Children Have No Need For A Father

Single women and lesbian couples won landmark parental rights last night as MPs voted to remove the requirement that fertility clinics consider a child’s need for a father.

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill will replace the rule with a “need for supportive parenting” after opponents were defeated in two votes by unexpectedly wide margins.

The Government had been prepared for defeat but won the free votes by majorities of 75 and 68. The decisions mean that the legislation will grant the most significant extension to homosexual family rights since gay adoption was sanctioned.

The Government has now won all four of the measures on which it agreed to grant Labour MPs a free vote. Moves to allow the creation of hybrid embryos for medical research, and “saviour siblings” screened as suitable tissue donors for sick children, were passed by large majorities on Monday.

Here is one of the comments posted in regards to this article: Good decision, great for singles who can't find men to have kids with. Unless women in their 20's start dateing men in their 40's the dream of a nuclear family is nonexistent. Men in their 20's are selfish, busy reading Loaded and Nuts than creating mature and stable relationships to have kids in.

You can read more here.

Some questions:
-Do you agree with the majority of vote casters?
-What are your thoughts concerning "saviour sibliings"?
-Do you agree with the commentor? Please explain.
-Do you think that children benefit from a father/mother family as opposed to a mother or mother/mother (lesbian) family?
-Why is the (U.K.) government even casting votes on such things as this?
-Are making hybrid embryos a "moral endeavor" as stated by Brown?

Can You Hear Me Now?

Women who use mobile phones when pregnant are more likely to give birth to children with behavioural problems, according to authoritative research.

A giant study, which surveyed more than 13,000 children, found that using the handsets just two or three times a day was enough to raise the risk of their babies developing hyperactivity and difficulties with conduct, emotions and relationships by the time they reached school age. And it adds that the likelihood is even greater if the children themselves used the phones before the age of seven.

You can read more here.

Some questions:
-Do you put any stock in this survey? If not, why?
-Will this alter your mobile usage if you are pregnant (or when you become pregnant)?
-Will you allow your children to talk on the mobile before the age of 7?
-Do you think studies like this prove anything? (the egg is good for you/the egg is bad for you...)
-Have you thought about giving your child a mobile? Have your thoughts changed after reading this?
-How do you think a mobile can produce such results?

Minister Caught in Teen Sex Scandal

" Dr. Graham addressed the crowd at the start of the church's regular worship service. He said the church had accepted Joe Barron's resignation, which took effect immediately.

"You need to know that we are appalled and we are disgraced by this terrible action, an unacceptable action by a minister on our staff," Dr. Graham said. "I'm so sorry for the injury that this kind of behavior has brought to many people in our church and outside of our church."

Police arrested Mr. Barron, 52, Thursday morning after he drove from Plano to Bryan to meet with what he thought was a 13-year-old girl he had met online, authorities say."

Read the story here

Some Questions:
~Is this a bad person doing a bad thing, or a good person who made a mistake?
~Are Pastors exempt from mistakes like this?
~What should the church do with him?

Theistic Evolution: The Marriage Of Science & Religion

Okay, so I have been discussing the plausibility of position called Theistic Evolution with a couple of guys over the past two weeks and thought I would ask your opinion on this topic.

Here is their basic view as it has been laid out to me: The creation story as laid out in Genesis is metaphorical and the original readers new this and it was understood. It was never meant to be taken as God created all that is before us and is us in 6 days. Further they would say that this metaphorical understanding has several advantages over the orthodox Christian view that would hold the creation as a literal event that took place as described in Genesis where Adam was created from dirt and Eve from his side. The advantages relieve the tension between Christianity/Judaism and science because it makes room for evolution to be understood in a biblical framework while still allowing you to hold to your faith.

Those who hold this view would say that all descended from a common ancestor and we, man, evolved from primitive primates. They would further say that God, in His sovereignty, utilized the process of evolution as part of His creative action and this makes for man to be all the more awed at His greatness. This view holds that at some point when the primitive primates evolved to a certain point, God intervened and bestowed upon them (or maybe just one? I am unclear on this point) the ability to reason and infused within them/it a soul that separates them/it from the rest of creation and now gives us the ability to say we are in the image of God; a distinguishing mark that no other part of creation bears. With these abilities came the ability to sin against our creator and thus a need for a savior is still valid.

Proponents would argue that with all of the advances in science, this view makes perfect sense and releases the tension between evolution and religion.

Proponents would argue that one does not have to “twist” scripture to make this work, they just have to reinterpret Genesis. Basically, scripture stays scripture, but your interpretation of that scripture must change. (They would say that interpretations are faulty and their interpretation is more harmonious with science than those who hold to young earth models)

Proponents would argue that if this was not the case, why would God “trick” us by making all this scientific data point to common descent. He sure went through a lot of trouble to make it appear as if common descent is how life began. So, if all the evidence points to that, then maybe our interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2 are wrong and need to be reinterpreted.

I first pointed to this discussion here.
You can read the dialogue between myself and two proponents concerning this topic here.

Some questions:
-Do you find this view plausible based on what scripture says (not our interpretation of scripture, but scripture itself)?
-Does this view seek to place the trustworthiness of science above that of scripture? (or does it just call into question our interpretation of scripture?)
-Do you see a biblically-based flaw in this model? If so, what?
-Do you see any biblically-based merit in this model? If so, what?
-How does this affect the parallels between Christ/Israel/Adam?
-Is there proof that early Israel understood the creation story to be a metaphor?
-What questions arise from this "interpretation" of Genesis?

Space Aliens Are Accepted As Possibilities By The Vatican

VATICAN CITY (AP) - The Vatican's chief astronomer says that believing in aliens does not contradict faith in God.

You can read more here.

HT: Drudge

Some questions:
-Does belief in alien beings undermine Biblical Christianity? If so, how?
-Does scripture rule out said such beings?
-Would aliens be sinful? Would they need faith in Christ to live forever with God?
-What theological questions would arise if intelligent alien life was discovered?

Parody Based On Probability

This is probably what happens when we assume too much.

Wanted: Professor Of Conservative Thought & Policy

The campus hot-dog stand sells tofu wieners. A recent pro-marijuana rally drew a crowd of 10,000, roughly a third the size of the student body. And according to one professor’s analysis of voter registration, the 800-strong faculty includes just 32 Republicans.
Chancellor G.P. “Bud” Peterson surveys this landscape with unease. A college that champions diversity, he believes, must think beyond courses in gay literature, Chicano studies and feminist theory. “We should also talk about intellectual diversity,” he says. So over the next year, Mr. Peterson plans to raise $9 million to create an endowed chair for what is thought to be the nation’s first Professor of Conservative Thought and Policy.

You can read more here.

Some questions:
-Do you find this a worthy budget line item?
-If diversity is indeed the goal, why are some opposed to such a diverse position?
-Your thoughts?