Who wrote the quote a person has an opinion it's only an opinion it's never a question of right and wrong?
1 person found this useful
\n. \n Iraq \nThe US should just let the Iraqis be. There are only few terrorists left. Sending over more troops is a horrible idea. Too many lives are at stake.
It is my own view, from Islamic perspective, that different beliefs and different faiths are something only between people and their God but they are all called to live in peace and love and to cooperate for the benefit of mankind and the universe. However, since the question asks about different op…inions I will write down the opinion from Islamic perspective. Quran is God revelations to Prophet Mohamed (peace upon him). These revelations of Quran by God to Prophet Mohamed was through the Angel Gabriel and started in year 610 AD when prophet Mohamed was in Mecca (Makkah) and was by then 40 years old. The revelations continued since then and was completed by year 632 AD (year of death of the prophet). The long period for full revelation of the Quran (around 22 years) allowed the Quran to be fully memorized and documented by many Muslims. It was recited in the mosque by prophet Mohamed during the daily five prayers without single letter change. Many Muslims since then until now are memorizing Quran fully without single letter difference. This explains why Quran remains by God will, and will remain by God will, without single letter change. For those who are seeking the truth and are interested in the proofs behind Quran revelation by God and that Quran is not a human written text, they can refer to the related question below and the related link for more details. However, it is enough to highlight few issues as follow: 1. Some historians claim that prophet Muhammad wrote the Quran by himself. Arguments against this claim are: . Prophet Muhammad was an illiterate man who had no formal education in any science, language, religious or secular. . Quran speaks about a variety of branches of science like: Astronomy, Embryology, Hydrology, Geology, Sociology, Psychology, Oceanography, Law etc. including lots of scientific statements tha were validated only recently and were not known in the time of the prophet. . It was not known about prophet Muhammad any scholarly tendencies or achievements until the age of forty (when he received the first verses of Quran). So, how this illiterate man suddenly brings about a book like the Quran including an ideological and religious revolution that changed history? . Why prophet Muhammad (peace be on him), if he authored the Quran, honor the virgin Mary (May Allah be pleased with her), the mother of Jesus (peace be on him) as the best woman over all women on earth over all ages until day of judgment (an honor that even not offered by the bible) while not mentioning his own family members with a single word and even not mentioning any name of them.? . If he had authored the Quran, why he didn't claim this authorship of Quran and consequently gaining higher prestige among his followers who may consider him as a God. . Why he mentioned Quran verses that reprimand him (as that of chapter 33, verse 37 and chapter 80 verses 1-3) if he wrote Quran by himself?. 2. Some others claim that Prophet Muhammad copied the Quran from the Bible. Arguments against this claim are: . No Arabic version of the Bible was available at the time of Prophet Muhammad (peace be on him). The oldest Arabic version of the New Testament was published by Erpenius in 1616 AD (about one thousand years after Quran start of revelation) . Quran included correct scientific information on some incidents that are scientifically incorrect in the bible (e.g. sun was created after the creation of earth Genesis 1:9-19 and vegetation was created before the Sun-Genesis 1:11-13, 14-19). had prophet Muhammad (peace be on him) copied the information from the Bible and corrected the mistakes before mentioning it in the Quran? In addition, Quran includes lots of other scientific statements, that currently proven as correct, and not mentioned in the Bible. . How so many Jews and Christians, including many who were were scholars in their religion, converted to Islam if there was doubt that Prophet Muhammad was copying from their scriptures? . If Quran has some preachings or tales that are similar to that in the Bible, then this is because all holy books came from a single source (God). 3. Some others claim that a person or group of persons taught Muhammad (peace be on him) on how to write the Quran. Arguments against this claim are: . If this is true, then why not discovered a single teacher of them in the time of the prophet. . Quran was revealed over 23 years and not at once. Is it logic that that someone or more taught prophet Muhammad over a period of without being known. . Sometimes Quran revelations occurred in the presence of the people and they witnessed how the prophet receives the Quran revelation. . Why the teacher, who taught Quran to the prophet, didn't claim it tand its credit to himself? . Prophet Muhammad (peace be on him) was surrounded by his companions all the time and every minute detail of his life was recorded. How could Muhammad (peace be on him) make frequent secret visits to that mysterious teacher or teachers for 23 years without being caught even once? . How could so many Jews and Christians convert to Islam [some of them were scholars in their religion] if Muhammad (peace be on him) was learning from their priests or rabbis? Despite the clear evidences above that Quran is God revelation to Prophet Muhammad and since the question asks about different opinions, the following answer offers some, but to the scientific sincerity, some of these opinions can be viewed as personal views or mistaken conclusions that are lacking proofs. Some Quranic experts attribute the Qur'an in its current form to post-7th Century alterations. The consensus is: Independent scholars studying the Qur'an and Hadith, have concluded that the Islamic scripture was not revealed to just one man, but was a compilation of later redactions and editions formulated by a group of men, over the course of a few hundred years. The Qur'an which we read today is not that which was in existence in the mid-seventh century, but is a product of the eighth and ninth centuries. It was not conceived in Mecca or Medina, but in Baghdad. It was then and there that Islam took on its identity and became a religion. Consequently, the formative stage of Islam was not within the lifetime of Muhammad but evolved over a period of 300 years.. This consensus is due to the dubious origins of Islam and the Qur'an. This is the opinion of renowned scholars and professors of Islam, history, Arabic and many other fields. Among them: Dr. John Wansbrough (American historian who taught at London University's School of Oriental and African Studies), Professor Joseph Schacht (professor of Arabic and Islam at Columbia University in New York and a leading Western scholar of Islamic law), Dr. Patricia Crone (a scholar, author and historiographer of early Islamic history working at the Institute for Advance Study), R. Stephen Humphreys (professor of history and Islamic studies at the University of California at Santa Barbara), and Professor Andrew Rippin (professor of history and specialist in Islamic studies at the University of Victoria, B.C., Canada). Gerd Puin on Qur'anic Integrity Gerd Puin is a German scholar and the world's foremost authority on Qur'anic paleography, the study and scholarly interpretation of ancient manuscripts. He is a specialist in Arabic calligraphy: My idea is that the Koran is a kind of cocktail of texts that were not all understood even at the time of Muhammad. Many of them may even be a hundred years older than Islam itself. Even within the Islamic traditions there is a huge body of contradictory information, including a significant Christian substrate; one can derive a whole Islamic anti-history from them if one wants. The Qur'an claims for itself that it is 'mubeen,' or clear, but if you look at it, you will notice that every fifth sentence or so simply doesn't make sense. Many Muslims will tell you otherwise, of course, but the fact is that a fifth of the Qur'anic text is just incomprehensible. This is what has caused the traditional anxiety regarding translation. If the Qur'an is not comprehensible, if it can't even be understood in Arabic, then it's not translatable into any language. That is why Muslims are afraid. Since the Qur'an claims repeatedly to be clear but is not-there is an obvious and serious contradiction. Something else must be going on.. Imperfect Qur'an Another reason why the Qur'an fails the criteria as "the word of a perfect God" is because of the imperfections within the Qur'an. The Qur'an is riddled with literary contradictions, scientific errors, and historical inaccuracies. An imperfect literary style is used in the Qur'an. On the whole, while many parts of the Qur'an undoubtedly have considerable rhetorical power, even over an unbelieving reader, the book, aesthetically considered, is by no means a first-rate performance. ...let us look at some of the more extended narratives. It has already been noticed how vehement and abrupt they are where they ought to be characterized by epic repose. Indispensable links, both in expression and in the sequence of events, are often omitted, so that to understand these histories is sometimes far easier for us than for those who learned them first, because we know most of them from better sources. Along with this, there is a great deal of superfluous verbiage; and nowhere do we find a steady advance in the narration. Contrast, in these respects, "the most beautiful tale," the history of Joseph (xii.), and its glaring improprieties, with the story in Genesis, so admirably executed in spite of some slight discrepancies. Similar faults are found in the non-narrative portions of the Qur'an. The connection of ideas is extremely loose, and even the syntax betrays great awkwardness. Anancloutha are of frequent occurrence, and cannot be explained as conscious literary devices. Many sentences begin with a "when" or "on the day when," which seem to hover in the air, so that the commentators are driven to supply a "think of this" or some ellipsis. Again, there is no great literary skill evinced in the frequent and needless harping on the same words and phrases; in xviii., for example, "till that" (hatta idha) occurs no fewer than eight times. Muhammad, in short, is not in any sense a master of style.. NÃ¶ldeke, Theodor. "The Qur'an," Sketches from Eastern History . Trans. J.S. Black. London: Adam and Charles Black, 1892. Plagiarism in Muhammad's Time The Qur'an tells us that Muhammad's critics caught him plagiarizing traditions, folklore, and Jewish and Christian scripture. Examples: We have heard this (before): if we wished, we could say (words) like these: these are nothing but tales of the ancients" (8:31). "Such things have been promised to us and to our fathers before! They are nothing but tales of the ancients!" (23:83). Zoroastrians Traditions . In regard to the Islamic versions of heaven, a paradise, plagiarism from non-Abrahamic beliefs is also evident. . None of this, of course, can be found in the Jewish or Christian Scriptures, but it is in the writings of the Zoroastrians of Persia, who were a considerable presence in the areas around the Persian Empire before the advent of Islam. According to historian W. St. Clair Tisdall, who did pioneering work on these questions in his monograph "The Sources of Islam," which he later expanded into a book, and in his other writings, "The books of the Zoroastrians and Hindus... bear the most extraordinary likeness to what we find in the Koran and Hadith. . Thus in Paradise we are told of 'houris having fine black eyes,' and again of 'houris with large black eyes, resembling pearls hidden in their shells.'... The name houry too is derived from an Avesta or Pehlavi Source, as well as jinn for genii, and bihisht (Paradise), signifying in Avestic 'the better land.' We also have very similar tales in the old Hindu writings, of heavenly regions with their boys and girls resembling the houris and ghilman of the Koran.. Source: The Truth About Muhammad by Robert Spencer (2006) . Different Qur'ans in Muhammad's Time . Islamic sources tell us that Muhammad's followers would argue because Muhammad provided contradicting versions of the Qur'an. A notable example appears in Bulhari's Hadith: . Umar ibn Khattab [the second Caliph] said, 'I heard Hisham bin Hakim bin Hizam reciting Surat Al-Furqan ["Al-Furqan," the title of the 25th surah, has no meaning in any language.] during the lifetime of Allah's Apostle. I listened to his recitation and noticed that he recited it in several ways which Allah's Apostle had not taught me. So I was on the point of attacking him in the prayer, but I waited till he finished, and then I seized him by the collar. "Who taught you this Surah which I have heard you reciting?" He replied, "Allah's Apostle taught it to me." I said, "You are lying. Allah's Apostle taught me in a different way this very Surah which I have heard you reciting." So I led him to Muhammad. "O Allah's Apostle! I heard this person reciting Surat-al-Furqan in a way that you did not teach me." The Prophet said, "Hisham, recite!" So he recited in the same way as I heard him recite it before. On that Allah's Apostle said, "It was revealed to be recited in this way." Then the Prophet said, "Recite, Umar!" So I recited it as he had taught me. Allah's Apostle said, "It was revealed to be recited in this way, too." He added, "The Qur'an has been revealed to be recited in several different ways, so recite of it that which is easier for you." (Bukhari:V6B61N561) . Devoid of Context . The Qur'an in itself as a source for anything is devoid of context and thus arbitrary. Being devoid of context and any understanding, how can it be understood as the word of God?. We do not have material in the Qur'an to compose a biography of Muhammad because the book is a disjointed discourse, a pastiche [imitation, parody] of divine monologues that can be assembled into a homily [lecture, sermon] or perhaps a catechism [snippets of dogma] but that reveals little or nothing about the life of Muhammad and his contemporaries.... The Qur'an give us no assurance that its words and sentiments are likely to be authentic in the light of the context they were delivered and in the manner of their transmission. There are no clues as to when or where or why these particular words were being uttered.... The Qur'an is of no use whatsoever as an independent source for reconstructing the life of Muhammad. The Qur'an is not terribly useful even for reconstructing the Meccan milieu much less the life of the man who uttered its words; it is a text without context.. Source: Jay Smith, "Is the Qur'an the Word of God?", 1995 . Islamic Perspectives . Al-Quran came from Allah, the one only God. It is sent down to humankind through angel Jibril to Muhammad the messenger of Allah, to be propagated, with the permission of Allah, contains glad tidings and warnings. In hundreds of years, billions of people from all over the world have studied Al-Quran: some to learn from it, some to examine it, some to discredit it. And until now in our modern and scientific time: . Al-Quran is still believed, learned, followed, memorized, or just respected . None of the words, not even a letter has been changed . No one has been able to point out a mistake nor contradiction in it, nor anyone is able to produce something similar to it (ex. in beauty, structure, popularity, effect, the message and teaching, truth, etc.) . Even more scientific data in it are able to be proved with modern human knowledge and technology (ex. that universe is expanding, mountains are like nail that keeps the earth layer from moving, the sequence of development of unborn child - please read the writings from Bucaille, Zakir Naik and Harun Yahya for more) which are not comprehensible in the desert in the 7 th century. . "None of the words, not even a letter has been changed." This statement is actually incorrect and shows an ignorance in regard to textual criticism of the Qur'an. No Qur'anic manuscript of antiquity exactly matches today's common version of the Qur'an (a 1924 Royal Cairo edition). "No one has been able to point out a mistake nor contradiction in it, nor anyone is able to produce something similar to it (ex. in beauty, structure, popularity, effect, the message and teaching, truth, etc.)" There are many historical, scientific and literary mistakes within the Qur'an including doctrinal contradictions. So, another false point. . "Even more scientific data in it are able to be proved with modern human knowledge and technology (ex. that universe is expanding, mountains are like nail that keeps the earth layer from moving, the sequence of development of unborn child - please read the writings from Bucaille, Zakir Naik and Harun Yahya for more) which are not comprehensible in the desert in the 7 th century." This argument is fallacious as to accept claimed scientific foreknowledge would mean accepting all scientific discrepancies such as the gross scientific errors in regard to sperm production, embryology, etc. . Although a translation (which is human made) can not reveal all the meaning of another language, one can nowadays easily find a good translation of Al-Quran (ex. by sahih international, yusuf ali, etc.) and find out for himself, is it human made, or Al-Quran is from Allah, the only God. . "Qul la'enijtama'til inso wal jinno, 'ala ayyaatu bemislin, haazal qur'aane laa yaatoona bemislehi" , which means that if all the mankind and the Jinn come together, even then they won't be able to bring a single aayat (verse) - this Qur'an is unparalleled. However, most academics agree that the nature of the Qur'an is far surpassed by poetry, songs, and the Bible. . Quran is truly the book of ALLAH (SWT). It was revealed on Prophet Muhamamd PBUH. Quran reading has fascinating impact on life. I would suggest you to start reading Quran with translation, If you want to learn Quran online from your home using Internet see www.alquranacademy.com for more details. . Who Wrote the Koran? . by Abul Kasem . This article delves into the very authorship of the Holy Qur'an. It is a new way of looking at the Holy Qur'an. An enquiry is made using logical reasoning and historical references on the authorship of the Qur'an. Thus, this methodology is totally opposed to the blind believers who accept the authenticity of the Qur'an unquestionably. By analysing, dissecting and carefully interpreting the contents of the Qur'an, the Ahadith (Muhammad's traditions) and Sirah (Muhammad's biography) the author has identified several parties who had undoubtedly contributed to the composition of the Qur'anic verses. It was not Allah who wrote the Qur'an; it was not even Muhammad alone who did this either. The Qur'an is not the creation of a single entity or a single person. There were several parties involved in the composition, scribing, amending, inserting and deleting the Qur'anic verses. The most important personalities involved in the creation of the Qur'an were: Imrul Qays, Zayd b. Amr, Hasan b. Thabit, Salman, Bahira, ibn Qumta, Waraqa and Ubayy b. Ka'b. Muhammad, himself, was involved in the make-up of a limited number of verses, but the most influential person who motivated Muhammad in the invention of Islam and the opus of the Qur'an, perhaps, was Zayd b. Amr who preached 'Hanifism'. Muhammad later metamorphosed Zayd's 'Hanifism' into Islam. Therefore, the assertion that Islam is not a new religion stands to be true. However, the important finding is that the Qur'an is definitely not the words of Allah-it is a human-made scripture which Muhammad simply passed off as Allah's final words to mankind. Another important aspect of this essay is that among the ancient religions that the writers of the Qur'an incorporated in it, perhaps the practices of the Sabeans is crucial. In fact, the rituals of 5 prayers and the 30-day fasting were actually adapted from the Sabeans. The Qur'an, thus, is a compilation of various religious books that existed during Muhammad's time. Muhammad, not Allah, simply adopted, picked and chose from various sources and created the Qur'an. While many parties contributed to the Qur'an, Muhammad became its chief editor-to say it plainly.. List of Co-Authors of the Koran: . Imrul Qays-an ancient poet of Arabia who died a few decades before Muhammad's birth . Zayd b. Amr b. Naufal-an 'apostate' of his time who preached and propagated Hanifism . Labid-another poet . Hasan b. Thabit-the official poet of Muhammad . Salman, the Persian-Muhammad's confidante' and an advisor . Bahira-a Nestorian Christian monk of the Syrian church . Jabr-a Christian neighbour of Muhammad . Ibn Qumta-a Christian slave . Khadijah-Muhammad's first wife . Waraqa-Khadijah's cousin brother . Ubay b. Ka'b-Muhammad's secretary and a Qur'an scribe . Muhammad himself . There were other parties involved too. They were: . The Sabeans . Aisha-Muhammad's child bride . Abdallah b. Salam b. al-Harith-a Jewish convert to Islam . Mukhyariq-a Rabbi and another Jewish convert to Islam . Of course, this list of possible authors of the Qur'an is not exhaustive. There may be many other parties involved whose names are now forgotten or were suppressed. The above list should be ample enough to confirm the considerable uncertainty as to the Koran's sources. . Response . What a shame that a civilized human claims lies to dead people without proof, one can list as many names as he can, but a proof is needed for every name, and what a shame that a civilized human doesn't speak with respect about another human's religion, an opposing opinion can be offered more politely. . To add to the shame, there are 3 verses in the Holy Quran that meant the 1st name in the list, 224. As for poets, the erring follow them. 225. Hast thou not seen how they stray in every valley, 226. And how they say that which they do not ? [Ash-shua'raa(The Poets) The Twenty-Sixth Surah of the Qur'aan, Meanings of the Glorious Quran, by Marmaduke Pickthall] have you made a slight search before posting such names, you'd have found the commentary of these verses, mentioning the reason for their revelation. Role of Muhammad's Scribes Ibn Qumta and Abi Sarh Reports written by pious Muslims concerning Muhammad's two main scribes, his slave Ibn Qumta and a free scribe named Abdallah b. Sa'd b Abi Sarh, reveal Muhammad relied upon literate men for both the content and style of the Koran. One of the earliest Islamic historians, Wakidi, has the following sentence which suggests Abdallah b. Sa'd b. Abi Sarh, and a Christian slave, ibn Qumta, had considerable input in the content and wording of Muhammad's alleged revelations which he dictated to them. "And ibn Abi Sarh came back and said to the Quraish: "It was only a Christian slave who was teaching him (Muhammad); I used to write to him and change whatever I wanted."' In other words, Ibn Sarh spontaneously composed and changed whatever he chose in the Koran and Muhammad did not object or even seem to notice. It was only after Ibn Sarh told others that Muhammad became concerned that his fraud was being exposed. Because of the careless and casual way Muhammad allowed changes to the Supreme Being's revealed words, Abi Sarh became disgusted and publicly denounced Muhammad's "revelations" as an outright fraud and fled the cult. He reverted to Christianity and barely escaped assassination by Muhammad. The frank admission of Islamic "reporters" shows there was truth to the accusation. But that same person, Abdallah b. Sa'd b Abi Sarh, later repented, regretted for what he said, and asked for forgiveness from God, and wished that Prophet Muhammad would pardon him, which indeed happened, after Prophet Muhammad died, Abdallah was emlpoyed as an army leader, he died while praying Dawn "Fajr" Prayer, and this is evident in history books. Another view Gerard Puin is one of the foremost forensic scientists on the subject of the Koran. In an 1999 Atlantic Monthly article, he said: My idea is that the Koran is a kind of cocktail of texts that were not all understood even at the time of Muhammad. Many of them may even be a hundred years older than Islam itself. Even within the Islamic traditions there is a huge body of contradictory information, including a significant Christian substrate; one can derive a whole Islamic anti-history from them if one wants. The Qur'an claims for itself that it is 'mubeen,' or clear, but if you look at it, you will notice that every fifth sentence or so simply doesn't make sense. Many Muslims will tell you otherwise, of course, but the fact is that a fifth of the Qur'anic text is just incomprehensible. This is what has caused the traditional anxiety regarding translation. If the Qur'an is not comprehensible, if it can't even be understood in Arabic, then it's not translatable into any language. That is why Muslims are afraid. Since the Qur'an claims repeatedly to be clear but is not-there is an obvious and serious contradiction. Something else must be going on. -GP. Textual analysis shows the Koran to be a cocktail of dozens of texts from various sources jumbled together out of chronological order and used to validate the imperial ambitions of the caliphs and consolidate their sole control over the Islamic armies. The Koran appears to have been composed as a troop motivator. Over half of the Koran consists of speeches motivating mujahadin to slay unbelievers and describing the material and sensual rewards for doing so. While modern forensic, scholarly methods have been used to analyze the Bible, applying the same standard to the Koran has lagged behind due to fanatics who are willing to kill to prevent open scholarly research of the Koran. They really have nothing to fear, however, since if the Koran is flawless, research will show that to be true, but if it is shown by science to be flawed, they will be liberated from a merely human fabrication. Science has nothing to do with "hurting people's feelings". The purpose of science is to systematically search for verifiable facts. Other Perspectives . I don't think that Mamed (called prophet Mohammed pbuh) did write a sentence of the Koran. To me it seems evident that the "kalif" Uthman was the inventor and first writer of the koran. I can not believe that a person who is friendly and related to the deepest enemies of Mamed (like Abu Sufyan and others) has reproduced faithfully the doctrine of Mamed. Uthman was a man of power and an enemy of Mamed. He has invented a sacred book for political goals. Everyone who disagreed was killed. In my eyes the changing of the Qibla already marks an event in Islamic history. Its importance is not seen by western searchers. This event shows that Mamed has lost the control of his teaching and other people lead the Muslims by political goals. The Koran is the final product of this process. It's a book that had to be produced in similarity to other holy books but with a clear political message. This Koran of Uthman has much evolved by political interests. The edition Al-Azhar of 1924 is not the uthmanic one. . It is a pity that a man's effort like Uthman's is now considered an invention of the Holy Quran, it's so strange why a reasonable effort like that Uthman Ibn Affan did is not placed in its right frame, what Uthman Ibn Affan did was just collecting the scriptures of the Holy Quran between two covers of a book, after it was scattered here and there, carved on pieces of wood or bone, or even palm leaves. Were the Arabs so ignorant or foolish to let him invent a new Quran without reacting or protesting? And how would they let him, after they had all these long years of conflict against Muslims before they finally realized this was the true religion and followed it in large numbers? . After all, looking into Uthman's life, we will find no improvement happened to him after he ruled Muslim affairs, he was already rich, and his wealth didn't increase, but decreased. No single Khalif before Umayyah had a single guard on his door, would he be that safe if he invented a whole book and claimed it was from Allah? this is not reasonable. . If someone hates some religion, it is his own business, but to claim lies on it, this is unacceptable. Another issue to be taken in mind is to respect human figures, specially when these figures mean much for a group of people, coz finally all are human beings and have rights of respect due to humanity, before all. . Considering the change of Quibla, if it showed really a loss of control, it no doubt would have lead to breakdown of the Muslim society in its early beginnings, which historically didn't happen, on the contrary, after this event, the Muslim society continued to grow and fluorish, and proved success in different aspects of life. . This has only one explanation, that all these orders came from God, all Quiblas belong to God, and He has the power to order His followers to pray to whatever direction, and as soon as someone believes in his religion and its truthfulness he would then follow all its orders without arguing. . Even Prophet Muhammad followed those orders though they were not what he wished, when he prayed facing the 1st Quibla, he was following that order faithfully, but wished deeply in his heart to follow the 2nd Quibla, which is the Ka'aba. . A Western Perspective As seen from Western Eyes, the purpose of the Koran is to educate, but also to obfuscate. The Koran teaches peace, yet encourages war. Recounters violence with the voice of reason. Takes down the walls between nations, and build walls between brothers. Encourages one voice, one people, and one opinion. Discourages many voices, many peoples, and many opinions. The Koran is the antithesis to modern living. In a classical concept it molds itself into being similar to many other neo-classical religions, it even shares many things in common with Greek-Roman theology, but it departs from this rather quickly and beckons the call of the Indian Vedas, calls them Sutras, and quickly ends all of this with an orgy of violence we today call a Jihad.. ( Full Answer )
We need to let nature run its course, but a vegan lifestyle is not for everyone. Something important to remember is that humans ARE part of nature. The day we can find our place in this world, a place that is both predator and prey, is the day we've done something right. FlyingDove Answer Life …on this planet cannot be sustained if humans continue to consume meat. While most will agree that factory farming is horrible, those same people may not consider that human beings can no longer be sustained as hunter-gatherers. If all humans turned to hunting instead of factory farming, there would be no animals left to eat, there are simply too many of us. Therefore, the only logical conclusion can be to allow nature to take its course without human interference - if we stopped murdering the predators, we wouldn't need to worry about 'keeping populations in check', which is really just a hunter's excuse. We must turn to a Vegan lifestyle, which is far more healthy in the long run, as humans were intended to eat very little meat, if any at all (and such meats were usually easily digested fish.) *Avarice* ANSWER . . . I t all depends on the person you are asking. I personally think it's wrong because its human interference in nature, but here are both sides: Hunter's View: Since many predatory animals have decreased in numbers, it is up to humans to control the animal's population. Plus, hunters do not hunt unlimitedly - there are limits to how many animals each hunter is able to hunt. Wildlife Preserver's View: Humans have no right to interfere with nature because nature always has a way of doing things. Hunters will break nature's cycle. Also, hunters kill mostly healthy young animals which are vital to the population. Hope this helped, SMARTIIZ. Answer I am an expert at carpentry, since you did not specify what type of expert you wanted I will take this opportunity to answer. If a wild mink does not hunt it will not be able to eat it will then not be able to live. Either way a animal will die. However everything that has ever lived on earth either has died or will die therefore one must conclude that it is essential part of this ecosytem. The mink by choosing to hunt is not going against this conclusion (its inevitable death) only providing another animal the chance to finish its destiny. If the question you intended was is the practice of hunting as sport or entertainment right or wrong this could only be ansered by your personal beliefs. Do you believe it is wrong for the earth to require all life to agree to die before it is allowed to exist? Is death wrong or the journey one takes to get their? Currently in parts of the world men hunt men this in some places is called war if the men they where hunting would just shoot animals instead of the men/women they are hunting would they be wrong. I once read a quote that throughout all the tribulations of mans search for civilization thir has been one constant, while rome burned,as France revolted as d-day happened as hiroshima and nagasaki exploded as Jesus Allah gandi propheted somewhere unknown to them all the hunter hunted. In my mind this is our basic survival instinct.To outlaw it in this country would be to say to all generations to follow civilization will take care of you. However Rome burnt and the hunter might not even have seen the smoke perhaps. Content with his existence, treating every kill as sustinecnce ,and a gift, as his dead body will be a gift someday to something if not ravens and vultures then to the worms and microscopic animals living in him. Thier is no way hunting can be wrong giving that the outcome is inevitable to all beings on earth death . Are there way that are unethical that hunting takes place? Is fishing not hunting? Is a hook in the mouth before death better then a bullet or arrow in the heart or some place else worse then being taken from the life giving water abnd allowed to suffocate on land for fish. Isnt the agony of the most painful death still a part of life? Could the suffering be wrong since the death is inevitable anyway but one could suffer from starvation longer then bleeding to death, so is less suffering less wrong. Does the muscrat the mink kills not suffer because it was killed by a mink instead of man? ANSWER define expert, hunting expert, animal expert, im just a person who knows some things about life and basically hunting is in nature, its in all animals to hunt, for food and even for fun, yes other animals do do this,( whales and sharks torture baby seals and whales and play with them before they kill them.) i used to despise all forms of hunting etc, but as i got older i saw what nature is, and we are just part of the big picture not the big picture itself hunting does cause pain, its does seem pointless, but its in all our instincts to hunt humans have tried to take themselves out of the evolutionary life and create 'civilized' society but to then let a dog rip a fox to pieces while its alive its totally cruel and barbaric and most certainly NOT civilized, so really the question is not whether its right or wrong but whether we can accept our own hypocracy. the biggest reasons to stop hunting or to suggest it is wrong are that is is often barbaric, causes suffering to the animal, and is often done in ignorance of the fact that any animal can be hunted to extinction, just because there are a lot of them doesn't mean there are endless amounts, a species of dolphin has just been suggested to be extinct only yesterday due to hunting, whales (which are infact related to dolphins) were hunted to near extinction not long ago also the eco system is a very delicate thing, when one animal, especially an animal as big as the whale, nearly dies out the plankton in the sea would go wild, they would over populate in the sea due to not being eaten by the worlds largest mammal (this was seen in some places the whale was dissapearing) and that causes a chain effect, ie every living thing would eventually become affected down the line other animals would over populate, other animals would die out due to the changed in the food chain. and even people who previously hunted (not all but a few) are now fighting to save animals because they realize not only does the animal suffer horrifically but they were almost gone because of their hunting so i think those people are almost what you could define as an 'expert's opinion on hunting and when they start to question it and drastically change their ways you have to stop and think, maybe they have a point. f4 Another Hunter's View: Allowing other comments to stand and starting fresh. As a volunteer outdoor education instructor for my state I've used the proximity to wildlife managers and biologists to expand my knowledge, but still I've found that it comes down to this: One cannot respond to emotional arguments with science. Persons who are opposed to the harvest of animals (particularly the cute ones who were subject to anthropomorphism by Walt Disney) will not hear or accept the facts as presented by those who work where the rubber meets the road. For instance, many animal activists recommend wildlife contraception as an alternative to hunting of deer populations to control their numbers. Unfortunately, no such contraceptive exists. There is no chemical or hormone that can simply be put out in food or salt or apple licks (put it out and forget it!) that will result in birth control for wild deer or any other mammal. The contraceptive used in controlled environments such as zoos or even on the "wild" (but captive) ponies on Assateague Island must be administered in several doses, and the animals must be tracked (which is made possible by the ponies' unique markings) to avoid under or over dosing. I think one activist expressed her true motivations best when she suggested that we hunt all white tail deer to extinction (which is highly unlikely because of their prolific breeding and adaptability to urban living and fondness for ornamentals and flowers) in order to completely eliminate the suffering of deer! At the same time other activists advocate the re-introduction of predators to control deer numbers and restore the "balance of nature". This would indicate that it isn't deer suffering that motivates antis, because there's no evidence to support the assertion that deer would rather be killed by cougars than hunters. Because the majority of anti hunting activists are women, it would seem that the real reasons for opposing our oldest tradition may be elsewhere. The same activists who would stop me from hunting the meat that I enjoy most would also stop me from fishing, while buying fish products to feed their cats. So, it would appear that a little bit of animal suffering is fine if it makes Fluffy and her human companion happy. But, if I take young hunters afield and teach them how to humanely harvest animals and to safely handle the tools and the meat, then I'm a barbarian from an era that's best forgotten. Never mind that women (and men) worshiping cats dates back to Cleopatra and certainly before. And, when I try to tell cat lovers that Fluffy has no "natural right" to roam and to kill birds and small mammals just for practice (cats are hard wired to pounce even though they're subsidized and don't eat their kills) I've found that women who abhor hunting could kill me as readily as I harvest game. Summary: If animals have "rights" then who are we to decide for them whether or not they breed, or to hunt them to extinction to eliminate their "suffering?" (They don't agonize like condemned persons waiting their turn at the gallows at the prospect of being hunted by animal or human predators) And, why is scorching the Earth with powerful chemicals (with unknown long term consequences and environmental impact like DDT or BGH in milk) preferable to the scientifically managed harvest of delicious, healthy, lean meat? Is a scorched Earth policy really something that true nature lovers would advocate? _HOUNDDAWG in DELAWARE 2/13/08 Answer: I'm no expert, but I think that we Humans are just as much a part of the environment as other predators, and as long as we eat the meat and respect the kill then it is no offense. And as for interfering with nature, We are nature too. Maybe super-advanced nature, but still nature. ________________________________________________________________________________ awild1 adds: i am a vegitarian because i don't think it is right to kill animals for food! for info on vegitarian eating and things e-mail me at firstname.lastname@example.org AMMEH1: As an enthusiactic hunter myself, i have no objecting to killing the vermin which others consider to be animals i.e foxes. They destroy the livelyhood of all farmers, and since the ban, their numbers have been increasing rapidly, furthermore many hound have been but down, as their primary function cannot be forfilled and they have been too expensive to keep. In addition the careful balance and businesses of the country has been tipped over, farriers, grooms, professional clippers etc... have found that they are out of a job as the hunt and hunter horses have not been needed. This is an outrage and i believe that those from the cities who protest animal rights should come and see it for themselves, before they even considered ruining the lives of so many in the country. ( Full Answer )
answer . Curtis Mayfield, of "Superfly" fame, wrote "It's Alright" Huey Lewis recorded a popular version of it.
An opinion is somebody's point of view on somebody, or something.It is something nobody can prove, but the person with the opinioncan back up with evidence. Example: Ice cream is good, or I think this sport is fun,because there are a lot of positions to play. Opinion is what a person thinks about …something. For instance, my opinion is that mushrooms are disgusting and inedible. Someone else might love them.When it is compared to fact, it is usually seen as less valid and based on observations and information gathered in a "non-scientific" way.another definition of opinion is when someone says they dont like something and that person may not like it so their for you should always keep your opinion to yourself ( Full Answer )
Answer opinions can not be wrong it is an individuals point of view it can neither be right or wrong
This question is for GUYs to answer only and say truth which would you prefer a girl with freckles or with out and dont answer well if the person is interested he wouldn't care u just want an opinion?
a fit body and a cute face, freckles or no freckles doesnt matter, dont worry about your freckles too much
Opinion Yes, euthanasia is very wrong whether it is being performed on animals or humans. When we euthanize, we are playing God. Animals and humans go through a process when they are dying, and if that natural process is suddenly ended, the human/animal will be harmed. No one has the right to kil…l something else. Euthanasia is not at all ethical. I hope this helps, and that all euthanasia will end someday! Opinion No. Many people would choose doctor assisted euthanasia if it was available. In fact, many do. Many dying people have asked a family member or partner for that kind of help and many have honored that request. It has been performed for centuries where family members and family doctors have honored the wish of a dying relative or patient to help end their suffering. The right to die should be as respected as the right to live. It should be a matter of personal choice and should be carried out with all the support necessary to make one's last hours comfortable and safe, and one's passing peaceful. It is widely available in some areas. ( Full Answer )
Answer . If the Church considers the ideas of a professed member to be wrong, then he is called a heretic and his ideas are considered heresy. . Answer . Other terms, most of which are considered insulting, are infidel, heathen, pervert (once meant the opposite of "convert"), and others I ca…n't think of at the moment. Most modern terms for disgusting, vile deviant things originally meant something which deviated from the teachings of the church. Obscenity, blasphemy, etc all had religious connotations originally.. ( Full Answer )
You are 16 your fiance is 39 you're in love and you are pregnant with his daughter he breaks up with you because he thinks it's wrong because you are so young what is your opinion?
Damn man better step up to the plate. He should have worried about it being "wrong" before he impregnated you. These two wrongs will definatly make a much, much, bigger wrong. He's probably some loser who just wanted sex and is now regretting it. Being in love is not wrong... but if he really is "in… love" it wouldn't matter the age differance. Saying that he is afraid that it is "wrong" is just him giving you a wussy lie. He should be educated in his wrong doing, someone needs to make him man up, and take care of his kid.. In fact i am quite sadened by this. A sixteen year old girl doesn't know where she lies in the world... this man just took advantage of her naivity. ( Full Answer )
It's a 3 oclock on Easter is anyone on because no one will answer my Kennedy questions like why does everyone hate them and if you keyword Kennedy most of them are mine I love knowing people's opinion?
Some people disdain the Kennedys because the family Patriarch was a gangster and a hoodlum who made all his money as a bootlegger and gunrunner, and they nowadays practice familial elitism.
The study of history is obviously very important to this country.Every generation needs to know what happened before them, to keepthe facts straight through the years.Ã
There is nothing wrong with having a racial preference in attraction. The problem comes if you decide you're better than a certain race or can't associate with a certain race out of fear or ignorance. But simply being attracted to members of a certain race is not my idea of prejudice or bigotry.
A personal opinion is your own thought about something that is not derived from thoughts of another person. It is my personal opinion that Mazda makes a better car than Hyundai. My opinion isn't based on any research. My opinion wasn't told to me by another person. I don't know whether or not other …people agree with me. That is what makes it my personal opinion. It is derived from my own thoughts pertaining to those cars. You may have a personal opinion about most ideas and concepts. It is my personal opinion that my son would be better off in home school than in public or private school. I know that this is my own personal opinion and I know that other people disagree with me. I came to this personal opinion of my own free will using my own thoughts and reasoning. It came from other personal opinions that pertain to schools in our area. One of my personal opinions is that the teachers do not have adequate control over their classrooms. It is my personal opinion that public school is not a safe environment for my son to be in. We use our own thoughts and reasoning to find our own personal opinions. Our opinions are often influenced by those of our friends and family. We are also likely to base our opinions on what is socially acceptable or based on religious beliefs. ( Full Answer )
Like any other questions wiki doesnt know or help you with ANYTHING I HATE WIKI
Iv always been interested in asking males if they ingest their semen. All of them always say they do not. If you want to eat your semen, do it. It can not hurt you. Its comprised mostly of glucose, and half the chromosomes for your unborn children. It could possibly be looked at like cannibalism sin…ce is does contain human DNA in which case doing such would be frowned upon. As it stands now...in the words of Nike...JUST DO IT. ( Full Answer )
Well you can always say yes, but you can never truthfully answer yes to: "Are you dead"?
Healthcare is a right in most civilized countries. Answer Maybe in some countries, but not the US. We have enough entitlements already, and this new bill will bankrupt the economy. Answer Health Care is not a "right". A "right" is something that everyone is born with, or as some w…ould say "endowed by their creator with". A "right", by definition, does not impose any burden on another individual, except that of non-interference. Any right that takes away rights from others cannot be a right. Furthermore, a "right" is both free and unlimited. You don't have to pay anything to exercise it, and you can have as much of it as you want. It is tempting to think of health care as a right. The problem with that, however, is that, in order for you to receive health care, someone ELSE has to PROVIDE health care. Maybe it's the doctor that treats you in the emergency room. The doctor who treats you, the nurse who assists, the receptionist, the pharmacist that fills your prescription, the drug company that made the drug. All of those people are providing your health care. They don't HAVE to provide your health care. There's no law that says they MUST work in the medical profession. They do so because they CHOOSE to do so. If health care is a RIGHT, then they have no choice. They MUST provide your health care. Health care is not free. All of those people involved in providing your health care have to be paid. Someone has to give them money for providing health care. The payer might be you, or it might be your insurance company, or it might be the government, but SOMEBODY is going to pay for health care. If health care was a RIGHT, then no one would have to pay for it. And the poor doctors, nurses, pharmacists, and drug companies would not only be forced to be involved in a profession they might not want to be in, they would have to do so WITHOUT COMPENSATION. That is the very definition of slavery. How can you possibly define health care as a "right", when exercising that "right", by necessity, denies the most important right - freedom - from others? Okay, so maybe you don't want the health care providers to be slaves. Well, who's going to pay them? The insurance companies? If health care is a right, then it's free, and the insurance companies cannot charge premiums, and therefore cannot stay in business. So (and this is what "health care" as a "right" inevitably comes down to), the GOVERNMENT has to pay for everyone's health care. But where are they going to get the money to do so? Taxes. That means that the government is forcibly taking the hard-earned fruits of one person's labor, against his will, and using it to pay for a service to another person. So, exercising your "right" to health care, does in fact put a BURDEN on another person. So it cannot be a right. Health care is not unlimited. There are only so many doctors, nurses, pharmacists, and drug companies in existence. If everyone in the country wanted to go to the emergency room every day, for every little minor ailment from a hangnail to a headache, the emergency rooms could not possibly handle that much traffic. That, of course, is an extreme example, but let me be clear. IF health care is a right, then if everyone in the country went to the emergency room every day, they would ALL receive health care. That won't happen, so health care is NOT a right. But, putting aside my extreme example, there is no doubt that, if health care were free and unlimited (as any "right", by definition, is), then there would be huge increase in people seeking health care. Meanwhile, the numbers of doctors, nurses, pharmacists, and drug companies will not increase (in fact, it is likely that those numbers will DECREASE, as evidenced by polls that say over one-third of doctors will consider retiring from medicine if the health care reform bill passes). There is no way that the larger number of patients can be accommodated by the current number of health care providers, let alone by the drastically reduced number of health care providers we are likely to see in the not-too-distant-future, as young people starting college now will be less likely go into medicine. Health care will have to RATIONED. Rights cannot be rationed. (This is not directly related to the question, but I'd like to make another point here. When working men and women get sick, they have to take time off from work. As the number of people seeking health care - for minor problems that don't really require missing any work - increases, it will take longer for working men and women with more serious problems to be seen by a doctor, and therefore it will take longer for them to get well, and they will miss more work. So, even if they don't have to pay actual cash dollars out of their pockets to be seen by a doctor or get a prescription, there is still a COST, namely lost wages, that they will have to pay, and this cost will, without a doubt, INCREASE if health care becomes "free". Moreover, the economy will suffer a huge loss in overall productivity because of the increased amount of time workers have to take off to receive health care.) Viewing health care as a "right" might win an election, but it is not a tenable policy. Health care is not free. It cannot be exercised without limit. It cannot be exercised without imposing a burden on others. It simply is NOT a right. The notion of health care as a "right" must be immediately discarded, along with such things as a "right to food", or a "right to housing", or a "right to a job". None of these things can be viewed as a "right" because they are not free, they are not unlimited, and they impose burdens on others. Now, I'm not saying that we shouldn't do something to provide health care, food, a home, or a job to those who are in need of them. But we simply cannot allow politicians to portray these things as "rights". Answer The concepts of "right" and "personal responsibility" are not necessarily mutually exclusive. We have a moral and ethical imperative to ensure everyone has access to resources governing basic survival, such as health care. Moral and Ethical Imperative? Just because you SAY that I have a moral and ethical imperative does not make it so. I do not recognize any such imperative. The only moral and ethical imperative I recognize is to ensure freedom . And no one has a "right" to my hard-earned money. Health care is a service, provided for a fee. Just like a haircut. Sure, health care is more important. But that has nothing to do with it. In fact, if anything, the importance of health care is a very good reason why it should NOT be viewed as a right. You talk about "resources governing basic survival". But what are these resources? The skills and knowledge of doctors, for one. Who OWNS those resources? The doctors themselves, for now. But if everyone has access to those resources, then the doctors don't own their skills and knowledge anymore, and cannot be paid for them. They spent tens of thousands of dollars in tuition to obtain those skills and knowledge, but they don't own them. Instead, these skills and knowledge are now at the beck and call of every Tom, Dick, and Harry whose life is in danger. Similar arguments can be made for all of the resources that go into providing health care: the skills and knowledge of nurses; the expensive equipment used to diagnose patients; the bandages, syringes, and other supplies; the equipment and raw materials that go into making and testing drugs; the skills and knowledge of the scientists and lab technicians that make and test the drugs; even the skills of the receptionists at the doctor's office - if health care is a "right", then all of these resources, BY DEFINITION, are PUBLIC GOODS, and no one owns them. Aside from the obvious violation of private property rights, intellectual property rights, and the prohibition of slavery, this creates another huge problem. Namely, the complete lack of profit incentive. The entire health care industry will fall apart if we ever start seriously treating health care as a "right". You can talk all day long about whether it is a good thing to provide health care for those who cannot afford it. And I will be glad to debate you on that. But you cannot call health care a "right". Because health care is not free. Health care is not unlimited. Health care imposes a burden on others. Health care completely fails every criteria of a "right". Health care is N0T a right. Another County heard from: It's encouraging to have debate on important issues, but discouraging to see the same tired old arguments that have been rejected time and again as if those arguments are something new. We need better. The argument that no one can be forced to pay for health care because others have no right to one's hard earned money has been argued and dismissed already. Medicare provides health care to persons over a certain age and everyone who works pays into the system even though not at that time even entitled to the health care being paid for. The same goes for the Social Security System. Try refusing to pay those payroll taxes and see what happens. So that argument is out. The argument that a person cannot be forced to buy insurance is decent but deceased as well. Mandatory automobile insurance laws in various states have been held to be constitutional. So that argument is out. The argument that somehow doctors' services and medical equipment will be at everyone's beck and call is frivolous, since health care will come at a price just like Medicare does. Medicare payroll taxes are used to pay doctors and buy medical equipment. No one is forced to provide such services or goods for free. So that argument is out. A criminal defendant has a constitutional right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment even if they cannot pay for one. No one has conscripted all the lawyers or their legal pads in order to provided legal services even that type of service is a right. So that argument is out. The argument that if somethings are deemed rights they become PUBLIC GOODS by definition is simply false. If something is a "right", it must be provided by the government not the providers. The Due Process clause forbids a taking without just compensation. That means the government cannot just take a doctor's services or a drug company's medications without first paying just compensation for them. Legal services to indigent defendants are not public goods available for the taking by the government. It's time to stop using all these worn out cliches. Sure an argument can be made that health care will be a burden on some, but those arguments have already been made and overruled. Nothing in the Constitution prohibits government from placing burdens on people. Answer Just because one side happens to have temporarily won a legislative or legal battle does not mean that the other side's arguments are "wrong". Slavery won many legislative and legal battles for nearly a hundred years. Did that make slavery right? Were the abolitionists dismissed? Social Security and Medicare are just as bad (though not to the same extent as the current health care bill). They take money from one person and give it to another. There's nothing in the Constitution to support that, regardless of what any politician or judge says. Automobile insurance is NOT mandatory. I have every right to not purchase automobile insurance. I just have to give up the privilege of operating a motor vehicle on state-owned roads. Therefore, so-called "mandatory" automobile insurance is not a violation of my rights. Mandatory health insurance, however, most certainly IS a violation of my rights, because I have to purchase it, whether I want to or not, whether I want medical care or not. Of course doctors will continue to be paid. That's why, by definition, health care is not a "right", which is what this question is all about. You can argue all day about whether it's a good thing to do, but you can't call it a "right". The sixth amendment does not guarantee a court-appointed attorney when a defendant can't afford one. Read it. "Rights" are not provided by governments. They exist, IN SPITE of governments. If the government (or anyone for that matter) has to provide something, by definition, it is not a "right". If by "worn-out cliches", you mean the generally accepted definition of the word "right", then I'll stop using that worn-out cliche when hell freezes over, and not a day sooner. Answer A key principle of why a National Health care service is bad is because it takes away from actual rights. If the government is your health care provider they have access to your files, that they normally would need a warrant to. This means if you was to have a DNA test for medical reasons, that DNA that normally would require a warrant to be on government file, is now on a government database as soon as it was taken. If health care eliminates other rights, such as needing a warrant for DNA, than how can it with in it's self be a right. ( Full Answer )
I don't think an opinion can be right or wrong. Its just your expressed feelings about a situation. "I think the sky looks peaceful tonight." It doesnt matter whether or no the sky is peaceful. The person thinks the sky is peaceful. So their opinion isn't right or wrong. It certaintly isn't wrong to… have an opinion, it shows a well rounded person. ( Full Answer )
Who sings it's never going to be all right it's never going to be the same it might get better as time goes by but it's never going to be all right?
That' is a Rock Song call suffering the group is Shatel I hope this is the one you are looking for. Regards
Does having philosophical conversations with oneself eg one states an opinion and then one as a secondary person questions that opinion constitute a degree of insanity?
It is highly unlikely to be schizophrenia, and does not meet the criteria for dissociative personality disorder (which some people believe -- erroneously -- schizophrenia to be. It is certainly outside the cultural norm, but not excessively so. As long as you are aware of the fact that you are do…ing it, and wonder about it, it could be said simply to be a quirk or, at worst, a slight emotional imbalance. If you begin to do it consistently, in public, or if it begins to interfere with your functioning in society, it might be worth discussing it with a mental health professional. If for no other reason, simply to help you understand it. ( Full Answer )
Yes, it's a scam. You should never pay to work. But they charge an "advance fee" of about forty bucks. And you never ever get that promised job of playing video games all day for thousands of dollars a week!
The correct line is 'tis better to have loved and lost, than never to have loved at all' by Alfred Lord Tennyson, the poem is called In Memoriam and dated 1850...as follows. I hold it true, what'er befall, / I feel it, when I sorrow most, / 'tis better to have loved and lost, / than never to have l…oved at all. ( Full Answer )
Everybody should be able to own a gun as long as it is not fully automatic. == People should be able to own any weapon that their government can own. many believe that the prime concept behind the Second Amendment was to protect the citizens from government predation and to, in the gravest extr…eme, allow for the populace to force governmental change. Allowing the government to dictate what the citizenry can and cannot possess always places the citizens at a disadvantage and under the control of the government. The design and intention was quite the opposite. The government is to answer to the people. ( Full Answer )
Opinion . Some people believe it is not right because it does not recognize God as a real being capable of being related to through Jesus Christ. . The graceful ideas of reincarnation sound infinitely true and just - if I kill, I will be killed or if I maim, I will be maimed someday. The troub…le with fatalism or fantasy justice is that those most in need in society could possibly be accused of deserving harm. ( Full Answer )
Is there really a right or wrong answer on whether or not it's good or bad to watch only cartoons as an 18 year old because I don't think it's bad?
well i would say everyone should just watch what they want to watch i myself am 19 years old and only watch anime and i dont see me stopping that anytime soon.
Scientific theory must have the evidence support and pass through process of validation. It is not an opinion that could be set from wild guess. You start with an Hypothesis, and look for evidence. If there is enough valid evidence, then you can call it a theory.
of cores not i am only 12 and i mostly watch cartoons but you should try to watch other stuff but no it is your choice but i do recommend you watch other stuff other than cartoons but you still can watch cartoons.
Can you just click on the recommend contributor to trust your own question and It's right or wrong thing to do that?
There is nothing against that. One Supervisor once said "We can't trust you if you can't trust yourself".
It shouldn't be an issue. Gays and lesbians shouldn't have to worry about their rights. Who you are sleeping with should have no bearing on anything. You should be able to marry who you want to and get the same benefits as a straight couple. What two men or two women do in bed has no effect on the s…traight couple. It does not weaken the institution of marriage, the straight couple not staying faithful does that. ( Full Answer )
Extremely versatile war: 1. First use of SAC B52 bomber in combat 2. First super-sonic aerial dog-fights 3. Last use of an all gun battleship in war (USS New Jersey) 4. First combat for an Airborne or Amphibious tank(s) (US-M551 Sheridan/NVA-PT76) 5. First mass use of air to air missiles in aerial …combat 6. First Anti-tank missile combat use for US (TOW) and communists (SAGGER) 7. First Assault Rifle war (M16s and AK47s) 8. First Helicopter War 9. First Attack Helicopter 10. Last war fought by US WWII Veterans 11. Last war fought by men ( Full Answer )
well, basically it depends on if you like gameboy and/or guitar hero ds version, DS lite: Pros: Gameboy compatible [you can play gameboy games] Light, and easy to handle. large variety of colors Cons: cannot take pics, different stylus size, and very breakable L and R buttons. DSi Pr…os: Can take pics, easy settings. varying sizes [Nintendo is making a DSi XL] some different colors. Cons: different stylus size, hard to take pics [there is a front cam also] and, hard to navigate the main menu [DSi front menu] PS. its easy to configure settings for the Dsi, but it is hard to navigate [kinda confusing and fairly annoying.] ( Full Answer )
As long as the comments do not violate the Community Guidelines, such as inappropriate language or cyberbullying, then yes, they can be added to the Discussion Page of a question. General chatting is not permitted within the Discussion Page, and may result in your account being suspended.
I know a 20year old boy and a 14 year-old girl who like each other. Personally I think it's morally wrong and think should they should wait until she turns 18 and he's 23 or 24. Opinions anyone?
Alright. This is not morally wrong. I too have been into a situation like this. i was 14 when a 20 year old boy liked me and i liked him. this is actually normal. we are now married and it worked out. They don't have to wait, that's their choice.
You know someone who is 20 and has feelings for a 14 year-old girl. Personally you think it's morally wrong and think I should they should wait until she turns 18 and he's 23-24 Opinions anyone?
If he truly loves her then he would be willing to wait. If he cannot overcome his desires of lust then he obviously puts that before his love and the relationship. It would not only be morally wrong but a sin as well.
Chief Justice John Marshall wrote the only opinion issued for McCulloch v. Maryland ; the case was decided by a unanimous vote of 7-0. Case Citation: McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 US 316 (1819)
You can, but questions like that would be better suited for a Q&A site that allows people to post separate answers to questions, such as Yahoo Answers, Quora, or Aardvark. Questions on WikiAnswers can ask for opinions though. When questions do ask for opinions, people can post their separate opinion…s in separate paragraphs, or separate the answers using bullet points. ( Full Answer )
"It's Now or Never" was recorded by Elvis Presley. It was released in 1933. The song, "It's Now or Never", was written by Aaron Schroeder and Wally Gold.
idk what do you think you freaking idiot. why do you have to look on this stupid website to look at answers. get a life you cotton ball
I'm a Canadian girl who thinks that its perfectly fine for two people of different races to date or have a relationship. It's not like you two are different species, the only difference is appearance and culture. If two people truly love each other and can put aside differences cultural or not then …they have every right to be together. ( Full Answer )
Brazil is a horrible country. Do not go there. Many are involved with foul play and many end up dead. If you are in danger, the Brazilian's couldn't care less. My great-uncle died at the age of 19 over there after drowning, and while he was sucked in by the water, his friends watched him. There were… no lifeguards and no-one tried to save him. ( Full Answer )
That depends on whether you regard moral values as relative or absolute. If relative, then it's an opinion; if absolute, then it's a fact that racism is wrong.
Mc Donalds killing you softly.Watch a movie call Super size me and understand the secret oc Mc donalds.
My Opinion -- Why does life exist. The deepest question on life means a question which touches the heart, liver and spleen of the phenomenon that is called life. Where life came from, how it is transferred exactly from being to being, what is the meaning of life, what is the purpose of life here, …and where do we go after life have all been deep quesions that have been troubling mankind since its emergence. But the deepest and the most relevant question of all is the above one: Why Life? ( Full Answer )
since you ask, I think it's not the right person for u. You dont have questions when it's the right person
Because you're more than likely asking for an opinion or a fact. If you question something you're not stating anything; you state something when you answer though.
Many people have a personal opinion on cloning. Most people do not think it is a good idea and there has even been a bill known as the Human Cloning prohibition Act made to Congress but was rejected. It was re-introduced again in May 2013.
WikiAnswers is not a critique service. You need to let your friends and family read the story first, then join a critique group and let them look at it. You can also send it to a professional editor and pay them to critique it.
My personal opinion about the book Bud, Not Buddy is, I think this is an AWESOME book I would read it again, best book ever 5/5 stars â¥
Nowhere in the King James Version of the Bible does it say 'the end of times .' . The Bible reveals evidence that man hasbeen " allotted a period oftime " [6000 years; a 6000 year/six-day work week -see II Peter 3:8] to discover and experience life... both the goodand evil aspects of it -- t…o learn the bottomless depths of selfishwickedness, lawlessness and evil brought about by "sin" [breakingGod's Law, His Ten Commandments - I John 3:4 & Rom.7:7]; and tolearn about the selflessness of Love, that man's LORD Creator Godhas shown him by the example of His Own Self-sacrifice for Hiscreation... to redeem it back from its sins, to save it by theconclusion or END of that allotted time period. . It's of this "TIME allotment" [sometimes called an "age"] given toman by his Creator that the Bible says is coming to an "END." An"end" which God's prophets saw in dreams and visions... and ofwhich few or none of them really understood: . "As Gabriel approached the place where I was standing, I became soterrified that I fell to the ground. 'Son of man,' he said, 'youmust understand that the events YOU HAVE SEEN IN YOUR VISION relateto THE TIME OF THE END .' ... Then hesaid, 'I am here to tell you what will happen LATER INTHE TIME OF WRATH . What you have seen pertains to the VERY END OF TIME .' [this is the NLT translation. The KJV translates this: '...I will make thee know what shall be in theLAST END OF THE INDIGNATION: for at THE TIME APPOINTEDTHE END shall be.']" (Dan.8:17-19 NLT New Living Translation ) . Nonetheless... men calling "right wrong and wrong right" has neverbeen limited to the "time of the end." . "Destruction is certain for those who drag their sins behind them,tied with cords of falsehood. They even mock the Holy One of Israeland say, 'Hurry up and do something! Quick, show us what you cando. We want to see what you have planned.' Destructionis certain for THOSE WHO SAY EVIL IS GOOD AND GOOD ISEVIL ; that dark is light and light is dark; thatbitter is sweet and sweet is bitter. Destruction is certain forthose who think they are wise and consider themselves to beclever... They take bribes to pervert justice. They let the wickedgo free while punishing the innocent..." (Isa.5:18-23 NLT ). . Of course... the LAST GREAT DAY of God'splan; Judgment Day [which shall BE the end of God's present plan, following His 'thousand year Sabbath Day' that will complete man'sallotted week]: "... Look, I AM making all things new ..." -Rev.21:5 NLT ... will sort out all of this twistingand perverting of what God has made. . But calling "evil good and good evil" has never been limited to thetime of the end. It is the STORY OF MAN'S EXISTENCE since he firstmet Satan in the Garden of Eden and chose this god to worship andobey over his Creator. ( Full Answer )