Eh, I seriously agree with the human cloning, and stem cell research. It could help people so much.

Indeed it could... People are just against it because they think there's life there... but there's life in all those millions of bacteria we kill every day, I don't hear anyone saying a thing about that

That's a tough situation. I think that schools should advocate abstinence, but they should still teach about birth control in case students choose to have sex. But it still isn't the school's fault if someone gets pregnant; people shouldn't be so stupid if they don't want to deal with the consequences.



I've never thought of it like that... but yes, how can a bundle of a few cells have any more of a soul than bacteria? An embryo wouldn't have any more consciousness than an ant, at most.

ok, we may be a speck in the universe, but since we are in God's image, he cares about us. Also, an all knowing being wouldn't care about the size of the sample he is dealing with

God has a reason for what he does and we must learn to live from it. And you can use the stem cells from an umbilical cord, just no one wants to (legal issues that need to get worked out).

And how do you know half what the news says is true, or what scientists say? You hardly see the truth for either, yet many believe it, why? faith. Same reason people believe the bible.

True, also, I think we need to look at the little man also. They get shafted because the CEO wants a bigger pay check (example, SBC had record profits the year of a contract negotiation, payed the biggest bonuses of any time, then told the employees that there was no money for them.)

True there. I am against abortion as the child has no say in what he did. With capital punishment, the criminal had a say, and has reason to be killed.

I don't really want to get into a huge debate over religion, but there is absolutely no proof whatsoever that God exists. I'm not saying he doesn't, because nobody knows for sure, but why should we hold back the advancement of society to *maybe* please someone that we don't even know is there? Not everything that comes out of the media or even science is absolute fact, but there is a lot more evidence for scientific theory than anything in the Bible that can be considered an act of God. If Christianity was the one true religion, why is the whole of it confined to earth? What's keeping God from making a big cross in the sky that says "All hail Me, for I am your one true God."? There just simply isn't concrete evidence for religion. In fact, in ancient Rome, the emperors controlled which gospels went into the Bible. So that means that there are more gospels out there, right? And why did they not put those gospels in the Bible? Because they threatened the power of the state. They used religion to oppress people.

Sorry... I got to go to class.

DAN BROWN'S B.S. ALERT! While Constantine did convene the Council of Nicaea, the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were accepted generally long before that council -- which was several hundred years after the death of Christ, whereas these Gospels were written and published as few as thirty years after His death. And have you ever read the Gnostic "Gospels"? They contained such teachings as, "Blessed is the lion who eats a human, for it becomes a human, but cursed is the human who eats a lion, for he becomes a lion." As soon as Christianity started to spread, people were concerned with maintaining consistence with Jesus' teachings, which is why these so-called "Gospels" were omitted from the Bible. Several more books were considered, such as the Shepherd of Hermas, which contained teachings which obviously came from the Bible, but because they were written so long after Jesus's death, they were discounted even though they were accepted by the general public. One delegate remarked that the Shepherd was worth reading for all Christians even though it could not be included in the Bible.

As for using religion to control people, Constantine convened that Council to prevent several sects of Christianity from becoming warring factions within the state and breaking apart the Roman empire; however, most of the delegates were from the eastern churches. We have reliable minutes and attendance records from three historians of that time who also attended.

Anyhow, I think Obama has it this time. Nobody is going to vote for Republicans simply because of the taint from the Bush administration. America is more ready for a black president than a woman president. This doesn't come from any anti-feminism but simply a deeply ingrained (thousands of years of evolution) thought process that denotes men as leaders, not women.

I see the bible as something that is supposed to force you to think on things. I mean, there are references in the bible that can be explained by us today, but couldn't back then because they didn't know about technology and the medicines that we can create.

The bible leaves a lot left out, and we have to try to fill in the gaps.



And besides, I think people should quit worrying about the politics of who should run for president.


It is time people just realize I am the supreme ruler of Earth, and get over it.

Agreed. It's hard to take the Old Testament seriously most times, and it was definitely not written as a literal representation of what actually happened. The New Testament, the basis of Christianity, is memoirs and letters mostly, biographical material with the exception of Revelations, which most people ignore anyway, unless they're theologians.

And you're wrong; Linus Torvalds is the supreme ruler of the world.

I agree fully. There are definitely some good teachings and morals presented in the Bible, but that doesn't mean we should take everything in it as fact. Christianity, as with all other religions, was essentially developed to explain things that they couldn't explain back then (and also to teach Jesus's message of love, etc.). Now that we have science, we don't need religion to explain incredible phenomena. There are still things that we don't know that we can't explain, but because we are logical people, we should know that there is a logical explanation for everything and therefore should not resort to making up myths in order to explain the workings of the Universe.

I do acknowledge the fact, however, that Christianity is mostly good for teaching morals and that until people can figure out that we need to work together in order to survive as a species, we probably need a figure such as God in order to scare people into doing what is 'right'. (Of course, religion does have its moral negatives. How many people have been killed in the name of God? Think about the Crusades.)

*RON PAUL cough cough* I would vote for Hillary but in the end I believe that inevitably Obama will win. So you might as well not waste your vote and just vote for him. *RON PAUL*


*sorry*

Do you have a problem with posting in topics that are over a year old? I mean seriously. I didn't say anything the last time because tifreak had already put up the whole necroposting thing. Next time, look at the date.

Agreed. I'm thinking Obama's gonna win the Democratic nomination at this point though; I think we should restart this topic with choices of Obama or McCain.

Now there is a good idea. It is also pretty obvious that Obama is going to win the Democratic nomination. So, who do you think is going to win?

Realistically, I have no idea. I would prefer that Obama win between the two of them, but I don't know if the Midwest can deal with electing a black president.

Well, I live in Chicago, and the support for Obama here is really strong. But I cannot speak for all of Chicago, let alone all of the Midwest.

..why the midwest?

At any rate, I'd vote for Obama, were I of age to do so. Also, I'd rather see McCain elected than Clinton.

I tend to think that the most conservative parts of the country would have difficulty accepting Obama as president.

I see your reasoning, but do not forget that Obama is a senator from Illinois, though the people who voted in the Indiana primary split it right down the middle. Obama took 49.44% and Clinton got 50.56%. The only problem now is that Clinton is staying in the race, and by doing so she is hurting Obama's chances. If she continues to do this the Democratic vote is going to be split down the middle and it will almost be a surefire thing that McCain is going to win.

I might be out of touch, but from what I've heard from people, almost all of them support Obama over Clinton. Could just be the college-age population though.

Well that demographic does tend to support Obama; older teachers tend to be more conservative and if not, more supportive of Clinton....

Anyways it might be interesting to dicuss possible Vice-Presidents =D
Hmm... I'm thinking Condi, Huckabee, Clinton and Edwards as the most likely ones.... any others?