lara's favorite news headlines of the day...

* Soda-Cancer Link Revealed as Myth -- interesting... glad they pointed out that, "The researchers warned against chugging diet soda as a ward against cancer, however, since it carries its own health risks, such as damaging tooth enamel." though... because i wouldn't have figured *that* out on my own. ;-)

* Ocean view -- as soon as the poison works -- some people truly amaze me...

* Miffed man pays bank bill a penny at a time -- good way to make a point?... and actually i think he has a fairly good one...

* Kazakh president does anthem his way -- interesting...

* Ben Franklin Turns 300: Twice -- see how much you really know about calendars in the 18th century.

* Free booze makes homeless healthier? --... but, "Three of the 17 participants died during the program, succumbing to alcohol-related illnesses that might have killed them anyway, the study said."

* Call it his 'constitutional' rights? -- ""Perhaps, our mothers never explained to us that it was not a good idea to play with handguns whilst using the restroom. But then again, maybe that was supposed to be a given," the Mounties said in a press release."

but here's the headline that got me looking at news this afternoon....

* Did Jesus exist? Italian court to decide -- how can this be an actual court case? i understand the case of intelligent design vs. evolution in the states. and even though i believe evolution happens, i still believe that in God and that he created the world and everything in it. I understand that non-Christian scientists don't adhere to the latter part of that statement and that religion and science answer different questions. I personally believe that you need *both* to understand the universe or anything about it, and that focusing on *just* one or the other allows for partial understanding at best. (not that you can have perfect understanding of most things even using both relgion and science). nonetheless, i understand why that case came to trial and while i have mixed feelings about it, i'm ok with it.

on the other hand "did Jesus exist?" coming to trial? give me a break. i can understand that people don't agree on who Jesus was. I fully believe that Jesus was the Son of God come to earth in human form, and I understand that there are many many people on earth who don't believe that. But regardless of what you think of who he was, surely we can all agree that he did exist? there are plenty of other religions even who, while not arguing that Jesus is the Son of God have him in their history as a prophet of some sort. You don't have to be a Christian to understand that many bodies of people around the world, Christian and not, agree that Jesus existed.

There are plenty of cases in literature where a "name" is given as the author of a famous work when it's uncertan if there actually was a person with that name, and no one accuses the literary community of impersonation or conning the masses. it's religion that always gets everyone's goat.

i don't think in this day and age, anyone would argue that the italian man bringing up this lawsuit is being forced by the church in italy to agree with what they teach. the church serves people who believe in what it teaches and should maintain the ability to clearly teach and explain its doctrines to any who are interested in finding out more. but just as i can't tell this italian man that he has to believe the same as me, he can't tell me that i have to believe the same as him. there is no place for trying to give the "final blow" (quoting the news article) to an organization you're not required to be a part of and is not out to damage you. arguing about something taught in public schools which does necesarily serve the masses and can't necessarily be opted out of, i can see a debate about; arguing about an organization that you're not made to be a part of is a bit out there.

and all that said, the man isn't even just arguing about what the church teaches, he's arguing against the history that tells us Jesus *existed*. how can you take history to court? and shoot, if he personally doesn't want to believe that, again, who's making him go to church, forcing him to hear what the church teaches, or getting into his head and forcing him to believe that jesus existed? no one.

summary: i know what i believe, i understand not everyone believes what i believe, and i think it can make for good chats, but i don't think that you can bring doctrine and/or history to court when you're talking about it being taught/explained in an organization that it is not compulsory to be a member of.

people truly baffle me sometimes.

other thoughts?

the end.