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of the original events, and have been copied with a ninety-nine percent accuracy rate which is unheard of in ancient historical documents; not to mention the thousands of copies, which are the most of any document from that or earlier time periods.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.