Obama Administration Moves to Redefine Marriage

obiwan »

Thu Sep 24, 2009 12:11 pm Agree: 5   Disagree: 3

Flagged as inappropriate. show The proponents of gay "marriage" always couch this as, "since we are in love, why can't we be married?", as though it is equal to heterosexual inter-ethnicity marriage. The problem is that "marriage" is not an arbitrary word. For thousands of years, since the beginning, it has been defined as "a union of one man and one woman". This current debate is actually more like changing the definition of "leg", such that we no longer only call our legs "legs", but our arms as well. This would create chaos, as no-one would really know what you were referring to. Imagine the medical nightmare this would create. Same thing with gay "marriage'. It isn't marriage *by definition*. If they want to defy God and engage in that lifestyle, they can already gain all of the "rights" of married people via legal contracts. Therefore, this is more about forcing acceptance of their behavior rather than "equal rights". hide

Creation Museum Plays Host to Secular Student Alliance

obiwan »

Tue Aug 11, 2009 12:38 pm Agree: 5   Disagree: 1

Rev -

Everyone should also read the account given at the AiG website: http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/aroundtheworld/2009/08/08/the-day-285-atheistsagnostics-visited-the-creation-museum/

The Museum staff had been reading on Myers' blog and others what they were planning to do during their visit, and understandably took precautions to prevent any disruptions. Like them or not, they take the Bible *seriously* and any Christians reading this story should respect that.

Falwell Sets Record Straight on College Democrats Decision

obiwan »

Wed May 27, 2009 2:09 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 2

It sounds like there is some confusion on exactly what LU is against, and what the story really is. As Dr. Falwell stated, the students in the College Democrats were able to be officially recognized by the university as long as they affirm a pro-life stance and traditional marriage (among other Biblical Christian values). Where the CDs got in trouble was in endorsing a candidate who is committed pro-abortion and gay marriage. Therefore, since the CDs violated the terms under which they could be recognized, LU pulled their official status so that they can't use LU trademarks, etc., in their literature and such. Since LU doesn't support gay "marriage" or abortion, they are within their rights to pull their trademarks from any group that is counter to their ideals. Nothing big to see here; move along...

California Dreaming: Reasoned Debate on Gay Marriage

obiwan »

Mon May 04, 2009 12:18 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

jb -

You and other supporters of gay "marriage" are missing the point: marriage is *by definition* the union of a man and a woman. Therefore, gay sex is *by definition* extramarital.

Also, homosexuality has HUGE consequences on individuals other than merely being immoral. There's copious data on increased depression, suicide, etc. for those who practice homosexuality. Besides, in our increasingly secular/evolutionary culture, homosexuality should be discouraged because it limits the gene pool. So either way you want to argue it, homosexuality is wrong.

Anti-Christian Britain

obiwan »

Fri Apr 24, 2009 1:00 pm Agree: 4   Disagree: 1

steveh20 -

You're overlooking a very important detail. The girl came to Christianity *on her own*, not due to pressure or brainwashing by the foster parent. Given that, the State has no right to tell her not to attend church, etc.

As for converting to Islam, of course we would "have a problem with it" - Islam isn't the way to heaven, Jesus is. But there's a difference in saying that we'd care about it, versus saying that we'd remove her from the foster home.

Lastly, it is erroneous to think that a child can be put in a foster home, and that environment be neutral to influence. Everything we do influences others, whether we mean to or not. Having children reinforces that point. There's PLENTY of ways I influence my child, especially in ways I do not want him/her to act. Besides, there's worse influences than Christian ones for children to be exposed to.

Iowa Court Legalizes Gay Marriage

obiwan »

Fri Apr 03, 2009 12:45 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

randerson,

They already have the same rights as everyone else. Gay couples can get all the legal equivalency they want through contracts, wills, etc. This isn't about "equal rights" - it's about acceptance. They believe that by REDEFINING marriage that they will gain acceptance for their behavior. This is false. Homosexuality is wrong. Period. They can practice it if they want, but it's still wrong.

Since we're redefining marriage, why don't we just redefine "blue" while we're at it. Makes as much sense.

On Darwin's 200th, a Theory Still in Controversy

obiwan »

Tue Feb 10, 2009 11:45 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

pvlman,

"Bacteria & virus do mutate to survive medication that was previously fatal to their ancestors. I guess that doesn't count. :)"

No, it doesn't. These kinds of mutations only make the virus or bacterium more fit *in the presence of the antibiotic*. When forced to compete with non-mutant orgnisms in the absence of antibiotic, they are outcompeted. This is contrary to Darwinian evolution, not consistent.

Church Ad Banned for Being Offensive to Gays

obiwan »

Wed Dec 03, 2008 11:46 am Agree: 4   Disagree: 1

feetxxxl,

That's incorrect. The point is that the Bible teaches *ANY* sex outside the confines of a marriage (one man and one woman) is sin. Therefore, homosexuality is a sin because it falls outside marriage. And no, simply changing the definition of marriage won't alleviate the problem. God's definition stands forever.

Florida Submits 'Evolution Academic Freedom Act' to Senate

obiwan »

Fri Apr 11, 2008 1:40 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 2

agentorangeex,

Thank you for your post.

Prediction 1: a universal genetic code. - This is also a prediction of YEC. However, it is well-known that various genera have modified versions of the genetic code, such that expression of genes in heterologous systems can be problematic.


Prediction 2: a nested hierarchy of species. - Also a prediction of YEC. It is expected that organisms reproduce "after their kind", such that felines are always felines, canines are always canines, etc. This is what we observe in nature. Darwin's finches are still finches, near as we can tell.

Prediction 3: consilience of independent phylogenies. - This has been falsified many times in the literature. It is a well known fact that one can skew a phylogenetic tree of many different classes of organisms depending on the genes one chooses to make the tree.

Prediction 4: intermediate and transitional forms in the fossil record. - Again, this is falsified in the geologic record. No demonstrably "transitional" forms have ever been found.

Prediction 5: chronological order of intermediates. - The YEC position is that the geologic column represents order of burial during the Flood of Noah. Therefore, "out-of-place" fossils are not unexpected. However, there are documented cases of anachronistic fossils based on the uniformitarian view of the geologic column.

Prediction 6: anatomical vestiges. Many "vestigial" organs/tissues are now being linked to functions, such as the appendix. It's not clear if "vestigial" organs are on their way "up", or are simply on their way out of function due to the Curse.

Prediction 7: Atavisms - Again, not proof of evolution. Turtles with 2 heads are decidedly *less* fit in the wild. This is not evidence of genetic advancement; instead, it's an example of disregulation of genes (which is almost always a bad thing).

Florida Submits 'Evolution Academic Freedom Act' to Senate

obiwan »

Fri Apr 11, 2008 1:27 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Emmaus,

I was just going to point those same things out. I've spoken with many of the scientists at AiG, and they are very thoughtful, critical thinkers. It's just like the "evidence" for a 4.3 billion year old earth - the assumptions which go into radiometric dating are completely unprovable. Add to this the fact that C14 is routinely found where it should *not* be (coal and diamonds), and the evidence starts to look tenuous, at best.

Muslim's Cross-Less Jesus Film Draws Mixed Reactions

obiwan »

Fri Mar 21, 2008 10:43 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

Dwen,

First, you have to understand that Jesus is 100% God and 100% human. Jesus set aside some of His divine nature (i.e. omnipresence, omniscience, omnipotence) to be born of a virgin. This means that even though He is God, while on earth he felt hunger, thirst, pain, fatigue, etc. Therefore, even though He is God, He could still suffer physical death.

Most people understand God is immmortal. This is true. Unless God relinquishes His life, it cannot be taken. Jesus said He could lay down His life, and take it up again. This claim refers to His divine nature. Jesus wasn't killed by the Romans, He didn't die until He gave up His life. This is consistent with Him being God.

Your last statement refers to the argument that the Bible doesn't mean what it says. As God's Word, it is clear in showing God has keen interest in our world, and in each individual's life, including yours and mine.

'Expelled' Exposes Plight of Darwin Doubters

obiwan »

Fri Nov 30, 2007 9:17 am Agree: 3   Disagree: 0

Exactly. There are a rather large number of biblical creationists at major universities who are unable to speak their mind due to fears over losing fellowships or tenure. If Darwinian evolution is so obviously the truth, why not allow others to question it? That should serve to make it stronger, not weaker. The fact is it is a bankrupt hypothesis with no real grounding in reality, and therefore it can't be touched.

Christians Urged to Meet Atheists in the Public Square

obiwan »

Fri Oct 12, 2007 3:36 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Citizen:

You show how little you understand biology, and science. A scientific Law is universal, and absolute. It is true in all circumstances. Therefore, to claim that "Well, those less educated people were just talking about maggots and rotting meat" is absurd and shows your unwillingness to admit a problem in your logic. The Law of Biogenesis is a Law precisely because it is never refuted. Claiming that we evolved from a soup of chemicals and proving it are entirely different things.

Second, mutations don't happen one-at-a-time. Every generation, hundreds of mutations happen at once. If any of these are lethal, then any potentially beneficial mutations are lost. For evolution to be true, mutations don't have to be "beneficial", they have to increase the information content of the organism. This *never* happens. Even examples like antibiotic resistance show that either the information already existed (i.e. plasmids moving from one bacterium to another) or that info is lost (i.e. penicillin resistance). Again, natural selection selects for phenotypes, not genes.

Finally, stop saying that Christians have to prove God exists. If we can't prove that scientifically, that still does not prove He *doesn't* exist. However, as I stated earlier, the onus is on the atheist to prove He does not exist, since that is what you are claiming. In order to prove He doesn't exist, you would need the characteristics of God (i.e. omnipresence and omniscience), thereby refuting your own claim.

Christians Urged to Meet Atheists in the Public Square

obiwan »

Fri Oct 12, 2007 1:28 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Citizen:

Incorrect. Science can only speak tot he physical world. However, there is more in existence than the physical. A great example are the laws of logic. Logic can't be measured, touched, seen, or heard. Yet the laws of logic exist, and are universal.

At any rate, since you place such faith in science: if evolution is correct, then why does it break the only biological law (Biogenesis)? Also, if atheism is correct, then why can't you prove God doesn't exist? Since you can't, you must allow the possibility that He does, and therefore atheism is a non-starter.

Christians Urged to Meet Atheists in the Public Square

obiwan »

Fri Oct 12, 2007 1:23 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

Citizen:

Regarding the question of Evolution: Neo-Darwinian Evolution is crumbling like a house of cards. To borrow you terminology, "The emperor has no clothes". Evolution is an interesting fable, but the facts simply don't support it. For example, what we know from population genetics explicitly demonstrates that "onward and upward" evolution *cannot* happen. We are accumulating detrimental mutations at too high a rate. Which gets to another point: mutation (the supposed engine of evolution) tends to corrupt genetic data, not improve on it. All mutations in genes are either silent or harmful. All of them corrupt the original information contained in the gene ultimately leading to severe consequences.

Furthermore, natural selection (the *other* engine of evolution) also works against the "onward and upward" progress of organisms by the way it works. Natural selection can only select *phenotypes* (expressed traits such as height, eye color, etc.), not on genotypes (the actual sequence for a given gene). Therefore, even if an advantageous trait is selected for, a number of detrimental mutations will come along for the ride. All natural selection can hope to do is maintain the status quo.

Christians Urged to Meet Atheists in the Public Square

obiwan »

Fri Oct 12, 2007 1:13 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

Citizen:

Perhaps you are unaware of how science and the scientific method work. All scientific research does is generate data. That data has to be interpreted within a framework which the researcher ALREADY believes to be true. Therefore, science as an endeavor is never objective, because it relies on the researcher to interpret the data and to make claims about the natural world.

You are also incorrect about theology: it is also objective. Theological understanding is based on the laws of logic, just as science is. Therefore, Christianity is shown to be the correct relationship to God because it's claims and beliefs can be tested. Usually these tests are not based on the scientific method, but instead are based on historical methods of verification. FOr an atheist to make the claim that there is no God, he must be omniscient and omnipresent, which would in fact make him God. Therefore, your argument is self-refuting.

Episcopal Head: What Does it Mean to Follow Jesus?

obiwan »

Tue Oct 02, 2007 10:35 am Agree: 10   Disagree: 1

Aeolus14 -

I'm not Anglican, but I see this trend is disturbing. Jesus met with publicans and sinners, but He still called them on their sin. Remember, He told the adulteress to "Go, and sin no more", not 'Go, and don't worry because I accept your alternative lifestyle'. We can love homosexuals without condoning their behavior or accepting their behavior. We can still lovingly remind them it is sin.