So, picture the scene. The Grim Reaper has spoken, the worst has happened, and you're floating along the tunnel to whatever lies ahead. Suddenly, just beyond you, sitting behind a group of tables are the heads and deities of the major religions of the world. What happens next?

Well, the answer is simple really, at least if you happened to believe in one of these religions and made a good attempt at life. You are accepted into whatever constitutes Paradise for your chosen faith, and live (metaphorically speaking) happily ever after. If you haven't passed the test, so to speak, you're sent to damnation or purgatory so that you can reflect upon your sins. Alternatively, you might be given another go as a worm, which you might be better with – or at least less stabby if you happened to be a murderer.

But the big question – and this is certainly a website about raising big questions – is what happens if you don't believe? For the people who would otherwise have been going to Hell anyway, it probably doesn't make a huge amount of difference if they're doomed to purgatory. But the problem arises if you've done extremely well in life, always respected your fellow man and picked up a Nobel Peace Prize along the way. Is simply ‘not believing' a sin and should you be punished for it, even if you've had a long-lasting impact on mankind? Should Paradise be regarded as an exclusive club, in which you can't enter unless you're wearing the right trainers? And in this case, they'd better be whiter than white or you'll be thrown out by a cherub bouncer.

Parents who fight influence their children and who they could become.

A child's world revolves around their parents, their nurturers and safe place. Children need to know that their parents love each other and that there is no danger that the family will break up. When parents fight, children experience feelings of insecurity and vulnerability. They may also experience guilt and think that they could be the reason for the fighting.

It is not realistic to expect married couples not to fight. Every marriage goes through periods of conflict. Parents just need to find ways to debate more constructively so that the children are not adversely affected. Parent's need to realise that children learn to apply what they experience so, by bringing your conflicts to a positive conclusion, you will teach your children how to resolve arguments when they are adults.

How can parents have a “good” fight?

• Try not to argue when you are mad at your other half. Take a time-out and assess what really needs to be said.

• Consider what your child may hear and imagine how they would feel.

• Be adult in your approach – slamming doors and name-calling is juvenile and just adds fuel to the fight.

• Try and establish the real issue. Picking on your partner because you are tired or feeling neglected is just skirting around the issue. Explain how you feel before it deteriorates into a full-blown argument.

• Do not play the blame-game. Even if you think you are right this time, you may be wrong next time.

• Try and argue when the children are not around – either go out or wait until the children are asleep.

• If it all goes pear-shaped and things get out of control, do your best to reassure your children afterwards. Let them know that it has been sorted out. Make sure you apologise to them and explain that you were both wrong to lose your tempers.

• Don't try and get your children to take your side or turn them against your partner. Don't involve them in your argument.

• Make every attempt to clear the air with your partner and make up as soon as you can so that you can present a united front; a team for your children to rely on. It is critical for a child to see conflict resolution in action and that there can be a positive outcome.

Less than a hundred years ago, doctors would have scoffed at the idea that an organ could be removed from one person and transplanted into another and at the end of this process still have both people alive and healthy.

These days, the transplanting of organs has become commonplace and doctors are constantly learning better ways and treatments to make the process safer.

However, with improved standards of living, people are living longer and that, coupled with the increase in population, is the reason for the upturn in demand for organs – a demand that far outweighs supply. This has led to a thriving black market in the trade of human organs.

Wealthy people are often willing to pay exorbitant amounts to skip the waiting list and obtain an organ illegally, while at the other end of the spectrum, the very poor, are willing to sell off parts of their body just to put food on the table. This situation is ripe for abuse, given that organised crime specialises in exploitation. Throw in a couple of unethical health practitioners and the whole process goes underground.

As is commonly the case, it is the very poor, uneducated and desperate who suffer. Organ traffickers have been known to pay $10,000 for a kidney – if you are willing to sell to them – and they often collect up to $150,000 when selling that organ to a desperate patient.

But there is an even darker side to organ trafficking. In some countries, traffickers are not even willing to pay out the minimal amount to the “donor”. It is far easier to kidnap a victim, or coerce them with threats, cut out the required organ and leave the victims to recover as best they can, or worse, die in the process.

The international medical and legal community has grappled with this problem and it has been suggested that the selling of organs should be legalised. The idea behind this is based on the presumption that personal health choices should be left up to the individual to make. However, this option still leaves the voiceless poor open to abuse.

In light of the profound human rights violations of the vulnerable victims, it is imperative that this issue gets the attention it demands.

We all know it’s unsafe and against the law, but many of us do it anyway. Some of us take a chance, because we’ve never done it before, whilst others do it alarmingly regularly – driving while under the influence of alcohol. There is probably not a country in the world where drinking and driving is not classed as a criminal offence. So, if you have done it before, you are a criminal.

Every country has its laws and its own legal alcohol limit. It has been scientifically proven that women, metabolise alcohol faster and will therefore reach their limit faster but each individual is unique; we are all affected by alcohol differently. There are also no quick-fix remedies to sober you up before you decide to drive your car. Only time filters the alcohol out of your bloodstream.

Some people drink so much that even when you drive to work the next day you may still be over the legal limit.

Scientists have evaluated the effect alcohol has on your ability to drive whilst under the influence. Your judgment, reflexes, co-ordination and your vision are affected – these are all necessary for safe driving. There is a limitation on your ability to judge distances, your peripheral vision is commonly impaired and your reactions to an emergency situation are considerably slower.

Then there is the expense. Any insurance company reserves the right to refuse payment of a claim if you are found guilty of drunk driving. The insurance company may even consider you a high risk and discontinue your cover. At best, your premium could increase dramatically.

But it is the cost to human life that is the highest and most heart-breaking. If you drink drive you could be the cause of not only your own death, but also that of other innocent people (including your own, or someone else’s, children). If you survive but kill someone else in the process, how would you live with the guilt?

There have been advances in testing equipment which is making it easier for police to prove that a driver is drunk. There will be legal costs and even a suspension of your driver’s license, which can have a crippling effect on your life. Your car may be impounded and without a license you are not allowed to drive anyway.

So is it possible for you to still have fun?

World War I: One of the bloodiest and gruesome wars in history. It was muddy trench warfare in the midst of icy weather. Machine guns were employed to mow down scores of soldiers and snipers took out those left standing.

Four months into the war, during the Christmas of 1914 in Ypres Salient, where men slipped in blood-soaked mud, a small miracle took place. Soldiers from both sides decided to set aside their weapons and hatred, if only temporarily, and embrace the Christmas spirit

The opposing trenches were only 60 yards apart at one point and some socialising had already occurred. Sometimes the two enemies would shout out to each other. Some of the German soldiers, who had worked in Britain before the war, would ask about places or people and the British soldiers would reply.

On Christmas Eve, a few of the German soldiers put up Christmas trees on the parapets of their trenches. They decorated the trees with candles. British soldiers could see the lights, but it took them a few minutes to decipher what they were. Not long after, the British soldiers heard many of the Germans singing. Occasionally a German would shout out, 'A happy Christmas to you Englishmen!'

Against orders, a thick-set Clydesider responded, “same to you, Fritz, but dinna o'er eat yourself wi' they sausages!”

In some of the other areas, the British and German soldiers exchanged Christmas carols. Both sides would sing the same carol each in their own language.

In a few separate instances down the front line, German soldiers began yelling over to their British enemy, "Tommy, you come over and see us!" The British soldiers would call back, "No, you come here!"

And then it happened: In some parts of the line, soldiers from both sides met in the middle of No Man's Land.

They shook hands, wished each other a Merry Christmas and started chatting as though they were meeting an old friend that they had lost contact with.

Some of the soldiers negotiated a truce: we won't fire if you won't fire. For some, the truce ended at midnight on Christmas night, whilst others extended it until New Year's Day.

Abortion has moved away from being a faith issue. It is a human rights issue. Some people believe that aborting a child should not be the right of any person – not even the mother of the child. They feel that the child in question essentially has no say and therefore its rights are ignored. They think that it is all very well to say that women should be able to choose what happens to their body and that is true until it infringe on the rights of someone else. This is the dilemma facing politicians, medical practitioners and the legal fraternity.

The Christian standpoint is that life – or the birth of a soul – occurs at the moment of conception. Therefore if humanity, or life, is recognised within this context, then aborting a week-old foetus or the pre-meditated murder of an adult person should be considered the same within a moral framework.

Christians believe that one may argue that an embryo is smaller than an infant but does that make a difference? If the argument of size prevails, we will be accepting that the life of an adult is worth more than the life of a child. They feel that no parent would ever consider the life of their teenage child to be more precious than the life of their 6 month old infant.

People who are pro-choice argue that an unborn child is less developed than when it emerges from the womb. The pro-choicers also argue that because a child has not yet been born, it essentially does not exist. In effect they are saying that because a child is resident in the womb it has no right to life. From this standpoint the child only becomes human once it completes the journey from the womb to the outside world.

Another argument for abortion is that an unborn child has no viability in terms of its level of dependence. Christians would argue that if this argument is used to condone abortion then adults who are severely brain-damaged and older people who are senile could also be terminated, simply because they cannot add value to society.

We find pleasure in so many different things. Material possessions, company, love and success, to name a few, are things on which we find our happiness. What could life be without those? An Athenian philosopher in fact, even taught that pleasure should be one's goal in life.

The philosophy of Epicurus, born in Samos in 341 BC, is a complete and interdependent system of human life, empiricist theory of knowledge, atomistic materialism, and naturalistic evolution. He is well-known for his teachings of the virtue of pleasure, which for him is not just happiness but also the lack of physical pain and mental disturbance. He taught in his garden in Athens that such should be every person's goal, an idea now known as hedonism.

That is not to say that one should indulge beyond satisfaction. Epicurus did not neglect to remind his followers of moderation. This is the concept of ataraxia, the optimal, enduring pleasure – an idea more appropriate to associate to Epicurus than hedonism. This means that one should not have more after achieving the maximum intensity of pleasure, or he will revert to the state of pain, as in overeating.

The philosopher highly values friendship since he believes that his happiness also depend on others, and reason. The latter for him is more important than philosophy, with emphasis on practical reasoning, prudence and the understanding of how things work.

Epicurus also taught about two factors that withholds man from experiencing pleasure. One is the hidden fear of death, while the other is irrational desires brought about by the anxiety that in turn resulted from the fear of death. Once overcome, one will definitely experience freedom to pursue pleasure and tranquil mind, and thus end up satisfied.

Death is an inescapable fact of life, the end of every living thing of which none has any experience at all. Every day we live is a step closer to it; talking about it is almost taboo, and every thought of it tend to evoke the fear of the unknown. Death though existent is unknown as no one has come back to tell what true death is like, a concept without object so to speak.

Both laymen and philosophers have the same stand on death. It is unknown and cannot be known for it cannot be experienced by anyone in this life. None can therefore be an expert on that subject. In utter ignorance, people hold two views on this matter. One is that death is real and an ultimate dead end. The other is that death is but a transition to an afterlife.

If death is real, its manifestation is the only thing the living can witness, not death itself. We'd only know that when one dies, the body decays and the person is no longer there. Death is then the end of one's consciousness and existence.

On the other hand, the view of life after death, whether it is a resurrection to some paradise or a reincarnation into the material world, commonly revolves around the idea that man has a soul that lives on after the body has decomposed. The concept is common and already has many speculations, and thus won't be elaborated any further.

According to Plato, a philosopher should concern himself over death and meditate on it. Meanwhile, Spinoza treats it as trivial and better off ignored. While the latter can lead to forgetting death altogether and provide an illusion of permanence, the former may lead to the error of obsession on death that can lead to one's distancing from life instead.

“I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing: and that is I know nothing.” This very humbling line was uttered by Socrates, one of the great thinkers who walked this earth. The line says so much about how it is easier to accumulate knowledge when a person readily accepts his need for it and not pretend that he already knows a lot in this world. This might also be the very reason why Socrates was able to expand the reaches of his understanding. He knew for a fact that his own lifetime was not enough to learn everything there is to learn in this world.

This very line could also be used to explain why it is much easier to teach children than adults. Yes, there are other factors that could explain why children learn new information much faster such as better memory retention and the likes. However, more than these reasons, there lies an attitudinal problem in the psyche of adults. Most adults have this snobbish characteristic, especially those who have already attained some degree of education, that they have already learned everything that they need to learn, forgetting the very fact that the quest for knowledge is a never ending feat.

Yes, one is much wiser if one understands the nature of knowledge. It is never static and it is very much evolving. Knowledge also is not the same for all locations, society, gender and all variations of individuals. What one may have learned in the confines of his society will never be the same with what others have learned in their own set of societies.

Imagine witnessing a car accident. Although you are just a bystander, you will be compelled to take action to help in the situation. You may not understand why, but some force within you tells you that you need to extend some form of assistance even if you know for a fact that you have nothing to do with the accident. The force that you feel can be explained using the concept of moral responsibility.

Moral responsibility explores the idea that any individual, regardless of the degree in participation in any event, has some form of moral obligation in any situation. Failure to adhere to such responsibility would mean receiving punishment equal to the obligation imposed. It is said that the people who are morally responsible to take action are called moral agents. One requirement to become a moral agent is to have the capacity to reflect on a given situation and be able to form intentions allowing them to carry out actions needed to help alleviate a certain problem. However, there are questions for those individuals who, even with the capacity to become moral agents, failed to enact actions accordingly. Is it justified to give them punishment? If so, when would these punishments become applicable and why? These very questions are very intriguing and are very much debated even in the circle of great philosophers.

One social phenomenon that prevents moral responsibility to be enacted is the bystander effect. It has been observed that there are instances when a group of people fail to offer assistance to an individual in need of help even if these individuals are already in the immediate environment while the victim is experiencing difficulties. This kind of phenomenon is termed as the bystander effect as everybody wait for other bystanders to do the first-move before doing some course of action. Regardless of the moral obligation at hand, these individuals reason that if others do not do anything to help, then what reason is there for them to offer assistance.