DivineHustle

While this is true, the people aren't just sitting there suffering as it may seem on TV. They still live their own lives as if everything was perfectly fine, because it's what they're used to. One meal a day is alright to them. Sort of how in America we have obesity, in parts of Africa they have malnourishment. When people in America are fat, I doubt that they just sit there and be fat all day. They go to work, they go to school, they pay the bills, they do what they have to do to survive. It's the same way in Africa, and they didn't bring this suffering upon themselves. The Europeans caused this suffering centuries ago. The Europeans formed borders and countries that were designed to keep them in control. Now the native Africans are fighting each other over resources, as one country is straight desert land, while the neighboring country is full of valuable resources.

Most third world countries are only suffering because of what the Europeans did to them centuries ago. Also, I really hate it when people make statements about Africa as a whole. Africa is an entire continent, you can't just say something about Africa and it apply to every part of Africa. Africa is completely underrated, and people think it's much worse than it actually is. While there is suffering in certain remote parts of Africa, there's prosperity and development in others. There are countries such as Zimbabwe and Botswana that are going through some severe racism against the White minorities, but the majority of Africa isn't the hellhole that people think it is. The question is too broad for me to really have a well thought opinion.

Even a world without religion would be a world of chaos. It's human nature, we are violent beings. No other earthly creatures have caused more violence and suffering as humans have. We're not only hurting ourselves, but everything else. If this world comes to an end, I'm sure it would be because we ended ourselves, and brought everything else down with us. So the argument of "More peace without religion" in my opinion, isn't a very strong one. Like I said to Steele1925, people that force their religion on others, are not following their religion correctly. This is especially true when it comes to Christianity. In our belief, God created man with the ability to either believe in Christ, or refuse him. Jesus said not to cast your pearls among the swine. Translating that into today's English, this means that we should not waste our time spreading the gospel or helpful advice to those who refuse it, mock it, and hate it. I agree with you, don't get me wrong at all. At the end of the day, nobody has died and come back to life to tell the story, with the exception of religious figures centuries ago. Christians that walk the Earth saying that non-believers will go to hell, are actually not following what our religion says to do. We're supposed to walk the Earth and do good for people, and educate people of Christ when they ask. We aren't supposed to walk around and force Christianity on others, especially if they don't accept what we're saying. We're supposed to explain our religion, then it's their choice on whether or not to follow it. Prolonging the situation is considered a 'sin' in the eyes of our God.

The reason that people are probably referring to the bible, is because the Bible is a conglomerate of first person accounts during the time that Jesus Christ was on Earth. The people in the Bible, talk about their experiences with Jesus and how Jesus made their lives better, and helped them through their struggles. This is why a lot of Christians refer to the Bible as a defense against religious arguments. Now whether or not you believe in what you're reading, is where the difference in religion comes into play.

I don't see anything wrong with it.

This is where most of the disagreements and debating begins. This is where people into religion say that there's already plenty of proof for a God. The only problem with God proving himself, is that if he does come down to Earth and make it obvious, then everybody's a Christian because of fear and evidence. Oh we see a God now, so let's believe in him. According to my religion, that's not how it's supposed to work.

Can't take my eyes off of the construction guy in the back LOL. Great vehicle, I really do respect and support what you've done here. Great job!

Well, basing an Earthly ideal on something that isn't of the Earth (Such as a God of some sort) in my opinion, is slightly invalid. Under human logic and what we've seen and assumed on Earth, that statement is formed. We can't take an Earthly statement and opinion, and apply it to something that's supposedly greater than Earth. Please bear in mind that this is just my opinion. According to my religion, Christianity, God put all people on Earth to do good. We're to live a life similar to that of the savior, Jesus Christ.We're supposed to spread happiness, create miracles, propose peaceful solutions to disagreements, help the person next to you, etc. If you follow these guidelines, you'll go to Heaven, and remain there forever. This would be your reward for helping make the world a better place. If you don't and do evil you'll go to hell and burn forever. Since you wanted to do things wrong on Earth, you'll suffer the permanent consequences and feel the burden of pain you've probably caused several others while on Earth.

Why or why aren't you religious, or non-religious? If the moderators decide to keep this topic open, I'm sure they'll be strict with enforcing the rules here so that nobody is offended. Examples of an invalid argument: I'm an Atheist because I don't believe in fairy tales I'm a Christian because it's common sense that some type of superior power exists Atheists are dumb Religion is fake (If you don't understand something about a religion or vice verse, ask or debate it)​ No type of educated and civil debate can come out of these types of statements. For the sole purpose of beginning the debate, I'll start with a basic statement. I'm a Christian, because I believe that there is some higher power.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

I've never talked to anyone in my entire life, that's hated the expression. The bullet can only kill the person if the attacker pulls the trigger, thus my previous statement. A gun doesn't just shoot and hit someone. Under that logic pencils misspell words, cars drive drunk, and spoons make people fat. I don't understand the argument in removing all guns from the planet. Of course there'd be less crime, because that's one less deadly weapon available when crime is committed. That's common sense in my eyes.

It's very easy for foreigners that don't reside in the United States to say that they're against guns. A gun puts my grandmother on equal terms with a 250lbs 6 foot attacker, or a single mother living in a bad neighborhood. Millions of Americans own guns, and only a few incidents involving them happens daily. Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

That's interesting, comparing that the what happens here in the US. If our Police didn't carry guns, I'm sure crime would be a whole lot worse here. Especially since we're bordering Mexico, which is famous for it's corrupt politicians, corrupt Police, gang violence, and massive drug trafficking. But anyways... yea. lol

Like I've already said, I'm very ignorant on how the UK handles their problems. What would happen if an officer in the UK was ambushed by someone who just happened to have a firearm? Or if an officer walked up to a car he pulled over, and the person started shooting? Wouldn't that officer be defenseless since he'd only have a taser or baton? I'm not trying to be a douche, I just really don't know.

I don't know much of anything about the UK and it's level of crime, so I can't have much of a formed and thought out opinion on the subject. However I do notice that when British Gamers such as Double Doppler play LCPDFR and role-play as London MET or something, when they respond to a shots fired call, they're practically defenseless and left running for their own life.

A poll a few years back, the majority said "no". http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.305824-Poll-Should-UK-police-be-given-guns-as-standard-issue?page=2

Still to this date I laugh at the video, LOL.

Hooah! (Not sure what the USAF say lol)

New link

(CNN) -- A military aircraft crashed in eastern England on Wednesday, and the pilot ejected and survived with a minor injury, police in Lincolnshire said. What if this type of thing happens in Syria or Iraq? I doubt that we could just go in and save the pilot. http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/08/world/europe/uk-us-military-aircraft-crash-urgent-1/index.html

A retarded situation altogether. Racism is stupidity at it's finest.

I don't mind having a civilized debate with you. My only problem, is that you make assumptions that I personally find offensive. Calling me a sick person, troll, etc doesn't contribute anything to the discussion. If someone were to hit you I'm sure you'd hit them back, thus my responses. When you are ready to have a debate on the death penalty without resulting to offensive assumptions, then let me know.

I could say the same for you. What was the purpose in you responding to a dead comment? Whatever works I guess. I'll respond to it in a little bit. Still eating oatmeal.

NEW link: http://news.yahoo.com/video/abc-news-plus-special-report-220000361.html http://news.yahoo.com/video/reuters-live-news-channel-150000262.html MADRID (AP) — Health officials scrambled Tuesday to figure out how West Africa's Ebola outbreak got past Europe's defenses, quarantining four people at a Madrid hospital where a Spanish nursing assistant became infected. Determined to contain the spread of the deadly virus, they even announced plans to euthanize the woman's pet dog. http://news.yahoo.com/nurse-spain-gets-ebola-raising-global-concern-062847061--politics.html

I'm too lazy to read all of that. I'll come back and read it, then edit my post. Also I apologize for the "name calling". Didn't realize that this was Kindergarten.