Featured Sponsors
Christian Living Resources, Bible Study Tools, Jesus Christ
Add comment
All article posts
Report post
A far better articulated essay about the dichotomy between science and religion is "The Perimeter of Ignorance" by astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson. You can read it here:
http://www.haydenplanetarium.org/tyson/read/essays/nathist/perimeterofignorance
http://www.haydenplanetarium.org/tyson/read/essays/nathist/perimeterofignorance
11/10/2009 10:19:32 AM
Temperatures Rise and Fall - So Why Believe Climate Change?
Post by Chuck Anziulewicz
When I was in Kindergarten, the human population of Earth was 3.5 billion. Just 45 years later it has DOUBLED to 7 billion, and it could possibly reach 9 billion by the time I die. Does this not give anyone pause?
In the best of all worlds, these extra billions will have to be fed, housed, employed, transported, clothed, and had their medical and sanitary needs met. To sustain this, forests will continue to be cleared for commercial development, and greenhouse gas emissions will continue to rise ... all this talk of "carbon-capture" notwithstanding.
And yet there seem to be plenty of people who are whistling past of graveyard, assuming that somehow "God" will take care of everything, that "He" will turn down the global thermostat if things get out of hand. There are even some who suggest that "God" is deep underground making new fossil fuels, so that everyone has plenty of cheap energy FOREVER!
I strongly suspect that future generations will curse us for failing to act NOW.
In the best of all worlds, these extra billions will have to be fed, housed, employed, transported, clothed, and had their medical and sanitary needs met. To sustain this, forests will continue to be cleared for commercial development, and greenhouse gas emissions will continue to rise ... all this talk of "carbon-capture" notwithstanding.
And yet there seem to be plenty of people who are whistling past of graveyard, assuming that somehow "God" will take care of everything, that "He" will turn down the global thermostat if things get out of hand. There are even some who suggest that "God" is deep underground making new fossil fuels, so that everyone has plenty of cheap energy FOREVER!
I strongly suspect that future generations will curse us for failing to act NOW.
I'll probably see "2012" only because I'm a sucker for spectacular special effects, but I know I'll hate myself afterwards. That people take all this Mayan calendar mumbo-jumbo seriously is downright embarrassing.
Why? Because there is no such thing as prophecy. Of course, there is such a thing as what we call "self-fulfilling prophecy" ... that is, a prediction that is so broadly-phrased that, given enough time, SOMETHING will occur that will fit the bill. Someone solemnly says, "One day a man will come who will lead our people out of bondage!" And given enough time, some guy may eventually come along who matches that description well enough. This is an example of a self-fulfilling prophecy.
And of course it's those rare prophecies that DO fulfill themselves that are remembered and celebrated for ages afterwards ... whereas the majority of prophecies that are NOT fulfilled are subsequently, conveniently FORGOTTEN.
But prophecy in a supernatural sense? No such thing.
Why? Because there is no such thing as prophecy. Of course, there is such a thing as what we call "self-fulfilling prophecy" ... that is, a prediction that is so broadly-phrased that, given enough time, SOMETHING will occur that will fit the bill. Someone solemnly says, "One day a man will come who will lead our people out of bondage!" And given enough time, some guy may eventually come along who matches that description well enough. This is an example of a self-fulfilling prophecy.
And of course it's those rare prophecies that DO fulfill themselves that are remembered and celebrated for ages afterwards ... whereas the majority of prophecies that are NOT fulfilled are subsequently, conveniently FORGOTTEN.
But prophecy in a supernatural sense? No such thing.
DEAR DR. BECK:
It is not my intention to contradict church teachings on the subject of marriage equality for Gay couples (even though those teachings vary widely between denominations). Nor is it my intention to contradict Scripture (even though most Christians believe that Scripture is open to certain amounts of contextual interpretation).
Instead, I would prefer to approach this subject from a purely Constitutional viewpoint. And the fact remains that there is simply no justification for denying law-abiding, taxpaying Gay couples the same legal benefits, protections, and responsibilities that Straight couples have always taken for granted. It's called equal protection under the law. It's the reason we have a 14th Amendment. And there has so be some way to compromise on this issue, whether you call it a "marriage," a "domestic partnership," or a "civil union." It may not meet your definition of "theological correctness," but then again the U.S. is not a theocracy.
It is not my intention to contradict church teachings on the subject of marriage equality for Gay couples (even though those teachings vary widely between denominations). Nor is it my intention to contradict Scripture (even though most Christians believe that Scripture is open to certain amounts of contextual interpretation).
Instead, I would prefer to approach this subject from a purely Constitutional viewpoint. And the fact remains that there is simply no justification for denying law-abiding, taxpaying Gay couples the same legal benefits, protections, and responsibilities that Straight couples have always taken for granted. It's called equal protection under the law. It's the reason we have a 14th Amendment. And there has so be some way to compromise on this issue, whether you call it a "marriage," a "domestic partnership," or a "civil union." It may not meet your definition of "theological correctness," but then again the U.S. is not a theocracy.
It is not my intention to contradict church teachings on the subject of marriage equality for Gay couples (even though those teachings vary widely between denominations). Nor is it my intention to contradict Scripture (even though most Christians believe that Scripture is open to certain amounts of contextual interpretation).
Instead, I would prefer to approach this subject from a purely Constitutional viewpoint. And the fact remains that there is simply no justification for denying law-abiding, taxpaying Gay couples the same legal benefits, protections, and responsibilities that Straight couples have always taken for granted. It's called equal protection under the law. It's the reason we have a 14th Amendment.
I would like to reassure Sandy Rios that NOTHING is going to happen to "traditional marriage." Most people will always be Straight (i.e. heterosexual), and Straight couples will continue to marry and build families as always, regardless of Gay couples marrying.
Instead, I would prefer to approach this subject from a purely Constitutional viewpoint. And the fact remains that there is simply no justification for denying law-abiding, taxpaying Gay couples the same legal benefits, protections, and responsibilities that Straight couples have always taken for granted. It's called equal protection under the law. It's the reason we have a 14th Amendment.
I would like to reassure Sandy Rios that NOTHING is going to happen to "traditional marriage." Most people will always be Straight (i.e. heterosexual), and Straight couples will continue to marry and build families as always, regardless of Gay couples marrying.
Why all the wailing and gnashing of teeth NOW? The current hate crimes law has been on the books since 1969, and NEVER over the past 40 years has someone been prosecuted for expressing prejudice against members of a race or a religious group. Christian pastors have been invoking Scripture against non-Christians for as long as there have been Christians, and the hate crimes statute has never been used against them. Take Pat Robertson, for example: He has been railing against Muslims for his entire life and went completely apoplectic when Muslim clerics were first invited to deliver the opening invocations before sessions of Congress, but Rev. Pat was still within his rights to do so. The fact that the hate crimes law now includes sexual orientation will not inhibit the venting of his spleen.
Until Christian conservatives wage a concerted effort to get rid of the ENTIRE hate crimes law that's been in effect for 40 years, Dr. Mohler's arguments will continue to be pretty disingenuous.
Until Christian conservatives wage a concerted effort to get rid of the ENTIRE hate crimes law that's been in effect for 40 years, Dr. Mohler's arguments will continue to be pretty disingenuous.
Although I would question the wisdom of a university screening a truly pornographic film of the sort one would only watch at an adult bookstore, this article leaves me with some questions.
For instance, what exactly IS a "triple-X-rated film"? That sounds like something from the 1960s. According to the Motion Picture Association of America, there are FIVE ratings:
G - General audiences
PG - Parental guidance suggested
PG-13 - Parents strongly cautioned about kids under 13
R - Under 17 requires parent or guardian
NC-17 - No one under 17 allowed
So I have to wonder: What exactly WAS the film in question? Ang Lee's film "Lust, Caution" was rated NC-17 due to some explicit sexual content, but it wasn't what I would describe as "pornography." Stanley Kubrick's film "A Clockwork Orange" was originally given an "X" rating (back when there was such a thing), but it has since been re-rated "R."
When someone screams about a "triple-X-rated film" without giving a title, I'm leery.
For instance, what exactly IS a "triple-X-rated film"? That sounds like something from the 1960s. According to the Motion Picture Association of America, there are FIVE ratings:
G - General audiences
PG - Parental guidance suggested
PG-13 - Parents strongly cautioned about kids under 13
R - Under 17 requires parent or guardian
NC-17 - No one under 17 allowed
So I have to wonder: What exactly WAS the film in question? Ang Lee's film "Lust, Caution" was rated NC-17 due to some explicit sexual content, but it wasn't what I would describe as "pornography." Stanley Kubrick's film "A Clockwork Orange" was originally given an "X" rating (back when there was such a thing), but it has since been re-rated "R."
When someone screams about a "triple-X-rated film" without giving a title, I'm leery.
DEAR CAL THOMAS:
Exactly what "Gay Agenda" are you referring to? The only "Gay Agenda" that I am aware of is for law-abiding, taxpaying Gay individuals and couples to enjoy the same legal benefits, protections, and responsibilities that Straight individuals and couples have always taken for granted.
Straight people have never had to worry about being kicked out of their jobs or their homes because of their sexual orientation. They've never been prohibited from serving in the military solely for that reason. And Straight couples have never been prohibited from marrying. What makes the idea that allowing Gay individuals and couples that same measure of dignity is going to somehow ruin life for everyone else?
Exactly what "Gay Agenda" are you referring to? The only "Gay Agenda" that I am aware of is for law-abiding, taxpaying Gay individuals and couples to enjoy the same legal benefits, protections, and responsibilities that Straight individuals and couples have always taken for granted.
Straight people have never had to worry about being kicked out of their jobs or their homes because of their sexual orientation. They've never been prohibited from serving in the military solely for that reason. And Straight couples have never been prohibited from marrying. What makes the idea that allowing Gay individuals and couples that same measure of dignity is going to somehow ruin life for everyone else?
10/13/2009 12:23:35 PM
“Simply Unprecedented” — President Obama and the Gay Rights Movement
Post by Chuck Anziulewicz
DEAR JJWEATH:
Your interpretation of the "Full Faith & Credit" clause is not quite accurate. In fact, the reason why a heterosexual marriage that is performed by an Elvis impersonator in Las Vegas is automatically honored in all 50 states.
Why should this be? After all, the word "marriage" does not occur anywhere in the Constitution of the United States. Technically there is no "right" for anyone, Gay or Straight, to get married, at least from the federal government's standpoint.
For this reason, many people have insisted that marriage laws should be a "states rights" issue, and the federal government should not get involved. But it's too late, because the federal government has already taken a vested interest in marriage for the purpose of tax law and Social Security.
Under DOMA, which Pres. Obama opposes, a Gay couple that is legally married in Iowa or Massachusetts becomes automatically UN-married if they move elsewhere. THIS violates the "Full Faith & Credit" clause.
Your interpretation of the "Full Faith & Credit" clause is not quite accurate. In fact, the reason why a heterosexual marriage that is performed by an Elvis impersonator in Las Vegas is automatically honored in all 50 states.
Why should this be? After all, the word "marriage" does not occur anywhere in the Constitution of the United States. Technically there is no "right" for anyone, Gay or Straight, to get married, at least from the federal government's standpoint.
For this reason, many people have insisted that marriage laws should be a "states rights" issue, and the federal government should not get involved. But it's too late, because the federal government has already taken a vested interest in marriage for the purpose of tax law and Social Security.
Under DOMA, which Pres. Obama opposes, a Gay couple that is legally married in Iowa or Massachusetts becomes automatically UN-married if they move elsewhere. THIS violates the "Full Faith & Credit" clause.
I do not doubt your convictions, and I certainly encourage Christians to conduct their own personal lives as their religious values dictate. But the fact remains that, when it comes to marriage equality for Gay & Straight couples, your "Manhattan Declaration" is antithetical to U.S. Constitution of the United States. You need to ask yourself why law-abiding, taxpaying Gay Americans should be forced to subsidize all the legal benefits and responsibilities that Straight couples enjoy, when we are unable to take advantage of those same incentives to marry? And since when do voters get to decide that the rights that apply to them DO NOT apply to minorities?