What Paige said is true to a point... history is often interpreted differently by the winners, but it is important to remember one aspect of that: an apple is still an apple, whether looking at it from a aerial, bottom or side view. History is the same way. As the popular saying goes, there are 2 sides to every story, but the story itself still exists. You can take the recent death of Osama Bin Laden. While there are two sides to this account, both from American and Al Quaida, the fact that he was killed on May 1st 2011 exists no matter what perspective you have.
A perfect example of this is the fact that the account of Jesus, both his life and his death are recorded in 4 different books by 4 different authors; Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. While Luke might give more details about the birth, and while Matthew might give more details about his death, they all wrote about the same thing, highlighting the main points of concrete details. It is also seen that these 4 wrote to different audiences; Luke wrote to the Romans, John wrote to the Gentiles, and therefore had to write from a perspective with elements that would be understood by the audience.
In essence, due to the fact that Paige is a post modern, she holds to the idea that everything is relative, this including history. From a Christian perspective, we see the world as (blank) many years old in which God created mankind and ever since has been overseeing him and the rest of the world until the day come on which he will return and history itself will be finished.
Monday, May 2, 2011
Monday, April 25, 2011
Economics #2
This past week in class we watched a video that asked students of high GPA's if they would be willing to redistribute some of there points so that others who did not have as high GPA's could boost there scores. From what we saw, everyone who was asked this said two things. First they said no, and secondly when asked why not, they said, "I worked hard for my GPA". Then they were asked how does this differ from government redistributing of wealth. Most of them shot back with "well, thats different". Or is it?
When it comes to the wealthy, often people assume that they cheated or stole their way to achieve wealth, and of course, Hollywood has not really helped out with differing this claim. While this might be true for a small percentage, it is no more a viable arguement then saying that a poor person is poor because they spent all their money on booze, aside from maybe a small percentage.
So then, what should be said of people who do nothing and yet gain just as much as the guy next to them?
Aesops fable of the ant and the grasshopper is a perfect example... the ant knew winter was coming so he saved up for it, while the grasshopper enjoyed summer and even mocked the ant and did nothing. Then when winter came, the grasshopper begged the ant for food and shelter, but the ant wouldn't give it to him because he had not worked for it.
So why would someone who makes above the average take a pay cut because someone else needs the money? Well we wish that man would be willing to help his neighbor and do that... but that also means that his neighbor must be willing to pull his weight as well.
When it comes to the wealthy, often people assume that they cheated or stole their way to achieve wealth, and of course, Hollywood has not really helped out with differing this claim. While this might be true for a small percentage, it is no more a viable arguement then saying that a poor person is poor because they spent all their money on booze, aside from maybe a small percentage.
So then, what should be said of people who do nothing and yet gain just as much as the guy next to them?
Aesops fable of the ant and the grasshopper is a perfect example... the ant knew winter was coming so he saved up for it, while the grasshopper enjoyed summer and even mocked the ant and did nothing. Then when winter came, the grasshopper begged the ant for food and shelter, but the ant wouldn't give it to him because he had not worked for it.
So why would someone who makes above the average take a pay cut because someone else needs the money? Well we wish that man would be willing to help his neighbor and do that... but that also means that his neighbor must be willing to pull his weight as well.
economics #1
When Michael Moore spoke, on of the big things he touched on was that all great religions support Socialism saying that even Jesus supported Socialism. This has for some time been a point of many socialists, claiming that God provides for all people that equality in what they own should be something we strive for. But there are a few flaws with this statement.
First off, Michael Moore is lumping all religions into one group, which cannot be done. With all the differences we have seen and the fact that there are so many religions is a testament to the fact that you cannot group apples and peanut butter sandwiches. Now of course his worldview would say differently which is why he makes this claim.
As for Jesus supporting Socialism, if we look at some of Jesus' key points, it will give us an accurate view. When Jesus was asked how he felt about taxes, he said "Give to Casaer what is Casaer's..." Jesus was not against taxes. He knew that government must exist, and yet despite being the all powerful God, did not dispute paying taxes to government.
Jesus also spoke in parables where he talked about each one of us recieving gifts and abilities, and that we should use them, otherwise they would be taken away. God does not want us to be lazy but know that everything is fine because I am going to recieve just as much as the next guy. He wants us to work hard and yet not be consumed by work and material possesions.
First off, Michael Moore is lumping all religions into one group, which cannot be done. With all the differences we have seen and the fact that there are so many religions is a testament to the fact that you cannot group apples and peanut butter sandwiches. Now of course his worldview would say differently which is why he makes this claim.
As for Jesus supporting Socialism, if we look at some of Jesus' key points, it will give us an accurate view. When Jesus was asked how he felt about taxes, he said "Give to Casaer what is Casaer's..." Jesus was not against taxes. He knew that government must exist, and yet despite being the all powerful God, did not dispute paying taxes to government.
Jesus also spoke in parables where he talked about each one of us recieving gifts and abilities, and that we should use them, otherwise they would be taken away. God does not want us to be lazy but know that everything is fine because I am going to recieve just as much as the next guy. He wants us to work hard and yet not be consumed by work and material possesions.
Sunday, April 10, 2011
Global World Government
As Christians, we recognize the fact that a world government comes at the end of days. It states in Revelation that the Tribulation is initiated with the rebuilding of the temple and an institution of a global government. We have seen this in play over the last 40-50 years with the United Nation but it has not gone to the extreme as explained by scripture. However, with the rising economic shortfalls of many countries as well as rebellious up rises against nations leaders, the looming possibility of a united government of the world is not as far off as it may seem. There are several ramification to a global government. One, with any government, you have to give someone power, otherwise its anarchy. Now with the president of the United States, it is limited but he still has quite a bit of power, and we have seen presidents in the past exercise that power. Now that works for a nation, but can you imagine giving that similar power to a global leader? You end up with a ruler who thinks they can take it to the next level and end up becoming a world dictator which is later overthrown by a bloody uprising. OK, so maybe the power rests with a group, like an oligarchy or hegemony. Well as we have seen within our own government, a group often, when given power, cannot agree upon how to use it. So now you either have the choice of a world dictator or a group that cannot agree on anything. The human nature often seeks perfection which is what the strive would be for in a global world government. But the other big problem if ONE government is achieved, when does the train stop. Do we then move on to one education system, one currency, or even one religion? By moving to uniting the world, you move closer to forcing people on something. The reason we have so many different countries, cultures, religions and backgrounds is because people are so diverse. People are like snowflakes, no two people are alike. The funny part is that people who often stress tolerance and accepting differences are people who press for a one global world government.
Monday, March 21, 2011
Abortion
In response to number two, the first thing that I would do is I would say to the person, "Ok. So lets just say that I agree with your statement. Teenagers who become mothers not only prove to be a hinderance to themselves, but also to society due to financial instability and often being uneducated. Lets say that I decided it is ok to have an abortion up until the age of 20, at which point an abortion becomes illegal. Will you work with me to defend teenage abortions and outlaw all others?" At this point the person will look at you and say no. I have now just proven something to them. That they just sought to use pathos in place of ethos and logos; emotion over logic. Not only that but I have proven that the emotional trigger they used meant nothing to them. At this point, no emotional response to abortion will work for them because they don't even believe it. Now that they walls that they hid behind are broken down, I must address the single and only question in the abortion debate: is a fetus a child?
For this, there are several ways to argue it. One would be the law of nature that says everything reproduces after its own kind. For example, pigs don't have human babies, they have piglets, just as humans have human babies. If there is a living thing inside, is one going to argue that it's a little monkey? No of course not, because humans produce humans and therefore the fetus must be a human. Another way to debunk claims that the fetus is not human is to use the SLED approach. The letters stand for Size, Level of development, Environment and Dependency, and each can be used to show that it is in no way means for killing. Just because a 5 year old is smaller than a 50 year old, does that mean we should kill it? Just because a 15 year old girl is more developed and has her reproductive system, does that give her a right to life as opposed to a 4 year old who does not? Just because someone lives in China as opposed to the US, does that mean we should kill them? Just because my mother makes me a lunch every day, does that mean I should be killed but not the guy next to me who makes his own lunch? All of these are ridiculous but nontheless effective.
For this, there are several ways to argue it. One would be the law of nature that says everything reproduces after its own kind. For example, pigs don't have human babies, they have piglets, just as humans have human babies. If there is a living thing inside, is one going to argue that it's a little monkey? No of course not, because humans produce humans and therefore the fetus must be a human. Another way to debunk claims that the fetus is not human is to use the SLED approach. The letters stand for Size, Level of development, Environment and Dependency, and each can be used to show that it is in no way means for killing. Just because a 5 year old is smaller than a 50 year old, does that mean we should kill it? Just because a 15 year old girl is more developed and has her reproductive system, does that give her a right to life as opposed to a 4 year old who does not? Just because someone lives in China as opposed to the US, does that mean we should kill them? Just because my mother makes me a lunch every day, does that mean I should be killed but not the guy next to me who makes his own lunch? All of these are ridiculous but nontheless effective.
Monday, March 14, 2011
Law #4
In these two different sources, we see two opposing worldview camps. Obviously with the Bible, you have the Christian worldview and with the CLS (Critical Legal Studies), they hold to a postmodern view of the world. The difference between these two amount to quite a bit, but one major part is the way they interpret equality and justice. First off, let me just say that it is quite difficult to point out the way a postmodern defines something, because they don't hold to the idea that a statement can be absolutely true. Moving on from that, a Christian would be able to look at the word and decipher how God means for justice and equality to be carried out. Deuteronomy says that we are to "observe the Lord's commands and decrees". It also says that He defends the fatherless and the widows. By observing the Lord's commands, his justice is carried out. Also by defending those who cannot defend themselves, he carries out true equality. It also says in James that religion that God has accepts as pure and faultless is "to look after orphans and widows and to keep oneself from being polluted by this world."
On the other hand, the CLS holds (or at least displays) that to them equality is breaking down laws to see that people are treated fairly. For this very reason, feminists strongly support CLS because they feel as though there are unfairly treated and that by breaking down laws that have been set up by men on issues such as rape. In this same way, justice is viewed as the breaking down of the laws to free those who have been oppressed.
On the other hand, the CLS holds (or at least displays) that to them equality is breaking down laws to see that people are treated fairly. For this very reason, feminists strongly support CLS because they feel as though there are unfairly treated and that by breaking down laws that have been set up by men on issues such as rape. In this same way, justice is viewed as the breaking down of the laws to free those who have been oppressed.
Law #3
When it comes to Islam and Christianity, there are a few similarities. But when it comes to law, they differ in their approach. Both worldviews hold to a monotheistic approach to God, but while Christianity believes that God can be known, Islam believes that Allah is unknowable and all we have is the laws he has given us, through his prophet Muhammed. Shari'a law is derived from the Qur'ran as well as several other different sources. The word Shari'a literally means "the path to the watering hole". This means that it is the path that one should follow to paradise. There has been a bit of controversy lately as of the means of which Shari'a law is carried out. For example, according to one of the parts of Shari'a law, a man may divorce his wife but a wife may not divorce her husband. Islamic law does not view people as equal and therefore holds to the idea of Rex Lex, where the king, or ruler, in this case religious, is over the law.
In contrast to Shari'a law, the Christian approach to law is natural law also referred to as Divine law. In John 14:6, Jesus says "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." God's law given through first the 10 commandments, secondly through his word, and finally through his Son, is what is true and finite. When God says "Do not murder", this is not some figure of speech to be taken a different way. This is strict truth that if not followed, breaks God's law.
In contrast to Shari'a law, the Christian approach to law is natural law also referred to as Divine law. In John 14:6, Jesus says "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." God's law given through first the 10 commandments, secondly through his word, and finally through his Son, is what is true and finite. When God says "Do not murder", this is not some figure of speech to be taken a different way. This is strict truth that if not followed, breaks God's law.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)