Posts Made By: Doug Matulis

Andreas Saldivar said:

Last week I went to the Cherry Springs star party in Pennslyvania. It was almost a total bust. It rained a ton and I only got to use my scope for about an hour on Wednesday night and 45 minutes on Saturday night. My goal for the star party was to observe my 2000th different deep sky object. I need about 40 to do it. I only saw 10 new objects while I was there. We left a day earlier than planned. At home, though, the sky was great. I stayed up all night Monday and observed about 80 objects, many of which were new. Number 2000th was NGC 4636. It's a mag 9.5 galaxy which I described as "Very bright center and core in a low surface brightness oval disk." By the end of the night my total was 2031

The break down of the 2031 different DSOs is:

1544 Galaxies
83 Nebulas
96 Globular Clusters
176 Open Clusters
124 Planetary Nebulas
8 Others


My next goal is to get to 2000 different NGC objects. I'm currently at 1860.

Andreas

Lee Spain said:

Attention Kmart Shoppers - There is a Marlin-branded lever action BB gun now selling in sporting goods for $39.95. It's a little bit more substantial looking than the Daisy Red Ryder and has a squared off lever. It looks like the BB gun is distributed by Crosman.

http://www.theoutdoorwire.com/story/1263871455jh8zrn9ut90

William Paolini said:

Of course teaching of religion in public schools in a violation of separation of church and state. However, religious programs usually heavily emphasize morals and ethics, neither of which is emphasized in public schools (based on my experience).

An interesting thing of late is some of the rise in religious schools to educate our children instead of public schools. As example, Islamic schools in the U.S. has grown 25% since 2006. And in a 1999 poll American's felt private schools (religious included) better educated children than public schools.

So what should we do with public schools in terms of moral and ethical education? Do you think it would be an improvement overall if public schools K-12 were required to have in addition to the basics teaching in ethics and morals appropriate to the American culture as a way of putting back this loss with no religious education allowed in public schools?

Given the typical news these days with the immoral and unethical antics of Hollywood stars and Congress staff, I think we sorely need this in America. When looking at college for our daughter we ended up having her attend Loyola University that system, which is run by the Jesuits, although totally secular in their curriculum they have as a requirement a core set of classes in ethics in society as part of the charter of the system is to raise business leaders who will have both a higher ethical standard and also give back to the community. So this was unique to the colleges we looked at and favored well with us.

So what about our hurting grade and high schools where moral and ethical example and education is a wasteland??

Rod Kaufman said:

The recovery will continue, gas prices will stabilize, job creation will continue and home construction will rebound:
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-chapman-20110617,0,7608841.story
If that's the case, then Obama will may prevail in 2012, if not it'll probably be Romney...

James Lacey said:

Georgia passed an Arizona-style immigration law recently designed to make life and employment harder on its undocumented immigrants, including about 425,000 agricultural workers. It's important to keep in mind that agriculture is Georgia's largest industry. In the spring, farmers argued that they would be unable to recruit new workers on time for the summer harvest with this sudden change in policy. The Obama administration did not step in to block the law taking effect. The result is an estimated 46% of farms without enough workers and $300M of crops rotting in the fields. Georgia's govenor is shocked that crops don't pick themselves.

http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2011/06/17/gas-farm-labor-crisis-playing-out-as-planned/

James Lacey said:

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/21/my-take-bible-condemns-a-lot-so-why-focus-on-homosexuality/

Growing up in the evangelical community, I learned the Bible’s stance on homosexuality is clear-cut. God condemns it, I was taught, and those who disagree just haven’t read their Bibles closely enough.

Having recently graduated from Yale Divinity School, I can say that my childhood community’s approach to gay rights—though well intentioned—is riddled with self-serving double standards.

I don’t doubt that the one New Testament author who wrote on the subject of male-male intercourse thought it a sin. In Romans 1, the only passage in the Bible where a reason is explicitly given for opposing same-sex relations, the Apostle Paul calls them “unnatural.�

Problem is, Paul’s only other moral argument from nature is the following: “Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair, it is degrading to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory?� (1 Corinthians 11:14-15).

Few Christians would answer that question with a “yes.�

In short, Paul objects to two things as unnatural: one is male-male sex and the other is long hair on men and short hair on women. The community opposed to gay marriage takes one condemnation as timeless and universal and the other as culturally relative.

I also don’t doubt that those who advocate gay marriage are advocating a revision of the Christian tradition.

But the community opposed to gay marriage has itself revised the Christian tradition in a host of ways. For the first 1500 years of Christianity, for example, marriage was deemed morally inferior to celibacy. When a theologian named Jovinian challenged that hierarchy in 390 A.D. — merely by suggesting that marriage and celibacy might be equally worthwhile endeavors — he was deemed a heretic and excommunicated from the church.

How does that sit with “family values� activism today?

Yale New Testament professor Dale B. Martin has noted that today’s "pro-family" activism, despite its pretense to be representing traditional Christian values, would have been considered “heresy� for most of the church’s history.

The community opposed to gay marriage has also departed from the Christian tradition on another issue at the heart of its social agenda: abortion.

Unbeknownst to most lay Christians, the vast majority of Christian theologians and saints throughout history have not believed life begins at conception.

Although he admitted some uncertainty on the matter, the hugely influential 4th and 5th century Christian thinker Saint Augustine wrote, “it could not be said that there was a living soul in [a] body� if it is “not yet endowed with senses.�

Thomas Aquinas, a Catholic saint and a giant of mediaeval theology, argued: “before the body has organs in any way whatever, it cannot be receptive of the soul.�

American evangelicals, meanwhile, widely opposed the idea that life begins at conception until the 1970s, with some even advocating looser abortion laws based on their reading of the Bible before then.

It won’t do to oppose gay marriage because it’s not traditional while advocating other positions that are not traditional.

And then there’s the topic of divorce. Although there is only one uncontested reference to same-sex relations in the New Testament, divorce is condemned throughout, both by Jesus and Paul. To quote Jesus from the Gospel of Mark: “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery.�

A possible exception is made only for unfaithfulness.

The community most opposed to gay marriage usually reads these condemnations very leniently. A 2007 issue of Christianity Today, for example, featured a story on its cover about divorce that concluded that Christians should permit divorce for “adultery,� “emotional and physical neglect� and “abandonment and abuse.�

The author emphasizes how impractical it would be to apply a strict interpretation of Jesus on this matter: “It is difficult to believe the Bible can be as impractical as this interpretation implies.�

Indeed it is.

On the other hand, it’s not at all difficult for a community of Christian leaders, who are almost exclusively white, heterosexual men, to advocate interpretations that can be very impractical for a historically oppressed minority to which they do not belong – homosexuals.

Whether the topic is hair length, celibacy, when life begins, or divorce, time and again, the leaders most opposed to gay marriage have demonstrated an incredible willingness to consider nuances and complicating considerations when their own interests are at stake.

Since graduating from seminary, I no longer identify with the evangelical community of my youth. The community gave me many fond memories and sound values but it also taught me to take the very human perspectives of its leaders and attribute them to God.

So let’s stop the charade and be honest.

Opponents of gay marriage aren’t defending the Bible’s values. They’re using the Bible to defend their own.

Thomas Steinberg said:

I think this was/is the name of the recent HBO documentary I saw (part of) last week. It's generally about the way the right has purchased the judicial system of the US. Pretty interesting/disappointing.

John Agnew said:

Mutually exclusive concepts. Which do you choose?

William Paolini said:

ACLU went too far attacking religious freedom and being reigned back in thank goodness.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=317757&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+delicious%2Fgqlf+%28Christian+Headlines+Top+Headlines%29

Faculty and teachers can once again pray at school during their break times, pray during school events in a nonofficial capacity, attend and fully participate in baccalaureate services, have a Bible on their desk, wear religious jewelry, and assign readings from the Bible to students when relevant to nonreligious academic assignments. Students will be allowed to voluntarily pray, submit religious answers in homework, and freely participate in private, after-school religious programs.

Kevin Krepps said:

What think ye? I think not:

In the Old Testament justice was displayed in "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" Every sin receives it's just desserts. But this is only foreshadowing the New Covenant. Looking to Paul we see a new admonition to love our enemies, just as Jesus taught:

"Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.�

The reason we do not need to repay evil for evil is because we trust the Lord’s promise to provide justice for everyone. Sin is not merely forgiven, as if it never happened. There is justice meted out for every wrong we commit. The Old Testament principle has not changed. This was demonstrated by Jesus on the cross. He paid "An eye for an eye" for our sake.

As a Christian:
When someone wrongs me I can rest assured that every sin has been paid for on the cross, or will be punished in this life or the next. We don’t have to seek revenge, because God will be our just judge.

This teaching is often misconstrued as applying to the proper use of military, or law enforcement, or even personal defense of self and family. However, that is not the case.

"Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer." (Romans 13)

The law is still God's standard to show his righteousness, maintain order in society, and protect the innocent. The Christian in the military, or law enforcement, or defending his family is not seeking revenge...he is defending righteousness and protecting the innocent. How the sword of the magistrate should be applied is considerably debated, but I beleive it's purpose is sound.