►ʞɹɐɯ◄

Our electric bill is up but I dont know how much of it is due to him charging the scooters. I dont know how many he has charged and I dont want him making money at my expense. What do I do?

So (with the help of God) I recently received appointments to the Air Force Academy and West Point. I know that West Point has more history and tradition but the Air Force academy seems so much more cool. I think the campus and location are better in Colorado Springs than New York. However the opportunity available after doing the required years of service would probably be better at West Point because of its reputation.

The Air Force seems much more modern and cool (for lack of a better term).

West Point seems more arbitrarily traditional but might eventually pay off.

Which one would you rather attend?

(Dont forget to "show more") I mean, if everyone is naturally good, or has the natural tendency to do good, they what do we need to lock our doors? Why would we even need a police force, or a military, or laws for that matter?

So if we are not naturally good (if we were we wouldn't need to lock them) then whose to say that the laws created by man are not misguided as well? It is just one persons opinion of right and wrong verses another.

Doesn't that raise the necessity for moral authority which does not originate from flawed humans like us?

So, in most states, if someone other than the mother terminates the pregnancy in say a car crash, they can be charged with homicide. However, could they still press charges if the mother was on her way to an abortion clinic? I mean, it might be manslaughter for someone else, but if its your own child than its ok right?

Would the mother still be able to press charges if the baby died and she was on her way to an abortion clinic?

I am a Catholic, and I will be the first one to admit that during its 2,000 year history, the Catholic church has had some bad popes and bad people commit crimes in its name. But can these peoples actions be attributable to the church?

Take the Inquisition for example. A group of bad people doing things in the Church's name. Even though it is against Catholic moral doctrine to kill innocent people, some like to attach the actions to the Church. Do the actions of a few who are acting against the Church beliefs but under it's name undermine the Church itself?

I mean, it would be different if it could be justified or misinterpreted by the religion to do these heinous acts, but if it is in direct violation of the teaching of that religion, then those actions cannot be attributed to the religion...

So can the Church be thought of as any less legitimate for acts committed by imperfect humans (aren't we all imperfect?) ?

I know that this is not what this website is meant for but i just feel like sharing... With God's help, I was accepted into the United States Air Force Academy today and have the honor and privilege of serving this great country. I would also like to thank the tax payers for paying for my college (thank you 1%ers)

But seriously this is awesome. I am very glad I get to make a career out of defending human rights, life and dignity.

I mean, people celebrate new years every year and dates are represented by the years all around the world. Does anyone ever stop and think of the significance of these numbers? 2014 years since what? Did we all just adopt a religious implication?

I must be the only one who laughs a little bit when I ask an atheist what the date is and they say 2014... thanks for acknowledging my faith!

I mean if a Socialist president makes this statement, it holds some weight.

Norman Mattoon Thomas (November 20, 1884 - December 19, 1968) was a leading American socialist, pacifist, and six-time presidential candidate for the Socialist Party of America. Norman Thomas said this in a 1944 speech: "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of 'liberalism,' they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." He went on to say: "I no longer need to run as a Presidential Candidate for the Socialist Party. The Democratic Party has adopted our platform."

Is there any democrat that would be bold enough to claim this isn't true?

The knee jerk reaction would be: "because nothing would ever get done." but isnt there a reason why so few people are willing to accommodate? I mean, if there was a Nazi party in the House or Senate, I dont think "reaching across the isle" would be a good idea. Even a little accommodation to a Nazi party would be horrible...

So if 2 parties are arguing completely opposite things, then someone is right and someone is wrong. Reaching across the isle would only be detrimental. The Nazi example is a little extreme but do you get what I am asking?

If you reach across the isle, even though you are right, you are then accommodating to detrimental policies... Which side shouldn't be accommodating?

Now that the reality of the detrimental healthcare law is coming down on Americans, should we recognize the group that was trying to stop it in the first place? I mean, the public blamed republicans for the government shutdown but now that we realize what they were trying to prevent should we be thanking them?

I know I wish they would have held out, through default and everything, until democrats finally agreed to change something about this horrible law. My choices are change coverage or pay higher premiums. Both of which Obama promised wouldn't happen. I think we all owe the GOP a big apology and a thank you for their fight against the unaffordable healthcare act (obamacare) on capitol hill. Will you help fix things next election?

Inequality - The condition of being unequal, lack of equality, opportunity, treatment or status.

I was on my Congressman's web page when I discovered a tab that Promoted organizations that only aided ethnic minority businesses. How is this O.K.?

I understand that for the most part, minorities have less wealth than whites. But what is stopping them?

Asians are a minority, yet they earn MORE than whites on average. The fact that you are a minority does mean you have some kind of lack of opportunity or disadvantage (as Asians have proved through hard work)

Since you can decide to only help a certain group of people, does that mean I can make a white only fund? Can I give funds to someone to go to college because they are white?

I am not racist, I am a realist. Minorities dont have less wealth because they are minorities. They should take note of their Asian minority brethren.

How are we claiming to be an equal rights society, yet we turn around and offer financial opportunities to a certain group of people, based on the color of their skin?

I mean, for you to make the conclusive statement "we do not know if God exists" requires you to know everything right? You would have to have read every book and studied every subject known to man, to its fullest extent, in order to know that we dont know. Otherwise, we dont know if we dont know and cannot rule out the possibility of there being a God.

(even though He is distinctly provable with our modern understanding of natural law.)

I asked if people ever thought religion would go away. Most of them said yes it will eventually. Here is the link to that question and the peoples response.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=As9da...

However what if i told you that the truth is the complete opposite? As in, the amount of religious people, Catholics at least, has been steadily rising since its existence?

(Pew research center) http://www.pewforum.org/2011/12/19/global-christia...

I know this might sound crazy with this recent atheist fad going on in the more materialistic countries but here are the facts. The percentage of Catholics has risen. It ever stopped.

What if i told you that eventually everyone in the world would be religious some day. Everyone in the world would be catholic? Because history and the numbers show that is the direction it is headed.

I just need some verification on whether or not this makes sense in the scientific world...

Please read the whole thing, if I am wrong, correct me. All answers will be read, only serious ones will be considered.

The universe has not existed forever (This natural law is verified by Stephen hawking).

The universe is a closed system. According to the first law of thermodynamics all matter and energy in the universe is already in the universe. As in, it is impossible for energy or matter to be "created" or "destroyed", it is simply conserved.

So if the universe hasn't lasted forever, and nothing can be created or destroyed, which law is broken?

In order for the universe to exist, a natural law has to be broken, it is a fact. However, nothing within this universe can break the laws of nature.

That is why a being capable of transcending all natural law is required for us to exist. A being that has to have existed forever, with no creator, who is capable of creating. The question, "but what created that?" has to end somewhere. It ends with God.

If you dont understand why it ends there, read the full question again and think. Please prove me wrong.

Please read the whole thing, if I am wrong, correct me and I will stop believing in God. All answers will be read, only serious ones will be considered.

The universe has not existed forever (This natural law is verified by Stephen hawking).

The universe is a closed system. According to the first law of thermodynamics all matter and energy in the universe is already in the universe. As in, it is impossible for energy or matter to be "created" or "destroyed", it is simply conserved.

So if the universe hasn't lasted forever, and nothing can be created or destroyed, which law is broken?

In order for the universe to exist, a natural law has to be broken, it is a fact. However, nothing within this universe can break the laws of nature.

That is why a being capable of transcending all natural law is required for us to exist. A being that has to have existed forever, with no creator, who is capable of creating. The question, "but what created that?" has to end somewhere. It ends with God.

If you dont understand why it ends there, read the full question again and think. Please prove me wrong.

So, a Catholic friend of mine told me that the Muslims were to blame for the crusades, and the Christians were only acting in self defense?

I was surprised to hear this, but apparently the Islamic empire attacked the byzantine empire in order to attain the trade rich city of Constantinople. The Byzantines were over run and called to their Christen brethren in Europe. The pope responded to their cries of help and advised the feudal kings to send aid. Multiple waves of relief were sent (dubbing them crusades) because for the most part the Christians were getting destroyed.

Then even the time that the Christians did finally take back the byzantine empire they STOPPED at the Islamic empire borders.

To me this sounds like self defense, but is it correct? Has history been written by those who shout the loudest?

We know Jesus of Nazareth walked the earth, that is widely accepted even by the most secular groups. The question is, did Jesus perform the miracles which helped prove he was the Son of God?

We know he was crucified and we have Roman records of his death sentence. He was persecuted for "blasphemy" and condemned by the pharisees for it. So what did Jesus do to earn him the title of blasphemer? He performed miracles and forgave people for their sins.

Ex: In the book of Mathew, he forgave the paralytic for his sins and the cripple got off the stretcher and walked home. Even the people who witnessed it cried blasphemer.

So we know he existed, we know he got the death sentence and was crucified, and we know why... for performing miracles. Something only the Son of God can do.

(this is only one example of many)

I mean, it doesn't matter how you look at it, it is by no means normal (conforming to the standard or the common type; usual; not abnormal; regular; natural.)

statistically normal:

For something to be statistically normal it needs to have a majority. Less than 5% of the country is gay making it far less normal and considerably "abnormal".

Biological Normality:

If homosexuality is considered normal because it occasionally occurs in the animal kingdom, then this does not support it being normal since it is practiced by a small percent of animal populations which is below the norm.

If, however, an appeal is made to the fact that homosexuality occurs within animals regardless of the percentage of the occurrence, then this has problems because it implies that whatever occurs in the animal kingdom is normal for us. Then wouldn't this mean that it is normal to eat your young, to eat other creatures alive, to lie in wait to ambush and kill, sniff other human being's rear ends, eat placentas, barf up food to give to your young, and eat your own feces?

Evolution:

Finally it is obviously not genetically normal since the gene technically does not exist due to natural selection. If a "gay gene" were to exist it would be considered a genetic mutation. Being gay means you are a product of flawed genetic mutations at best, clearly not normal...

So it raises the question, what exactly about be gay makes you "normal"?

(I don't "hate gays" I love everyone, i just dont like it when people are wrong or offend the dignity of others)

Religion doesn't rule my life, but it does establish what is morally right and wrong and nothing (in catholic moral doctrine at least) offends human dignity.

Without religion, however, it is just one mans word against another there is no moral standard.

We, humans, cannot be left up to determining our own morals, not society nor government or any other man or woman. Any moral standard established by any of these amounts to no moral standard at all.

This includes any religion also made by man.

I mean, girls always complain about be "used" for pleasure or sex and it makes them mad, and rightfully so, because it dehumanizes them into a sex object. Since a gay relationship is not procreative and nothing will ever come of a gay relationship, is it just a hedonistic ambition? Arent gay people just using each other for pleasure since there is no other meaning or purpose for two gay people to be together?

Regardless of whether its a choice or not, I feel like people, gays included, should have a bit more respect for the human dignity of one another.

Thoughts? I will read all responses with an open mind.