Issue: As you are studying for your history final, Paige announced that this was pointless because history is not objectively true as it has been written by the winners. How would you respond to Paige.
Response: The first thought that comes to my mind is the Holocaust. Indeed a terrible period of history but nonetheless recorded by both sides, German and Jew. There are eyewitness accounts from the soldiers as well as the tortured inmates. To say that these documents come from the same side, the supposed "winner's side" is inaccurate. These novels, and articles, and testimonies are indeed historical evidence are proof against the statement that history is written only by the winners.
That is the first though that comes to mind, but the second is much more concrete; Archeology. The proof in archeology is unbiased and can be used to explain major wars, culture, and even daily life. This evidence comes without the edits of modern culture thus without the political or social agenda that written history comes with.
The notion that history being written by the winners and thus being automatically unreliable does not follow. There are many times when a man wins a contest and retells his story in vivid detail to explain the hardship he had to overcome to get there, or the greatness he exhibited while achieving success. The stereotypical 'fisherman's story' is not always the case when someone retells an event. Actually most people like to be as detailed and accurate as possible to preserve the significance of the event. They may have a bias but that does not mean they are out to tell a lie.
Lastly the fact that the retelling of history may include a bias should not disqualify it. In fact nearly everything that we learn is taught from a certain perspective. Are our teachers all unreliable? Every instruction we are given has a bias. Are our parents unreliable? And every spoken word will show the presence of a particular worldview. Are we ourselves unreliable? To exclude everything that may have a bias is to exclude learning as a whole and discredit even yourself.
Another point to is that a bias does not
Monday, May 2, 2011
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Question: Why do you think socialism doesn't work?
Response: Well it has not worked in the past. Done, that is why I think it does not work. However what leads me to believe such is much deeper than that.
Socialism's fundamentals are at odds with the nature of the human race, whether you believe that is human's at current or has been and always shall be. Human's by nature are selfish. And will follow actions that benefit them immediately, whether their pleasure be in money, possessions, power, fame, or even the satisfaction of sustaining one's family. Selfishness is not necessarily bad, but Since the bulk of it is done in excess, greed is the resultant. This greed overpowers human desire to share and renders Socialism an unreachable ideal. It would be nice to have everything be fair and for people to all be equal, but the reality is that so long as there is the human race, ingenuity will be there to find loopholes and take advantage of the system. In a system that expects everyone to be honest, it takes only one to ruin it, and in today's time there are many who would leap at the chance.
I say Socialism will not work because of the failed attempts in the past. The ideals of Marx have spread across the world and men like Lenin, Stalin, Castro and other powerful men have oppressed their people rather than uplifting them to utopia.The power is too tempting that once the government has reach the might needed to enforce laws that lend themselves to socialist ideals, the government will then to want to release the power. To argue that the government is not needed for a transition to socialism is out of the question, since it has been established that people themselves will not voluntarily convert to the system. And then once the government has the power to solve the need, the government becomes the problem.
On paper Socialism is great, and there is no doubt in my mind that a form of it may be possible when the kingdom of God is set up in full, but aside from an act of God I do not see humans capable of functioning that way.
Response: Well it has not worked in the past. Done, that is why I think it does not work. However what leads me to believe such is much deeper than that.
Socialism's fundamentals are at odds with the nature of the human race, whether you believe that is human's at current or has been and always shall be. Human's by nature are selfish. And will follow actions that benefit them immediately, whether their pleasure be in money, possessions, power, fame, or even the satisfaction of sustaining one's family. Selfishness is not necessarily bad, but Since the bulk of it is done in excess, greed is the resultant. This greed overpowers human desire to share and renders Socialism an unreachable ideal. It would be nice to have everything be fair and for people to all be equal, but the reality is that so long as there is the human race, ingenuity will be there to find loopholes and take advantage of the system. In a system that expects everyone to be honest, it takes only one to ruin it, and in today's time there are many who would leap at the chance.
I say Socialism will not work because of the failed attempts in the past. The ideals of Marx have spread across the world and men like Lenin, Stalin, Castro and other powerful men have oppressed their people rather than uplifting them to utopia.The power is too tempting that once the government has reach the might needed to enforce laws that lend themselves to socialist ideals, the government will then to want to release the power. To argue that the government is not needed for a transition to socialism is out of the question, since it has been established that people themselves will not voluntarily convert to the system. And then once the government has the power to solve the need, the government becomes the problem.
On paper Socialism is great, and there is no doubt in my mind that a form of it may be possible when the kingdom of God is set up in full, but aside from an act of God I do not see humans capable of functioning that way.
Monday, April 18, 2011
Economics
“Socialism is Christianity, and Judaism, and Islam, and Buddhism, because all the great religions say essentially the same thing that Marx said. Which is that the wealthy are not supposed to have, the rich man is not supposed to come into the room, take nine slices of the pie and leave the remaining slice for everybody else to fight over.”
Well Mr. Moore in listening to what you had to say on the issue of socialism I would like to respond in kind with a few points of my own. The first being your comment tying Marx to your argument. While it is true that Marx founded the communist regime and that socialism was his ultimate goal, making him the icon of the movement offers no benefit or support. Placing aman who's ideas shook the foundations of his country and led to countless violent revolutions sweeping the land is not what promotes a good message but rather one of fear as the history does not lend to a bright path forward.
The next issue is on the true content of your message, focusing on the quote displayed above. To say that all the main religions have essentially the same view on the topic is a sign that the message is not detailed nor well researched. Essentially is not exactly, and for a message that must prove itself since capitalism had shown much more success than socialism in the course of history, a finer message must be given.
Buddhism preaches a message of Karma and this greatly conflict with the other religions in that if a man is poor it is his fault for being poor and that Karma will be unbalanced if people attempt to relieve him of his punishment. There is an obvious contradiction for socialism where the moment is to make everyone "equal" if the religion prohibits social welfare for the most part.
Also Islam has no vision of aiding the non-Muslim and ushering an "equal" utopia. Allah's will, is utterly unknowable, as is his character. To saw that Allah wishes Socialism is impossible, and if Allah does not wish it it is not for the Muslim to attempt to attain. While there are instances in the Koran where tithes are mentioned and greed is disapproved of, the message of Islam cannot be used to support a socialist regime because this would be a great shift in the governing of the people. The Islamic people have not changed a great deal over a thousand years, within the worldview there is no reason for it. And when western ideals seek to bring democracy, as you have said Socialism is, wars have been fought. If Capitalism which has made the oil sheiks rich and proved successful over the years is meat with such hostility, how much more will the ideals that have laid wast to the land once known as the Soviet Union.
Christianity and Judaism do not support socialism either. Throughout the Scriptures there are several instances recording personal possessions and private property as good things, unlike Marxist mentality. There are places were sharing and socialist ideas are mentioned, such as the young Church and the believers pooling resources giving to each what he need, but this was not forced, and not dictated by the government, it was done by the Church. Throughout the scriptures the idea that work is rewarded and that those who can work but do not will be without, is continual, there is no room for a man who seeks to ride the backs of his fellowman while his legs are perfectly healthy enough to carry himself and his family.
The last and great issue with your statements are that you are trying to tie Marx with with the great religions. This time however not because of Marx's character but because of his philosophy and perpetual decrying of religion. It is impossible to proclaim that the religions support a man who sought to eliminate them out right. True socialism has no religion and thus the great religions do not say 'essentially' what Marx was advocating.
Friday, March 25, 2011
Question: What do you think the ramifications of a global secular government would be?
Response: If there was a global secular government there would be many consequences and benefits differing from the world we have currently. To start there would be one currency. This would be great for the average citizen since he does not wish to pay exchange rates or be bothered by the issues arising from having a different currency than what he is used to. However for those who make a portion of their living by trading and exchanging currencies, they will lose this portion of their income, not to mention the loss cultures have when their form of currency symbolic of leaders and heroes of their past is replaced by a foreign system that means little to them.
Another issue that arises is language, as it stands Chinese is the number one spoken language in the world, since China at current has more people than any other nation, soon however to be surpassed by India whose teenage population is nearly half again as large as China's. But at its current Chinese would be the dominate language and the global language would be Chinese one could argue. Then again English is very prominent as a secondary language to most countries and may be hailed as the official global language. Either way the point is obvious that there will be conflict on deciding which language to title as the official earth language, and the lass that other cultures will face over time when their languages become less used and die out will be a hardship.
This gives birth to a root problem with global government and the issue of meshing cultures together. Certain cultures such as middle eastern cultures have no separation of state and will clash with western cultures who believe the two should be separate. The clash of cultures will be cause for war as we have already seen, however they will no longer be country verses country since the world is one nation, each war will be a civil war, and the global government will be tasked with sorting the manner out draining its resources and taking its attention to the utmost so that nothing productive can be done. It would be as if one government were taxed with all the wars of the world.
A positive benefit would be that the government would have no jurisdiction lines, everything could be addressed whether it be hunger, over population or lack or resources. An issue with that however is that the government will have to be exceedingly massive (creating more opportunity for corruption) to even address the concerns for the would populous. Taxes could not be equal because distribution will not be equal, the developing areas would be priority and unfair distribution would arise. On the flip side if the first world areas are priority than injustice occures because the majority of the world is left in poverty by comparison.
In the end a world government sounds nice but has many inherent flaws, not even counting those stemming from personal corruption but problems that arise from bureaucracy and simple cause and effect. It looks good on paper but in reality it is not yet possible, and may never be.
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Abortion Post
Question: The ability of a woman to have control of her body is critical to civil rights. Take away her reproductive choice and you step onto a slippery slope. If the government can force a woman to continue a pregnancy, what about forcing a woman to use contraception or undergo sterilization?
Response: This issue has several factors within it that ought to be addressed if the question is to be responded to. The first factor is the issue’s correlation with abortion. There are few if any Anti-abortion activists who hope to limit the rights of women or even withhold rights from women that they ought to have. Rather instead, the argument is over the unborn and what is the being in question. The issue of abortion is whether it is right to eliminate an unborn human fetus. If the unborn are human, then abortion is as right as murdering a two year old toddler, and if the unborn are not human then abortion is no different than getting ones tonsils removed. The issue rests with the lone question of what is the unborn rather than women’s rights. No one would argue if a woman has the right to murder her two-year old, thus the issue is not rights but the personhood of the unborn.
Next is the more direct answer to the issue. It is indeed true that an unborn baby is part of his or her mother’s person, the two are connected. However a common error in the arguments of those who press this issue is that they discount the baby. Yes the mother ought to have full control over her own body, but should not there be limits on her actions regarding her child? The question boils back to the center of the first question as to the nature of the unborn, if the unborn is human, then a mother must respect the little human inside of her, but if the unborn are not human then she is free to do with the abnormal growth within her as she pleases.
Pregnancy itself is most times a choice, the cases of pregnancy from rape being the exception (which can be excluded for this example since few pro-abortion advocates would be satisfied to out-law abortion in all cases but rape, they are claiming it is a right for all women regardless of rape cases or not.) And as pregnancy is most times a choice, the woman having the option to abstain or engage in activities that lead to pregnancy, the issue of choice comes under fire. To say that banning abortion is taking away a woman’s reproductive choice is half wrong. A woman has the prior choice, to get pregnant or not, and thus banning abortion would be taking half of her choices away, her number of choices going from two to one. Also the nature of the choice; if that choice is wrong, as yet to be determined whether abortion is right or wrong, then the taking away of that choice IS the right thing to do. A woman has the choice to kill her five year old, but that is illegal, thus if a choice is wrong they are taken away, if abortion is wrong then it is not a right but a crime and a choice that should be banned.
Lastly is the progression of taking away choices. The government forcing the use of contraceptives or forced sterilization are fundamentally different than preventing abortion. The biggest factors are that they are preventing a child rather than permitting one. Also these other issues do not include a pregnant woman or an unborn child but the prospects of the two. Also in order to force these two issues they would have to be proved right just as abortion has to be proved wrong (by determining the personhood of the unborn). If Forced Sterilization can be proved right and not a violation of an individual’s rights than it will be passed; this being quite impossible since it and forced use of contraceptives are against the rights of the single involved party.
Monday, March 14, 2011
Question: What is the difference between how the word "equality" and "justice" are used? How should we as Christians "do justice'?
Response: The main difference between the views on equality and justice in Critical Legal studies and in the Bible are that in CLS one attempts to uphold justice by righting the wrongs of the past, and the Bible focuses on moving forward and doing no wrongs in the future.
To a point there is nothing wrong with CLS which acknowledges that wrongs have been dealt to masses and multitudes, accurately understanding that human's being fallen and subject to sinful depravity have committed atrocities upon each other and have subjugated and oppressed each other. However CLS falls short when it attributes blame to the majority in oppressing the minority or when there are hopes of a man-made law that will right all wrongs and grant equality and fairness to all. When CLS attempts to envision a utopia society it fails to take into consideration the full depravity of man blaming man's bad actions rather than the depraved nature that is cause of said actions.
Scripture is clear on its definition of justice, expecting individuals to carry themselves in righteous manner by avoiding violence and wrong-doing and caring for all of those in need. Justice is continually living justly and accepting that mistakes and failures will always come but making amends and returning to a path of righteousness when they do.
CLS talks about equality in lieu of people being oppressed. This is true, people throughout history have been oppressed and are still being oppressed daily. However CLS expects human law to right wrongs and pave a path to equality for all individuals. While this is a wonderful goal it is not feasible with the nature of mankind and how prone we are to sin, and slight others. If human selfishness cannot be solved then people will always seek to have more than others, either in rank or possessions and by consequence will push down others in order to find satisfaction in their own place. Thus CLS is a repetitive cycle of addressing issues that crop up without addressing the cause of said issues.
Equality in scripture is that one takes his righteous way of living and provides that same care to all he meets. He is unbiased in who he aids. Equality should not be about focusing on the raising of individual communities and groups to reach the levels of the groups that once oppressed them. Rather equality is treating all groups equally from the moment the notion is instituted. History is not to be forgotten, but to cling to the past and drag up old wrongs will not help make a brighter future.
Response: The main difference between the views on equality and justice in Critical Legal studies and in the Bible are that in CLS one attempts to uphold justice by righting the wrongs of the past, and the Bible focuses on moving forward and doing no wrongs in the future.
To a point there is nothing wrong with CLS which acknowledges that wrongs have been dealt to masses and multitudes, accurately understanding that human's being fallen and subject to sinful depravity have committed atrocities upon each other and have subjugated and oppressed each other. However CLS falls short when it attributes blame to the majority in oppressing the minority or when there are hopes of a man-made law that will right all wrongs and grant equality and fairness to all. When CLS attempts to envision a utopia society it fails to take into consideration the full depravity of man blaming man's bad actions rather than the depraved nature that is cause of said actions.
Scripture is clear on its definition of justice, expecting individuals to carry themselves in righteous manner by avoiding violence and wrong-doing and caring for all of those in need. Justice is continually living justly and accepting that mistakes and failures will always come but making amends and returning to a path of righteousness when they do.
CLS talks about equality in lieu of people being oppressed. This is true, people throughout history have been oppressed and are still being oppressed daily. However CLS expects human law to right wrongs and pave a path to equality for all individuals. While this is a wonderful goal it is not feasible with the nature of mankind and how prone we are to sin, and slight others. If human selfishness cannot be solved then people will always seek to have more than others, either in rank or possessions and by consequence will push down others in order to find satisfaction in their own place. Thus CLS is a repetitive cycle of addressing issues that crop up without addressing the cause of said issues.
Equality in scripture is that one takes his righteous way of living and provides that same care to all he meets. He is unbiased in who he aids. Equality should not be about focusing on the raising of individual communities and groups to reach the levels of the groups that once oppressed them. Rather equality is treating all groups equally from the moment the notion is instituted. History is not to be forgotten, but to cling to the past and drag up old wrongs will not help make a brighter future.
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
Question: Are legal standards limited to the determination and interpretation of each individual? Why or why not?
Response: No, the answer is no. But to explain one must understand morality, or at least that human's are not inherently right in everything they do. To say that the Law is dependent on individual interpretation is to render it useless. For nothing man makes is perfect and can always be improved, thus there are flaws in the Law that can be used with interesting interpretation to make anything seem legal. To protect the integrity of the Law and make sure that it is able to accomplish that which it is in place to do which is to govern and protect the citizens It rules
over.
Legal standards supersede the interpretation of mankind in what are called rights. For instance human rights are not subjective. Though there are many violations still the laws protecting the rights of people are not to be followed only by those who agree with them or wish to overlook them.
The idea of an absolute Law must be present for Law to function as subjective law allows the input of every individual eventually legalizing everything. An absolute and unvarying Law makes for consistency that citizens can rely on rather than a fluid code of Law that may protect one day then destroy another.
Without absolute Law there might as well be no law, this issue is near black and white. Not to say that the issues within the law, as in what a speed limit should be is a set in stone and black and white topic, but the greater argument over an absolute law is. The absence of an strong form of law obviously leaves a weak one, which is the same as none at all. When there is no law there is Anarchy or rather chaos, that will perpetuate itself through out the community plaging each individual. The Law will become that of the 51% and anyone who disagrees with popular oppinion will face hardship or worse.
Thus in the end Law needs to be absolute in order to secure a future for a state. It must abide with the Laws that are inherent such as rights as strife will follow within generations when rights are withheld. And Lastly it must be efficient in governing and protecting for these are its tasks, and a law that does not meet its tasks by being subjective or weak is not worth the paper it is written on.
Response: No, the answer is no. But to explain one must understand morality, or at least that human's are not inherently right in everything they do. To say that the Law is dependent on individual interpretation is to render it useless. For nothing man makes is perfect and can always be improved, thus there are flaws in the Law that can be used with interesting interpretation to make anything seem legal. To protect the integrity of the Law and make sure that it is able to accomplish that which it is in place to do which is to govern and protect the citizens It rules
over.
Legal standards supersede the interpretation of mankind in what are called rights. For instance human rights are not subjective. Though there are many violations still the laws protecting the rights of people are not to be followed only by those who agree with them or wish to overlook them.
The idea of an absolute Law must be present for Law to function as subjective law allows the input of every individual eventually legalizing everything. An absolute and unvarying Law makes for consistency that citizens can rely on rather than a fluid code of Law that may protect one day then destroy another.
Without absolute Law there might as well be no law, this issue is near black and white. Not to say that the issues within the law, as in what a speed limit should be is a set in stone and black and white topic, but the greater argument over an absolute law is. The absence of an strong form of law obviously leaves a weak one, which is the same as none at all. When there is no law there is Anarchy or rather chaos, that will perpetuate itself through out the community plaging each individual. The Law will become that of the 51% and anyone who disagrees with popular oppinion will face hardship or worse.
Thus in the end Law needs to be absolute in order to secure a future for a state. It must abide with the Laws that are inherent such as rights as strife will follow within generations when rights are withheld. And Lastly it must be efficient in governing and protecting for these are its tasks, and a law that does not meet its tasks by being subjective or weak is not worth the paper it is written on.
Sunday, March 6, 2011
Question: There is much debate today about Shari'a law. What are the differences between the Islamic view and approach to law and the Christian view and approach to law?
Response: The main difference between the Christian approach to law and the view held by the muslim culture is simple. For the Christian, Law is a tool to draw closer to God and understand His character by how he wished his followers to act. The Law is defined by his character and by adhering to and observing the Law Christians understand God more deeply, as well as their place in following his instructions and commandments.
In the Islamic worldview, Allah is unknowable. Thus using the Law to find the character of Allah is pointless. The Law is still regarded as Allah's will and must be adhered, but it does not double as a path to a better understanding of the person to be worshipped.
Another difference between the two is that the Christian worldview purports forgiveness. When forgiveness is introduced by genuine repentance in the blood of Christ, the Law is no longer used to condemn those who have done wrong but to guide those who are trying to live godly lives and connect with God abide with his rule.
Forgiveness is not promised in Islam, and to find favor with Allah adherence to his will via the Law is a must. This makes for a relationship with the Law to secure one's eternal destiny. The result is a struggle everyday to meet and uphold the standards of Allah.
Christians realize that the Law is not an arbitrator of condemnation because no one full meets the Law. Everyone is flawed and plagued by sin which means they will fall short time and time again requiring the mercy of God to even stand up and face temptation.
The Muslim does not affirm that everyone is sinful, and thus failure to meet the Law is even heavier as it relates solely to personal effort. Their is no reason but personal error or lack of commitment that one breaks the Law in this case.
Response: The main difference between the Christian approach to law and the view held by the muslim culture is simple. For the Christian, Law is a tool to draw closer to God and understand His character by how he wished his followers to act. The Law is defined by his character and by adhering to and observing the Law Christians understand God more deeply, as well as their place in following his instructions and commandments.
In the Islamic worldview, Allah is unknowable. Thus using the Law to find the character of Allah is pointless. The Law is still regarded as Allah's will and must be adhered, but it does not double as a path to a better understanding of the person to be worshipped.
Another difference between the two is that the Christian worldview purports forgiveness. When forgiveness is introduced by genuine repentance in the blood of Christ, the Law is no longer used to condemn those who have done wrong but to guide those who are trying to live godly lives and connect with God abide with his rule.
Forgiveness is not promised in Islam, and to find favor with Allah adherence to his will via the Law is a must. This makes for a relationship with the Law to secure one's eternal destiny. The result is a struggle everyday to meet and uphold the standards of Allah.
Christians realize that the Law is not an arbitrator of condemnation because no one full meets the Law. Everyone is flawed and plagued by sin which means they will fall short time and time again requiring the mercy of God to even stand up and face temptation.
The Muslim does not affirm that everyone is sinful, and thus failure to meet the Law is even heavier as it relates solely to personal effort. Their is no reason but personal error or lack of commitment that one breaks the Law in this case.
Friday, February 18, 2011
Law
Question: Sarah thinks that laws are created only by societies. Are governments the ultimate authority for creating laws?
Response: In simple terms, no, governments are not the ultimate authority for creating rules. However since this issue is complex as opposed to simple explanations must be given to show why this is the case.
To start, one must define the terms used in the question. The easiest being government, which is the head of the country either by election in those countries running by democracy or dictators and monarchies in the countries that function without democracy as the method of choosing officials. The government is the highest man-made authority in the land.
The next term is law. The tricky portion of this question is that law and morality are not always defined as being inter-dependent or even connected. Law is the manifestation of commands issued to ensure the survival of a countries citizens. These are rules and guidelines for living within the jurisdiction of a government's authority. In a sense the laws are created by the state. Morality however is a higher law that superseded that of the state. Do not confuse the term morality either though, this is not personal subjective morality but the law of human nature and how humans ought to act.
The reason why morality supersedes Law is because laws are subject to society's whims and the efforts of lawmakers making them fluid. This is not true law but man-made law. If law contradicts morality then it is not lawful but a sort of pseudo-law that does not fulfill what it is supposed to. Laws that oppress or hinder the survival of individuals are not lawful because they contradict morality. THe decrees of kings to execute innocents are immoral and follow the same unlawful example.
Rather than being ensured with the task of making laws, governments are trusted with the task of enforcing the law of morality in that they ensure the safety of their citizens by holding them accountable to true moral standards. Again these are not the mores of society but laws derived from what humans ought to and ought not to do.
If Governments are the supreme lawmakers and their laws are in and of themselves fair, just, and right then the obviously corrupt governments of dictators like Adolph Hitler and Joseph Stalin were in the right. Since however it is irrational to argue these men exemplars of morality, and that it is fact that they did not protect their citizens in view of what humans ought to do, they are great examples to use why governments are not by definition right and lawful.
Another reason that even democracy cannot be trusted to be lawful in and of itself is the rule of the 51% which says that if even one voting member more than one side is in agreement with a piece of legislation it will pass. In this case federal laws can go awry a prime example being the Japanese interment camps. By no means were these lawful in the sense of just and moral yet they were decreed by the government.
In then end the government must find the truths of the moral law and find the ways to apply them to the daily lives of its citizens while still working within the same laws. In short governments are to enforce the law that is already been made not make up laws according to its own agenda.
Response: In simple terms, no, governments are not the ultimate authority for creating rules. However since this issue is complex as opposed to simple explanations must be given to show why this is the case.
To start, one must define the terms used in the question. The easiest being government, which is the head of the country either by election in those countries running by democracy or dictators and monarchies in the countries that function without democracy as the method of choosing officials. The government is the highest man-made authority in the land.
The next term is law. The tricky portion of this question is that law and morality are not always defined as being inter-dependent or even connected. Law is the manifestation of commands issued to ensure the survival of a countries citizens. These are rules and guidelines for living within the jurisdiction of a government's authority. In a sense the laws are created by the state. Morality however is a higher law that superseded that of the state. Do not confuse the term morality either though, this is not personal subjective morality but the law of human nature and how humans ought to act.
The reason why morality supersedes Law is because laws are subject to society's whims and the efforts of lawmakers making them fluid. This is not true law but man-made law. If law contradicts morality then it is not lawful but a sort of pseudo-law that does not fulfill what it is supposed to. Laws that oppress or hinder the survival of individuals are not lawful because they contradict morality. THe decrees of kings to execute innocents are immoral and follow the same unlawful example.
Rather than being ensured with the task of making laws, governments are trusted with the task of enforcing the law of morality in that they ensure the safety of their citizens by holding them accountable to true moral standards. Again these are not the mores of society but laws derived from what humans ought to and ought not to do.
If Governments are the supreme lawmakers and their laws are in and of themselves fair, just, and right then the obviously corrupt governments of dictators like Adolph Hitler and Joseph Stalin were in the right. Since however it is irrational to argue these men exemplars of morality, and that it is fact that they did not protect their citizens in view of what humans ought to do, they are great examples to use why governments are not by definition right and lawful.
Another reason that even democracy cannot be trusted to be lawful in and of itself is the rule of the 51% which says that if even one voting member more than one side is in agreement with a piece of legislation it will pass. In this case federal laws can go awry a prime example being the Japanese interment camps. By no means were these lawful in the sense of just and moral yet they were decreed by the government.
In then end the government must find the truths of the moral law and find the ways to apply them to the daily lives of its citizens while still working within the same laws. In short governments are to enforce the law that is already been made not make up laws according to its own agenda.
Monday, February 14, 2011
Question: What is the Christian view of feminity or how should Christian respond to feminism? You choose which one to answer. Your response must be posted by Monday, midnight.
Response: The Christian response to feminism is both simple and complex. The simple answer of course is with scripture. Too often people approach hot subject such as feminism, homosexuality, and abortion with their own thoughts and label themselves as attempting the Christian approach. This is wrong and not only creates a false view of the Christian belief on said topics but will create unneeded tension between debating parties. While truth cuts down problems, misconceptions add to them.
The complexity arises from deciphering what scripture says on the subject. From scripture, mainly the account of creation, the role of the woman is defined as a completer, a warrior, and a helper. She completes the man, as without her he cannot accomplish the tasks God assigned to him nor can he truely be what God intened for him to be. She is a warrior for her family moreso than the man because she will fight harder with more passion for her family in nearly every situation. Lastly she is a helper. This word is too often likened to servant, this is not what scripture promotes. She is a partner, a teammate, and a friend, one to be listened to for advice and to be considered in everything.
Once the role of a woman is defined the church can see both how well it is being adhered to as well as the opposing message non-believing society is promoting. In today's culture women in general are not being treated as they should according to their role, but neither are they acting as they should according to their role. In examining this Feminism breaks into two camps, practical feminists and radical feminists.
Practical Feminist are those advocating on behalf of the issues that deal with human rights and basic equality. The message fights for equal pay for women, for women to be respected and not objectified, and to liberate women from the subjugation they have in numerous societies that lack in civil rights. The more extreme version of Feminism, seeks to abolish the gender roles all together. While disregarding gender may seem like a fantastic idea for equality, it is ultimately destructive for society. When the warrior cast down her position the family is torn apart, when the helper ceased to aid goals are not met, and when the completer refuses to complete lives are half fulfilled. While an over-simplification it is true that society shifts in a negative direction. Women begin to take on the immoral nature of men as well as the sin nature they already had, society prompting young women to be as sexually hungry as testosterone compels the male.
The church's response to Feminism is then two parts. One to continue to the spead of biblical rights ordained by God and promote equality, and two to halt the radical wave of sexual indifferance with scripture and the truth of Christ.
Response: The Christian response to feminism is both simple and complex. The simple answer of course is with scripture. Too often people approach hot subject such as feminism, homosexuality, and abortion with their own thoughts and label themselves as attempting the Christian approach. This is wrong and not only creates a false view of the Christian belief on said topics but will create unneeded tension between debating parties. While truth cuts down problems, misconceptions add to them.
The complexity arises from deciphering what scripture says on the subject. From scripture, mainly the account of creation, the role of the woman is defined as a completer, a warrior, and a helper. She completes the man, as without her he cannot accomplish the tasks God assigned to him nor can he truely be what God intened for him to be. She is a warrior for her family moreso than the man because she will fight harder with more passion for her family in nearly every situation. Lastly she is a helper. This word is too often likened to servant, this is not what scripture promotes. She is a partner, a teammate, and a friend, one to be listened to for advice and to be considered in everything.
Once the role of a woman is defined the church can see both how well it is being adhered to as well as the opposing message non-believing society is promoting. In today's culture women in general are not being treated as they should according to their role, but neither are they acting as they should according to their role. In examining this Feminism breaks into two camps, practical feminists and radical feminists.
Practical Feminist are those advocating on behalf of the issues that deal with human rights and basic equality. The message fights for equal pay for women, for women to be respected and not objectified, and to liberate women from the subjugation they have in numerous societies that lack in civil rights. The more extreme version of Feminism, seeks to abolish the gender roles all together. While disregarding gender may seem like a fantastic idea for equality, it is ultimately destructive for society. When the warrior cast down her position the family is torn apart, when the helper ceased to aid goals are not met, and when the completer refuses to complete lives are half fulfilled. While an over-simplification it is true that society shifts in a negative direction. Women begin to take on the immoral nature of men as well as the sin nature they already had, society prompting young women to be as sexually hungry as testosterone compels the male.
The church's response to Feminism is then two parts. One to continue to the spead of biblical rights ordained by God and promote equality, and two to halt the radical wave of sexual indifferance with scripture and the truth of Christ.
Friday, February 4, 2011
Sexist? Homophobic Response
Question: One of the charges frequently made against followers of Christ is that the church is sexist and homophobic. While there are some who this may be true off, how would you respond to the charge that the Bible teaches this?
Response: The assertion that Christian doctrine or Christians in general are either sexist or homophobic is based in a lack of detailed study of scripture. There are indeed isolated statements and actions made within scripture that if taken out of their proper context can be used to propogate such claims. This is true however of everything. With scripture quoted out of context one can make claims does not even exist. With a verse from Psalms one can cry "There is no God." Yet if the whole verse is read Psalms 14:1 "The fool says in his heart 'there is no God'" then the message becomes not a critque on God's existance but an affirmation as only the foolish believe otherwise. Thus inaccurate study of the Bible will lead to such false messages as the one that has created the stereotype of Sexist or Homophobic Christians.
Another issue is the habit people make of observing the people of a cause and passing judgement on the cause itself. While observing the character of Christians should be a window into the true values of Christianity, the few people we encounter daily out of the 6 billion worldwide cannot be used to create a full picture of the Cause behind which they stand. This is to say that finding a homophobic or sexist Christian does not make Christianity homophobic or sexist. Quite the opposite, it proves only that the individual or individuals are not adhering to their proclaimed faith and are misrepresenting Christianity as a whole.
Returning to scripture, I find it difficult to understand those who label the church as either sexist or homophobic. It is the duty of the church to be like Christ and accept everyone as they are in order to transform them into followers of Christ. The Gospel does not see gender nor sexual orientation in regards to salvation and it is the duty of believers to carry this out as well and bring the message to all corners of the world, without bias and without discrimination. After the message takes heart then there are rules within scripture that deal with the roles of the Sexes and Homosexuality.
In fact if Scripture is taken seriously, Women are actually treated in a much more pleasing fashion than in other belief systems. Again people can pick examples of the Mistreatment of women in the Bible, but these examples are not included to be followed but to be learned from to teach a point in God's plan of redemption. Likewise Homosexuality is not addressed to be a way of discrimination or dehumanizing efforts. Rather it is addressed to again show the power of God's love and ability to redeem.
In closing I realize people will most likely refuse to change their view on the Church and Christianity, it is easy to resort to Ad Homin and like tactics to tear down an opposing belief. This does not take away from the truth of the matter however, the truth that Christ's message is one of redemption and salvation for ALL who believe in Him and in His sight we are all equal, equally condemned by sin and equally saved by the grace given by His mercy.
Response: The assertion that Christian doctrine or Christians in general are either sexist or homophobic is based in a lack of detailed study of scripture. There are indeed isolated statements and actions made within scripture that if taken out of their proper context can be used to propogate such claims. This is true however of everything. With scripture quoted out of context one can make claims does not even exist. With a verse from Psalms one can cry "There is no God." Yet if the whole verse is read Psalms 14:1 "The fool says in his heart 'there is no God'" then the message becomes not a critque on God's existance but an affirmation as only the foolish believe otherwise. Thus inaccurate study of the Bible will lead to such false messages as the one that has created the stereotype of Sexist or Homophobic Christians.
Another issue is the habit people make of observing the people of a cause and passing judgement on the cause itself. While observing the character of Christians should be a window into the true values of Christianity, the few people we encounter daily out of the 6 billion worldwide cannot be used to create a full picture of the Cause behind which they stand. This is to say that finding a homophobic or sexist Christian does not make Christianity homophobic or sexist. Quite the opposite, it proves only that the individual or individuals are not adhering to their proclaimed faith and are misrepresenting Christianity as a whole.
Returning to scripture, I find it difficult to understand those who label the church as either sexist or homophobic. It is the duty of the church to be like Christ and accept everyone as they are in order to transform them into followers of Christ. The Gospel does not see gender nor sexual orientation in regards to salvation and it is the duty of believers to carry this out as well and bring the message to all corners of the world, without bias and without discrimination. After the message takes heart then there are rules within scripture that deal with the roles of the Sexes and Homosexuality.
In fact if Scripture is taken seriously, Women are actually treated in a much more pleasing fashion than in other belief systems. Again people can pick examples of the Mistreatment of women in the Bible, but these examples are not included to be followed but to be learned from to teach a point in God's plan of redemption. Likewise Homosexuality is not addressed to be a way of discrimination or dehumanizing efforts. Rather it is addressed to again show the power of God's love and ability to redeem.
In closing I realize people will most likely refuse to change their view on the Church and Christianity, it is easy to resort to Ad Homin and like tactics to tear down an opposing belief. This does not take away from the truth of the matter however, the truth that Christ's message is one of redemption and salvation for ALL who believe in Him and in His sight we are all equal, equally condemned by sin and equally saved by the grace given by His mercy.
Monday, January 31, 2011
Sociology post
Question: It is in the states best interest to be more involved in parenting, even to the point of controlling what is taught in the home.
Response: Addressing the question of whether it is in the states best interest to be more involved in parenting is completely dependent on circumstances and the magnitude of involvement the state will partake in. There are instances where intervention in the home are a must, as well as times when the state oversteps its boundaries. I find that both occur quite frequently and must be considered when forming an idea on the issue.
To start, instances where the state should intervene include the obvious cases of abuse and or illegal activities. This is an imperative that the state be involved and much a part of the lives of its people. Not only is it in the victim's best interest but the state's as it needs to protect the citizens within it's borders. In the cases with intervening on what is taught within the home, there are still cases where it is the states duty to intrude. When children are taught what is defined as illegal or societally destructive, an outlandish example being theft or murder is good, then the state must intervene to prevent this type of education in a child. However such instances cannot be directly found unless said children exhibit negative behavior outside the home. Therefore it is proper for one to say that yes, it is often in the states best interest to get deeply involved with the parenting of those within its jurisdiction.
However like all issues there is a second side to the coin. Often states, particularly those without democratic ideals, overstep the lines of ensuring public and citizen safety and aim to control and manipulate the home in negative ways. Invading the home to force propaganda or snuff religious or cultural traditions and learning is beyond the powers of a just government and is only characteristic of a state dipping into a lust for power. The dominance and subjugation of its people can only be attained when a state violates the home, and establishes its authority as completely superior to the family. Though an extreme example, the communist reign in China and Russia of the 20th century prove that when the state strips parents of the ability to teach their children and institutes a governmental education regime with a flaws morality that only approves what the government's actions are without option of critique. When the government encroaches upon the right of parents to teach ideals to their children they tread a fine line between oppressive behavior and duty.
In conclusion I can do nothing but affirm my initial explanation of the answer being based in circumstance. The state is both an ally and an enemy depending on motived and the degree of involvement.
Response: Addressing the question of whether it is in the states best interest to be more involved in parenting is completely dependent on circumstances and the magnitude of involvement the state will partake in. There are instances where intervention in the home are a must, as well as times when the state oversteps its boundaries. I find that both occur quite frequently and must be considered when forming an idea on the issue.
To start, instances where the state should intervene include the obvious cases of abuse and or illegal activities. This is an imperative that the state be involved and much a part of the lives of its people. Not only is it in the victim's best interest but the state's as it needs to protect the citizens within it's borders. In the cases with intervening on what is taught within the home, there are still cases where it is the states duty to intrude. When children are taught what is defined as illegal or societally destructive, an outlandish example being theft or murder is good, then the state must intervene to prevent this type of education in a child. However such instances cannot be directly found unless said children exhibit negative behavior outside the home. Therefore it is proper for one to say that yes, it is often in the states best interest to get deeply involved with the parenting of those within its jurisdiction.
However like all issues there is a second side to the coin. Often states, particularly those without democratic ideals, overstep the lines of ensuring public and citizen safety and aim to control and manipulate the home in negative ways. Invading the home to force propaganda or snuff religious or cultural traditions and learning is beyond the powers of a just government and is only characteristic of a state dipping into a lust for power. The dominance and subjugation of its people can only be attained when a state violates the home, and establishes its authority as completely superior to the family. Though an extreme example, the communist reign in China and Russia of the 20th century prove that when the state strips parents of the ability to teach their children and institutes a governmental education regime with a flaws morality that only approves what the government's actions are without option of critique. When the government encroaches upon the right of parents to teach ideals to their children they tread a fine line between oppressive behavior and duty.
In conclusion I can do nothing but affirm my initial explanation of the answer being based in circumstance. The state is both an ally and an enemy depending on motived and the degree of involvement.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)