history 2

First off, every historical book that Sarah and Mark have ever read would most likely not even come close to the evidence and support found for the New Testament. However, I will not go on a tangent. To defend the point of why I believe the New Testament to be true and thus reliable, I would first ask as to why the professor and the study group believe it to be unreliable. It must be unreliable in at least one of these three ways: internally, externally, or bibliographically. Internally speaking, the NT does not contradict itself and matches up with the other recorded accounts. There is not one instance in which the NT disagrees with its doctrines. Therefore, it is safe to assume it Is not flawed internally. Externally speaking, thousands of eyewitness accounts and various manuscripts have been found citing the events of the bible. There is incredible amounts of archaeological evidence not only of the NT, but also of the OT. Lastly, there has been so little change over the thousands of years of translation. It is quite remarkable that the bible has been able to stay so intact and complete. Because of this, there is very little questioning the consistency of the content, as well as if it has been altered.

Concluding all of this, one must find the NT to be reliable. From there, they can make their assumptions as to whether they will choose to believe everything else.

            History is so incredibly important to modern society that without it we would be doomed to repeat the mistakes of yesterday. Imagine if every year a southern state attempted to use “separate but equal” ideology...  The Plessey vs. Ferguson ruling ended this injustice in 1896, and since then nothing has been heard of like it. This is only one of the countless examples of our society’s decisions being based upon precedents.   

If you are so offended by the fact that the winners wrote down history, would you rather have the losers record such events? Clearly it is impossible to reach an ultimate objective view here, although in many cases the victors are not the sole means of record. Think of any election victory. Sure, it was most likely covered more in pro-victor news sources, but nevertheless it was also still covered from the losing side’s news sources, as well as third parties. Looking further back than that, think of all the various sources that cite Jesus’ life. Not only did followers of him record his being, but also enemies and skeptics.

As stories have been passed down from generation to generation, it is inevitable that some things have been embellished or changed. But that doesn’t mean that we should discredit this information. Even the most subjective material can help grasp more knowledge and understanding of a culture.

History is beyond necessary. I encourage you to study it.

            I agree Mark and Sarah. It is incredibly important for people to share… But that decision to share their private property should be up to them, and no one else. If you want to give away a million dollars by all means go for it. Just don’t tell me I have to give up my money. Socialism will never be able to work.

            The government has no right to distribute wealth. Absolutely nowhere was it stated in our constitution that the government has the right for doing something so drastic and terrible. Once the inalienable rights are taken care of (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness), the government’s role is very limited. The American government exists to protect its people from theft. By engaging in massive redistribution they are basically stealing hard-earned money. Sure, “ all men are created equal.” And while that statement is a great one, it doesn’t give the power to the government to make everyone economically equal. Also, socialism basically promotes laziness. In a capitalistic system, the hardest working and most determined will reap the benefits. However, in socialism the lazy will earn just as much as the motivated.

            In a perfect society, socialism would work. But we do not live in a perfect society. People are greedy, flawed individuals. The motivation must be there for production to occur. Socialism clearly doesn’t provide motivation.

GREEN

Calvin Freatman

            Ahhhhhh, nothing like a good earth day. While I’m sure Nathan and Sarah know how to celebrate better, I doubt they know the real importance at hand.

            It is extremely important to treat nature with respect. In no way would God endorse some of the wasteful, unnecessary lifestyles that a few individuals have. However, there is a fine line between being wasteful and ruling over the land which God specifically created for humans to inhabit. The bible is VERY clear that humans are to use God’s creation for their own means of survival. I really cannot see how anyone would be opposed to eating meat when Jesus himself ate it, as well as thousands of lambs and cows were slaughtered as offerings in the Old Testament.

John 1:3 says “through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.” Eating meat and using the resources that God gave humans is a testimony to how much God loves mankind. Without him, no animal or tree would ever be created. In my opinion it is necessary to respect his creation, but it is a great injustice to the creator that he is to not enjoy the fruits of his labor (meat, fish, etc).

Our responsibility Is not to “Mother Earth,” but to God. This green movement doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me as our obligation must not to be warning the planet of alternate energy sources, but to warn them of man’s inherent sinfulness. I would choose leading a man to Christ over leading a man to recycle any day of the week.

Econ 1

Before I get going on the arguments that Moore makes, I would first like to say that the only reason his movies have found success in the US is because of the capitalistic system we live in. He even says it himself in that his documentaries are successful and seen in “shopping malls” and “multiplexes.” Well, these places only exist because of the consumer-driven society we are in.

Michael Moore makes a huge mistake in that he believes societies have values. WRONG. Individuals have values and it is reflected in the society that we live in. These values will, in turn reflect the lifestyle of that individual. A socialist government will try and force values upon the people…. But wait, isn’t socialism supposed to be by the people and for the people?  To its faults and glory, capitalism puts the power into the people’s hands. Their economic decisions and values can be upheld in this system, whereas in socialism they cannot.

Moore’s thoughts on religion really go nowhere. Every religion that Moore mentioned has come about before socialism ever existed. His argument that all these religions basically say what Marx believed is completely mute when considering that Marx came thousands of years after. “All these religions are saying the same thing” is also one of the inaccurate and false statements I have ever heard. Jesus is not Muhammad, and anyone can make that distinction.

Lastly Moore says that Socialism is democracy. He just left it at that, which makes no sense because they cannot both exist together. All in all, socialism is not what Moore attempted to convey.

Abortion

1.

You are correct. It is absolutely necessary for a woman to have control over her body. In fact, I believe it incredibly vital for life itself to endorse one’s freedom. HOWEVER, when that freedom imposes on one another’s will to live, extreme consequences result, such as a loss of LIFE.

Let me reiterate what I just said in a hypothetical situation. Debbie is as 25 year-old law student who becomes pregnant by her professor. To continue with her classes and not deal with the hassles of parenthood, she decides to abort. Now, she is expressing her freedom to do as she pleases, but is hindering another’s freedom, one who is much more helpless. Both sides cannot both be obliged in the situation such as abortion. So, if both sides cannot get their wish, would society/ the law side upon the convenience of the mother, or the life of a human being?

If abortion were not killing I would have no problem with it. In fact, I believe very strongly against teenage pregnancy and for Planned Parenthood. However, abortion is murder and cannot be justified under any circumstances. I honestly used to believe that abortion was acceptable in the situation of rape cases. Now though, I see the folly in such an idea of “2 wrongs making a right.” Nothing can be said or done to validate murder.

People doubt how alive fetus’ are. In reality though, there are only four differences between a human baby and a fetus. Those differences are size, location, level of dependency, and level of development. If one can recognize the life of the fetus than the argument for choice becomes irrelevant, it is murder.

It is not only an obligation that we as Christians have to protect the lives of babies, but also a duty of our government. We must save our own.   

Global GOV

            Having read all about such an idea in the Left Behind series, I believe a secular global government would be extremely flawed and impossible to maintain. Furthermore, it would completely undermine and distort the meaning of being on earth as individuals brought together in God. In this hypothetical scenario, the government would assume the role of the higher power. They would be totalitarian in their approach, and would greatly hinder life as a result. In fact, it is quite possible that such an absolute system as this could result in complete and utter chaos.

As is evident all throughout history, the leader of one country can completely and utterly provoke his own people to killing and atrocious acts of violence.(Hitler). And while this may be true, other countries have rallied behind the opposition to such actions and won. There would be no such system(country/countries) to stop the leader/leaders of this government.  There would be no such God to answer to, nor anything besides the leaders of this government. World War 3 could never happen, there would be no one to resist from a crazed ruler’s destruction.

The infusion of such a system would destroy cultures. The Guaraní  (along with many other indigenous tribes) would be forced into a culture that they would clearly have no interest in being a part of. The beauty of individuality and patriotism would be extremely diminished. Too many conflicts of interest between cultures would occur. Just imagine a southern boy who likes to hunt and work on Ford Trucks having the same set of values as a Chinese woman interested in Origami.

Good luck to any citizens who wish to voice their opinions. It would be impossible to be involved with politics, or even be in a position to create change with so many needs and wished to accommodate. Being able to keep track and monitor all of these civilians would be utterly inconceivable.

Basically, such a system is offensive to even think about.