choice statement, and what are they?

2) Pro-Choice frequently refer to an unborn child as "it", a "clump of cells", or a "fetus" instead of a human being or child, going so far as to compare one to a parasite or a part of the body that can be used in cloning. The problem with the cloning bit I see is that DNA deteriorates quickly. If life did not begin at conception, why else would the child begin to develop their organs, nerves, etc.?

3) Another common Pro-Choice argument is one of trauma from being raped, that the child would be a constant reminder of the incident. Some will say that the abortion will be a mercy kill, so to avoid the harsh realities that come with being the product of rape, both physical and emotional. Assuming the mother chooses to follow through with giving birth ([politics and government aside), Would it be possible for the child to be sent to an environment where he/she would not have to be in a miserable setting, or would it be too risky? If too risky, how would that be?

4) A major argument for Pro-Choice is the matter of overpopulation. If that is so much of a problem people are concerned about, then would it not be reasonable to be more cautious about your sex life and not "get it on" so often, knowing that, protection or not, there is still the likelihood of an unexpected pregnancy?

5)Are there any other thoughts on the matter that I did not specifically mention or ask about?

NOTE: Please, be civil about this! The last thing I need is a bunch of "Baby-killer this" or "Sexist that"! That kind of ranting and hurling insults is just bratty behavior!

I ask that because I know what a parasite is, but not the two other terms for relations between the host and (I forget the other term).

I get that a ton of what we, as Americans, need are being used on them. I don't like it, either, but I also am not one to just make those illegals walk in the desert and say "Good luck, sucker!"

Should we decide to send them back, they must be ESCORTED back, with squads to keep them from harm of any form. Is that too much to ask? The journey across the border was not pleasant for them to begin with. Starvation, dehydration, and people who would prey on them constantly threatened them. There were even thousands of children accounted for who did not have a parent or guardian with them.

If you want those people to go through a living hell once again on the way back, you would be just as cold-hearted as those cartels in Mexico who already make it tough in Latin America.

It's not as terrible a suggestion as you think. It is not like the armed escort will be a vacation ride. It just means that they will be transported home safely.

Better yet, we should destroy the cartels and keep those felons from entering the US so there is one less reason for those illegals to come here. It is just too obvious.

I don't get it. I'm a man, and I don't see anything wrong with women having a brain. In fact, I'd prefer such a women over one who just does not have a care in the world. It annoys me when anyone is just flat-out ignorant. Plus, intelligence does make a difference when making decisions.

I am well aware of the story in Genesis and the addition of years based on the ages of people mentioned in the Bible. However, I am challenging you to find loopholes in how precise the Bible is in mentioning how long some things are or were in the Lord's terms instead of human terms. How can you be sure it was a literal day? Where in the Bible does it say how long a day was before the Earth was created?

In the Bible, there are many figures of speech which are artfully designed to make the readers think about what he was actually saying, and rarely are those parts I'm talking about literal. Yes, there is literal Information, but that is mixed with figurative writing a lot, so how can you be sure it is completely literal?

You also have to realize that the Earth was not always around, so time in God's eyes would have to be completely different from that of human terms of time. Have you ever thought of that?

There! I found one loophole. You do the rest.

We are all familiar with hate, yet where it first cropped up is a mystery. Do any of you fellow philosophers have an idea of how it came to be?

This is for a project in Business/Personal Law.

I know it is very vague, but I am curious.

For those of you who say we should blame the opinion, consider these things:

1. You determine what you do. People may try to force you to do something else, but you still can refuse and take the consequences present to you, be it death or something else.

2. Are not beliefs the creation of the founders of belief systems? Can they make a mistake by unintentionally giving someone an additional excuse to be mean to people who do not share his philosophy? Can the sharing of beliefs backfire from the original intentions? Think about Darwin and how he was entirely focused on wild life and nature when he gave his theory on evolution by natural selection. Did he make any mention of it "applying" to social life as well? Are not the Social Darwinists responsible for this misinterpretation?

3. When someone is inspired by a book, he or she has his or her choice of tolerating different opinions or being flat-out zealous, or somewhere in between.

What I am trying to emphasize by these statements and questions within the question is this: We all have choices, and what we choose determines the outcome of everything.

Any responses to that?

While your two powerful parties are squabbling for more power, the rest of the nation is suffering! You should work together for the sake of the nation, not the sake of party! Do not give me excuses basically saying that I should take sides! I am no greedy man out for money and power! I want what is best for everyone, not the 30% represented!

Allow me to explain:

1. The recession is far from over, despite what Obama said. The number of people without a job is still relatively high.

2. Families like mine who have relatives with special needs (especially mentally) are going through hard times. Official help is needed now more than ever. Get this: in time, the majority of Americans will have mental disabilities. Are you just going to sit there and try to destroy each other while we suffer?

3. George Washington foresaw this disaster of political parties feuding and ignoring America's needs. That is why he gave his farewell address: he did not want to be involved in this crisis. He would be turning in his grave right now if he were to see this disgrace.

4. Slums and ghettos are full of the worst criminals in America. Over there, crime reigns. The government needs to head in there in get rid of those vile gangs and felons swarming in those areas.

I could go on and on, but I think you get the message.

Well, what do you have to say about this?

That is something that does not take science to answer. Besides, science is mostly theory rather than fact. You cannot change facts. Theories you can change. That is why the scientific method is so important when it comes to natural life and the physical part of what makes the world. Still, science is for the most part theory.

If there was no free will, there would neither be choices made, nor any opinions at all. Life would be meaningless with no purpose for mankind. There would not even be a uniqueness amongst each other.

There is free will. I have said my piece, now it is your turn.

I asked people in Runescape what it is, but no one answered me. They told me to shut up, instead. Hello? It is a simple questions! It angers me to no end when people are mean to me instead of answer my question! That exact same thing happened in Guild wars when I asked why a guy thought we americans are dumb and if he had been to america! All he gave me were statements of saying I am dumb and that I know what he means. I do not see why gaming companies tolerate such behavior! Anyway, back to my question: What is trolling?

I say it is not logical at all. You might as well say that you do not like it when one person robs a bank, yet you like it when another person robs a bank. Robbing banks is wrong, and torture is wrong. Period. No exceptions. Either you hate torture, or you do not. Anything in-between cannot be justified.

One of the excuses I hear is the bit about animals doing no wrong. In case you do not know, there are many times when animals fight for mates. Humans doing the same thing would be arrested for disorderly conduct, plus (possibly) assault and battery. Animals can do similar things in behavior that we can, based in that. The only difference is that arresting animals for doing that will not change the way they see such things. They do not have that capability. We humans, on the other hand, do have the ability to mend our ways. In today's society, however, many people do no mend their ways, which is disgraceful.

Even when there are many people who do mean things to people and animals alike, that does not mean we have to. We would be no different from those people if we did all that they do. Even if you have good intents, you would accomplish nothing.

I know the excuse certain people would come up with next: an eye for an eye.

A famous quote by Gandhi is as follows: An eye for an eye leaves the world blind. There is logic and wisdom in that. Only ignorant people would not see it. If everyone were to seek revenge every time someone did something mean to them, there would be nothing but chaos, because there would be no end to feuds. Feuds no nothing but destroy. You would be seeking revenge every second of the day, without any rest, luxury, or anything you have that comforts you now because everyone else would be going after revenge every second of their lives. There would be no one to give birth to children; no one would have the time to sit down and talk; no individual would be protected from the chaotic disorder that does nothing but destroy.

If that goes on without end, there would be no life on earth left, most likely. Out of rage, since no one would be able to stop each other, people would burn entire forests just to kill whoever they sought revenge on. That is the only thing that would come out of constant revenge from every person: destruction.

It is entirely foolish to even have the desire for revenge.

Now, what do you have to say about this?

I say it isn't. Where there is anarchy, there is always the chance of chaotic disorder. In chaotic disorder, there is only agony, suffering, hate, pain, anger, and many other negative feelings. The strong would prey upon the weak without punishment. Thieves would break into houses and rob those places with impunity. Gangs would devastate entire cities.Power-hungry warlords would wage a never-ending war for control, leaving many people to starve and die. One stupid remark I heard was that no one would be poor or without money if there was no government. Only the government can issue money that will be of any use in the entire nation. Without a government to issue money, many other people would come up with different currencies. With too many people doing so, all would be useless because each currency would not be widespread. There may be uncaring people now who go around killing others, but there are also people who do not do such things only because they fear getting into trouble with authorities. With no leader to make sure those people do not go insane, those same people will mean an incredible increase in people who go around hurting others without a care in the world.

There is nothing logical about anarchy at all, as a result.

Are not they weak?

Besides, There are many ways in which someone can be strong.

Martin Luther (no, not Dr Martin Luther King jr. I am talking about a different Martin Luther) was urged twice by Catholics to give up his views of the abuses of Church power, yet he refused each time. That is strength in will power.

The Crusaders (while I do not like the fact that they slaughtered unarmed people) were few in numbers in the First Crusade, yet they took Jerusalem. That is physical strength.

Who can forget Billy Graham, a christian preacher? He is such an inspirational speaker, many people look up to him. That is strength in rhetoric.

Of course, there is also Galileo Galilee, a catholic who made astronomical discoveries that challenged the medieval way of thinking. He possessed strength in intellect.

There are many more examples of strength, not all of them can be named.

Also, no one starts out strong. If the weak are to be so despised, you would be saying that we should not treat young-lings well. But, it's the other way around. We must protect the weak. They are the future of our society, just as much as the strong are.