Law #2

In creating the world, God created his most important work, man. And in doing so he gave man something important... a brain. He gave us a brain to make decisions and use for his glory. When it comes to laws, to say that each person determines and interprets what that law says is to say that man basically disregards all that God has put into account and goes off of that which he believes is his. But in reality, God gave us the mind in which we use to think. God did not want to make us all robots, only capable of certain responses and feelings. But nor did he want us to run wild without any sort of limits, which is why he gave us rules. So, is it up to each individual to interpret God's laws. No, because God has given us them to be absolute, and has also given us a mind to process them as such, and he gave us the Bible to be used as a tool to learn from the rules.

Law #1

In response to Sarah's statement on the fact that laws are created by society, this is somewhat true in today's society. Since Sarah is a secular humanist, she holds to what is called positive law, also referred to as the law of 51 percent. This means that humans decide for themselves what laws should be and that since humans are constantly changing, so are laws. In today's society, laws are affirmed by the people who they are governed over.

Now as Christian's, we believe in what is called divine law, meaning that laws began with God and he put them into effect to protect and guide us. We can see throughout the Bible God implanting laws in our world, even from the beginning. God told man and woman not to eat of the tree of good and evil. Later on God gave the 10 commandments to Moses, who would later go on to be God's scribe for providing His rules, which are laid out in the first 5 books of the Bible.

While it is true that God has placed authority in our lives such as parents, teacher, and even the government, it is important to remember that all authority and power comes from Him and Him alone.

Feminism

In response to the question, "how should Christians respond to feminism?", there are two parts to this answer. One, when God created the earth, he created Eve out of Adam and placed her in the garden with him with a purpose. She was to his helper and his savior, but also she was created as an individual. God made her special just like Adam, and I think this is where sometimes people get confused. God created both male and female in his image, and therefore should be treated equally as his children. They should be given equal opportunities. Women having the same rights as men are what God intended. The second part of the answer is in how we should respond. Feminism can often turn into pitting men against women in that women are the minority and are being taken unfair advantage of by men. As a believer and Christian man, it is important to not get angry and say something that I might regret. Also it is important to approach it in a way that does not make you sound like you are looking down on someone because they are a feminist, which only proves their point, but must be open and courteous in response.

Sociology Response

I believe that to a certain extent, this is a plausible statement. While on earth, Jesus did not condemn the ruling government of the time, which was Rome. He says "give to Caesar what is Caesar's". The government, or state, is not the greatest evil in the world, as some people may like to point out. God has appointed those in elected positions to be there for a reason. So when it comes to the states role in the family, God originally designed this to all compliment each other and work together. But unfortunately that is not the way it goes down. If it came down to the state controlling what was taught in the homes, who is to say where it would stop? Next thing you know the state is telling families where to live, and what jobs they can have, and where they can go to school, and what they can buy... one thing leads to another and we find ourselves in a communist government where one has lost all of their individuality. This, of course, might seem a bit extreme, but the idea remains the same. The concept of the state controlling or having some say what goes on in the family my be good, but only to a certain extent.

Dear Doug 12/13

There are several problems with a naturalists explanation to life. A naturalist, being of one who says that only what we can percieve in nature with our 5 senses is real, holds to the theory of Evolution. Often people will claim that evolution is the only plausible explanation for life on earth and that if you try to bring up any other facts or reasons as to why it may not be true, it automatically involves religion and faith. But this is not entirely accurate for these three reasons:

One. When Darwin published the Origin of Species, he coined a phrase that is now a universal term that makes evolution possible, natural selection. Natural selection is the process by which animals who are strong survive and are "chosen" by nature to continue on whereas those who are weak are eliminated. This is to protect the gene pool and see to it that the "good" traits are passed down and the "bad" traits are disposed of. Its "survival of the fittest" at its highest peak. The trick with natural selection is that over time, all of the offspring of one creature will inherit the strong gene and loose the week gene. Also, based on location, time period, and need, animals will evolve genes and parts that will strengthen their gene pool. The problem with this is that no proven record has shown that traits that were inherited were kept. Darwin's Finches, for example, some may have had larger beaks with a more capability of collecting food and water, but after the drought, finches were found with the original beaks and the "evolved" beaks, which would mean that some just happened to have larger beaks than others.

Second. If a drought did come, it was likely to pass in the same year. Evolutionists claim that evolution through natural selection takes millions of years. How could the finches have evolved within the same year and how were there still 2 kinds of finches?

Third. The largely acclaimed fossil records in modern science textbooks are claimed by many scientists, Christian and non Christian to be phony and full of gaps. They are not complete. Why do you think that no one has found the missing link? There would be no missing link if the records were complete and yet scientists still search for the, what they call, "final connection" between man and ape. Many drawings that support evolution have been proven false. The embryonic drawings often seen in textbooks have been proven false; it has been claimed and confirmed that the original illustrator drew what he believed to have happened and could best draw out support for evolution... (funny how the word belief shows up within a secular cosmic theory :)

We could go on and on with reasons of why evolution is not the most logical explanation for life, whether it be through the intricacies of the cell and all the moving parts, or the statistical numbers that show it would be easier for your entire extended family to win the lottery ever week for the next hundred years then for evolution to take place on earth, but if it does required faith to believe that a theory is true, i'd cast my lot with Intelligent Design, Creationism to be specific, everyday of the week and twice on sunday.