On dinosaurs...I have NO idea if they lived at the same time as man. I have no idea if the behemoth is actually a dinosaur of some sort...or some distant cousin thereof. I just don't know. And honestly, I don't get too bogged down with it. I really don't see that as entirely relevant to my faith today. It can be a point of disagreement among Christians, with no need for division over it. But I will say that there have been times where science has been proven wrong by the Bible. Archaelogists in particular. For a long time archaeologists used to discredit the Book of Daniel because some king was mentioned that there was ZERO record of. I mean nothing. Well, in the 20th century, archaeologists dug up a ton of relics talking about this king, who filled the shoes of Nebechanezzar (spelling??) while he was off fighting in some war or something. It turned out the Book of Daniel was right all along. I may be mistaking the book here or the king's name...but the point of my story is the same. Ultimately, what scientists said did NOT happen, the Bible said happened. And ultimately the scientists discovered they were wrong all those years. For generations.
I always fall for this trick, one day i'll learn. Thanks for the link mr_gootan. All the great stories of man told through the ages have at least a grain of truth to them, whether its Noah's Ark or Atlantis.
No I understand what you are saying. I'm sure my writing is unclear. I usually don't have much time to post. I get excited about the topic and throw all my thoughts in there. I get in and get out. I haven't changed what my original point was. I'll try to express it more clearly. I find that people who often argue against Christianity use things such as the belief that some creationists hold. Certain fundimentalist Christian creationists believe that the earth is only thousands of years old. Plenty of other christians acknowledge that the earth is indeed millions of years old as proven by science. My question is why do those that argue against christianity often interpret the bible the same way that these fundimentalists do. And not totally related to the topic of dinosaurs. Though to me arguing about dinosaurs is missing the point. The point is the bible is a spritual guide to help people live their lives. Whether there was a dinosaur around at the same time as the story of Noah is pointless. That probably didn't help at all, but I'll keep trying.
Last Sunday's Malcolm In the Middle had a great take on religion: Dewey: I don't like this church! Ever since we came here all I do is think about stuff. What kind of God makes children think when they're not even in school? Church Lady: Well now that is a torment but I'm sure He has his reasons. Dewey: Yeah like Pastor Roy said how God's so much bigger and wiser than us that it would be like an ant trying to see what I'm thinking. Church Lady: Exactly. We can trust in his wisdom and have faith that he is watching over us. Dewey: Like me with the ant hill in my backyard. I spent days watching the ants, trying to figure out which ones were good and which ones were bad. But they all just looked like ants, so I started smiting all of them. Church Lady: Well that's not... Dewey: ...with the garden hose and with lighter fluid and with the lawn mower and to be perfectly honest I think I went a little crazy with the shovel. Those ants could have been praying to me all day. I wouldn't have heard them. There was nothing they could do about it. Church Lady: But I don't think... Dewey: And really it's the same with us. There's nothing we can do about anything either so why worry about it? Hey, this is making me feel better. Church Lady: Well that's...good. But... Dewey: I guess all we can do is live our lives with as much kindness and deceny as possible. And try not to dwell on God standing over us with that giant shovel. Bye!
So do you advocate life long chastity or orientation conversion for gay people? As a lawyer do you agree with the legality/morality of the Texas Sodomy Law? As a Presbyterian, what do you think of the controversy about ordaining gay people as pastors/officers of the church? about the Ohio Presby minister who refuses to stop performing same sex union ceremonies?
Good questions, Outlaw...while I'd rather have them over that beer we talked about, I'll attempt to answer: 1. I do believe that homosexuality is wrong. I really haven't given much thought to the subject, though. I would lean towards chastity, I suppose. I don't know much at all about orientation conversion, though I've read accounts of it happening. I would say I had an orientation conversion...I've known tons of people who have had orientation conversions...but not in the way you are thinking. Paul wrote that when we come to Christ we become a new creation. The old person begins to die and a new one is born. I'd say that's absolutely correct, from what I've seen of people who've made genuine commitments to God. 2. Absolutely not. It's not for the government to make those decisions. 3. The big issue in the Presbyterian church centers around a fidelity/chastity doctrine that goes back long before the consideration of homosexuals as pastors. If my pastor is cheating on his wife...or if he's single but is out hooking up every weekend...that calls his ministry into question in the eyes of many. And it certainly seems to be in conflict with the Bible and the words of Christ. So the church established a doctrine that said a pastor could be removed from his position for acting that way. The church does not recognize same-sex marriages, mostly because of the admonitions against homosexuality which permeate the Bible. outlaw -- as for the Malcom in the Middle quote. I realize there is some wisdom in pop culture from time to time...but to actively embrace the idea that all study of anything beyond us is worthless is really limiting. It's sort of a subtle jab at men far more intelligent than the writers of that show....men like C.S. Lewis...John Calvin...Gandhi...Buddha... The idea that we can not understand God at all...and that he's as arbitrary as a young boy standing over an antbed runs counter to everything these great thinkers taught. Ultimately it sounds like an excuse not to study more of it...not to attempt to understand it.
What exactly is the Texas Sodomy Law or what does it state and don't almost all states have some type of sodomy law? The reason I'm asking is because you make Texas' law sound a little more strict.
I don't think most states have sodomy laws anymore. Certainly few are enforced. Georgia had one that was upheld by the Supreme Court (Bowers v. Hardwick, if you're interested)...but I think I read recently that their legislature repealed it. The setup to get Texas officials to enforce this one was a bit coerced..but it doesn't change the fact that the law is bad law...in my opinion, anyway. The Texas statute is getting a lot of publicity right now, locally at least, because it's up before the Supreme Court now.
Statute: 21.06, Homosexual Conduct Penalty: $500 Classification: Misdemeanor Restrictions: Same-sex only Sec. 21.06. Homosexual Conduct. (a) A person commits an offense if he engages in deviate sexual intercourse with another individual of the same sex. (b) An offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor. Sec. 21.01. Definitions. In this chapter: (1) "Deviate sexual intercourse" means: (A) any contact between any part of the genitals of one person and the mouth or anus of another person; or (B) the penetration of the genitals or the anus of another person with an object. (2) "Sexual contact" means any touching of the anus, breast, or any part of the genitals of another person with intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person. (3) "Sexual intercourse" means any penetration of the female sex organ by the male sex organ. Texas' sodomy statute applies only to same-sex conduct. The offense is considered a misdemeanor punishable by a $500 fine. Tex. Penal Code ยง 21.06 (2002). The law was challenged but upheld by the Texas Supreme Court. On March 26, 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a challenge to this law brought by Lambda Legal. A decision in the case, Lawrence v. State, is expected in summer 2003. 37 states have repealed their sodomy laws since 1960. 13 states still have them: Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Utah and Virginia. Of those 13 states only 4 apply only to same sex couples: Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and Missouri.
Coerced or not, the fact that Harris County deputies put someone in jail for having sex in their own home is repugnant. It's not the laws alone that are harmful. They are used as an excuse to deny employment, housing, custody and visitation rights, because technically these people are commiting a criminal act. Some places even require those convicted of this law to register as sex offenders. I'm glad you agree it is a bad law. I was afraid your firm was going to use it in that one emancipation case last year (which I realize you don't want to discuss the specifics of) I'm glad it did not come to that as it might have established a precedent regarding the rights of gay parents in Texas. Hopefully the Supreme Court will declare the law unconstituional when they announce their decision in a few weeks but I am not optimistic. Either way it will probably be a 5-4 decision.
No, no. That law really wasn't appropriate for that case. We stayed entirely away from the angle that this had anything at all to do with homosexuality. The facts (as we understood them to be at the time) really didn't implicate homosexuality so much...we saw it as parental abandonment. And when a parent abandons a child, the child has two options...get adopted or eliminate the status of being underage so he/she can make decisions on his/her own. That's what we were trying to do...establish these girls could make their own decisions on schools, jobs, etc. No more...no less. That was the ONLY proceeding brought in that matter. I agree with you...there is no reason for a law like this on the books. I don't want them looking in my bedroom, and I don't want them looking in yours, either.
OK, I heard something the other day which was absolutely absurd. I was told that in the Bible it speaks of segregation. I was told that some where in the "Good Book" it says that black and white people should not come together (wed, mate, etc.). Does it actually state this some place in the Bible? If so I am definitely glad that I DO NOT go by the book.
Just quickly - lack of evidence (and thus not believing something in the Bible) is different than having evidence to disprove (for example, that humans and dinosaurs coexisted). So, having bones that can be dated is more substantial than having no records of something. Also, the archaeologists in your story (regardless of the accuracy of names, etc.) wre not wrong if they said that there was no evidence to support a Biblical story, since you said that a later discovery could have been the evidence.
Lil Pun Regarding #5. There is only one Christian Church, founded by Christ and its called the Catholic Church. All the other branch churches are ones that broke away, one way or another, from the Catholic Church.
Absolutely not, in fact quite the opposite. In the days of Christ, segregation of people was not so much by race, but by gender, societal standing, and profession. Jesus shocked many people in that age, as he spent the majority of his time teaching those people that were part of the less desirable standing, such as lepers, prostitutes, tax collecters, and women.
The Bible is similar to the Constitution. You can find ways to fight it and to believe it... all in the same sentence. Throughout the entire dissertation... of either of them. That being said..... I'm going to open up a new can of worms. Amd I'll choose to do so with a new topic.
you're absolutely right...EXCEPT...when the conclusion is drawn that the Bible is wrong and a story is cast in doubt because of a lack of historical evidence. then those folks were absolutely wrong when evidence surfaced confirming the accuracy of the people and places surrounding the story.
OK, I have a question. Who wrote the Bible? I was told recently that several people have written what is contained in the Bible. I was told Abraham wrote a large chunk, then John, Paul, Luke, and all those others wrote a lot of it too. Is this true? If so, what language was the Bible first written in? How many languages did it have to go through before finally getting translated into English. I know that it didn't start in English so what languages has it went through to get to English?
