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.

Ron Artist

            It is nearly impossible to imagine life without art. What a complete and utter terror that would result from no paintings, music, or even poetry. The works of Van Gogh and Bach would have never transcended culture, while E.E. Cummings would have never delivered some of the most influential, thought-invoking work known in the poetry field. Art is culture. Every known society has had some form of Art in their lives. Whether that being decorous Totem poles, the Sistine Chapel, or “Can’t Stop” by the Red Hot Chili Peppers is beside the point; Art is a universal and historical field. Art is furthermore one of the most sacred and powerful aspects of Christianity. All throughout the bible it is very clear that worshipping God through art is a beautiful and powerful way to do such. In fact, God is often said to be an artist. Isaiah 64:8 says “But now, O Lord, you are our Father; we are the clay, and you are our potter; we are all the work of your hand.”  Recently though, it has come to my attention that the art of the old has been replaced with languid, situational ideology. Both Roger Scruton and Leyland Ryken attempt to explain and defend their own opinions through their respective works. These works both help to establish the worldviews represented in art.
            Roger Scruton has some very, very good points. However, I believe his opinions are somewhat skewed of the beauty of art. Beauty is oftentimes found in the eyes of the beholder, rather than an entire society’s. To one man, Eric Calpton’s music could speak to the soul, while to another it is merely a strumming of the guitar. Scruton assumes that beauty is merely tangible, and that only older works (he focuses a ridiculous amount of time on old architecture) or those that uphold a good message can be seen as a beautiful piece of art. That, in my opinion was Scruton’s greatest fault. However, he provided great insight into the many faults of modern art. Is a urinal really any sort of artistic achievement? Absolutely not. Scruton tells a tale of art that legitimately changed the mundane aspects of life of earlier years. That magnificent impact is rarely seen nowadays. Many images of post-modern art appeared in his video, providing real-life examples of such worldviews in art. Scruton is brutally honest and estimates the debilitating effect that some of the meaningless “art” is having on society today.  
            Leyland Ryken’s The Creative Arts also has some very, very good points. Ryken focuses upon the “levels of truth” that a work of art contains. Ryken believes one’s art will be a direct representation of their outlook on life. I really understand and agree with what Ryken attempted to convey. Just as a football player leaves every bit of soul and fight he has in him on the field, so do artists in the studio. It is in that state of complete and total focus upon their work that the worldviews are easily identifiable. Ryken emphatically defended that A work of art can stand in the art gallery and be cherished for its own sake." Ryken holds many of the beliefs and philosophies on art that I do.   

Overall, I appreciate and admire the opinions of Ryken and Scruton. Their insights and opinions have enhanced my understanding of the worldviews of art, along with what truly should be considered art. Although I am not very artistic nor very interested in art, nothing inspires more than something beautiful. Having first seen A Starry Night in the third grade, I have always been enamored with such an exquisite work. In an age where Lady Gaga is winning
“artist of the year,” it is important to continue the study of older, more meaningful pieces. As a Christian, I believe it necessary to worship God to the best of one’s ability, whether a gifted musician or not. Art is vital to life and society, one of my greatest hopes is that more Christian artists could emerge, while still upholding biblical values.

Shariah

Shariah Law’s recognition and implication in America would do nothing but greatly infringe upon the rights and traditions of our country that have been in existence for hundreds of years. This goes back to the basic concepts that our founding fathers so greatly advocated for. Two contradicting and equally different laws cannot govern one land.

First of all, it must be noted that in its grassroots this system of laws would be incredibly unappealing for any woman. You might as well sound the trumpets; Feminists are ready to utterly demolish these ideals of the Shariah law. I read an article last year in which a Muslim woman had her head chopped off by her husband, all done so in the name of violating Shariah’s law…… Secondly, the beauty of America lies in its age-old ideology of “lets agree to disagree.” There is never any harm in that, and both opinions and beliefs are upheld. However, in Shariah law there is no such luxury. You either follow Allah, or you don’t and are punished. Furthermore, how could America, a country which embraces homosexuality more than any other, be expected to follow a system of laws that calls for the killing of all homosexuals? It just could not happen. While equality is shot, capitalism would also be affected. It is highly improbable that such systems governing third-world countries could thrive in a first-world setting.

Almost everything that America has stood for would either be contradicted, or completely changed altogether. The very first amendment might as well be completely nullified if such laws govern this land. Shariah law could simply not be implicated into our society, nor should it be.  

The young Calvin and the Sea

Waves are washing him out

He’s trying to swim for something bigger than him

It starts in the heart of the storm

Every common man

Enters Into a bustling existence, wrought with sunken ships

He’s just trying to find some peace, a clear blue sea

                                                            Dead fish in the water

Countless people swimming with great big sharks

Looking for freedom, a lighthouse on the rocks

Laws

C.S Lewis said it best: “The moral law tells us the tune we have to play: our instincts are merely the key.” Laws cannot be created solely by man, as our instincts of what is right or wrong stem not from culture, but God’s presence in life. Despite the article supporting law created from culture or society, it unknowingly includes one of the greatest arguments towards intelligent design and natural law. The similarity of all laws throughout time may set a precedent, but also prove that the common man supports fairly similar ideals as everyone else. This, of course is because of the Natural Law that has been put into the world as “physical and moral laws revealed in general revelation and built into the structure of the universe”(Textbook285).  Every man feels pain when he sees a young child go hungry. This reaction and inherent feeling is built into every being through this natural law. While the article has truth in that society does have a role in marriage, alcohol, and other various laws and regulations, ultimately it is the natural law that has its hand in all matters.

Feminism

While it is very important to understand the faults and shortcomings of feminism, it is equally important to recognize the value in a belief system that upholds women to a greater degree. For thousands of years throughout thousands of religions women have been viewed as mere objects or simple reproductive tools. I’m all for the equal rights that women deserve, but nonetheless there are definitive problems that feminism endorses. In fact, this idea of equal rights becomes increasingly skewed and misinterpreted by the feminist community every day. I imagine the old Nike commercials attempting to empower women. The slogan was “anything you can do I can do better, anything you can do I can do too.” While in feminists eyes this is true, in reality God created men and women VERY different for a reason. These differences help shape and structure the society that we live in. Section 1 of the ERA is not clear enough. If these rights are not being denied to any sex, then how should anyone address any issue concerning homosexuality? It is important to clarify what the intended meaning of this section is, so that there will be neither confusion nor debate. In general, I believe as A Christian it is fine to disagree with feminism and attempt to exemplify what it means to follow in God’s intended plan for a man and a woman.   

Sexist? Homophobic?

First and foremost, I must ask you to define what you believe constitutes homophobic and sexist behavior. It is very possible that you are poking holes at ideas and behaviors that are not sexist or homophobic, but instead simply the beliefs and lifestyle choices of Christianity. While there are exceptions with all religions, Christians are predominantly a loving group of people, whom respect and love both female and gay populations.

            While other religions belittle and beat women, Christianity is called to respect and love ALL women. Ephesians 5:25 says: “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.” How can this be a sexist religion when they are called to love women in the same way that their own God loved his people? It is baffling to me that you question Christianity when it is legal for a man to beat his wife in other religions of the world.

            To say that Christianity is homophobic is a flat out lie. Homophobia by definition is “an irrational fear, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals(Meriam Webster).” If you hold true to this definition, you are either calling Christians cowards or oppressors. 1^st John 4:7 asserts “Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God.” This idea of loving one another is reiterated all throughout the bible. Christianity is a loving religion, not one of fear or hate. Just as Christians love their brothers and sisters in Christ, so they are called to love the gay community.

Sociology

            Dear Sarah and Mark, please understand that the last thing families need is big brother looking over their shoulder. As is generally my view of the government, I believe less involvement is better. Don’t get me wrong, it is absolutely necessary for government to protect the mental, physical, and emotional safety of all children. That idea is clearly presented in the articles. However, it is up to the individual parent to raise their child to enter into the world as a contributing member of society.

            In recent years I have noticed a significant increase in what the government’s powers entail. From owning private companies to parenting our nation’s youth?  This would be another breach of the limited power that our government should have at its disposal.  By allowing and encouraging governmental parenting, the child is exposed to the same lifestyle that millions of other kids would face. It is diversity and varying lifestyles that contribute so greatly to the culture of America, and this move towards a parental form of government would upset the balance of everything.

            Sarah and Mark, please look more into depth at the arguments that were made. As a part of the  “Education Begins at home act,” the advocates of such are basically inferring that all Americans are too incompetent to correctly parent their own children. When in reality, parents have successfully raised their children in America without any governmental involvement whatsoever. I feel that it is unnecessary and fallacious to have a governmental worker (making a big salary, raising my taxes) come into my home and pass a judgment onto my parenting skills. I can successfully raise a child/children without any governmental assistance.

            While the intentions of getting more involved in the family are good, the methods are bad, and the result would be even worse. Children should be looking up to their parents and God, not the government. The bible is very clear upon the special bond between the family. It is one that should not be interrupted, and needs to continue to be held up in high regard.   

Happy Loman

            Unlike the other characters of the play, Happy Loman inherited his American dream. As seen all throughout the play, Happy searches for the very same dream that his father has sought all his life. Happy wants money and name recognition. His dream isn’t found in the countryside, but hidden deep in the congestion of the industrial city. Above all else, Happy wants to finally please his father. “I’m gonna show you and everybody else that Willy Loman did not die in vain. He had a good dream. It’s the only dream you can have-to come out number one man. He fought it out here, and this is where I’m gonna win it for him.” Happy’s dream was cultivated through years of playing 2^nd favorite in his father’s eyes. When Biff was a high school football star, Happy had to settle. Even as Biff returned home after spending many years on a farm, Happy had less potential in Willy’s eyes. Happy struggled to achieve his dreams. He had nowhere near the influence he let on to have. Happy was heading down the same path of destruction that his father already traveled. Happy’s dream was not his own, but an attempt to fulfill his father’s.

            Happy struggled mightily with achieving this dream. Like I earlier stated, he was always playing 2^nd fiddle to Biff. Despite dedicating his life to becoming successful, in an essence Happy was far from achieving thee success Biff had. Happy put on a façade that he was making large sums of money, when in reality he was an assistant to an assistant. Arthur Miller attempts to convey the generational hopelessness in this lifestyle. The trend of a life in pursuit of nothing doesn’t end with Willy’s death, but is instead passed on to Happy. Miller really conveys the cultural misunderstanding of that time. Through Happy the audience is able to further learn of the bleak emphasis put on the material American Dream.

            My dream has somewhat differed from the last years Mrs. Harris’s essay. My opinion of the American dream varies from that of a Willy or a Happy. I intend to mentor and financially support many fatherless children. That has been my goal and life’s ambition ever since I was young. However, the way I am to achieve this has varied over the past few years. Obviously, my financial situation needs to be very stable to be able to provide an education for these youth. By starting my own business, I am taking a risk, but I intend to reap the rewards. Hotels and assisted living homes have always interested me, and my goal is to own and run a company which specializes in this form of Hospitality. My own background has helped cultivate these dreams, and I plan to pursue them with a fervor. Failure is in many ways my greatest fear. I want to achieve not just for my own purpose in life, but to make a genuine difference. Finding investors and gaining in-field experience are both tasks I will have to address. However, I feel confident in that in 25 years, my dream will be achieved.      

Rain man

Being the exceptional student that I am, I decided to leave the assignment to Sunday afternoon during a torrential downpour. Actually, the rain kept just about everyone (except old bikers in spandex) at home. I found that this was, in many ways, beneficial to my clarity of thought. Doing this assignment with my dog was also pretty great. I really enjoy comparisons. Whether that comparison is made between football teams, periods of time, or plain old food, I enjoy such. I tried to compare my life now as opposed to last year. I think that the term “development” sums it up quite well. No great loops to jump through, just a different outlook on some aspects of life. Death has become more of a reality over the past few weeks. Two people I have known have recently passed, one whom I had gone to school with and considered a friend. It was tough to hear. My entire life I’ve wanted to be really, really successful. In many ways this past year has taught be that success comes in thousands of forms. Being a good friend is in many ways more successful than driving exotic cars and having multiple houses. The last year or so my priorities have been somewhat skewed, and I need to get back to what is most important. All in all, being out in the pouring rain helped me realize that I need more time to clear my mind and think.

Biology 1

            Evolution is the basis for the naturalistic worldview. Clearly without this “big bang” principle, naturalism would have no explanation of human origins. Any system of belief involving non-creative existence would cite evolution as the origin of human existence. In evolution it is commonly accepted that life today has evolved over millions of years through adaption and development. To find problems with the naturalistic explanation of life, one must not look much further than evolution.

            All throughout this year, my UTT teacher has stressed that when there is a freak in nature, this specimen will generally become killed off. As this is true, it is incredibly hard to imagine newly transformed land-locked animals surviving and reproducing. In fact, I believe it is impossible. To successfully survive, the species must be able to acclimate to nature and reproduce with one of its kind, nearly impossible in Darwinian evolution.

            Clearly Micro-evolution exists. I have been seen the results of micro-evolution since I was five. Changes in gene pools involving hair color, beak size, and  others are ever-changing. However, I believe Macro-Evolution is impossible. Every Darwinian scientist must cite Micro-Evolution to try and prove Macro-Evolution. But they cannot do this! These changes may result in something changed or altered, but ultimately they are the same thing. Bacteria will remain bacteria. A dog might gain 20 pounds and look differently, but it is still a dog.

            In my opinion the greatest argument against evolution: Fossil records. One of the most beneficial reasons for living today, thousands of fossils have been uncovered all over the world.  According to evolution, mutations have been taking place over thousands of years. If this is so, there would be fossils that would reiterate mutations taking place. THERE IS NOT ONE FOSSIL that does so. All fossils specifically point to their own species, shutting down evolution.

            In conclusion, evolution defines naturalistic origins. Problems with evolution bring about problems in naturalism. These problems are very obvious, and need not be ignored.

morals

            With all the recent controversy surrounding the Penn State and Syracuse coaching scandals, I feel that this is a perfectly relevant topic. I will delve into my opinions on absolute morality accordingly.  

I believe that to a certain extent there is absolute moral truth.  Jerry Sandusky is one of the greatest college defensive coordinators ever. For over a decade, he recruited and developed Penn State’s program to be known as “linebacker U.” A seemingly stand-up sort of guy, he ran a nonprofit organization that focused on underprivileged youth. Recently it has been discovered that during and after his time at Penn State he sexually molested over twenty kids. I have always understood that some may be raised with a different set of morals than I. That my neighbor may not think abortion is wrong and that he may think corruption is fine. But when one gets down into the deep, deep core of morality, (as for the case with Jerry Sandusky) one must not deny that absolutes exist. If someone told me that what Jerry Sandusky did was okay, I’d probably beat the crap out of them. One would never, EVER consider his actions to be fair, or even bearable. This moral standard is universally accepted, and to think not would just be foolish. If one continues to deny such moral absolutes, I’m going to take their shoes. If they call me out on this action, I will ask if stealing is absolutely wrong. If it is not, what’s the problem with taking their possessions? Clearly there are some absolutes that one cannot deny.   

            I believe that the typical Christian moral standards stem from the morality of Christ, as well as what God calls for those in the bible. That being said, those that are not under this biblical influence (or misinterpret the bible) will clearly have different moral standards. This is where the debate begins. I’m not one of those “no grey areas” sort of kids. I would never condone lying when it involves something as simple as brushing teeth. In fact, I’m pretty sure everyone would agree that lying is bad. However, good luck convincing me lying to a girl is wrong when she asks me if she looks fat. Clearly that dress makes you look large, but I refuse to take the bait…… A lot of my own moral fibers are not the same as Mr. Dyck’s. In fact, I believe that most decisions are made based on what our consciences permit. SOME MORAL DECISIONS ARE SITUTATIONAL.     

Karma

First off, Karma is all too often misunderstood. Karma is a principle in which each individual is subject to reward or punishment for their life choices. It is NOT a set of laws to live by.  

            For Karma to not just exist, but actually be relevant, there must be a very, very clear understanding of what is “right,” and what is “wrong.” Otherwise, searching for advancement through this karmic system would be impossible. How could I go from a common man to a prince with no understanding of how to get there?  The video did a lackluster job of describing such. In fact, in this karmic system it is impossible to know what results in good karma or bad. In the video, the narrator declares that the feelings experienced when making decisions are the greatest indicator of what is “right,” and what is “wrong.” “If you get a message or a sensation of comfort, then the choice you are making is karmically appropriate.”  This may work sometimes, but how does it explain some situations? Psychopaths may not have any feelings whatsoever when killing, however, that makes it no less wrong. KARMA IS RELATIVE! It is absolutely determined by the individual, and the conscience that they have. I may feel worse stealing a pencil off of Brittany Hoff’s desk, than Hitler felt murdering millions of Jews. And if this system is determined by the individual’s conscience and their own moral fibers, he would be more karmically approved than me.

            Karma is all about following the rules. But yet, these rules are (again, relative) based solely on the individual. Jerry Sanduski could have very well been following his own set of rules when he molested over 20 kids. Am I supposed to applaud him for being a fiend? For sticking to his own code? Karma cannot attack these actions as wrong, when he was following his own rules.

            The karma principal has many logical holes. Can Karma explain why babies die every day from abortion? They are too young to even establish any Karma whatsoever. And if their death is a result of a previous life, how does their karma translate into their next life? The idea for Karma involves the ability to change. How can a baby change when it has never left his mother’s womb? Equally, how can someone mentally retarded “change” so they can better their karmic state? I have a tough time accepting the idea of “change,” when many can’t change who they are (autism) or the ailments they may have (cancer).

Philosophy 3

            Before I get going, I must say that this video has horrible background music. Not just bad, but ridiculously annoying.

Non-naturalism is a fairly tough concept to grasp. While naturalism would deny the existence of truth, reality and knowledge, non-naturalism is a form of moral realism where they accept these traits as a part of the human conscience. This human conscience is described in the video as “the only reality,” and the “physical universe is the virtual reality.” They attempt to explain that what exists is solely in the brain of an individual. This is basically going back to the idea of truth being held by the individual, and everything around that person being a result of a “virtual reality.” Very, very comic-humanist based.   

            I don’t believe that the human conscience can exist or be “truth” without the presence of a physical reality. The non-naturalist will believe that truth, reality, and knowledge are true, but yet don’t have viable reasoning behind why it is true. Just as our minds can use deductive reasoning to decide the best deal at wall mart, so is the case for another. This sale is not representative of a virtual reality, but a universal reality where another human could purchase the same item for that sale price. They are either together as both being real(physical and personal) or not in existence at all(married bachelor). The mind acts as a reaction to the physical world. One cannot deny completely deny naturalism or even non-naturalism, as they both contain aspects that are vital for existence. Together the mind and the physical world work to form reality.

            Truth, reality and knowledge are so closely related to one another. They believe that these aspects are inside of us due to a God-force. To state that the knowledge inside of us is simply a result of a God force would be extremely fallacious. How did I learn that George Washington was our first president? It is through study and experience one can learn and form thoughts. If world is based solely on my own perceptions, I would imagine myself being the first president. One would have to deny universally accepted ideas such as math and science to follow this system. Their ideas are too farfetched to even be considered.

            In conclusion, while they do make an attempt to explain truth, reality, and knowledge, it is inadequate and ultimately contradicts itself in the end. The physical world must coexist with the mental state. One does not control the other, and they certainly both exist, just as truth, reality and knowledge most definitely are vital aspects of life.