Climate Change

In your comments concerning  theories science develops I missed the part where the church understood the bible to say the earth stood still and had several verses to support their position. They did not rely on science for their belief.

 

To the ordinary people it looked like the sun appeared to go around the earth; and if the earth moves, why aren't we thrown off into space? Why does a stone, thrown straight up into the air, come straight down and if the earth rotating rapidly why don't we feel a strong wind blowing in our faces in the opposite direction to our motion? Surely the idea that the earth moved is absurd?

 

In the January 2010 issue of Smithsonian magazine there is an article about the Dead Sea scrolls. The article says the thousands of tourists who flock to Qumran each year, where the scrolls were discovered, are told the site was once home to a Jewish sect called the Essenes, who devoted their lives to writing and preserving sacred texts. An Israeli archaeologist disagrees, and says the settlement was originally a small fort that was later converted into a pottery factory to serve nearby towns. Which story sounds better to the tourists? Do they want to know the truth or do they want to continue to believe what they want to believe even if it might be false?

 

Does John Casey suggest and explanation as to why glaciers and ice sheets are melting faster today than ever before and that cruise ships are able to come across the northern routes later in the year than ever before?

 

I give Science the benefit of the doubt because thousands of scientists in all fields are trying to prove current theories to be mistaken and if they can they will make their career. Where as Christians seldom question and my experiences and observations tell me a lot of what they teach is not true. I believe there is a good possibility that one day Christians will look back on the idea that anyone thought Genesis 1 and 2 to be historically and scientifically correct to be as silly as we think the people were who thought the earth stood still.

 

 

United States Screwed Up

There have been several Arabic officials over the years that have said as bad as people like Saddam Hussein are, they are the types of iron fisted leaders that are actually needed in the region to keep it stable. Without them, it's a splintered huge group of violent minorities that will pop up and challenge. I think we are seeing all of this play out right now. Every country that we have assisted in the toppling or weakening of it's supposed brutal dictator is in far worse shape now than it was before.

The Foolish, Historically Illiterate, Incredible Response to Obama's Prayer Breakfast Speech

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/02/the-foolish-historically-illiterate-incredible-response-to-obamas-prayer-breakfast-speech/385246/#disqus_thread

Barack Obama 2002

The following is a transcript of the remarks then-Sen. Barack Obama delivered in Chicago on Oct. 2, 2002. In his speech, Obama said that what he was opposed to was "a dumb war ... a rash war." He said the war was a "cynical attempt" to shove "ideological agendas down our throats" and would distract from domestic problems such as poverty and health care.

 

Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances. The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil. I don't oppose all wars.

My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton's army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain. I don't oppose all wars.

After Sept. 11, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this administration's pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again. I don't oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism.

What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income — to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear — I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaida. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.

So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's finish the fight with bin Laden and al-Qaida, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings. You want a fight, President Bush?

Let's fight to make sure that the U.N. inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe. You want a fight, President Bush?

Let's fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn't simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.

Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair. The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not — we will not — travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.

For all Barack Obama antagonists, which what specifically do you disagree? 

The Pulpit is not in the Pattern

The term “pulpit” is not found in the New Testament. The practice of preaching sermons from the pulpit is, from all indications, a tradition that developed over time. During the first couple of centuries AD, believers would often meet in homes. The first reference to a pulpit does not appear until a letter in the third century AD. 

 

During the Middle Ages, pulpits became commonplace, but were not typically used much for sermons because the sacraments were more important to the Catholic Church. The preaching of the Word at the pulpit became more important with denominations after the Protestant Reformation. Since then, the authority of Scripture, the church, and the preacher became closely connected with the pulpit.

 

For people who believe there is a pattern for Christianity, the pulpit is not one.