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of the original events, and have been copied with a ninety-nine percent accuracy rate which is unheard of in ancient historical documents; not to mention the thousands of copies, which are the most of any document from that or earlier time periods.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

UTT - Blog Post 16

Read the essay, The Creative Arts, in your student manual.  Watch the following 6 videos.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjhVaLbBglQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAZDiKJIroU&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfEOtcH3Lk8&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRfuyOM_jYg&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsLk6DrHktc&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqiHEmejxNA&feature=related

Write your interactions down.  Where did you agree with them and where did you disagree with them and why?  Where were they similar, where were they different?  What conclusions did they draw?  Did you agree with the conclusions?  Why or why not?  Due March 12th by midnight.

        I would say, first of all, that I paid a lot more attention to the movie than the reading just because I found the reading so dry—it’s not in my style of thinking and really isn’t something that I believe I will deal with on a regular basis in my future. The movie, though, raised some interesting points, and I’d like to talk about some of those.

        There were obviously some things that the movie dealt with that I truly did agree with—like the change in art styles and the death of beauty. When we think of beautiful art, we think of things that, today, are no longer created—most of the truly wonderful art to see was made a couple hundred years before now, because of how “art” has been defined since the imposition of evolution over creation. Honestly, I think the movie creator said the right thing when he said that today’s art isn’t beautiful—I wouldn’t even call it art because it doesn’t make me care about it. A crucifix in a jar filled with urine? Not exactly beautiful or something I would want to be around, and definitely forget about calling it art.

        But that raises another question which the movie-maker dealt with, at least in passing. Does art have to be beautiful? I would say no, it doesn’t, but it does have to be acceptable in society and serve a purpose. Does defaming a person or history serve a purpose? Nothing worthwhile, so it shouldn’t be, in my opinion, art. Now, at the same time, beauty does lend itself to art because beauty can make art serve a purpose, and is more appealing to a general crowd. So, there’s another place where the movie and I agree.

        A third point that we agree on is that the “traditional” view of beauty is one to be admired and that it is worthwhile. Even though it may seem old and quaint and outdated, I’d personally much rather see skill in drawing and a beautiful expression of nature or an object than something offensive and disgusting that claims to serve the same purpose. Honestly, if it’s not appealing to my eyes, than I’m going to go somewhere else and look for “art” that truly is worthy of the name.

        Now, one point that I obviously will disagree with from the movie is that the pursuit and appreciation of beauty can replace religion. Now, I can see where he is coming from, because he sets up the whole movie up to this point as a proof that beauty is our means of finding fulfillment—enjoying and creating beautiful things should be enough to satisfy us spiritually. And since beauty is universal and transcends cultural boundaries, why shouldn’t it serve the purpose of religion? It doesn’t create the same conflicts and battles that religion does, and more people can agree on things that are beautiful. Now, I would say that is a truly seductive line of reasoning. But, it’s not accurate. Beauty can be destroyed, maligned, perverted, and offers no hope of salvation—it’s an enjoyment of the moment rather than an acknowledgement of what is to come. Religion offers so much more. But, let’s be honest: True Christianity isn’t a religion, it’s a lifestyle. How we live is true Christianity, not what we claim to follow.

        The book, from the little that I was able to take away from it, says that true beauty comes from a Christian worldview, and that there is a distinctive lack of Christian artistry in the world today. While I found it dry, long, overblown, and honestly I couldn’t pay much attention to it, I’ll bet that it does deal with some important issues. Now, I don’t believe that true beauty can only come from Christians, because the world is so much larger and presents a talent pool that dwarfs our own—but that’s how it’s supposed to be. The difference is in our promise of a lifestyle change, rather than living however we want.

        I guess, overall, that both the video and the book have good points and deal with some very real issues in the world today, but both don’t quite hit all the points right in the middle of the target. If you were to combine the two, I think you could come up with a very real opinion of art that mirrors my own (as much of one as I have formed—I much prefer the logical, analytical sciences because they make so much more sense). Mine is more based off of scripture and what I have developed in my own personal variation of the Christian worldview—beauty is the representation of skill and the appreciation of the “something more” that we all know is there, in my opinion. But the world has run far from that, and nobody really knows where it’s headed next. It’s kind of scary, really.

UTT - Blog Post 15

Muhammad thinks that Shariah law would make America a better place.  Check out the following links and write a respone to Muhammad.
http://shariahinamericancourts.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Sharia_Law_And_American_State_Courts_1.4_06212011.pdf    Don't read the whole thing, but you might read pages 14-16
Then read one journalists account of a recent incidenthttp://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.11490/pub_detail.asp\

       Well, to that I would have to start by saying one thing: No, it definitely would not make America a better place. It would change just about everything from its current state and America would no longer be the country that it is today.

       First of all, it would eliminate the liberties that we as Americans so freely enjoy today. Under the Koran, freedom of religion is no more tolerated than true freedom of speech, both of which are forbidden because they could contradict the Koran’s edicts that the only true religion is Islam (any who follow other religions are to be converted or killed), and that anything that goes against or defames the Koran is to be punished with death. Further, the liberties that women hold—freedom to vote, freedom to own property and businesses, equality with men—would be muted at best or, more likely, completely revoked in favor of a solidly male-dominated society. And if that weren’t enough, justice itself would be subject to Shariah Law and if it is the case of a non-Muslim versus a Muslim, the case would be decided instantly in favor of the Muslim as Shariah Law is designed to protect the Muslim believer over a non-Muslim. Thus, those liberties that Americans value would be eliminated under Shariah law.

       Secondly, we can already see the effects of Shariah Law in many Arabic countries today—and it doesn’t inspire much. There is an overwhelming amount of bloodshed, murder, military dictatorships and takeovers, rebellions, excessive and cruel punishments, biased judgments, and infighting to the point that the governmental system of Shariah Law is far worse in many cases than that of any other country. It destroys liberty, leaves the government open to murder its people, gives power to supremely biased religious leaders, and just overall doesn’t provide a strong backbone for running a country.

       Therefore, I would have to conclude that Shariah Law wouldn’t, in fact, provide anything near an improvement for America. It would hurt a lot more than it helped, really.

UTT - Blog Post 14

Sarah thinks that laws are created only by societies. Read this article
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-are-the-different-sources-of-law.htm
 as well as referring to your textbook pages 285 and 286.  

 Are governments the ultimate authority for creating laws?
Due 2/27 by midnight.

       The straightforward and simple answer is “no,” according to the article, the UTT textbook, and even Sarah herself.

       I’d like to point out that societies—as Sarah attests—can include custom-regulated laws, which do not involve the government because a custom is an unwritten rule formed by popular consent, not a governmental authority. So, therefore, the answer is “no” from Sarah’s perspective, because the government is not the ultimate source for law—it stems from popular opinion.

       As well, according to the UTT textbook, the ultimate source of law is a higher power than any earthly government—it comes from our Lord and Christ. If the government creates a law that is in contrast to that which is expressed in the Bible, then it must be broken to keep in code with the Scripture that is our moral basis. Therefore, from the textbook’s perspective (to compound with Sarah’s), the government doesn’t ultimately create laws—Scripture, the Bible as generated by a God-Over-All, does that.

       Furthermore, even the article itself says that government isn’t the ultimate authority for creating laws. It states that law stems from popular culture, then goes through a process of maturation (cultural traditions to cultural norms to leaders expressed to governmental enforcement) to become endorsed by the government. So, therefore here too the government doesn’t make the laws—culture does.

       Overall, all three sources point to the fact that the government isn’t the ultimate source of law. Now, what that really is, they can’t agree on, but that is beside the point—they all show that the government isn’t the final authority for creating laws. 

UTT - Blog Post 13

For a brief history of the Equal Rights Amendment, you could check out this link  http://www.now.org/issues/economic/cea/history.html or you could just google it your self. 

The ERA is quite simple, with three short sections:

Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.

As a Christian and with what you know about feminism, what do you perceive are the problems with this and how do you think a Christian should respond to feminism?  Due Monday, February 20th at midnight.

This is another interesting one—but, since we already did one on sexism, this’ll probably sound a lot like that one. And again, I’d just like to point out that I, as one of the male gender, am technically “unqualified” to talk about sexism because of my gender (which, of course, isn’t sexist at all. But, what do I know? xD).

But, anyways. There really are a few problems with the ERA, and all of them relate to section one: That total equality shall not be denied. Now, my reasonings for this are multiple, and I’ll break it down a little bit in a list:

1.     There are certain areas that men are more likely to succeed than women. To use the example that my teacher related to me in class, I, being the size that I am, would be far more likely to be saved by a firefighter who is 6’1” and muscular (which, generally, applies more commonly to the male physique) than someone who is 5’2” and lithe (which is more commonly a female physique). Now, of course, the reverse is also true—women generally are skilled in different areas than men, and in those areas, they are, for the most part, above and beyond what men could be. It’s not a matter of gender discrimination, but rather of plausibility and applicable talents, which leads into my next point.

2.   Men and women are skilled in different areas. Men do tend to excel in physical jobs or other careers that call for their specific skillsets. On the flipside, women also have skillsets that are different than men which definitely allow them to excel in certain types of jobs that men struggle at. It all depends on the natural inclinations and skills of the specific person, and gender hardwires some of those deeply into every male and female person.

3.   Now, knowing this, it stands to reason that there are some things men should be doing that women should not, and, of course, vice-versa. By passing the ERA, it would allow—force, rather—women to serve on the front lines of combat, to use one example. In this case, it is both proven to be psychologically damaging to men to see women be wounded or killed, and it exacerbates protective instincts that would overcome basic training and destroy the cohesion necessary to perform a military maneuver. And this is only an isolated situation. There are other places where this is common as well, of course. On the other side, women share an affinity for nursing that men are hard-pressed, if at all able, to copy, because of how they are genetically wired. This is an area that women excel and most men do not—which shows that one side is good at some things while the other is not.

4.   Therefore, by looking at how the ERA would destroy the common “gender boundaries” that operate within society and were built by the genetic skillsets programmed into us all, it cannot be a good thing. It would remove the value of these skills—that are, in many cases, vitally needed to keep society alive and functioning—and break down the fabric of what we know is male and female. It can’t end well.

As Christians, we are supposed to look at feminism as any other idea floating around in the world today. It isn’t “wrong” except when taken to the extreme, but we know that it denies basic Biblically-formed roles that have existed for tens of thousands of years. We cannot accept it, but we can prove where it follows the right path—and it has, providing the right to vote and fighting for equal pay for equal work, which are admirable ideals—and where it steps over the line. The ERA, in this case, definitely slides the toe of feminism over the line of normalcy and into the realm of the ridiculous.

UTT - Blog Post 12

 I was talking with someone the other day and the topic of same sex marriage came up as our state senate was getting ready to vote on same sex marriage.  I mentioned that I was opposed to this  and they asked me why?  I explained my position and they responed  by saying to me that "you Christians are all homophobic and sexist."   While there are some who this may be true off, how would you respond to the charge that the Bible teaches this?  Due Monday Feb 13th by midnight. 

        Another blog entry. Oh, boy, here we go on this one—another hot-button topic. Actually, looking at it, there are two different topics here that really need discussing, so I’ll split them up and go one-at-a-time:

        First of all, I’d like to look at how Christians are “homophobic” and what the Bible says about that. Honestly, I know a handful of people who profess to being gay or lesbian and can speak to them on a very personal level due to the amount of time that I’ve known them for—and it’s yielded some very interesting observations, for sure. A lot of homosexuals are afraid of the church and thus Christians in general because of how they are treated—with anger, hatred, disgust, rejection, denial, all of that and so much worse. In a lot of ways, they aren’t even seen as really human by some people who claim to be living in Christ, and this has been the basis for how Christians have gained the reputation for being “homophobic.”

        But that isn’t the case at all. Homophobic implies that you are afraid of or revile homosexuals. Now, admittedly, in Leviticus the Bible does say that homosexuality is a sin and must be punished—but then again, so is adultery, so is lying, so is murder, so is hatred, and so is lust, to name a few. What we, as Christians, are called to do is love those who suffer from any sinful habit (since we all are the same—Romans 8:28) and bring them to Christ through our care and expressions of Christ’s love. Does that mean we agree with and endorse an action that is Biblically wrong? No more than we can honestly say that we agree with murder or adultery. But to hate and attack someone because of that is both non-biblical and non-Christian, which goes against the very things that we, as Christians, should stand for. So no, we are not homophobic—just not supporters of homosexuality. It doesn’t make a person more or less human and in need of salvation (just like we all are), it’s just a different style of sin than many people are used to seeing. One friend of mine put it the best way possible, I think: “The church is just starting to look at homosexuality in a more real sense and it is, as a corporate body, freaking out about this new level of sin. It’s like an infant who has run up against a new challenge that it doesn’t yet know how to master. Given time and level heads and scriptural backing, it will rise to the challenge and we will see a mature, organized, Christian response to the issue of homosexuality.”  This isn't to say that homosexuality is a new issue, but the levels to which popular culture has taken it are far beyond anything people would even have imagined fifty years ago. Yet, even now, that rings true by the shift in attitude I, and others, have witnessed sweeping through the church: Treat those who suffer from sin with Christ’s love, not man’s hatred, because we are all human in need of Someone greater for our redemption.

        Now, on the issue of sexism, I would say that I am far less able to talk strongly on the subject because, in most people’s minds, my gender inhibits me from making any definitive statements on the matter. But, I’ll try my best.

        It’s true that the Bible does, at first glance, seem to teach gender-specific roles that may seem “sexist.”  But, honestly, on deeper inspection it becomes clear that both men and women take on different roles based on our genetic predispositions and proclivities. For men, that may involve ruling/decision-making, as well as breadwinning, educating and disciplining the next generation, those types of things. For women, that may involve childbearing, nurturing, that element of care that comes so naturally to the feminine gender. So, I really don’t have that much to say on the matter of sexism in the Bible except for this—although it may seem that the Bible is biased towards men, it truthfully is one of the strongest examples of a religion that upholds women by making them equal to men in their different areas of expertise. Islam, basic atheism, Mormonism, they all can’t say anything like that. But in Biblical Christianity, it is seen that men and women share different responsibilities, and that only together can they become the most effective, because each gender has pieces that the other lacks but needs to be fulfilled.

UTT - Blog Post 11

Read the following articles and then respond to the question.
http://www.kimatv.com/news/local/40453137.html
http://www.wnd.com/2008/07/70325/
http://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/children-parents-and-obesity
Sarah and Mark think that the government is not involved enough in the family.  What do you think should be the limits of government involvement in parenting and why?  This is due Feb 10th at Midnight. 

       Yeah, this is probably a pretty touchy subject, but I’m going to give it my best shot, aiming really for how the government has acted in the past in different areas like nutrition, discipline, and the basics of child-rearing in a solid, stable family. These can be telling signs for the future that can predict how the government would respond if given more involvement, and thus control, in the categories of parenting and the family.

       First, let’s look at nutrition. One of the articles (the third one) has demonstrated that the government really botched up the nutrition that they provide in their lunch meals in public. While it has reached out to schools in attempts to control the obesity that its lunches have encouraged, the government still doesn’t put any backing into its programs and announcements, which makes them useless. So, in the area of how children and overall the family eat, I’d have to say that the government should stay out, because they really don’t have the organization to enforce the necessary habits that families can provide on their own.

       Another area that the government should be limited in is the area of discipline. By setting standards that apply to every family in every way, as the government has discussed with alarming frequency, it completely disregards the character and personality of the child which is being disciplined. As we well know, some kids may only need a word spoken to reform their behavior, while others need more powerful reinforcement. The government, though, would not have the time or resources to invest in how to correctly each and every child, so it would be far more of a hindrance than a help—and the family is a far more effective institution to maintain to deal with the issues of discipline.

       Moreover, how a government reacts to a solid, stable family environment is very telling in how it would control the future development of children. The government of the United States is, rather decidedly, lacking in those areas—it focuses on keeping children in special “common education” groups rather than giving them the love and care that only a true mother can provide. I would therefore state that the government should not extend its efforts to impose its views of the family on the American public because it would do more damage than help, and harm the next generations.

       Overall, then, it’s pretty obvious that the government should keep itself out of the family and how it conducts itself because past efforts have shown to be less than profitable for all parties. My opinion echoes this, obviously, because of my own Christian views, but it also stands to reason for the evidence presented above.

UTT - Blog Post 10

Explain 3 problems with a naturalistic explaination for life.  35 points, due Monday, 12th by midnight.

            Well, let’s take this one from three different angles: From the areas of logic, evidence, and history—since those are three huge problem areas for a naturalistic explanation for life. Let’s assume naturalism means the evolutionary standpoint that nature is all there is and the physical, natural universe evolved from natural causes (since there can’t be a supernatural source in naturalism).

        1. Logic: The first major problem area is in logic. We all know that spontaneous generation has been disproved through modern science, so it is generally understood that life cannot come from nonlife. So, therefore, the evolutionary theory of origin cannot stand because it states that amoebas and proteins formed from a random coalition of chance particles that were generated out of nothing. Logically, it doesn’t seem right. Adding the buzz phrase of “millions and billions of years” really doesn’t change anything—if it can’t happen today, it can’t happen then either. We have the same environment, far more technology and understanding of our biological planet, and so much more than was present back then, and we still cannot reproduce such a feat as naturalistic evolution claims created life as we know it.

        2. Evidence: Like any other scientific theory, evidence is necessary to proving it a fact, and naturalistic explanations lack a lot of what they claim. For example, there are few to no transitional forms to back up evolution as a claim of origins, and thus we have no evidence to support the theory. Despite claims to the contrary, the attempt of top evolutionary scientists to falsify these forms (such as Lucy, the Cro-Magnon Man, et. al.) and then creating such a big hullabaloo over their appearance definitely doesn’t inspire confidence in the truth of naturalistic evolution. Further, any attempts to recreate the scenarios of our claimed ‘origins of life’ have fallen apart because they cannot support life as claimed. So, in the area of evidence, evolution is left sorely lacking.

        3. History: Finally, the historical background for a naturalistic explanation for life has never been supported. All of our documented examples of “evolution” have been, in fact, demonstrations of micro-evolution, or small adaptations within a species. Never has there been the viable appearance of macro-evolutionary evidence because it has not appeared over the entire course of human history despite the necessity of its continued path to be a help for the evolutionary cause. Moreover, all the documented mutations that are claimed to be helpful have, in fact, caused death and have never survived in a species—the others isolate and destroy the “freak.” Thus history cannot prove naturalistic evolution.

        Overall, then, we must assume that, with those three problem areas for evolution, naturalistic explanations for life cannot in fact be true.

UTT - Blog Post 9

Due Monday, November 28th at midnight.  How would you respond to the suggestion that there are no absolute moral standards that apply to everyone?

        Aw, this is an easy one, but can really lead to a lot of arguments if you’re not careful. But really, let’s break it down: What does the statement, “There are no moral absolutes that apply to everyone,” have in common with the statement, “There are moral absolutes that apply to everyone?”  All that’s missing is a negative, but the statement remains the same—they’re both still moral absolute statements, declaring something to be true or untrue. So, really, saying that there are no moral standards that apply to everyone contradicts itself and a self-contradicting statement, by the rules of logic, can’t be treated as valid because there isn’t any truth in it.

        Then there’s the legal aspect of it: why do we have courts and laws and such if there weren’t moral rules that we need to keep them to? There are things every culture agrees is wrong, be it murder or child torture or any number of grotesque things. Ours is no different, and we enforce it with the legal system we have set in place, to make us a better society by following some absolute moral rules. The basic existence of the words “right” and “wrong” mean that there are rules—to do something “good” means there is a counter, or a “bad” that can be done by reversing the “good” option. So we have moral rules just in basic societal theory and in our vocabulary.

        But hey, if you have any other questions, feel free to hand me one of them. I like these kind. xD

UTT - Blog Post 8

What’s wrong with Karma?

        Well, that’s an interesting question, but let’s take it as the video presents it, since we need a working definition of Karma first. According to the Youtube clip, the word Karma means “Action,” and it says that “Every action generates a force of energy that returns to us in like kind.” So, basically, we reap what we sow. Action to reaction, that kind of thing.

        So, first of all, let’s look at logical problems with Karma. If every action has a consequence, like the video says, then why do we do bad things in the first place? Do we not learn over time that there is no point to doing “evil” things because it will hurt us down the road? I would think so. After all, we learn from history all the time. Of course, then there’s the logical conclusion of Karma—that if we do something bad, it leads to a bad thing happening to us. But, the video says that bad things happening to us will result in good karma down the road. So, logically, doing bad things would mean we would get good karma later on. A + B = C, right? I don’t think that’s a good idea to be showing around, and it kinda goes against the idea of karma in the first place.

        Then, there’s the future aspects of Karma—what we do about it and what we can expect from it. Really, we can’t expect anything. It leaves a ton to be desired in the “answers” department because we can’t actually know anything about Karma or its results in the first place. No idea how that goes, since we all really want answers about our pressing questions. Also, since we don’t’ know how Karma really works, then we won’t want to do anything about it because it would “Mess things up.” So, therefore, we wouldn’t be allowed to interfere and change a person’s Karma, so all charity, goodwill, and contributions to others, even while charitably kind on the surface, actually will hurt the recipient’s Karma down the road and thus be unwelcome. Ergo, no good deed would go unpunished, as the old saying goes.

        Really, I don’t want to go any farther than this—I don’t believe I need to. I mean, if Karma is already this socially destructive, what’s so good about it? I’m not really sure, honestly. Sorry Nate, but you better get a different view.

UTT - Blog Post 7

Does Non- Naturalism explain truth, reality and knowledge?

       Well, it’s best to start out with a little definition of non-naturalism that we can work with to reference here: In essence, it’s the heart of the new-age movement, or in scientific circles, cosmic humanism. The standing belief is that basically everything is spiritual and nonreal. All of reality is really spiritual and can be anything from divine to a piece of an overall God to anything else—nothing at all is simply physical. When you take this worldview and contrast it with the ideas of truth, reality, and knowledge, what you find leaves you wanting way more answers than they can provide.

       Let’s look at truth first, since that one relates to the others. If truth is spiritual, rather than physical, what can we really know is true? Not much, since we live in a world of physical issues. Also, that could really be a problem for the scientific community, because they focus their efforts on the physical, but non-naturalism negates all of that, so their scientific truth would be rendered useless. Honestly, they would treat truth like it’s all relative, since we really don’t understand the spiritual all that well anyways, so for them, they would explain truth like a postmodern would. It just seems too easy and boring, so I would say that no, the non-naturalism cannot explain the existence of truth because they wouldn’t acknowledge anything concrete anyways.

       To build on that, their idea of knowledge is relative and thus there really is no secure knowledge. The same way with truth, knowledge is relative since we don’t understand the spiritual, and thus unable to be seen or unexplained. So, non-naturalism doesn’t present any real explanation of knowledge, just like it doesn’t with truth. There’s nothing to discuss because they can refer to anything as spiritual, which we cannot understand.

       Even further, what about the non-naturalistic idea of reality as a whole? Again, nonexistent. To them, there is nothing that is physical or real, so therefore reality is just like a bad joke—something that will pass away because it doesn’t exist; it’s all just an illusion. So they don’t believe in reality at all.

       Overall, non-naturalism feels like a wishy-washy way to whitewash religion into any and everything. After all, they see it as an illusion that would just pass away and can’t even provide satisfactory explanations for truth, knowledge, or reality.

UTT - Blog Post 6

What is the difference between naturalism and dialectical materialism?  Be complete.

       Well, that’s a pretty large topic if I do say so myself, but let’s break it down a little, okay? While both are atheistic in nature, so they believe there is no God, they have different definitions. Naturalism is a bit of the more common philosophy, and it’s the idea that science rules all, there is only nature, and all of existence is in this one little physical box, and there is nothing outside the box. So, basically, there is only the physical reality because there is no supernatural. Dialectical materialism—I’m pretty sure it hasn’t caught on mainly because of the huge name and how complicated it sounds—is the idea that there is a constant evolution of sorts called the dialectic, or “conflict.” They claim there is a thesis, or big idea, that develops an antithesis, or opposite idea, and the two conflict until they merge to form a synthesis of the two. Then, as time goes on, they claim a new antithesis emerges to combat the synthesis, and it goes on from there in a constant state of conflict, which is seen as evolution by them. But, let’s look at the differences a bit more in-depth, shall we?

       The two ideas contrast pretty greatly on their views of science. For example, naturalism sees science as the be-all, end-all that should be applied to everything. Have an issue? Science can solve it. It all fits into the “box” that science makes. Of course, that can run into some real issues when you consider things that can’t be scientifically measured like logic, morals, and thought in general—then the box develops some holes and an outside source leaks in. Now, dialectical materialism—ugh, waaaaay too big a phrase, honestly—is a bit more lenient on that topic. They see the universe as interdependent and all things need each other to survive rather than science being everything. Their laws are more philosophical, based on the ideas of the dialectic, or conflict, to further society. So, to them, science still has a purpose, but they put far more into their view of philosophy, since that is what they govern their world with.

       As well, both hold differing views of the future, which is very significant for people who wish to ascribe to an atheistic viewpoint (citation for the idea goes to Victoria Sitterley). On one hand, naturalism is a very bleak outlook on the future and how life will progress: stuff happens, get used to it and get what you can before you’re gone for good. You get one shot, and if something happens to you, well, that’s too bad—you got shafted. At least it wasn’t me. I, personally, couldn’t stand that kind of viewpoint because it just feels so empty and useless that I would go insane (although I’m probably halfway there already, but you know what I mean). At least with dialectical materialism (I’m tempted to call it dm because it’s just too weird to type), they acknowledge conflict and that the best of both sides will come through and continue to be refined, even if it is with the process of evolution. You see, this way, at least the future looks brighter, and that offers some hope. Either way, though, you will die and get nothing in the end—one shot. Still depressing, but not as bad.

       So there you have it—some key differences between naturalism and dialectical materialism. While they may share some of the same viewpoints, they also split in a lot of important ways. And, honestly, neither sounds all that great because you still have no hope about life after death, just a quick and depressing end. How empty.

UTT - Blog Post 5

What are the philosophic problems that naturalism has when it tries to explain reality, truth and knowledge? 

        So, then, let’s talk about naturalism for a bit, shall we? After all, it is a rather prevalent view in today’s world, even though it has some pretty big theological holes. But, that’s why you gave me this question, right? To shine my little sardonic flashlight through those holes and explain why they’re there.

       Let’s start with a definition of naturalism, okay? Naturalism is like looking at nature as a box. You could go so far as to say that it, as a viewpoint, claims that the entire world and universe is one box of physical reality, and there is nothing outside of the box. Theologically, this denies any existence of miracles, God, or the existence of the supernatural, since it claims that the physical is all that there can be. So, with that in mind, how does naturalism respond to the origins of reality, truth, and knowledge? Believe me, not as well as you might expect.

       First of all let’s examine reality. The naturalist would claim that reality is just the physical and nothing else, right? But how does that explain the basic concepts that cannot be measured, such as our idea of the soul (does that mean all humans don’t have souls? Do we not have deeper feelings than just chemicals in the brain? Isn’t that a depressing thought?) or logic? They can’t be measured and they surely aren’t physical, so that would mean naturalistically they don’t exist. Yet, we acknowledge that these non-“real” concepts definitely do exist. So, reality itself can’t be seen from a naturalistic viewpoint because there is obviously more than simply the physical involved in everyday life. Strike one, as it were.

       For my next pitch, let me look at truth. According to the naturalist, truth would only result from physical actions, which we can definitely agree with—after all, actions speak louder than words, right? It’s pretty common knowledge. But, if that concept is extended to history, to our conversations, to daily interaction, how can we trust anything we read? That leads to extremist deconstruction and a breakdown of all truth and trust altogether, which would essentially dehinge our society. Not a good thing to try and start out with, especially since we have operated for so long under a concept of truth that hasn’t broken down yet. Aren’t there commonly-accepted truths that aren’t physically provable, like love, emotion in general, and thought? Those would become relative and unaccepted to a naturalistic world. How depressing, right? Strike two.

       And, for my last trick of the night, let’s take a look at knowledge from a naturalistic viewpoint. I know I touched on this earlier and this is probably dragging on for a bit since I know the reader here would much rather be out running up the Seahurst hill right now, so I’ll make this quick. Knowledge, as it is not physical is relative to a naturalist thinker. Therefore, we have no absolute truth, and once again we look at a destabilized society and social destruction. Really, not appealing from my point of view. Besides, there are areas of knowledge in science (which is odd since this is where most of the naturalistic thinkers reside), medicine, and philosophy that are all accepted as common and true, even if it isn’t physical. I mean, half of psychology is based on reactions, which can be physical but our inferences as to what is behind those reactions, which are accepted as scientifically accurate, are definitely not so concrete or physically provable. So, what gives? Are they right or not? I mean, isn’t even a naturalistic thinker basing his claim on some knowledge, which to him is relative and therefore incorrect? I smell an eternal loop here, so I’ll just leave it spinning. Strike three, and the visiting is taking a hike. =3

UTT - Blog Post 4

Sarah and Mark both believe that God is a human invention, with Mark adding that we should evolve past our "need" for God.  How would you answer that?

Well, that’s an interesting statement, and although I can’t really see what the reasoning behind this is, let me start by giving you a few questions to ask:

       First and foremost: 1. Why say this? What is so overwhelmingly offensive about the concept of God? That could lead to some interesting responses and open the door for you to discuss the ideas of morality (how we share a common Moral Law and how that is evidence for God, as argues a famous Christian author named C.S. Lewis—I’m sure you’ve heard of him), answering to a higher power than ourselves, and maybe a whole other host of issues with Christianity. Either way, it’d be a wonderful starting point to get further into what Sarah and Mark believe and how you would answer that.

       And, secondly, 2. How else do we explain the strangeness that surrounds us? I mean, honestly, there are some pretty crazy things out there around us that we really can’t explain. I mean, I remember hearing about there are better chances that a group of monkeys banging on typewriters would make a letter-perfect copy of Macbeth rather than this world evolve by chance—and that doesn’t even look at the complexity of the human body or our ecosystems. I mean, just look around on the Internet and you’ll see some good examples, although I can give you a few talking points off the top of my head: The woodpecker, with its insanely long tongue and skull formation and bone structure, all of which needed to appear at once for the bird to survive, or the human eye which we still don’t fully understand today, and which is more complex than our best silicon microchips. A really hard thing to evolve, right? I just can’t see that happening by chance. So, from that standpoint, God is our only real answer for the crazy stuff that we see in our world—and to “evolve” past that would leave humanity with a lot of unanswered questions that really need responses.

       Finally, 3. What would be left if we “evolved” past God? From their point of view, let’s give them something to think, about: We would have another kind of religion altogether—the religion of nothing. Think about how depressing that would be for society as a whole, to live for a bit and then you die and that’s all. There wouldn’t be anything to live for, so people would break out on their own and cause major social unrest. From a pragmatic view of society, that would be both dangerous and possibly fatal. But, honestly, this is a lesser point to the first two—try to focus on those if you can.

       Keep it coming, though. They ask good questions! =)