History #1

For one I would tell Paige that her theory that history is not valid should be put to on the side for the sake of her grade. I would also tell her that because of Archeology today we can see the tales and stories of many different cultures. History is proved by archeology and if history was written by the winners they would make stuff up or take stuff out. If history was only written by the winners then why do the winners leave so many negative things in their history, wouldn't they take them out to look more powerful and perfect. History is very necessary because it does so many good things for people. History helps people understand where they came from and who they are. It helps people see how societies change and come to be. History helps us not repeat the past. In Addition i would bring up examples such as we have history of things people have lost that match up to the others. If History was written by the winners and not the losers I feel like we would have thrown away or altered most of the history of Vietnam. That was a dark time in American society and you think they would take that out but it is still being taught. Also in Germany they teach about WW1 and WW2 which Germany clearly lost but their historical records and facts are almost identical to the ones in the US or Britain. History can not simply be changed by the winner by the changing of written records because there are so many archaeological facts and records of the loser that would disprove those changes. Today's history that is supposedly written by the winners matches up almost perfectly with archaeological facts and records of the losers.

Economics #2

The theory of 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", sounds pretty good. At the core though, it's just taking the money of hard workers and giving it to under achievers. Let me tell you a story on why socialism won't work.

"One college class at TTU had insisted that socialism worked, and that no one would
be poor and no one would be rich. The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class". All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade, so no one would fail and no one would receive an A. After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset, and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less, and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too, so they studied little. The second test average was a D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F. The scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings, and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else. All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed."

Socialism won't work because no one will want to succeed cause there is no reward. Socialism won't work because of our sinful nature. We humans are sinful and are very selfish, we only will work to further ourselves not the collective good, that is why it won't work.

Economics #1

Michael Moore made some stretches in his speech about socialism. The biggest stretch was when he said that Christianity, Buddhism, Islam and Marx all support socialism. Socialism is a type of government that treats everyone as equals, which Christians should believe and abide by, but Socialism goes out on a limb to say that everyone should receive equal pay and benefits and that the Government owns everything. In the bible it says "If a man will not work, he shall not eat" (2 Thessalonians 3:10) and also "whatever one sows, that will he also reap"(Galatians 6:7). Now Christianity believes in helping people but they must earn it, in other words life isn't going to be given to someone on a silver platter like in socialism. If a man is to live in a nice house he must work to earn the house. Also in proverbs 22:7 it says "the rich rules over the poor, and the borrower is the slave of the lender". Now this verse shows us how the bible assures that there are separations in classes not just one class. Also one of the ten commandments says thou shall not steal. By saying that the bible implies that private ownership is ok and it i wrong to take what is not yours. Micheal Moores argument that Christianity is for a socialist nation and economy is not a good one. 

One thing I would like to remind us all is that the bible has said, "Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God (Romans 13:1)" and also that "Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor"(Romans 13:7). Whatever our government that we live under is we should respect it and abide by it. 

Global Secular Government

A Global Secular Government looks at a glance to be a good idea. It would make travel easier and it would would push for unity in between different people. It sounds very nice but there are some problems with this type of government. There is so much room for corruption in the system and under it. If the leaders of the government somehow became corrupt the world would be put into utter caose. In addition, each individuals moral principles would be lost if they are not part of the majority in the earth. Because the world is so large small moral principles will be swept under the rug to be replaced by bigger issues. Also it would be impossible for an entire world to agree on what is best for its people. Think about how the needs of people would be quickly overlooked. Their are way to many people in this world to have one government. Another question arises, who will run the government and what type of government will it be? The Chinese and Russia would love to run the world with a strong dictatorship, but who would want "Big Brother" watching you at all times. This idea of a Dictatorship would go against everything America stands for, but if America ran the world with Democracy it would go against major political and physical powers in the Middle East and Asia. Either way any type of Government would upset a certain group of people. Also how would different cultures and religions coexist in harmony? What is socially acceptable in one culture is repulsing in another. How could the government regulate such things without creating a riot within the people. Being a secular government this would mean that all sense of religion and theism would be looked down upon. About 84% of the world is religious(http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html).  This would mean that roughly 84% of the world would be shunned and told they are intolerant, incompetent dreamers and that they should abandon all there religious ways. This would cause another riot within the people. Overall a Global Secular Government is very far fetched being that it would be nearly impossible to have all the world powers and different worldviews to agree on one government, but if it happened it would cause major riots and uproars in different cultures and religions.

Abortion

In response to Doug's second statement I feel that we can look into stopping people from having premarital sex in the first place because their not ready, which would stop the effects and conclusions of premarital sex. As a Christian I am commanded to “Speak up for those who have no voice, for the justice of all who are dispossessed” (Prov. 31:8). Hebrews 13:4 also says, "Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral." These problems that couples face may be their judgement for their immoral acts. Lots of teens are put in the situation that they could have premarital sex, but none of them really know about the consequences. Did you know that 50% of the people who currently have HIV are between the ages of 15 and 24? Using a condom only reduces the risk of contracting HIV by 85%. Condoms do not significantly reduce the risk of contracting other sexually transmitted diseases. If a teenager takes these statistics into consideration when making your decision I feel there choice would be different.  Most people don't consider the emotional effects of premarital sex. You see, sex is an emotional experience and it affects our lives in ways we don't understand. After engaging in premarital sex, many people express feelings of guilt, embarrassment, distrust, resentment, lack of respect, tension, and so much more. Now that's why they shouldn't have sex before marriage. Now if they do slip up then there are some things other than Abortion that could be options. Adoption is a very easy safe way to still have the baby and give life to a couple who cannot have it themselves. Adoption Doctors.com says adoption "can be a healthy, realistic, and sensible choice for all the parties involved in the adoption triad (birth parent, adoptive parent and adopted child). Adoption is a selfless, loving gesture from a brave woman who has dreams for a child to have a forever family".

Law #4

After reading the Critical Legal Studies article or CLS, I feel like there aproach was slighty Marxism and a pinch of Cosmic Humanism. CLS approaches equality kinda like Marx, everyone is equal in a sense and should be treated equal. They want to try to give everyone a voice and power so his ideas will be the same as mine. Homosexuals are the same as me and should be given the same rights. Also why it is Cosmic Humanism is because each individual is equal and can do whatever he pleases. the connection is that in a sense it is saying we are our own god and can control our decisions. We should be all equal and see eachother equally. Justice now would be put on those who try to oppress groups of people and not teach equality, but later in a perfect society justice would not be needed.


The purpose of what CLS is writing about is them changing the rules so we humans won't feel guilty about our sin. CLS wants to break down laws so people can do what they please. We as Christians should uphold our goverments rule unless they go against Gods laws. God made laws to keep us safe and protected, not to oppress us but to safe us from our sinful nature. As Christians we can do justice abide by Gods rules. We should use the bible to disprove fall teachings and lead by example, by serving God and abiding by his words not by changing the rules so we can feel better like what CLS is trying to do.

Law #3

Between the Shari'a Law and God's law there is only one similarity which is both are suppose to help guide you in your faith on choosing moral standards that are set up by each God. One major difference between these two is one is based on works while the other i based on mental and spiritual acts. The Shari'a law is in place o enforce and punish those who do not act the way a Muslim is suppose to. For instance the 5 pillars of Islam are all at their core physical acts. Also the Shari'a law is very constricting, it holds people back with no purpose. The laws of the Bible are in place to keep us save and free of immorality. Another concept that is very different is how Allah is unknowable. This could also be seen through the Shari'a law because if Allah is unknowable then how do we know that the Shari'a law contains all of Allah's commandments. The Bible is the word of God and it contains every law that a Christian should abide by, so there is no place for second guessing ourselves. In addition, the last difference is love that is missing in the Shari'a law. The laws of the Bible are there because God loves us and wants to keep us from being mislead and have to suffer. The Shari'a law is a harsh set of laws set up because Allah said so and so it is. The Shari'a Law is a harsh law on those who don't abide by it and in some cases so is the Bible but the Bible offers redemption salvation and second chances that we have on earth. Shari'a law does not contain anything like that which shows love and compassion.

Law #2

Legal standards are not open for determination or interpretation. If legal standards were open to interpretation no one could live a safe life. For example our traffic laws, if everyone interpreted the yield sign in their own way our roads would be a mess. This would happen to every law if they were open for interpretation. Paul writes that governments are "ordained by God" (Romans 13:2). If we put our own twist on our governments laws we are disobeying our government who is ordained by God, consequently disobeying God. Also, Romans 13:1-7 clearly states that we should honor and respect our government and it's laws if they do not go against God's laws. Overall legal standards are not open for interpretation and should not be broken unless they go against Gods word.

Law

Saying the government is the ultimate authority for creating laws is like saying a child learned how to speak perfect English on its own and teach an English class. We all know that that is impossible because there would have to be someone that the child would learn the language from. The government just doesn't come up with laws and ideas but they borrow them from a previous source that is the ultimate moral law, the Bible. In the Bible, God put in the guidelines to live a life that does not sin against God and the laws or moral absolutes that He made. Most laws in today's society are borrowed ideas from the Bible, even if the law is made in rebellion to a moral absolute it still deals with the moral law that has previous been in place. As Christians we are suppose to pray for the governing authorities (I Timothy 2:1-2), conduct ourselves as law-abiding, taxpaying citizens (Romans 13:1-7), give to the government all that it's due (Matthew 22:21), and honor those in authority and the institutions of government (Romans 13:1-7, I Peter 2:17). We can't get away from the fact that governments are authorities we are suppose to submit to. Although if the government contradicts the Bible and makes a law that would cause us to sin we are suppose to not abide by the law. Peter in Acts 5:29 says that “We must obey God rather than human beings". God is the ultimate authority that is above earthly governments. Christians are also suppose to abide by the rules of earthly governments as long as it does not go against Gods word.

Feminism

Feminism is the belief that women should be treated like equals and thought as equals with men. Eighty years ago women were rarely seen in the workforce and if they were, they were very under paid. Women revolted and started the Feminist movement is search of equality. Today this movement has sprung itself to extremes, by lowering work standards, raising benefits, and upsetting the balance of family roles. The  non-extreme feminist belief and movement can be seen  in the Bible. In the beginning God created both man and women to have specific and different roles. The women has the roles of being a life giver, a rescuer, and a completer. The man is  the little king, the poet, and the rememberer. Feminism sometimes attacks these roles saying that they are oppressive. Women who are the life giver are suppose to care for the life they gave, but feminists say that women shouldn't be stay at home moms but out in the work force like men. Feminists teach sometimes the opposite of the Bible saying that women do not need to submit to their husbands but themselves be the the little king or sometimes not even have a husband but be promiscuous like some men. All of these things are suppose to make women happy and let them be individuals for one time on history. Sadly women like companionship's and relationships, but being on your own and always working takes that whole factor out of their lives. Christians should see women as equals to men, but women must also treat their man as equal also. Feminism was a  necessary idea but should stop at equality with men rather than trying to powers away from men and overpowering them.

Sexism and Homophobia

The Church sometimes may seem sexist and homophobic to people with biasts of the church, but in all actuality the church is very welcoming to women and homosexuals. Women have equality in the church, they just have a separate but important part in the family. We can see in Genesis 1:27, males are called to be the little king, the poet, and the rememberer. Females are the life givers, the rescuers, and the completers. God made Eve to complete Adam (Genesis 2:18). Also like it has been said before, God created man before women because he needed a rough draft before he could make something perfect. Man and women with their separate roles were meant to be wed and complete each other, not two men together or two women together. The church abides by this rule of one man and one women. God created marriage to be between a man and a women. The church sees the people who choose homophobia to be tricked by Satan. The church is trying to help those people who are tricked get back on the right track and safe them from eternal damnation. The church always has good intentions but sometimes people always see it the wrong way.

Sociology

I think 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. Children are the future and if children are not taught moral values or social manners, society will become more corrupt and less friendly. Children learn moral values mostly from their parents. What kids see their parents doing become morally and socially acceptable. If a kids parents do not have good moral standards, those standards are most likely being passed down to the kid with even some more corrupt moral values. By the state monnetering, and controlling if necessary, what is being put into the mind of children through school involvement and social workers average check-ups we can help get society back on track. As Christians we value the home because it is a place where children learn christian values. These values will help shape and guide them through their life.

The only problem that could come about through this process of state regulated home is if the state pushed the wrong moral values, such as homosexuality or athiesm. These views would be contradictory to the traditional christian home. The state being involved with the home is a great idea as long as the values the state would be pushing were solid christian values. In today's society I wouldn't like state controlling the home because there are not enough christian values in the values of the state. It is a good idea but not the right time for action to be taken place.

Cracks in Naturalism

The naturalistic view of how life began manly circles around evolution.  Evolution is random changes in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift. One problem with this theory is the explanation of how life began. According to evolutionists the first cell came from a primordial pile of goo that somehow miraculously came together, through maybe a strike of lightning or something, to create the first cell. What lots of scientists fail to tell people when explaining this story is that the probability of this even happening is probably very slim; actually it’s 1 in 10 to the 100 billionth powers. There’s probably a better chance I will win the Daytona 500 in a wheelchair. Another problem with the theory of evolution is DNA. DNA is an intricate line of amino acids that fit together perfectly. This system of proteins is the blueprint for each cell that gives information to the parts inside the cell. This process happens almost a billion times a second in a human body. It’s hard for me to believe that this all happened randomly and easier to believe that DNA was created purposely be an intelligent being.  The last problem is one of the simplest forms of bacteria, the bacterial flagellum, is to complex to be a form of random mutation. The flagellum has a tail at the end of its body that is similar to an outboard motor. It is made up of 40 intricate parts that make the sail spin propelling the flagellum around. Without one of these parts the whole tail would not work. Again it’s hard to believe that all these parts randomly came together in the right order to create the tail. Overall evolution is a theory that is has very slim chances of actually working. In my opinion all these things help further the evidence that God intelligently designed all things, and each thing with a specific purpose.