History #1

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 winners. How would you respond to Paige.

Well, if I were talking to Paige, I would tell her that I would have to disagree with her. Her claim for saying history is pointless because it is not objectively true is not the truth. For example, the Civil War. Even though Americans write the text books, they don't tell us this goodness that happens but the sorrow and pain of many families. People would find themselves fighting their friends and family. America suffered major casualties due to the war so if we, the "winners", wrote this history in textbooks taught to other Americans across the United States, how does this show history is not objectively true? In addition, the Vietnam War. We teach that we had to leave before we lost anymore soldiers because we were losing the war. I don't think losing a war would define a winner. Finally, the ultimate example of why her statement is false is the Great Depression. There is no angle that you can look at that dreadful event and say the winners (Americans) wrote that history and say it is from objective. History is true and is written honestly in the USA.

Economics #1

Choose anything Mr. Moore said to respond to. Don't attack the man, (ad hominem) deal with his argument. 33 points. Due Monday April 18th by midnight.

Socialism: A theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole. Democracy: Government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.

Mr. Moore said that Socialism is Democracy which I, by looking at these definitions, do not agree with. Sure their meanings are very close and similar but they do not mean the same thing. Socialism is what people believe what is the right way to handle their possessions, money, etc. Democracy is a system where there are a group of people that have different Socialistic views and vote to see which majority wins. I do agree with what he says about the richest not taking 9 slices of the pie and let everyone else share 1. If you're rich you shouldn't take anymore but offer the pie to the people poorer than you. Also, when he compared Christianity to other religions I don't think that they are all on the same page. God wants the people who work to be rewarded for it such as with food or money. Some of those other religions believe that all people get the same amount of food or money not depending on how hard they work. In addition, there are some things that boggles my mind that we spend money on today. I think that it could be better but it isn't that bad compared to other countries.

Abortion

2. Teenagers who become mothers have grim prospects for the future. They are much more likely to leave of school; receive inadequate parental care; rely on public assistance to raise a child; develop health problems; or end up divorced.

I believe this all to be true because teen moms do not have time to be in school, usually have bad parents, must rely on public assistance to raise a child, develop health problems, and end up alone through divorce. First, teen moms cannot be in school because they must tend to the needs of their child. This then leads to the lack of education they receive which makes them unable to get good jobs to provide for their families and give them a good future. Teen moms most likely had received bad parenting which had led them to becoming moms in the first place. If they had good parenting, they would most likely know of the consequences and know that they should abstain from sex. Teen moms are not mature enough to raise children on their own. They get help from their parents and/or relatives. Their health might be affected physically depending on how many people they had sex with. Also, their health might be affected emotionally because of the process having a kid at such a young age. Lastly, teen mothers will most likely end up divorced or might not ever marry. Sometimes the father of the child does not want the responsibility of taking care of a child and a woman or he might leave because he cannot provide for both of them. The teen mom might also never get married because of the issues we talked about earlier. They might not have bright futures and could be crazy through all the stress of having a child at the age of a teenager. I mean who would want to marry an emotionally traumatic, unfit woman with no future?

Law 4

What is the difference between how the word "equality" and "justice" are used? How should we as Christians "do justice"?

The difference between equality and justice, as used in this article, is shown in the line of the last paragraph from the article, "Others argue that the call for justice and equality will always require an untempered radicalism..." They think they go hand-in-hand because equality is what they strive for and to get to that equality is through justice. They think that everybody should be given the same opportunity for everything. The justice system of our day has done just that. It has tried to give people this equal opportunity in life to do whatever they want to put their heart into. As Christians, Deuteronomy 10:19 says, "...you are to love those who are foreigners...". Jeremiah states, "Do no wrong or violence to the foreigner...". Micah 6:8 tells us "To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with [our] God". Lastly, James 1:27 says, "...to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world". Overall, we are told as Christians from the Bible to love and be nice to people we do not know and to help people are are in trouble or who are going through a hard time. This is how Christians "do justice".

Law #2

Are legal standards limited to the determination and interpretation of each individual? Why or why not?

Legal standards are not limited to the determination and interpretation of each individual because then there would be no universal understanding of what is lawful. For example, say if one person says it is wrong to steal but another thinks there is nothing wrong in stealing. Both people in this situation would be right if legal standards could be determined by each person. However, this is impossible for God makes the laws. If laws were not made by God, there would be chaos everywhere. Everyone would be able to do whatever they wanted to because they decide whether what they're doing is okay or not. To conclude, this verse is all the evidence we need as Christians to know that the Almighty God has created and given us legal standards to follow and carry out.

"You must obey my laws and be careful to follow my decrees. I am the Lord your God."

-Leviticus 18:4

Law Posts

Sarah thinks that laws are created only by societies. Are governments the ultimate authority for creating laws?

Laws are not created by societies and governments are not the ultimate authority for creating laws. The only being in the universe that is responsible for law-making is no other than the almighty God himself. Exodus 20:1-17 (The Ten Commandments) is all the evidence we need. God has given us the Bible for moral guidance so we know what is right and what is wrong. He has also given us something much more important: the Holy Spirit and our conscience. People know it is wrong to murder and to steal. Where does this knowing come from though? God has instilled this inside all of his creation so all man knows how to obey his law. In conclusion, governments do not create the laws but rather carry them out.

Feminism

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.

The Christian view of feminity is that women have a certain roles that they have been given by God. Even though the Bible says that women should not do certain things, such as being pastors, it is not being sexist or judgmental of women. It is just how God intended life to be. God has made men and women equally and loves them equally. He does not favor one over the other. Women should not try and do the roles of men because it is not what God wants from us. He wants us to follow His plan that he has made for all of us. In conclusion, women should not worry about filling the roles of men. They should focus on the roles God has laid out for them and has told them from the Bible.

Sexist? Homophobic?

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 of, how would you respond to the charge that the Bible teaches this? Due Friday midnight.

The Bible does not teach the church to be sexist and homophobic. The Bible clearly states that marriage is between a man and a wife. I think people say that it is sexist and homophobic because they hate the church. They say this because they feel the church is not being understanding and does not accept them for who they are. The church and Bible are trying to teach people what is right from wrong. It is wrong to be attracted to the same sex. Marriage is strictly for a man and a woman. You choose to be homosexual; you are not born that way. The church is not homophobic but they do not support homosexuality. Next, the Bible is not sexist. It has certain roles for men and women. Men have certain roles by God that they must accomplish. Women also have roles given to them by the Lord. They are just different roles. God created men and women equally and differently. This is how I would respond to this question.

Sociology

Respond to this statement: 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.

Remember, answer my question by telling me where to find your blog. Due Monday January 31st by midnight.

I think the state should not be involved with parenting someone's children and teaching them what the government wants them to learn. It is called parenting for a reason. Only parents should teach their kids morals and what is right. I mean if the government controlled this aspect of people's lives, the parents beliefs might not be the same as the state's. This would utterly cause conflict between parents and the state leading to an uproar. However, I think the state should control abusive parenting. If parents are torturing their child, the state should definitely step in and put a stop to it. They just should not go so far that they must parent the kids for the parents. Also, what if the parents are teaching their children something the state does not want them to know? Would it be illegal to pass on your wisdom and knowledge to your own kids? I think maybe the state's intention is good but ultimately this idea of parenting through the government should not be done.

Explain 3 problems with a naturalistic explanation for life

The three problems with a naturalistic explanation for life are the gene pool and the limits to change, the impossibility of spontaneous generation, and fossil gaps and intermediate forms. In the gene pool and limits to change, evolutionists believe beneficial mutations as breaking all barriers to change because they can supposedly produce structures (such as a human eye) if given enough time. Science has not been able to demonstrate that mutations can break these limits to change. They are just hereditary fluctuations. They have no final evolutionary effect. If these limits exist, then evolution is a meaningless explanation. In the impossibility of spontaneous generation, science is said to have demonstrated that life only comes from pre-existing life yet Creationism is yet another disproof of evolution. Evolutionists must postulate that for life to have arisen by naturalistic, random processes, at some point in time non-living matter must have come alive. Also, Mr. Brown from the textbook says: "If the earth, in its alleged evolution, had oxygen in its atmosphere, the chemicals needed for life to being would have been removed by oxidation. But if there had been no oxygen, then there would have been no ozone in the upper atmosphere. Without this ozone life would be quickly destroyed by the sun's ultraviolet radiation." Ozone and life, therefore, must have originated simultaneously at the time of creation which disproves evolution. In fossil gaps and intermediate forms, there is the lack of fossil evidence. Darwin wrote that the geological record is extremely imperfect. He was correct when he asserted that the geological record. After a century of careful scrutiny of the geological record, it fails to support Darwin's theories. One reason why is because it does not support evolutionary theory is that many complex life forms appear in the very earliest rocks without any indication of forms from which they could have evolved. Creatures without ancestors cannot help but imply special creation. These are the three problems with a naturalistic explanation for life.