The OOC

The U.S. State Department is siding with Muslims over the press in condemning cartoons depicting caricatures of the “Prophet Mohammed”. Spokesman David Cooper said, “We … respect freedom of the press and expression but it must be coupled with press responsibility. Inciting religious or ethnic hatreds in this manner is not acceptable.”
Am I the only one who finds this offending when night after night, television shows repeatedly portray Christians and even Christ in demeaning fashions? If anyone questions this, we need only to tune into “The Book of Daniel”, or “Will and Grace”. I guess it’s pretty clear that if Christians were terrorists, we would “get our way” when we complain about how our Lord is portrayed in the media. However, since instead we are law-abiding citizens who want to be seen as loving, we can be ridiculed at the whim of whatever writer wishes to do so. Where’s the press responsibility there?

Apparently, the courts now even have the power to determine who should live.
I really don’t know what more to add. I’m pretty much dumbfounded.

(story)
I don’t understand how allowing “for an honest discussion about the strengths and weaknesses of evolution, which … is accepted with blind faith by mainstream scientists.” is a bad thing in the classroom. It takes as much, if not more, faith to believe in evolution than creation or design. The mechanism of that design is not being stressed. They are only calling for a discussion of the reliable and non-reliable teachings of evolution. Unfortunately, many of the evolutionary theories being taught in today’s classrooom have been dismissed by scientists many years ago. What is being taught in evolutionary textbooks is not what scientists today actually believe. It’s time to bring the classroom up to speed with the laboratory. Way to go Kansas Board of Education for putting archaic teaching on the shelf and allowing for progress in science to begin.

I can see the personal ads being overcome with headlines such as this. Why not? If you live in Canada, the advantages to being “married” should make it a slam dunk. Get married to whomever (man, woman, gay, straight), and then when you find that special person with whom you want to spend the rest of your life (or at least a couple of years) , get an annulment and marry him/her. It’s brilliant! No more filing “single” on your income tax returns, no more checking the “Miss” box on the application. Now you can be married, with all the benefits that brings, but without the waiting for the perfect mate to come along. I say all we single folk band (wedding band, that is) together and make this happen right here in the U.S.A.

A growing debate in the world of stem-cell research is whether injecting human stem cells into the brains of monkeys, especially fetal monkeys, could produce a moral monkey. Interesting in a time when many scientists are telling us that we are no more than animals ourselves, they would now debate that animals could become moral with human stem cells. The scientific world has become so very confused – we are all just animals, we are moral beings. Which is it!? The church plant has been conducting a “Questions of the Faith” series and next week we will be discussing how scientists form their hypotheses (are they using pure scientific methods, or is there something else behind it all – a personal belief system).
This kind of debate illustrates just how much our own belief system shapes how we interpret the world around us. Obviously, if there is no God and we are all just animals created from one cell, there is no reason to think that human stem cells would affect the moral values of a monkey. However, if we recognize that human beings do possess some moral values, we have to decide whether or not these values are genetic or if they come from another source (God). If there is a genetic tie to moral values, we should be very concerned about injecting human stems into the brains of monkeys. The human cells could infuse some kind of moral fabric into the monkey genetic code. Who knows where that could take us! On the other hand, if the God of the Bible is real, and “humans are set apart by God as morally speical and are given stewardship over other forms of life” (Genesis I: 26-28), then the debate is over and there is no possible way for the monkey to ever posses the kind of moral values that humans are given by God.

Who are we? This is a question Ron asked us in his last sermons. The answer to that question also applies to bloggers. Bloggers have a responsibility to those they represent: God, family, co-workers, church, etc. Some feel that their blogs only answer the question, Who am I? They have used their blog entries to deface the others they represent- their co-workers and company, all the while, defacing themselves. The three questions that should always be remembered when making anything public: Who am I? Who are we? Who is this God?

After reading this article, I wonder why proponents of a genetic component of homosexuality are working so hard to prove that homosexuality is a genetic disposition. Are they homosexual advocates or do they want to eliminate homosexuality? I believe that they are trying to relieve discrimination, however, their work will instead increase the discrimination of parents to their unborn children. If they can pinpoint a gene, then they can manipulate the genetic code to make a person heterosexual, and eventually eliminate homosexuality. The homosexual child will never be born.
I’ve heard so many times “You’re born that way”. Today, more and more gays and lesbians are beginning to acknowledge that it is a choice that they have made. That concerns me more than the “born that way” argument. It reveals that homosexuality is more attractive than it has been in the past. It also proves Romans 1:24-32 to be true.

I’ve been away from the blog for a bit and just read the numerous posts about the Terri Schiavo case and I wanted to weigh in. Paul wrote, “All this comes back to whether we have a Right to Die or a Right to Live. Depending on which one a culture decides to emphasize will make all the difference in the world.” It is interesting to me, that criminals actually are protected in the Bill of Rights (Article V), whereas Terri Schiavo is not. An interesting article about how Peter Singer reacted; when faced with this decision about his mother, he chose to keep her alive and let “nature” take its course. How much longer must we listen to his banter, when he, himself does not believe it?

The latest genetic research regarding the “origins” of homosexuality has produced the most bizarre pro-life bill. First, we have research on a fictional concept, now we have legislation on the possible future discoveries of said research. Amazing!

This is an amazing story, Baby Stable After Second Head Removed, and a more amazing picture. I wonder if there was any thought that the second head was a living human being. Any thoughts?