I'm really glad you all posted, and I thoroughly enjoyed reading every pst. Awesome thoughts, y'all :)
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Thanks
Wow, those thoughts yesterday were incredible. Everyone expressed themselves so well. I really enjoyed reading all the posts, even though I haven't commented yet. Commenting on Carpe Noctem tends to suck the commenter into a never-ending debate, so I've been trying to stay out of those lately XD
I'm really glad you all posted, and I thoroughly enjoyed reading every pst. Awesome thoughts, y'all :)
I'm really glad you all posted, and I thoroughly enjoyed reading every pst. Awesome thoughts, y'all :)
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Lissy: John Adams
Inaugeration Speech of John Adams
Annotated by Alyssa Davidson
I am no history major, or even a history nerd, but when I came across this speech, I endeavored to read it. I was simply intrigued by the complexity of the archaic language. By the time I had finished, I had decided that this was something that needed to be shared for others to reflect on. I have made annotations on the speech in an Office Word document, for this was the best way to comment on the speech without my test interrupting the flow of the speech, which is already tricky to follow. Please enjoy.
Here is the link to the document. I appologize, but you will need to download the document to see the annotations.
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/document-preview.aspx?doc_id=31828073
Annotated by Alyssa Davidson
I am no history major, or even a history nerd, but when I came across this speech, I endeavored to read it. I was simply intrigued by the complexity of the archaic language. By the time I had finished, I had decided that this was something that needed to be shared for others to reflect on. I have made annotations on the speech in an Office Word document, for this was the best way to comment on the speech without my test interrupting the flow of the speech, which is already tricky to follow. Please enjoy.
Here is the link to the document. I appologize, but you will need to download the document to see the annotations.
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/document-preview.aspx?doc_id=31828073
Christopher: The Holy Bible
First of all, thanks to Kendra for saying “What the heck?” and hosting two Follower Say events in one year. It’s really a great idea. Also thanks to all my fans, and to my friends and family watching back home.
Onto business.
Recently I made the overdue decision to read all the way through the Bible from cover to cover. Now considering I’m not as self-disciplined as some, and considering neither Bible study nor theology is exactly my forte, I’m allowing myself short literary lunch breaks of novels and the occasional picture book. So far I’ve only gotten about halfway through Numbers.
Since I only have a couple minutes or so to talk within the limits of the average attention span, I’m not going to share with you my interpretation of every single Bible verse and parable that I’ve read so far. Instead, I’m going to share with you the premature conclusion I’ve reached just from the first three and a half books of the Bible that I’ve read through.
I think we can all agree that the Bible did not descend from heaven on a cloud accompanied by an angel’s chorus. Most of you, on the other hand, probably believe that the Bible holds the exact words of God. Exact. I beg to differ.
Have you ever read all the way through the books of Leviticus and Numbers? If so, and you’re prepared to obey every word that the Bible commands to you in your life now, then I have some questions for you:
Have you been sacrificing lambs every time you sin? Have you ever suggested to your Church’s minister that he dress in golden robes made especially for him instead of in a suit and white collar? Do you go into exactly seven days of isolation every time you have an infectious disease? Do you go through a mystic and superstitious ritual every time your spouse suspects that you’re cheating on him/her? Do you honestly believe that the sky is a second ocean, just separated by an invisible ceiling? Do you believe that people should be stoned or killed for crimes as meager as theft and disobedience? Do you sacrifice the right type of animal through burnt offering to God every time a baby is born? Do you consider it a sin to be human?
I’m crossing my fingers that you haven’t answered yes to all of these questions.
Please don’t misunderstand me. I read the Bible. I learn from the Bible too. But I think that after roughly 2000 years, it’s time to consider the thought that what we’re reading in the Bible are not the words of God himself, but the words of men who were deeply inspired by God. Reasons why I think this? I’ll name some.
1) The Bible commands the people of early Israel to give most of their offerings to the priests. It says so very explicitly. The priests were ridiculously wealthy because while the offerings were made in regard to God, they were fed to the priests. Isn’t it possible that the priests had some influence over that? Do you really think that God would be so unfair as to give a select a handful of people to be five times more wealthy than anyone else in the nation?
2) The Bible is extremely contradictory. In the New Testament, Jesus preaches “turn the other cheek.” In the Old Testament, God the Father preaches “an eye for an eye.” There are many similar occurrences throughout the rest of the Bible.
3) Like I mentioned earlier, the science that is preached in the Bible is very ancient—not the type that an all-knowing God might believe in. The sky is a second sea? I don’t think so. Disease can usually be healed by holy water? Doesn’t sound scientific. I admire Christians everywhere who are conservative in their interpretation of the Bible but are still logical scientists. But that’s contradictory. How can you interpret the Bible literally and still answer no to all of the questions above?
Mainly, it’s just liberals who are accused of preaching the parts of the Bible that they like and ignoring the parts that they don’t. Really, I think just about all of Christians today are guilty of that too. If you think that one should interpret the Bible literally and then make all of his decisions based on specific verses, then it’s fair to guess that you also ignore the parts of the Bible that you don’t agree with, just judging by the fact that you’re not a total eccentric.
I’ve mentioned earlier that while most Christians use the Bible as a handbook to life, I use it as a tool for inspiration. I’ve said that a lot, haven’t I? Well, I want people to understand. The Bible still houses uncountable great lessons, instructions, and morals that need to be learned from. But I don’t want to see it as perfect. It’s like God’s prophets in the Bible. They came to teach a message, but they weren’t perfect.
Christians still need the Bible, but obsessing over each verse and basing our lives on it has already been proven to not work.
Thanks for reading.
Onto business.
Recently I made the overdue decision to read all the way through the Bible from cover to cover. Now considering I’m not as self-disciplined as some, and considering neither Bible study nor theology is exactly my forte, I’m allowing myself short literary lunch breaks of novels and the occasional picture book. So far I’ve only gotten about halfway through Numbers.
Since I only have a couple minutes or so to talk within the limits of the average attention span, I’m not going to share with you my interpretation of every single Bible verse and parable that I’ve read so far. Instead, I’m going to share with you the premature conclusion I’ve reached just from the first three and a half books of the Bible that I’ve read through.
I think we can all agree that the Bible did not descend from heaven on a cloud accompanied by an angel’s chorus. Most of you, on the other hand, probably believe that the Bible holds the exact words of God. Exact. I beg to differ.
Have you ever read all the way through the books of Leviticus and Numbers? If so, and you’re prepared to obey every word that the Bible commands to you in your life now, then I have some questions for you:
Have you been sacrificing lambs every time you sin? Have you ever suggested to your Church’s minister that he dress in golden robes made especially for him instead of in a suit and white collar? Do you go into exactly seven days of isolation every time you have an infectious disease? Do you go through a mystic and superstitious ritual every time your spouse suspects that you’re cheating on him/her? Do you honestly believe that the sky is a second ocean, just separated by an invisible ceiling? Do you believe that people should be stoned or killed for crimes as meager as theft and disobedience? Do you sacrifice the right type of animal through burnt offering to God every time a baby is born? Do you consider it a sin to be human?
I’m crossing my fingers that you haven’t answered yes to all of these questions.
Please don’t misunderstand me. I read the Bible. I learn from the Bible too. But I think that after roughly 2000 years, it’s time to consider the thought that what we’re reading in the Bible are not the words of God himself, but the words of men who were deeply inspired by God. Reasons why I think this? I’ll name some.
1) The Bible commands the people of early Israel to give most of their offerings to the priests. It says so very explicitly. The priests were ridiculously wealthy because while the offerings were made in regard to God, they were fed to the priests. Isn’t it possible that the priests had some influence over that? Do you really think that God would be so unfair as to give a select a handful of people to be five times more wealthy than anyone else in the nation?
2) The Bible is extremely contradictory. In the New Testament, Jesus preaches “turn the other cheek.” In the Old Testament, God the Father preaches “an eye for an eye.” There are many similar occurrences throughout the rest of the Bible.
3) Like I mentioned earlier, the science that is preached in the Bible is very ancient—not the type that an all-knowing God might believe in. The sky is a second sea? I don’t think so. Disease can usually be healed by holy water? Doesn’t sound scientific. I admire Christians everywhere who are conservative in their interpretation of the Bible but are still logical scientists. But that’s contradictory. How can you interpret the Bible literally and still answer no to all of the questions above?
Mainly, it’s just liberals who are accused of preaching the parts of the Bible that they like and ignoring the parts that they don’t. Really, I think just about all of Christians today are guilty of that too. If you think that one should interpret the Bible literally and then make all of his decisions based on specific verses, then it’s fair to guess that you also ignore the parts of the Bible that you don’t agree with, just judging by the fact that you’re not a total eccentric.
I’ve mentioned earlier that while most Christians use the Bible as a handbook to life, I use it as a tool for inspiration. I’ve said that a lot, haven’t I? Well, I want people to understand. The Bible still houses uncountable great lessons, instructions, and morals that need to be learned from. But I don’t want to see it as perfect. It’s like God’s prophets in the Bible. They came to teach a message, but they weren’t perfect.
Christians still need the Bible, but obsessing over each verse and basing our lives on it has already been proven to not work.
Thanks for reading.
Liberty: I am a Libertarian...
This is an awesome idea. *huge grin* And I am totally excited. This is the first time I've done this over here, so bear with me. ;)
Everyday, the political debate (or lack thereof) in the United States goes on. It ebbs and flows, heats and cools as time goes on. High points of political debate (election time) and low (the middle point where there are no elections) follow each other with regularity. This political debate most often seems to center around two major points of view- Republican or Democrat, "conservative" or "liberal", right or left...
Yet a growing faction of the American population increasingly turn away from these "traditional" labels. Refusing to define themselves with the narrow strictures of a set roster of ideas and a political moniker that goes with them, these people strike out largely on their own. Several things unite these freelancers, though what has come to be called the Libertarian movement has people ranging from the anarchist to the near-Republican to the near-Democrat. Yet most Libertarians can agree on three things-
Everyday, the political debate (or lack thereof) in the United States goes on. It ebbs and flows, heats and cools as time goes on. High points of political debate (election time) and low (the middle point where there are no elections) follow each other with regularity. This political debate most often seems to center around two major points of view- Republican or Democrat, "conservative" or "liberal", right or left...
Yet a growing faction of the American population increasingly turn away from these "traditional" labels. Refusing to define themselves with the narrow strictures of a set roster of ideas and a political moniker that goes with them, these people strike out largely on their own. Several things unite these freelancers, though what has come to be called the Libertarian movement has people ranging from the anarchist to the near-Republican to the near-Democrat. Yet most Libertarians can agree on three things-
- Personal liberty is the most important thing
- The Constitution of the United States is a pretty good model for a non interventionist government
- For America to survive, even in her current state of semi-decay, she must return to some semblance of what she once was
There is much dissension among Libertarian ranks; so much so that sometimes, Libertarians can seem to be broken down into several parties of thought rather than just one. This is, perhaps, one of our greatest strengths. Rather than being slaves to a central party doctrine that reigns paramount over our own thoughts, feelings, beliefs, and convictions, Libertarians have comparative freedom to decide their own way.
One instance of this is embodied in the Libertarian Party platform. All individuals are sovereign over their own lives, the passage reads, and defense of each individual's choices and rights is paramount: more important than any personal conviction. Of course, one thing must be stated right now- that, though each individual's choice is defended, each individual also cannot trample on the rights of another. That would not be freedom; that is anarchy.
I myself became what could be termed a Libertarian, soon after my "political awakening." (In other words, when I became a political junkie and couldn't stop thinking about it.) I didn't like the Republican platform (no freedom of choice, morality, or thought), nor did I care for the Democratic stance (no economic freedom, curtailed freedom of speech). And so I went somewhere out in the netherworld, and found the Libertarians.
That is, to me, the most beautiful thing about the Libertarians: they are neither Republican nor Democrat, but neither are they in the center somewhere. The major parties have, over the years, drifted closer and closer to one another, and by now, little true difference between them exists. The Libertarians, however, act as a replacement for an old, worn-out system that is doing little for the American people beyond sinking them further into debt, corruption, and war. And yet Libertarianism is not so exclusive in its ideology and party structure that it does not negate voting for another party if one believes said party would more aptly fit ones view of our country.
I am a Libertarian in large part because I don't believe there are any other options (Republican or Democrat, or even the Constitution Party) that truly fit what I believe. I believe, like the Libertarians, that each human being on the globe has a right to do whatever they want so long as that does not interfere with the rights of another. I think that government should play only a minor role in the lives of its citizens- and certainly not as much as it is playing now.
KnightWing: It's Always a Choice
Below is a list of terms that Atheists often use to describe belief in God:
Blind faith
Belief without basis
Religion
Scientific bias
Illogical
Atheists often say that "believers" merely make the choice to believe in God, regardless of the evidence. Here's the thing, though:
No matter which side you choose, it's always a choice.
Blind faith / Belief without basis:
Is Atheism really so different from Theism? The definition of Atheism is "the doctrine or belief that there is no God."
Look at those two words: "doctrine" and "belief." Those are perhaps the two words most closely associated with the Christian church, yet they also define Atheism. How does that work?
Think about it. Atheism is—literally—a negative image of Theism.
In the end, even if the difference is black and white, (get it? *wink* *nudge* okay, sorry...) belief is still the one characteristic that shines through.
According to Dictionary.com, those are the definitions of the word "belief." From a purely scientific or Atheist perspective, that sounds like a nightmare! Blind faith in something that doesn't make sense? Trust in what cannot be proven? The horror!
And, yet, Atheism itself is founded upon belief: the belief that God cannot exist.
Perhaps fittingly, the simplest explanation for this can be found in the most simple of arguments:
"Prove God exists!"
"Prove he doesn't."
It's an endless loop. Trying to apply logic to the God question just doesn't work. Now, in all fairness to both sides, Theists hold to the belief that they do have proof of God from "personal experience." Of course, the inherent problem with that is that it's not evidence that can be used in an argument with someone else. And that's not what I'm getting at; I'm not going to argue for one side or the other here.
What I'm getting at is the fact that, in the end, you have to just choose what you want to believe. Whether you believe that science textbooks or religious scriptures hold the answers to life, ultimately you're making a choice.
There's no such thing as an unbiased person. Every day we make judgments based on incomplete facts and limited knowledge. (because, after all, the only way to be completely informed about our decisions would be through omniscience)
Even the most scientifically sound "facts" have the potential of being untrue. I'm not challenging science here or anything, but, for the sake of perspective, let's remember that it was once "science" that the Earth was flat. That didn't last long, obviously, but the important thing to see is that science is based entirely on human experience, and, because humankind is capable of making mistakes, science is not infallible.
Ultimately, you choose what you believe. You can't analyze the "big questions" in terms of logic, because logic would require one to know everything about the subjects involved.
Don't be fooled into thinking that what you believe is based on logic or fact: what you believe is just that: belief.
What do you believe?
Blind faith
Belief without basis
Religion
Scientific bias
Illogical
Atheists often say that "believers" merely make the choice to believe in God, regardless of the evidence. Here's the thing, though:
No matter which side you choose, it's always a choice.
Blind faith / Belief without basis:
Is Atheism really so different from Theism? The definition of Atheism is "the doctrine or belief that there is no God."
Look at those two words: "doctrine" and "belief." Those are perhaps the two words most closely associated with the Christian church, yet they also define Atheism. How does that work?
Think about it. Atheism is—literally—a negative image of Theism.
Theism:
Atheism:
In the end, even if the difference is black and white, (get it? *wink* *nudge* okay, sorry...) belief is still the one characteristic that shines through.
Belief
–noun
1. something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.
2. confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief.
3. confidence; faith; trust: a child's belief in his parents.
4. a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith: the Christian belief.
According to Dictionary.com, those are the definitions of the word "belief." From a purely scientific or Atheist perspective, that sounds like a nightmare! Blind faith in something that doesn't make sense? Trust in what cannot be proven? The horror!
And, yet, Atheism itself is founded upon belief: the belief that God cannot exist.
Perhaps fittingly, the simplest explanation for this can be found in the most simple of arguments:
"Prove God exists!"
"Prove he doesn't."
It's an endless loop. Trying to apply logic to the God question just doesn't work. Now, in all fairness to both sides, Theists hold to the belief that they do have proof of God from "personal experience." Of course, the inherent problem with that is that it's not evidence that can be used in an argument with someone else. And that's not what I'm getting at; I'm not going to argue for one side or the other here.
What I'm getting at is the fact that, in the end, you have to just choose what you want to believe. Whether you believe that science textbooks or religious scriptures hold the answers to life, ultimately you're making a choice.
There's no such thing as an unbiased person. Every day we make judgments based on incomplete facts and limited knowledge. (because, after all, the only way to be completely informed about our decisions would be through omniscience)
Even the most scientifically sound "facts" have the potential of being untrue. I'm not challenging science here or anything, but, for the sake of perspective, let's remember that it was once "science" that the Earth was flat. That didn't last long, obviously, but the important thing to see is that science is based entirely on human experience, and, because humankind is capable of making mistakes, science is not infallible.
Ultimately, you choose what you believe. You can't analyze the "big questions" in terms of logic, because logic would require one to know everything about the subjects involved.
Don't be fooled into thinking that what you believe is based on logic or fact: what you believe is just that: belief.
What do you believe?
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Does Capitalism Lead to Socialism?
"Karl Marx said that capitalism is a step along the way to socialism. This is a very uncomfortable thought to me, I must confess. To gain some perspective, it helps to look at a little history..." ~ "Maybe Marx was right" by David Bailey.
I thought this was a pretty interesting post, especially considering I love philosophy. Check it out if you want!
I thought this was a pretty interesting post, especially considering I love philosophy. Check it out if you want!
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Last Reminder (Probably XD)
Followers Say is this Saturday. Be sure to email me if you want to participate. I'll probably send out the invitation to post on Friday night.
~Kendra
~Kendra
Friday, March 12, 2010
Growing List...
Followers Say coming up in about two weeks! If you missed the post with the "rules", here's a link. Thanks to everyone who's emailed me (livinglovinglaughinglearning@gmail.com). The list of participants is growing nicely!
Lissy
Post 1: "I disbelieve the Theory of Evolution because of biological processes"
Post 2: President John Adams' inaugural speech with her own commentary. (This post would likely be a bit lengthy, and she was wondering if you all would still be interesting in reading it?)
Christopher Kennedy
What the Bible means to him
KnightWing
"It's Always a Choice": Believing in God or being an Atheist is always a choice based on pre-assumptions.
Liberty
Post 1: "I am a Libertarian because..."
Post 2: The War on Terror
Tragedy101:
A response to the post "The New America"
If I've made a mistake about what you're planning to post or missed someone's email, please let me know!
There's no deadline for entering, just email me before the 27th so I can send you the invitation to post when the time comes.
Thanks!
Lissy
Post 1: "I disbelieve the Theory of Evolution because of biological processes"
Post 2: President John Adams' inaugural speech with her own commentary. (This post would likely be a bit lengthy, and she was wondering if you all would still be interesting in reading it?)
Christopher Kennedy
What the Bible means to him
KnightWing
"It's Always a Choice": Believing in God or being an Atheist is always a choice based on pre-assumptions.
Liberty
Post 1: "I am a Libertarian because..."
Post 2: The War on Terror
Tragedy101:
A response to the post "The New America"
If I've made a mistake about what you're planning to post or missed someone's email, please let me know!
There's no deadline for entering, just email me before the 27th so I can send you the invitation to post when the time comes.
Thanks!
Monday, March 1, 2010
Followers Say Reminder
Followers Say is coming up in just a little less than three weeks! (Saturday, March 27th) It's definitely sneaking up on me, so it might be for you, too!
If you're too lazy to scroll down and read the information about Followers Say, here's a link for you ;)
Second Biannual Followers Say
So far the participants who have emailed me (livinglovinglaughinglearning@gmail.com) are:
Lissy
Post 1: "I disbelieve the Theory of Evolution because of biological processes"
Post 2: President John Adams' inaugural speech with her own commentary. (This post would likely be a bit lengthy, and she was wondering if you all would still be interesting in reading it?)
Christopher Kennedy
What the Bible means to him
There is no deadline for "entering", but I will need you to email me so I will have a way to send the invitation to post on March 27th.
Probably Followers Say won't be as big this time around. I think September will be the main Follower Say. Still, it's nice to have two opportunities a year in case you've got some good ideas floating around!
Looking forward to reading everyone's posts and and responses to others' posts!
If you're too lazy to scroll down and read the information about Followers Say, here's a link for you ;)
Second Biannual Followers Say
So far the participants who have emailed me (livinglovinglaughinglearning@gmail.com) are:
Lissy
Post 1: "I disbelieve the Theory of Evolution because of biological processes"
Post 2: President John Adams' inaugural speech with her own commentary. (This post would likely be a bit lengthy, and she was wondering if you all would still be interesting in reading it?)
Christopher Kennedy
What the Bible means to him
There is no deadline for "entering", but I will need you to email me so I will have a way to send the invitation to post on March 27th.
Probably Followers Say won't be as big this time around. I think September will be the main Follower Say. Still, it's nice to have two opportunities a year in case you've got some good ideas floating around!
Looking forward to reading everyone's posts and and responses to others' posts!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
