UTT - Blog Post 23

Your professor in class today said that the New Testament was historically untrustworthy.  That evening at your study group, Sarah, Mark,Nathan and Paige all agreed and asked you why you would believe such an untrustworthy book?  Respond.  Due May 21st by Midnight. 50 points

        Well, honestly, I’d take issue with the statement that it was historically untrustworthy. I would need some good hard evidence before believing a claim like that—innocent until proven guilty and all that stuff, right?

        Besides, the Old Testament is archaeologically accurate and matches up with all known records. It provides a nice factual basis from which one can assume the validity of the New Testament, because the two are so interconnected.

        But if that weren’t enough, the New Testament can stand on its own worth. Everyone from Roman historians (Josephus, etc.) to Jewish scribes and leaders, to all accepted history will admit that Jesus both existed and did wondrous things. The other actions that are usually called into question, such as the deaths of the apostles, their miracles, and the historicity of the actions recorded in the Bible are documented through outside sources as well as within the Bible.

        Most of the controversy is centered in the Synoptic Gospels, though, and these can be dated to before A.D. 70, within thirty-five years of the original events, and have been copied with a ninety-nine percent accuracy rate which is unheard of in ancient historical documents; not to mention the thousands of copies, which are the most of any document from that or earlier time periods.

        Overall, in both archeology and history, the New Testament is without flaw—although many will claim it to be full of myths and legends in an attempt to discredit it without being able to prove their statements. It’s way easier that way, because they can’t back up what they say.

UTT - Blog Post 22

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?  50 points, due Monday, May 14th by Midnight.

        Is history pointless? Because honestly, if we didn’t have history, the present would be something completely different. What we’ve learned in the past influences both the present and the future—without the prior knowledge of experience and being able to see what has happened throughout history, we would be doomed to repeat many of the same mistakes as before. So, while you may claim it is not objectively true, it does play a huge role in everything, so it is definitely not pointless.

        To continue, though, you’ve begged the question over whether “history being written by the winners” is accurate or not. For one thing, that isn’t always the case: Take the Jewish people, for example, after the Holocaust. They definitely weren’t winners, but their histories are the most accurate representations of what went on in those camps, because they want it to be remembered correctly. So history isn’t always written by only the winners.

        Now, of course, it is true that the winners do, in their own areas, publish their versions of history, but even those “not objective” versions still contain enough factual evidence to be valuable both as lessons in human nature and events that trespassed—reported in opinion or cold, clear logic. Either way, it is worth enough that history should be given some importance, not simply ignored.

        So, in conclusion, history can be written by the victors, but even then, it is still worth something and is never pointless. It is valuable as a teaching tool, as a source of knowledge, and as a way to understand both the present and the future.

UTT - Blog Post 21

Mark and Sarah agree that the government should do more to redistribute wealth evenly and Mark went on to say that the State should own everything so people could learn to share everything equally.  
Why do you think socialism doesn't work?  Due Wednesday, May 2nd by midnight.
Bonus 5 points for the best video link you send me on this topic.

            You know, this may not be the answer that you’re looking for, but, technically speaking, Socialism is a perfect system. It would create a perfect system on earth if it could be implemented like it has been created in concept. Of course, that is assuming one completely fatal flaw: Humanity is basically good. We aren’t.

        Because we, as Christians, know that all of humanity has fallen and has been contaminated by sin, we can never truly make the decisions that are necessary to ensure the success of socialism. Humanity is far too self-focused and personally oriented to ever be able to make a community system work. That’s why capitalism is so successful—it allows us to fuel our own selfish desires with competition to become the best and the most successful, and it works. Socialism can’t match that because it appeals too much to basic human virtue rather than our greed and want for more.

        So, to sum it up, socialism would be the perfect system in a perfect world. We aren’t in a perfect world and we aren’t perfect people, so a perfect system would be essentially flawed, as any attempt at socialism today surely is. That’s why I believe socialism can never work, plain and simple.

UTT - Blog Post 20

You get in a huge argument with Nathan and Sara about how to properly celebrate Earth Day on April 22nd.  Go to this web address and write out a Christian approach to environmentalism.
http://celdf.org/downloads/FINAL%20UNIVERSAL%20DECLARATION%20OF%20THE%20RIGHTS%20OF%20MOTHER%20EARTH%20APRIL%2022%202010.pdf

        Our Christian approach to Environmentalism is quite simple and can be broken down into two or three simple areas. Firstly, man was created to have dominion over the Earth and all that is within it. With that in mind, we are to be good stewards, treating everything with respect, while still filling the Earth and subduing it. That’s Christian “environmentalism” in a nutshell.

        But let’s break it down a little bit here and look at that first sentence: “Man was created to have dominion over the Earth and all that is within it.” In Genesis chapter one, it says that man is to “fill the Earth and subdue it,” so therefore man is to be seen as above the rest of creation. That means, to a Christian, a human has more value than, say, a tree or an animal, which is definitely different than some of the radical environmentalists would claim. We are to subdue the Earth, or said another way, to control it and use it for our purposes.

        Yet, at the same time, one must remember that the Earth is as much a part of God’s creation as we are and we should, as Christians, always respect that which God has made. Unnecessary waste, destruction, and purposeless desolation of the ground and living material are really shames and shouldn’t happen. Is it worth threatening the lives of human beings over? I don’t believe so. Yet, the environment is a gift from God and should be respected and taken care of, because of what it is. Does that mean radicalism is okay? No, radicalism is never truly okay. Moderate conservatism is where it’s at, but that is all my opinion. =)

        So there we have a little bit of my take on Christian “environmentalism.”

UTT - Blog Post 19

Response to Michael Moore’s statement: “I’m kind of tired…and bored of debating a sixteenth century economic philosophy versus a nineteenth century economic philosophy. It’s the twenty-first century. Can’t we come up with something new?”

        Well, this is actually a pretty easy statement to respond to, because it’s so basically nonsensical. To begin, though, I’ll put a little background up on this: Michael Moore is saying that he is sick of hearing a “sixteenth-century economic philosophy” (Capitalism) being debated with a “nineteenth century economic philosophy” (Socialism and, eventually, Communism). So, that’s where he’s coming from when he makes that statement.

        To respond to it is simple, though: Why ignore things that are still relevant today just because they were created several hundred years ago? We use concepts born since the beginning of time and never have any issues with them—an idea is an idea wherever it comes from, and if a better option isn’t out there, then we use what we have. Just because it was created in a past century doesn’t make it any less valid if it is still applicable in today’s markets, which both ideas have proven to be.

        I guess, from my viewpoint, his statement is simply nonsensical in nature. It’s not an applicable argument towards why something should or shouldn’t be applied to economics; “I’m tired of hearing about this” doesn’t make it any less true. If those are the two reigning economic models in the world today, then they are what we have to work with. The “new” ones that he seems to want to badly really haven’t panned out at all. In fact, they don’t even appear on a decent-sized scale because they simply aren’t plausible. Simply because something was created at a later date doesn’t always make it better.

        So, in conclusion, then, I would say that his statement isn’t a valid one. It implies a lot that isn’t the case and tries to ignore a debate due to irrelevant factors. If he wants to push an agenda, it would be nice if he could at least use an argument that works with facts rather than just opinion.

UTT - Blog Post 18

Choose one of these to respond to.  You will be graded on the strength of your argument.  Due Monday March 26th at midnight.
1. 
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?

          Well, I’d like to make two real points here, so let’s look at them one at a time:

       First of all, I’d like to say that once a woman makes the decision to have unprotected relations with a man, she must be ready to accept the consequences. It’s akin to eating ice cream—sure it’s great, but you may gain some weight as a result; that risk is always there, so the consumer has accepted that and is ready to live with the consequences. In the case of the woman, she is accepting that she might get pregnant and must be ready and willing to deal with the consequences (in this case, a child). After all, doesn’t each and every human have the right to life, as well as those of liberty and the pursuit of happiness? So when a woman makes the decision to engage in a situation where she becomes pregnant, the net result is introducing another human being into the world—one with full right to live. And the woman’s “civil rights” do not extend to murder, that will hopefully never be the case. “Reproductive choice” is whether or not to abstain from certain actions—what happens after is not a choice, because that decision was already made.

       At the same time, I would say that the government is not forcing women to have abortions or not have abortions. I believe that the government should not be financing and promoting abortion as a viable “solution” to pregnancies for ethical and moral reasons, not the least of which include that the government is broadcasting its stance on the matter rather than remaining impersonal and impartial like it ought to be. So, I don’t believe it forces women one way or the other, I believe it encourages the “desired solution” that it has decided is the best way to solve the “issues” presented to it; but on the whole, it would be better for the government to be impartial and detached from the issues that it even now fully immerses itself into. So, the issues presented in the question aren’t relevant any more than the “forcing” of a pregnancy is—if the government operates as it ought, this wouldn’t even be an issue.

       So there’s my long-winded answer to the question. The government takes sides right now, which motivates people to claim that it will force the vote to one side or another in an issue. Those problems blossom and becomes flowering trees of discontent and discord which raise questions such as the above—questions that, if the government were working correctly, would never even be brought up.

UTT - Blog Post 17

What do you think the ramifications of a global secular government would be? Due Monday, March 19th by midnight.

          There are quite a few ramifications that one can look at in regards to a one-world, secular government.

        First of all, one can obviously assume that secular implies an atheistic system of government, so religion would be removed from any part of it, and most likely be persecuted, so as to better turn more people to the secular beliefs of the governmental authorities. This would bring a lot of suffering on every kind of belief, but most definitely Christians because of how widespread the Christian lifestyle is worldwide. Yet, we as Christians are led to believe that this is part of what is to come, so it would be expected.

        Another big problem is that it definitely wouldn’t be equal or, honestly, sustainable. Being humans, we hold biases towards our hometowns, our friends, and what we believe are the right things to do. That honestly wouldn’t change with a new, bigger government—it’d just become magnified. Plus, with humans being as flawed as they are, the government would echo those failings; any human-created government is doomed to failure because it is created with perfect people in mind, and nobody can be perfect. As we hold flaws and fail, so would this new government.

        But realistically, a one-world government probably wouldn’t be able to function effectively because of the differing cultures that we experience today. Middle Eastern would never coexist with Western, Eastern contrasts with all others, and some countries just wouldn’t release their sovereignty for anything. Unless some viewpoints change drastically, a global government isn’t even feasible.

        It’s an interesting quandary, but it’s not something that will be happening without some divine (or not-so-divine) intervention.