dhillarearen asked: Did you know there are 7 types of ice?
Actually, it has even more :) At least 16 different crystal structures! This diagram shows at what temperatures & pressures they form:
You can see this in bigger, more readable form, along with a post looking in a good deal more detail at the different structures.
If Christianity is about serving people who disagree with us, then why should a Christian refuse to make a cake for someone who is not like them? For example, would it be ok for that cake store to refuse to make a cake for a couple that was married for the second time? Would that violate what Jesus said about Adultery? What about making a cake for a couple that had no faith whatsoever? Is it ok to make a cake for an Atheist but not for a couple that is homosexual? Don’t we end up creating a world where only Christians can work for other Christians?
How do we, as Christians, hope to change the culture for Christ? Is it by preaching the Gospel and demonstrating the love of Jesus to people around us because we believe that the Gospel has the power to transform people from within? OR…do we hope to change the culture by passing laws that legislate a pattern of behavior that we find more palatable?
Keith Giles is on a roll tonight (via gospelofthekingdom)
This totally misses the point of the debate over the proposed Arizona law. I keep hearing Christians talk about it as if the central issue is whether Christians are following Jesus or not, about being good Christians. A worth discussion to have, but this is totally missing the point.
Christians are free to bake cakes for whoever they want today, and would still be free to do so under the proposed (now vetoed) legislation. But today they are legally forced to bake that cake, whereas under the proposed legislation, they would have the freedom to opt out. It is about the foundation of what liberty is. It is about government coercion under penalty of law, to enter a business transaction where cultural and religious freedoms collide. A very complicated picture, indeed.
Can the government compel a business to enter transactions, or not? Is religious freedom meaningful when government can step in and deny it based on popular culture whims and currents? Popular culture sometimes misjudges things in the here and now - remember the 1970s? I rest my case.
I can see legal arguments, and moral arguments, on both sides of this issue, and it is far from clear cut in my mind on what the right answer is. But I’m pretty sure that Christianity has already lost the gay marriage fight in the wider culture, and while I support religious freedom anywhere and everywhere, I’m not sure that this was the right battle to pick, because it sounds too much like the Jim Crow era to people who don’t bother thinking about anything for more than 30 seconds. Jim Crow era laws mandated separate but equal accommodations based on nothing more than skin color, which is a completely different requirement than allowing an individual business to make an individual decision — and lose revenue and suffer bad PR in the media — based on their religious preferences. I had thought we lived in a country where we let people indulge their religion even if we disagree with it.
But apparently not. Life is like that sometimes.
So while Christians on the radio and TV and on the Internet deceive themselves that this whole brouhaha was mostly about being good Christians, those who hate them work day and night to remove their influence from the popular culture, and it is working.
The Diplomad, commenting on the surprisingly frank Washington Post editorial that finally admits, five years in, that the Obama Administration seems to have a bit of a problem with delusional self-regard.
Also: laws. And rationality. And actually, you know, liking America. Stuff like that.
Washington today resembles nothing so much as Al Capone gangsterism brought into the 21st century. And the media fawned over him, too. Hmmm.
One has to wonder just what purpose “the news” serves today, when a series of scandals, any of which is at least equivalent to Watergate in the abuse of power department, is almost completely ignored by the same media that likes to pretend it still speaks truth to power, man!