Paige is making a very common argument that those who believe in postmodern ideas make. She is completely off base though. She does not believe in truth or absolute truth to be more specific but yet is making assertions as she says that history is not reliable. Even setting that aside, there are plenty examples in history of those who have been on the losing side and told their story. For example, their are accounts of George Washington writing about his loss in a battle. In addition, how could Paige explain accounts throughout the Bible?
Yes accounts in history vary from person to person but that is beside the point. Even if what Paige says about history is true, she must understand that every account of history is written with some form of bias. Paige is making assertions and completely ignoring the evidence presented before her. If i based my faith on an idea similar to that the majority of people would not take me seriously. I think it is important to test accounts given in history and see if they line up with other accounts but to completely discount history is ignorant. Also, Paige is missing the facts because through numerous accounts through the bible and other history sources we see people write about embarassment or defeat such as when babylon took over Israel or when Egypt held Israel captive. Why not leave such accounts out?
To completely disreguard history is foolish because we have learned so much from it and it is our past and our heritage.
Monday, May 2, 2011
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Economics #2
Redistribute wealth? Are you kidding me? A society where the government redistributes wealth is a society that is robbing people of their hard earned money. If the government attempted to redistribute wealth than what is the point of a homeless man attepmting to get a job? Why do you think our society has billions of dollars in debt? Because of government programs that just hand out money and to those who greedily take from the government. Now i would agree that there are plenty of governmental officials who use their authority and power as a means of living above the law and tend to dip into funds for their own benefit. I would be ignorant to think otherwise that such things were not occuring as we have seen within past years. If Michael Moore wants money to be redistributed, he can look there for the answer. If he really wants wealth to be redistributed than he can go door to door and try and take peoples hard earned money and redistribute it himself. As we already saw in his last video he views socialism on the same level as Christianity. He doesn't really seem to have his facts straight in general. The idea of spreading wealth may seem appealing but essentially you are dipping into marxist ideas too making everyone equal and you are enabling the lazy and those who are jobless as a result of their laziness to refrain from getting a job and essentially live off of others money. Also, because men are corupt i predict that if the government take money and redistribute it that politicians would pocket a percentage of the money.
Thursday, April 21, 2011
Economics # 1
Socialism is defined as, "a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole". As we look into the view of Micahel Moore, we see he believes, "Socialism is Democracy, Socialism is Christianity, and Judaism, and Islam, and Buddhism, because all the great religions say essentially the same thing that Marx said...the rich man is not supposed to come into the room and take 9 slices of the pie and leave the last piece for everyone else to fight over."
The fact that Michael Moore would address Christianity and other religions as one or essentially the same thing is an ignorant statement. As a Christian I do not have the same views as one who believes in Islam. Furthermore, Socialism is a idea from a Marxists worldview in which no one has personal property. Marxism encourages communistic principles in which no progress is made because people have no drive to succeed or make a difference in society because everything the accomplish or earn is only given back to the government and "shared" with the rest of the community in order to create a utopia. Moore doesn't understand that when he makes a claim like he does in this instance he is comparing to incompatible worldviews. Marxism believes that everything is ethically acceptable as long as it serves a greater purpose in the end. Also, democracy in no way is socialism. It may be a true statement that our politicians and government have made democracy into a socialistic based principle and way of means but they are completely different. Our country was founded on a democracy and not a socialistic one. In a socialistic system no one has any freedom which is not even close to the case in a democratic society.
Moore is over-simplifying all the worldviews he includes in his statement down to one area of economics. Every society believes in sharing to a degree but to all different extents.
He also, throws around the idea of 16th century and 19th century beliefs lightly. He fails to see that our democratic belief came from founding fathers in a similar time period and is what gives us the freedom that we have today. I agree that the idea of democracy has been twisted but that is not because it has lost its meaning but rather politicians believe they live above the law and can twist it to fit their own views.
If we start opening the door to the idea of socialism and such ideas we open the door to a world of troubles and ethical conflicts such as elderly people not receiving health care because in the end what is the point if they die will die anyways. Socialistic ideas give way to dilemmas like this because they justify any action that furthers society and brings utopia and why invest money and time in something that will not be apart of that? I see Moore's argument but he seems to have holes and missing pieces to his argument. It is not democracy that is corrupt and become socialistic but rather the people leading our country who want to create a socialistic society.
The fact that Michael Moore would address Christianity and other religions as one or essentially the same thing is an ignorant statement. As a Christian I do not have the same views as one who believes in Islam. Furthermore, Socialism is a idea from a Marxists worldview in which no one has personal property. Marxism encourages communistic principles in which no progress is made because people have no drive to succeed or make a difference in society because everything the accomplish or earn is only given back to the government and "shared" with the rest of the community in order to create a utopia. Moore doesn't understand that when he makes a claim like he does in this instance he is comparing to incompatible worldviews. Marxism believes that everything is ethically acceptable as long as it serves a greater purpose in the end. Also, democracy in no way is socialism. It may be a true statement that our politicians and government have made democracy into a socialistic based principle and way of means but they are completely different. Our country was founded on a democracy and not a socialistic one. In a socialistic system no one has any freedom which is not even close to the case in a democratic society.
Moore is over-simplifying all the worldviews he includes in his statement down to one area of economics. Every society believes in sharing to a degree but to all different extents.
He also, throws around the idea of 16th century and 19th century beliefs lightly. He fails to see that our democratic belief came from founding fathers in a similar time period and is what gives us the freedom that we have today. I agree that the idea of democracy has been twisted but that is not because it has lost its meaning but rather politicians believe they live above the law and can twist it to fit their own views.
If we start opening the door to the idea of socialism and such ideas we open the door to a world of troubles and ethical conflicts such as elderly people not receiving health care because in the end what is the point if they die will die anyways. Socialistic ideas give way to dilemmas like this because they justify any action that furthers society and brings utopia and why invest money and time in something that will not be apart of that? I see Moore's argument but he seems to have holes and missing pieces to his argument. It is not democracy that is corrupt and become socialistic but rather the people leading our country who want to create a socialistic society.
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Global Secular Government
I feel that a world with one secular government would never be able to accomplish anything. The fact of the matter is that man is innately sinful and lacks the ability to live under one government even in a "utopia". Especially since there are so many different denominations of differnet worldviews there would be constant strife and disagreement. The reason America's constitution has worked out so successfully is the foundation that it was built on; the Bible. If one tried to create a universal government on a secular worldview it would not be very practical nor would it work properly. In addition how can one create a secular government which contains no foundation for morality. How could they dictate would is right and wrong with out a basis for such assumptions and laws. We would be getting into the idea of postmodernism which believes that everything is relative which makes it impossible to have a government because everyone dictates what is right and wrong in relation to themselves. No one would have individuality because everyone would be held to the same standards. We would be equal which may sound appealing but in the end could lead to problematic situations. The idea of a secular united government is ignorant and naive because it ignores man's corrupt nature. There would be a continuation of corruption and leaders living above the law because no one would be able to correct the leaders of our society. The idea of a united government does not eliminate the possibility for disputes and war but would most likely just increase the potential for it creating civil war.
Monday, March 21, 2011
Abortion # 2
Statement: Teenagers who become mothers have grim prospects for the future. They are much more likely to leave of school; receive inadequate prenatal care; rely on public assistance to raise a child; develop health problems; or end up divorced.
I would agree that this is very true and even more prevalent in today's society. Today's culture is all about whatever your hearts desires. It says, "there is no age limit on love". The fact of the matter is that when two teens decide to take on the idea of a child they are doing it solely based of emotion and are not thinking of later consequences and responsibilities that will emerge from their actions. They think that the feelings they have are "love" but often times are mistaken leading to divorce. The reason I feel that this is not love is because the Bible explains what love is. It tells in 1 Corinthians 13 that love never fails.
I also feel that teen moms do not have the level of maturity to take care of a child considering they are still trying to develop and figure out their own place in society. Many times because the teen moms lack the time and feel the pressure of having to tackle adult responsibilities they will often times fail to take care of the baby resulting in the parents of the teen to take on the responsibility of the child as well. Often times the will miss out on the college experience, she will begin to lack friends because of how much time she has spent with the baby, and if the boy has left she has little hope of obtaining the funds to take care of the baby aside from the parents help which can often times create strife among the family. As a result of all this the girl may often times feel alone.
It all depends on the type of family the teen has and how involved they were in the teens life originally. In some instances, the teen may get the help they need from their parents but in other situations it is probable that the parents will become almost passive with their teen making her or him deal with the child on their own out of frustration. The possibility of divorce between the two teens is way more plausible because often times they lack the maturity and long to be free of the burden of the baby so that they can obtain the life they had before of being with friends which can create strife and arguments.
A teen parent has a way higher chance of divorce, financial debt, and an unhappy life filled with constant battles.
I would agree that this is very true and even more prevalent in today's society. Today's culture is all about whatever your hearts desires. It says, "there is no age limit on love". The fact of the matter is that when two teens decide to take on the idea of a child they are doing it solely based of emotion and are not thinking of later consequences and responsibilities that will emerge from their actions. They think that the feelings they have are "love" but often times are mistaken leading to divorce. The reason I feel that this is not love is because the Bible explains what love is. It tells in 1 Corinthians 13 that love never fails.
I also feel that teen moms do not have the level of maturity to take care of a child considering they are still trying to develop and figure out their own place in society. Many times because the teen moms lack the time and feel the pressure of having to tackle adult responsibilities they will often times fail to take care of the baby resulting in the parents of the teen to take on the responsibility of the child as well. Often times the will miss out on the college experience, she will begin to lack friends because of how much time she has spent with the baby, and if the boy has left she has little hope of obtaining the funds to take care of the baby aside from the parents help which can often times create strife among the family. As a result of all this the girl may often times feel alone.
It all depends on the type of family the teen has and how involved they were in the teens life originally. In some instances, the teen may get the help they need from their parents but in other situations it is probable that the parents will become almost passive with their teen making her or him deal with the child on their own out of frustration. The possibility of divorce between the two teens is way more plausible because often times they lack the maturity and long to be free of the burden of the baby so that they can obtain the life they had before of being with friends which can create strife and arguments.
A teen parent has a way higher chance of divorce, financial debt, and an unhappy life filled with constant battles.
Monday, March 14, 2011
Law #4
Equality and Justice have become more prevelent topics in our society today. Justice has become a tool to establish equality in our society because they coinside. People call for justice constantly or the idea of punishment for crimes commited today. Equality is pushed more and more in our society for races of people and homosexuality. Critical Legal Studies publishes critiques of laws developed in the past to see how they work in today's society. The differnece in the way CLS and the Bible operate is that CLS focuses on the idea of punishment for past mistakes while the Bible holds to the idea that sins and mistakes have been payed for and that redemption is there for anyone who wishes to have it and that they have the oppertunity to move on.
CLS understands the idea of sin and imperfection when it comes to mistakes. CLS advocates for a society of peace and Utopia. This is not possible no matter how much any one man tries to make it so. The idea that of a Utopia and a world that is united isn't a bad idea but has no basis for action. People's fallen nature has a need for structure and their views differ to much from each other. They forget that throughout history people have opressed other nations. They main goal of CLS is to break down the law and prove its flaws by showing its opression of people and the problems it causes.
As Christians we are to uphold the standard laid out in scripture. We are to follow God's example and to understand that through his eyes all humans are made equal and good. Jeremiah tells us as Christians to help those who are in need or are being opressed. Although that is similar to CLS, one must understand that God has laid out a government and has put in power who he wishes to be in power. We are to follow what our government says until it does not line up with scripture in context. In order to keep the people leading our country in line we as a people or political official must not think we are above the law but humble ourselves under it and not be living by the worlds standards but by God's.
CLS understands the idea of sin and imperfection when it comes to mistakes. CLS advocates for a society of peace and Utopia. This is not possible no matter how much any one man tries to make it so. The idea that of a Utopia and a world that is united isn't a bad idea but has no basis for action. People's fallen nature has a need for structure and their views differ to much from each other. They forget that throughout history people have opressed other nations. They main goal of CLS is to break down the law and prove its flaws by showing its opression of people and the problems it causes.
As Christians we are to uphold the standard laid out in scripture. We are to follow God's example and to understand that through his eyes all humans are made equal and good. Jeremiah tells us as Christians to help those who are in need or are being opressed. Although that is similar to CLS, one must understand that God has laid out a government and has put in power who he wishes to be in power. We are to follow what our government says until it does not line up with scripture in context. In order to keep the people leading our country in line we as a people or political official must not think we are above the law but humble ourselves under it and not be living by the worlds standards but by God's.
Sunday, March 13, 2011
law #3
Shari'a law has become a point of disagreement. Muslims follow their law with a strict lifestyle. As a Christian I believe that God has appointed leaders for me to follow. I am suppose to support every leader that takes office until something he is doing does not line up with God's law or Bible. For example, Romans 13:1 says, "Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God". As Christians we are to trust that God has appointed the right leader for the governing position. At any point that the leader does not hold up the word of God we are allowed to deviate in order to follow Christs commands.
Shari'a law believes that there is law in everything including smaller less important issues such as such as food. As chirstians since God has died on the cross we no longer have to have strict rules in areas like that because we now have the ability to communicate with him through prayer and petition. As we look at the idea of the Qur'an we see that it presents the idea that Allah's followers are allowed to follow some of the law based on thier choosing because some of the Qur'an is more important than the other parts of the law. The muslims form of law has them living in constant fear of insufficiency and innability to get into heaven. Christians find a sense of peace when they accept Christ and begin to follow his law because Christ's law is based on love, respect, and grace. God reflects his wishes and his personality through his the depiction of his laws throughout the Bible. In other words a God of love and care instead of a God that refuses to communicate with his people such as Shari'a law does through the idea of Allah!
Shari'a law believes that there is law in everything including smaller less important issues such as such as food. As chirstians since God has died on the cross we no longer have to have strict rules in areas like that because we now have the ability to communicate with him through prayer and petition. As we look at the idea of the Qur'an we see that it presents the idea that Allah's followers are allowed to follow some of the law based on thier choosing because some of the Qur'an is more important than the other parts of the law. The muslims form of law has them living in constant fear of insufficiency and innability to get into heaven. Christians find a sense of peace when they accept Christ and begin to follow his law because Christ's law is based on love, respect, and grace. God reflects his wishes and his personality through his the depiction of his laws throughout the Bible. In other words a God of love and care instead of a God that refuses to communicate with his people such as Shari'a law does through the idea of Allah!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)