I'm very excited about this experiment. I think it will work well. Anyway, I decided to press the hot button and go with gay marriage. I've very passionate about this subject and see it as some what of a second civil rights movement. Things have gotten a lot better for the homosexuals. It used to be that they were fighting for the right to civil rights! Can you imagine? But that's not what I want to talk about. I want to discuss one particular aspect of homosexual rights: gay marriage. This is arguably the biggest step for the homosexual community and one that I believe will be passed in the future.
First off, let's look at a common misconception that homosexuality is a choice. Some people (most) believe in this for religious reasons. I can understand that, but it's simply not true. By saying it's a choice, you are going against tons of research done by psychologists who are professionals in the field of sexual orientation (which does exist). Not many can show true evidence outside of religion that proves that homosexuality is a choice. but I'll humor you and say that it is. We live in a country of free will. If someone wants to 'choose' to be homosexual and get married, why should we stop them? They have the right to choose, so why not let them marry?
Also, how will this negatively affect you? That's something you really have to think about. How will this impact me? For us, it won't. What could you have to gain by not letting them have the right to marry? Succeeding in hatred? Even if it's not hatred of them, by as I've heard many conservatives say "What they do!" Is this right? How can we talk about how terrible it was to deny blacks rights and refuse to give women the right to vote, and then turn around and start the cycle all over again? I guess what this leads me to believe is, who's next? After homosexuals gain rights, who's next on the cycle of prejudice?
Perhaps some think this post has been a little harsh, and it has. I will admit that. But I also believe that it's wrong to do this to homosexuals. Put aside your religious thinking, and look at this in a different light. After all, weren't we founded on the principle of separation of church and state? For now, try to see past your differences, and look at the rights of others and see how they are being infringed. Maybe think twice about this issue when you get a chance to look at it and realize they're people too and they deserve equal rights.
Saturday, September 26, 2009
Christopher: War
Thanks very much to Kendra for thinking up this idea. It’s very creative. I didn’t even know someone could post on another blog. My post today is going to be rather hippie, I think. That means, in Southern tongue, very idealistic. I’m going to ask all of the readers of this post to bear with me, because I’m going to look at an issue in a different way that it is usually looked at.
It seems as though destruction is as deeply rooted in human nature as the desire to create. Or, more specifically, the desire to fight at least is programmed into human nature. And these fights range from striking your little brother’s head to soaring over an enemy nation and watching a city disappear after the press of a button. But in modern ages, and in civilized countries, we like to say we are more sophisticated. We don’t go to war over land, power, or even religion. No, don’t be silly. We just go to war for money and politics. Well, that may be a little harsh, but one can argue that economics were a huge factor in every United States war. But so many countries have been saying that we go to war because we have to. It’s the last resort, but it’s necessary.
Is it? Believe me; I’ll continue that argument later.
For now, I want to clarify that there is a difference between cowardice and despising war. So many bumper stickers, (although practically all political bumper stickers beat up on another political group,) and blunt conservatives say that liberals are afraid. They say that pacifists are afraid. They say that those who don’t like war are afraid. Is this true? In some cases, most definitely. But does this mean all liberals and anti-war activists are afraid? No! What is so terrible about hating hate? What does cowardice have to do with being brave enough to try peace? I think sometimes those who dislike war and do something about it are the truly brave ones. They are brave enough to try to find an alternative to war.
Moving onto another topic, many have received the impression that war is the only way to peace. The true irony of this thought would make me laugh if it wasn't so serious. There is no such thing as forced peace. If this was true, and America has been overwhelmingly strong for this long, how come there are no results? No peace? To try to achieve peace through war is to shout at another nation, “Stop! Don’t hurt anyone else! Be peaceful or we’ll blow you to bits! Be peaceful or we’ll kill you all!” It just doesn’t work. Peace isn’t found through hate or even through a war stirred by truly good intentions, if that is possible. Peace is inspired, not forced, by trust, friendship, and the ability to forgive and forget. (I was about to say love, but that would sound too cheesy. I doubt the world will all hold hands and sing “Kum-ba-ya” anytime soon.
Another thing! In my opinion, war is almost the same as it has been since the beginning of time except with more powerful weapons. Imagine a caveman used to fighting with sticks and stones, suddenly with WMDs at his disposal. Well, what I’m trying to say is that it is becoming far too easy to kill. (Killing inflation: imagine that!) Ever since the Revolutionary War, it is no longer necessary in battle to see the death of the person you shoot. One no longer watches while a man with a knife through his heart dies a slow, pain-filled death. One watches a speck be shot, and remain a speck. One sees sky through the window of an airplane before and after they drop a bomb and kill tens of thousands. If it was ever “too easy” to pull a trigger, it is outrageous how “easy” it is to kill now. Imagine that thousands of just died because of your mission, and you haven’t given it a second thought. Now, I’m not blaming soldiers. I think soldiers are incredibly brave, patriotic, and even selfless. I just think they’re serving the wrong intentions.
I’m almost finished! I have finally gotten back to the question, “Is war necessary?” And I’ve decided. Sometimes. Oh, that word made me cringe. Realism sometimes makes you cringe, doesn’t it? I think in this modern age, sometimes war is impossible to avoid. I do think that war is far too often NOT NECESSARY. Look at Switzerland. It’s in a neighborhood of countries which have been constantly at war in history. It has remained pacifist. No! It is not impossible to avoid war! For so many countries in Asia, the Middle East, and Africa, it is impossible. But for America? Think! America has put so much effort into an unbeatable offense we have neglected to put effort into an impenetrable defense.
Politicians tell us war is always a last resort. Is this true? Wouldn’t it be rather easy for America to remain pacifist if it didn’t decide to make war on certain countries unnecessarily?
In conclusion, sometimes I think you have to look at war like a child would. Why is it that when a city of tens of thousands of people is swallowed by flame, only the children cry? Why is it that when thousands are slaughtered by flame and gunfire just like the snap of a finger that we can still crack a smile? When will we raise above war? Thanks again to Kendra for letting everyone post on her blog. Thanks for reading!
It seems as though destruction is as deeply rooted in human nature as the desire to create. Or, more specifically, the desire to fight at least is programmed into human nature. And these fights range from striking your little brother’s head to soaring over an enemy nation and watching a city disappear after the press of a button. But in modern ages, and in civilized countries, we like to say we are more sophisticated. We don’t go to war over land, power, or even religion. No, don’t be silly. We just go to war for money and politics. Well, that may be a little harsh, but one can argue that economics were a huge factor in every United States war. But so many countries have been saying that we go to war because we have to. It’s the last resort, but it’s necessary.
Is it? Believe me; I’ll continue that argument later.
For now, I want to clarify that there is a difference between cowardice and despising war. So many bumper stickers, (although practically all political bumper stickers beat up on another political group,) and blunt conservatives say that liberals are afraid. They say that pacifists are afraid. They say that those who don’t like war are afraid. Is this true? In some cases, most definitely. But does this mean all liberals and anti-war activists are afraid? No! What is so terrible about hating hate? What does cowardice have to do with being brave enough to try peace? I think sometimes those who dislike war and do something about it are the truly brave ones. They are brave enough to try to find an alternative to war.
Moving onto another topic, many have received the impression that war is the only way to peace. The true irony of this thought would make me laugh if it wasn't so serious. There is no such thing as forced peace. If this was true, and America has been overwhelmingly strong for this long, how come there are no results? No peace? To try to achieve peace through war is to shout at another nation, “Stop! Don’t hurt anyone else! Be peaceful or we’ll blow you to bits! Be peaceful or we’ll kill you all!” It just doesn’t work. Peace isn’t found through hate or even through a war stirred by truly good intentions, if that is possible. Peace is inspired, not forced, by trust, friendship, and the ability to forgive and forget. (I was about to say love, but that would sound too cheesy. I doubt the world will all hold hands and sing “Kum-ba-ya” anytime soon.
Another thing! In my opinion, war is almost the same as it has been since the beginning of time except with more powerful weapons. Imagine a caveman used to fighting with sticks and stones, suddenly with WMDs at his disposal. Well, what I’m trying to say is that it is becoming far too easy to kill. (Killing inflation: imagine that!) Ever since the Revolutionary War, it is no longer necessary in battle to see the death of the person you shoot. One no longer watches while a man with a knife through his heart dies a slow, pain-filled death. One watches a speck be shot, and remain a speck. One sees sky through the window of an airplane before and after they drop a bomb and kill tens of thousands. If it was ever “too easy” to pull a trigger, it is outrageous how “easy” it is to kill now. Imagine that thousands of just died because of your mission, and you haven’t given it a second thought. Now, I’m not blaming soldiers. I think soldiers are incredibly brave, patriotic, and even selfless. I just think they’re serving the wrong intentions.
I’m almost finished! I have finally gotten back to the question, “Is war necessary?” And I’ve decided. Sometimes. Oh, that word made me cringe. Realism sometimes makes you cringe, doesn’t it? I think in this modern age, sometimes war is impossible to avoid. I do think that war is far too often NOT NECESSARY. Look at Switzerland. It’s in a neighborhood of countries which have been constantly at war in history. It has remained pacifist. No! It is not impossible to avoid war! For so many countries in Asia, the Middle East, and Africa, it is impossible. But for America? Think! America has put so much effort into an unbeatable offense we have neglected to put effort into an impenetrable defense.
Politicians tell us war is always a last resort. Is this true? Wouldn’t it be rather easy for America to remain pacifist if it didn’t decide to make war on certain countries unnecessarily?
In conclusion, sometimes I think you have to look at war like a child would. Why is it that when a city of tens of thousands of people is swallowed by flame, only the children cry? Why is it that when thousands are slaughtered by flame and gunfire just like the snap of a finger that we can still crack a smile? When will we raise above war? Thanks again to Kendra for letting everyone post on her blog. Thanks for reading!
Friday, September 25, 2009
Einar: Are People "Sent" to Hell?
Hey Kendra, thank you for letting me post on your blog!
With this post, I would like to address a somewhat unresolved issue that was brought up in one of the older posts, why would a loving God send people to hell, or torture them, just for not believing in Him?
http://toseizethenight.blogspot.com/2009/05/terrorists-live-and-let-live.html
A little known or acknowledged fact is that God does not torture people.
Ok, maybe that is not the right way to put it, I doubt any Christian thinks that when someone goes (not “is sent”) to hell, God is torturing them as punishment for refusing to believe Him. If someone who considers themselves a Christian believes that, then they do not know the same God the Bible talks about.
I am going to have to explain a little background here, to help make things clear, I hope ya’ll will bear with my wordiness.
God is holy, He is righteous, He cannot abide sin, and sin CANNOT exist in His presence. Therefore, for us to live in heaven with Him, we must never have sinned once in our lives.
This is not possible, so God sent His son, to live a life with all the temptations and trials we have, BUT WITHOUT SINNING.
In the Old Testament, the Law was set up to allow the Israelites to pay for their sins without paying the price with their own life. The wages of sin is death, therefore they had to slaughter an animal without defect to pay for their sins “for that month” or “for that week” or for an especially bad sin, “What I did in that bar last night.” This system (or covenant) worked, but it was incomplete and difficult, so once Jesus had lived His perfect life, He then had to die, to sacrifice Himself as THE ONLY truly perfect sacrifice. This sacrifice was so great that it was able to pay not only for the sins of those that lived in those times, but for all the sins of all those who came after.
As with the old covenant however, you cannot pay for someone else’s sins unless they accept the sacrifice, you could not kill a goat to pay for grandpa’s sins unless grandpa was willing to admit his sins needed paying for.
In the same way, the Christ paid for your sins, but you have to accept that payment, as well as that He is the only one who can pay for them.
Imagine how God must feel, after paying such a terrible price, only for someone, anyone, to reject him. God is not a flawed human, who would get angry and perhaps vengeful at this rejection, but rather, He feels sorrowful (in such a manner that words cannot describe it) at the loss of His child he watched grow up, watched so closely that He knew how many hairs were on his or her head, knew their very thoughts.
Look at this illustration in Luke of how God feels when one of His children return to him. I am sure you know the story of the prodigal son, but did you ever realize it is as much about God’s view of us as it is our view of Him?
17"When he came to his senses, he said, 'How many of my father's hired men have food to spare, and here I am starving to death! 18I will set out and go back to my father and say to him: Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. 19I am no longer worthy to be called your son; make me like one of your hired men.' 20So he got up and went to his father. "But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and was filled with compassion for him; he ran to his son, threw his arms around him and kissed him.
21"The son said to him, 'Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son.'
22"But the father said to his servants, 'Quick! Bring the best robe and put it on him. Put a ring on his finger and sandals on his feet. 23Bring the fattened calf and kill it. Let's have a feast and celebrate. 24For this son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.' So they began to celebrate.” Luke 15:17-24 (NIV)
God does not resent that the young man left, He gives it no thought! He is nearly delirious with joy that his son has seen the errors of his ways and returned.
Do I think that this God would SEND someone to hell in a vengeful manner? NEVER!
The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance. 2nd Peter 3:9 NIV (Emphasis Mine)
God does not send anyone to hell, hell is nothing more and nothing less than total separation from God, just as Heaven is total fellowship and closeness with God. After judgment there will be no middle ground, we will either have total communion with God, or total separation from Him.
As I said before, Sin cannot exist near God. It is inconceivable. Therefore when God comes to take away those who have chosen to have their sin paid for, He has to leave the others behind, much as it tears at his heart to do so.
He does not send anyone to hell, they “go” there of their own free will, and as He has given us free will, He cannot stop them.
As for "burning in the eternal and torturous fires of hell" as you put it, the Bible does say that hell will seem like a lake of fire. It may very well be an actual place where people will be tortured physically. However, I am of the opinion that this technicality does not matter, no pain, physical or mental, could possibly be compared to the spiritual anguish of being forever separated from your Creator.
In answer to your other example, as the verse above says, God is not willing that one should perish. In a “grey area” (such as aborted babies) do you really think God is gonna say “Ehhh, I dunno, I never really covered that in my book, you can have em Satan.”
NO WAY!
God loves us with a passion greater than any father, mother, brother, sister, husband, wife, or friend on earth! There are no grey areas for him. He may not have explained it to your satisfaction in the Bible (although he has for me) but that does not mean he has not thought about it! And because God is Holy, you can bet that whatever he has decided IS RIGHT.
However, this grey area (from our perspective) does not include those who’s upbringing or situation makes it DIFFICULT to accept Christ, it covers only those who never even had the chance to choose him, or to at least choose what they knew was right.
In the event they had never heard of him, adults who choose to do what they know is evil will still go to hell. Even a pygmy who has never heard the gospel has a conscience, and the Bible makes it quite clear that a gentile (in this context, someone who has never heard of God) has no excuse, because of his God given conscience.
Your mention of a tribe of Pygmies is a good example of this, but that particular issue is so massive and complex I would prefer not to address it here. If I have time I may post another thing about it later, in a reply to this or while the follower’s say thing is still going. It depends on whether or not I have time. (There are verses to back this up, and I can provide them, I just do not have time right now, this little tangent was a sort of last minute change.)
If anyone hears even a whisper of God’s truth, and rather than seek it out they still refuse it, then they have refused God, and their sin is not paid for.
A good analogy would be: Someone invites you to a banquet, and they tell you that you have to wear a ring that they gave you to get in, just the ring, and nothing else.
You do not have to bring a gift. (Although he would love one, and if you truly cared, you would try to bring one)
You do not have to dress nice. (Even though others will, and you would be ashamed to come in rags)
You do not even have to be on the dot. (Although if you miss the banquet completely, nothing can be done.)
However, this friend explains, you will not be admitted unless you wear the ring, otherwise, you shall be left outside in the cold.
If you were to show up, bearing a gift, dressed in a tux, perfectly on time, but without the ring, who’s fault would it then be if security did not let you in?
In the same way, if someone thinks that they can get to heaven any old way, so long as they are a good person, they will find that, as the Bible says, there is only one way to heaven (or one way to avoid hell, depending on how you look at it) and no amount of good deeds will cover over their sin.
I know the above example has lots of “real world” flaws, obviously the person throwing the party could just come to the door and make an exception because he knows the person, but this is not the case with God.
“Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!” Mathew 7:23 NIV
The ring is salvation, your verbal and mental acceptance of Christ’s sacrifice.
The gifts would be “Good Deeds”, martyrdom, souls brought to Christ, or help given to the poor, the Bible says that we will receive crown for these things, which we can then lay at Christ’s feet to show our love and gratitude.
The “Good Clothes” represent Personal Character, what you do alone when no one is watching, why you do good deeds, and what you think, separate from what you do.
Being punctual represents coming to Christ at an early age, or as soon as you hear of him. Many people know of God, and many believe Christ exists as well, but they refuse to accept his blood to pay for their sins. God does not welcome someone who truly accepts Christ the day before they die any less than someone who has known and loved Him since the day they heard the Good News.
That does not mean God does not appreciate the things we do, but that He does not allow them to cause Him to think less of his more wayward children, as seen in the last part of the story of the Prodigal son.
25"Meanwhile, the older son was in the field. When he came near the house, he heard music and dancing. 26So he called one of the servants and asked him what was going on. 27'Your brother has come,' he replied, 'and your father has killed the fattened calf because he has him back safe and sound.'
28"The older brother became angry and refused to go in. So his father went out and pleaded with him. 29But he answered his father, 'Look! All these years I've been slaving for you and never disobeyed your orders. Yet you never gave me even a young goat so I could celebrate with my friends. 30But when this son of yours who has squandered your property with prostitutes comes home, you kill the fattened calf for him!'
31" 'My son,' the father said, 'you are always with me, and everything I have is yours. 32But we had to celebrate and be glad, because this brother of yours was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.' “Luke 15:11-32 NIV
All these things are not required to “go” to heaven per say, but if you truly do understand and accept the sacrifice Jesus paid, you cannot possibly go on living without at least trying to change, even if you have only one day to live. (Why do you think so many people try to set things right with their family on their deathbed? When faced with their own mortality, many accept Christ, and attempt to help further His kingdom with their dying breath. Even those who do not accept Christ try to fix things, because in our soul, we know that the true reason for being here is to serve a greater power. Although many do not acknowledge exactly what that power is before they die, they still try to make amends on their own, not knowing that without Christ their efforts do no good, aside from the relief it may give to others.
You might think the parable I used a bit farfetched, but in reality, it is a modern adaptation from one in Matthew 22:2-14, look it up if you do not believe me.
In Conclusion, as Jesus states quite clearly in John 14:6
6Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”
No one “gets” to heaven except by accepting the priceless gift Jesus paid.
This is a post primarily for Christians who already believe God (as defined in the Bible) exists, if you do not believe this, please feel free to ask questions, but please don’t make useless comments like “You idiot, There is not god! We evolved from monkeys!” This post is not about proving Evolution or Creation is true, it is based on the assumption that the God who wrote the Bible (By literally putting words in the mouths of men, whole different post/argument) Created the earth, and then sent His Son to die for us.
If you read this post, and asked questions, but still do not feel satisfied enough to accept Jesus into your heart, I would like to encourage you to read a Bible (NIV would be easiest to understand, I know many dislike the NKJ version) and then find a Church to attempt to learn more.
One thing you must do, if you are seeking these truths, is be careful not to accept what the staff of said church says at face value. Once you have heard a sermon or teaching, compare it to the Bible to make sure it is sound. There are many pastors out there who teach entire sermons without using a single Bible verse, or assume things they have been told without checking the Bible. I nearly fell prey to such a fallacy in writing this post, I had initially thought there was a verse in the Bible explaining that everyone will get a chance to accept Christ. I thought those who died before getting that chance would get it after their death, and after seeing Jesus, making their decision that much easier, but upon further research, I could not find this verse. That is when I realized that the “tribe of pygmies” issue was more complex than the abortion one. You could obviously have “good” and “evil” pygmies, but I do not believe there has ever been an evil baby born.
If you read this post, and agree with some, but not all of what I have said, please tell me why in the comments. I am sure enough of my views that I am not afraid to have them questioned. Be aware however, that I will not accept “feelings” as good reasons for disagreeing. No one likes the idea of even their worst enemy spending eternity in torment, completely separated from God, but that does not mean it will not happen.
Once again I would like to thank Kendra for allowing me to post on her blog, and I hope that this helps someone in some way.
Any ya’ll please make sure to read the other posts that are pushed down by this (extremely long) one, sorry Bethany, I hope you don’t get missed!
I have a new blog by the way, prolly just wasting cyberspace, but if yall want to check it out it is at http://einarslair.blogspot.com/
With this post, I would like to address a somewhat unresolved issue that was brought up in one of the older posts, why would a loving God send people to hell, or torture them, just for not believing in Him?
http://toseizethenight.blogspot.com/2009/05/terrorists-live-and-let-live.html
A little known or acknowledged fact is that God does not torture people.
Ok, maybe that is not the right way to put it, I doubt any Christian thinks that when someone goes (not “is sent”) to hell, God is torturing them as punishment for refusing to believe Him. If someone who considers themselves a Christian believes that, then they do not know the same God the Bible talks about.
I am going to have to explain a little background here, to help make things clear, I hope ya’ll will bear with my wordiness.
God is holy, He is righteous, He cannot abide sin, and sin CANNOT exist in His presence. Therefore, for us to live in heaven with Him, we must never have sinned once in our lives.
This is not possible, so God sent His son, to live a life with all the temptations and trials we have, BUT WITHOUT SINNING.
In the Old Testament, the Law was set up to allow the Israelites to pay for their sins without paying the price with their own life. The wages of sin is death, therefore they had to slaughter an animal without defect to pay for their sins “for that month” or “for that week” or for an especially bad sin, “What I did in that bar last night.” This system (or covenant) worked, but it was incomplete and difficult, so once Jesus had lived His perfect life, He then had to die, to sacrifice Himself as THE ONLY truly perfect sacrifice. This sacrifice was so great that it was able to pay not only for the sins of those that lived in those times, but for all the sins of all those who came after.
As with the old covenant however, you cannot pay for someone else’s sins unless they accept the sacrifice, you could not kill a goat to pay for grandpa’s sins unless grandpa was willing to admit his sins needed paying for.
In the same way, the Christ paid for your sins, but you have to accept that payment, as well as that He is the only one who can pay for them.
Imagine how God must feel, after paying such a terrible price, only for someone, anyone, to reject him. God is not a flawed human, who would get angry and perhaps vengeful at this rejection, but rather, He feels sorrowful (in such a manner that words cannot describe it) at the loss of His child he watched grow up, watched so closely that He knew how many hairs were on his or her head, knew their very thoughts.
Look at this illustration in Luke of how God feels when one of His children return to him. I am sure you know the story of the prodigal son, but did you ever realize it is as much about God’s view of us as it is our view of Him?
17"When he came to his senses, he said, 'How many of my father's hired men have food to spare, and here I am starving to death! 18I will set out and go back to my father and say to him: Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. 19I am no longer worthy to be called your son; make me like one of your hired men.' 20So he got up and went to his father. "But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and was filled with compassion for him; he ran to his son, threw his arms around him and kissed him.
21"The son said to him, 'Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son.'
22"But the father said to his servants, 'Quick! Bring the best robe and put it on him. Put a ring on his finger and sandals on his feet. 23Bring the fattened calf and kill it. Let's have a feast and celebrate. 24For this son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.' So they began to celebrate.” Luke 15:17-24 (NIV)
God does not resent that the young man left, He gives it no thought! He is nearly delirious with joy that his son has seen the errors of his ways and returned.
Do I think that this God would SEND someone to hell in a vengeful manner? NEVER!
The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance. 2nd Peter 3:9 NIV (Emphasis Mine)
God does not send anyone to hell, hell is nothing more and nothing less than total separation from God, just as Heaven is total fellowship and closeness with God. After judgment there will be no middle ground, we will either have total communion with God, or total separation from Him.
As I said before, Sin cannot exist near God. It is inconceivable. Therefore when God comes to take away those who have chosen to have their sin paid for, He has to leave the others behind, much as it tears at his heart to do so.
He does not send anyone to hell, they “go” there of their own free will, and as He has given us free will, He cannot stop them.
As for "burning in the eternal and torturous fires of hell" as you put it, the Bible does say that hell will seem like a lake of fire. It may very well be an actual place where people will be tortured physically. However, I am of the opinion that this technicality does not matter, no pain, physical or mental, could possibly be compared to the spiritual anguish of being forever separated from your Creator.
In answer to your other example, as the verse above says, God is not willing that one should perish. In a “grey area” (such as aborted babies) do you really think God is gonna say “Ehhh, I dunno, I never really covered that in my book, you can have em Satan.”
NO WAY!
God loves us with a passion greater than any father, mother, brother, sister, husband, wife, or friend on earth! There are no grey areas for him. He may not have explained it to your satisfaction in the Bible (although he has for me) but that does not mean he has not thought about it! And because God is Holy, you can bet that whatever he has decided IS RIGHT.
However, this grey area (from our perspective) does not include those who’s upbringing or situation makes it DIFFICULT to accept Christ, it covers only those who never even had the chance to choose him, or to at least choose what they knew was right.
In the event they had never heard of him, adults who choose to do what they know is evil will still go to hell. Even a pygmy who has never heard the gospel has a conscience, and the Bible makes it quite clear that a gentile (in this context, someone who has never heard of God) has no excuse, because of his God given conscience.
Your mention of a tribe of Pygmies is a good example of this, but that particular issue is so massive and complex I would prefer not to address it here. If I have time I may post another thing about it later, in a reply to this or while the follower’s say thing is still going. It depends on whether or not I have time. (There are verses to back this up, and I can provide them, I just do not have time right now, this little tangent was a sort of last minute change.)
If anyone hears even a whisper of God’s truth, and rather than seek it out they still refuse it, then they have refused God, and their sin is not paid for.
A good analogy would be: Someone invites you to a banquet, and they tell you that you have to wear a ring that they gave you to get in, just the ring, and nothing else.
You do not have to bring a gift. (Although he would love one, and if you truly cared, you would try to bring one)
You do not have to dress nice. (Even though others will, and you would be ashamed to come in rags)
You do not even have to be on the dot. (Although if you miss the banquet completely, nothing can be done.)
However, this friend explains, you will not be admitted unless you wear the ring, otherwise, you shall be left outside in the cold.
If you were to show up, bearing a gift, dressed in a tux, perfectly on time, but without the ring, who’s fault would it then be if security did not let you in?
In the same way, if someone thinks that they can get to heaven any old way, so long as they are a good person, they will find that, as the Bible says, there is only one way to heaven (or one way to avoid hell, depending on how you look at it) and no amount of good deeds will cover over their sin.
I know the above example has lots of “real world” flaws, obviously the person throwing the party could just come to the door and make an exception because he knows the person, but this is not the case with God.
“Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!” Mathew 7:23 NIV
The ring is salvation, your verbal and mental acceptance of Christ’s sacrifice.
The gifts would be “Good Deeds”, martyrdom, souls brought to Christ, or help given to the poor, the Bible says that we will receive crown for these things, which we can then lay at Christ’s feet to show our love and gratitude.
The “Good Clothes” represent Personal Character, what you do alone when no one is watching, why you do good deeds, and what you think, separate from what you do.
Being punctual represents coming to Christ at an early age, or as soon as you hear of him. Many people know of God, and many believe Christ exists as well, but they refuse to accept his blood to pay for their sins. God does not welcome someone who truly accepts Christ the day before they die any less than someone who has known and loved Him since the day they heard the Good News.
That does not mean God does not appreciate the things we do, but that He does not allow them to cause Him to think less of his more wayward children, as seen in the last part of the story of the Prodigal son.
25"Meanwhile, the older son was in the field. When he came near the house, he heard music and dancing. 26So he called one of the servants and asked him what was going on. 27'Your brother has come,' he replied, 'and your father has killed the fattened calf because he has him back safe and sound.'
28"The older brother became angry and refused to go in. So his father went out and pleaded with him. 29But he answered his father, 'Look! All these years I've been slaving for you and never disobeyed your orders. Yet you never gave me even a young goat so I could celebrate with my friends. 30But when this son of yours who has squandered your property with prostitutes comes home, you kill the fattened calf for him!'
31" 'My son,' the father said, 'you are always with me, and everything I have is yours. 32But we had to celebrate and be glad, because this brother of yours was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.' “Luke 15:11-32 NIV
All these things are not required to “go” to heaven per say, but if you truly do understand and accept the sacrifice Jesus paid, you cannot possibly go on living without at least trying to change, even if you have only one day to live. (Why do you think so many people try to set things right with their family on their deathbed? When faced with their own mortality, many accept Christ, and attempt to help further His kingdom with their dying breath. Even those who do not accept Christ try to fix things, because in our soul, we know that the true reason for being here is to serve a greater power. Although many do not acknowledge exactly what that power is before they die, they still try to make amends on their own, not knowing that without Christ their efforts do no good, aside from the relief it may give to others.
You might think the parable I used a bit farfetched, but in reality, it is a modern adaptation from one in Matthew 22:2-14, look it up if you do not believe me.
In Conclusion, as Jesus states quite clearly in John 14:6
6Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”
No one “gets” to heaven except by accepting the priceless gift Jesus paid.
This is a post primarily for Christians who already believe God (as defined in the Bible) exists, if you do not believe this, please feel free to ask questions, but please don’t make useless comments like “You idiot, There is not god! We evolved from monkeys!” This post is not about proving Evolution or Creation is true, it is based on the assumption that the God who wrote the Bible (By literally putting words in the mouths of men, whole different post/argument) Created the earth, and then sent His Son to die for us.
If you read this post, and asked questions, but still do not feel satisfied enough to accept Jesus into your heart, I would like to encourage you to read a Bible (NIV would be easiest to understand, I know many dislike the NKJ version) and then find a Church to attempt to learn more.
One thing you must do, if you are seeking these truths, is be careful not to accept what the staff of said church says at face value. Once you have heard a sermon or teaching, compare it to the Bible to make sure it is sound. There are many pastors out there who teach entire sermons without using a single Bible verse, or assume things they have been told without checking the Bible. I nearly fell prey to such a fallacy in writing this post, I had initially thought there was a verse in the Bible explaining that everyone will get a chance to accept Christ. I thought those who died before getting that chance would get it after their death, and after seeing Jesus, making their decision that much easier, but upon further research, I could not find this verse. That is when I realized that the “tribe of pygmies” issue was more complex than the abortion one. You could obviously have “good” and “evil” pygmies, but I do not believe there has ever been an evil baby born.
If you read this post, and agree with some, but not all of what I have said, please tell me why in the comments. I am sure enough of my views that I am not afraid to have them questioned. Be aware however, that I will not accept “feelings” as good reasons for disagreeing. No one likes the idea of even their worst enemy spending eternity in torment, completely separated from God, but that does not mean it will not happen.
Once again I would like to thank Kendra for allowing me to post on her blog, and I hope that this helps someone in some way.
Any ya’ll please make sure to read the other posts that are pushed down by this (extremely long) one, sorry Bethany, I hope you don’t get missed!
I have a new blog by the way, prolly just wasting cyberspace, but if yall want to check it out it is at http://einarslair.blogspot.com/
Political Correctness: Taking our rights, one "favor" at a time
This post isn't going to be as in-depth, as involved, as long, or as example-laden as others. I'm simply stating my opinion and asking you to respond.
I warn you, I'm not as eloquent as *SOME* other people...
I warn you, I'm not as eloquent as *SOME* other people...
Political Correctness
They aren't.
Some people are just BETTER than other people at things. All men have rights, but they were not created equal.
In a soccer game, why should everyone gets a trophy? Give Trophies to the kids who played *WELL* as positive reinforcement! The kids who don't get one, should understand they need to practice! IT'S NOT THAT HARD!
Comment. Tell me your opinion. Disagree. Argue.
Do it.
~Cavender
Food freedoms
[How do I start this? Introduce myself? Give a formal into like on a paper? heh]
Bethany here.....if you know me well at all, you know that food and health and such are some of my major preoccupations.
I've always eaten healthily, it runs in the family so to speak. But I only really embraced what almost has to be called a worldview of health when I was about 13. That was when I started getting "political": which I use as a collective term for various general opinions and thoughts classified in my head under keywords as follows:organic, Monsanto, Ron Paul, The Presidensity, food, farms, feedlots, alternative medicine, methylparaben in shampoo, preparedness, Campaign for Liberty, the Constitution, survivalism, doomsteading, Countryside magazine, vaccinations, 2nd Amendment rights, and other hot topics which most people would not call politics at all!
But food. How food is raised, marketed and consumed is a process that I could talk about for way too long.
Freedom of choice (in labeling)
If you are not free to choose your own food, you can't call yourself free.
Labeling.....some states have attempted [and succeeded in PA, I think] to make it illegal for farmers to label their milk as being free of the artificial growth hormone rBGH. The reason? Monsanto company [which makes rBGH] says "it would instill fear in consumers about the safety of rBGH" [in non-labeled milk].
(rBGH is being to some extent discontinued, mostly because it makes the milk cows sick. Dairy cows are already taxed to the limit to produce as much milk as possible; rBGH causes even higher production and a lot of symptoms including mastitis and foot problems and death.)
Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are not required to be labeled, even though polls have shown that a majority of the population wants labeling. GMOs have not been sufficiently tested over long periods of time [many diseases take repeated, long-term exposure]. There have been a number of tests that show health problems in animals fed GMOs. Yet, they are in an estimated 60% of all processed food today; without being labeled.
Humane treatment of animals
I'm not even going to approach the question of vegetarianism, except to say that I would be a vegetarian if I didn't have access to free-range meats and such; for both humane and health reasons.
The laying hen, like the dairy cow, is bred and fed to produce the greatest amount of eggs possible. This stresses their bodies--most die of "cage-fatigue" which is calcium deficiency--eggshells demand calcium and it will come out of the bones eventually.
I think you've all seen pictures of the tiny crates they are raised in.
Broiler chickens' lives are mercifully shorter. Much shorter, in some cases: apparently a sizeable number die each day in large-scale chicken farms.
The feedlot steer cannot be said to be "happy" but at least it has room to walk about. The danger there is to the consumer.
Health and safety
Food recalls are becoming more common every year, mostly because farms are tending to get bigger. One contaminated piece of meat will get spread at large. [Nice little tidbit of info here: a single hamburger can contain meat from up to 100 different cows.]
E. coli is the largest threat from beef.
Last spring I practically got my thesis in free-range and pasture theory so excuse me if I prattle on for a bit :)
The rumen [stomach] of a grass-fed cow is naturally not very acidic. Cow bacteria, therefore, are not very resistant to the acid in humans' stomachs. Hence, bacterial contamination is not a threat to people.
Grain-fed cows, on the other hand [and all mainstream beef is grain-fed] have much more acidic rumens. The first thing I learned when researching the care and feeding of ruminant animals like cows and goats is: be careful with grain! Over-eating grain causes the rumen to become rapidly acidic, causing acidosis and death. Low-level acidosis [as in beef cattle] causes general unhealth which must be remedied with low levels of antibiotics. And low levels of antibiotics create resistant bacteria. Vicious cycle, hmm?
But oh yes: acid-resistant bacteria are, you guessed it, capable of making people sick.
The meat-packing industry
If you want the real goods on the slaughter-house industry, go read The Jungle.
Oh whoops, excuse me.....that was last century. Nowadays it's Fast Food Nation.
It can be neatly summed up with Eric Schlosser of FFN's memorable statement, "There is [crap] in the meat."
The whole idea of food production is not mainly "prevent contamination" but instead "kill the contamination". Hence pasteurized milk, irradiated produce, and meat cooking minimums.
The raw milk conflict
I live in a state where it is illegal to sell milk that has not been cooked. You can debate all you want on the safety and health of pasteurization but the fact remains that I should be allowed to buy the food I want to.
I have a source [fairly mainstream, at that] for raw goats' milk, and drink it all the time. I don't know if there's a special clause for goats' milk or not, I don't think so. I think it's only a matter of time before that little spot on the shelf is bare.
Raw milk is a question-mark because it has made people sick. My only concern would be tuberculosis, which cows have to be tested for anyway, and goats are immune to.
It is just as "clean" as past. milk when it comes out of the cow....cleaner, in fact, because you have to be a lot more careful if you aren't going to kill the bacteria later on. But of course if you aren't careful with it, it will be dangerous. And it should be labeled with the usual cautions. And I should be able to buy it.
Conclusions: There is a delicate balance between too much restriction and too little. You have the right to know what you are eating: whether it has artificial hormones or GMOs, whether it's organic, local, grass-fed, whatever.
Please comment, ask questions, whatever. I love to talk about this sort of stuff!!
Bethany here.....if you know me well at all, you know that food and health and such are some of my major preoccupations.
I've always eaten healthily, it runs in the family so to speak. But I only really embraced what almost has to be called a worldview of health when I was about 13. That was when I started getting "political": which I use as a collective term for various general opinions and thoughts classified in my head under keywords as follows:organic, Monsanto, Ron Paul, The Presidensity, food, farms, feedlots, alternative medicine, methylparaben in shampoo, preparedness, Campaign for Liberty, the Constitution, survivalism, doomsteading, Countryside magazine, vaccinations, 2nd Amendment rights, and other hot topics which most people would not call politics at all!
But food. How food is raised, marketed and consumed is a process that I could talk about for way too long.
Freedom of choice (in labeling)
If you are not free to choose your own food, you can't call yourself free.
Labeling.....some states have attempted [and succeeded in PA, I think] to make it illegal for farmers to label their milk as being free of the artificial growth hormone rBGH. The reason? Monsanto company [which makes rBGH] says "it would instill fear in consumers about the safety of rBGH" [in non-labeled milk].
(rBGH is being to some extent discontinued, mostly because it makes the milk cows sick. Dairy cows are already taxed to the limit to produce as much milk as possible; rBGH causes even higher production and a lot of symptoms including mastitis and foot problems and death.)
Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are not required to be labeled, even though polls have shown that a majority of the population wants labeling. GMOs have not been sufficiently tested over long periods of time [many diseases take repeated, long-term exposure]. There have been a number of tests that show health problems in animals fed GMOs. Yet, they are in an estimated 60% of all processed food today; without being labeled.
Humane treatment of animals
I'm not even going to approach the question of vegetarianism, except to say that I would be a vegetarian if I didn't have access to free-range meats and such; for both humane and health reasons.
The laying hen, like the dairy cow, is bred and fed to produce the greatest amount of eggs possible. This stresses their bodies--most die of "cage-fatigue" which is calcium deficiency--eggshells demand calcium and it will come out of the bones eventually.
I think you've all seen pictures of the tiny crates they are raised in.
Broiler chickens' lives are mercifully shorter. Much shorter, in some cases: apparently a sizeable number die each day in large-scale chicken farms.
The feedlot steer cannot be said to be "happy" but at least it has room to walk about. The danger there is to the consumer.
Health and safety
Food recalls are becoming more common every year, mostly because farms are tending to get bigger. One contaminated piece of meat will get spread at large. [Nice little tidbit of info here: a single hamburger can contain meat from up to 100 different cows.]
E. coli is the largest threat from beef.
Last spring I practically got my thesis in free-range and pasture theory so excuse me if I prattle on for a bit :)
The rumen [stomach] of a grass-fed cow is naturally not very acidic. Cow bacteria, therefore, are not very resistant to the acid in humans' stomachs. Hence, bacterial contamination is not a threat to people.
Grain-fed cows, on the other hand [and all mainstream beef is grain-fed] have much more acidic rumens. The first thing I learned when researching the care and feeding of ruminant animals like cows and goats is: be careful with grain! Over-eating grain causes the rumen to become rapidly acidic, causing acidosis and death. Low-level acidosis [as in beef cattle] causes general unhealth which must be remedied with low levels of antibiotics. And low levels of antibiotics create resistant bacteria. Vicious cycle, hmm?
But oh yes: acid-resistant bacteria are, you guessed it, capable of making people sick.
The meat-packing industry
If you want the real goods on the slaughter-house industry, go read The Jungle.
Oh whoops, excuse me.....that was last century. Nowadays it's Fast Food Nation.
It can be neatly summed up with Eric Schlosser of FFN's memorable statement, "There is [crap] in the meat."
The whole idea of food production is not mainly "prevent contamination" but instead "kill the contamination". Hence pasteurized milk, irradiated produce, and meat cooking minimums.
The raw milk conflict
I live in a state where it is illegal to sell milk that has not been cooked. You can debate all you want on the safety and health of pasteurization but the fact remains that I should be allowed to buy the food I want to.
I have a source [fairly mainstream, at that] for raw goats' milk, and drink it all the time. I don't know if there's a special clause for goats' milk or not, I don't think so. I think it's only a matter of time before that little spot on the shelf is bare.
Raw milk is a question-mark because it has made people sick. My only concern would be tuberculosis, which cows have to be tested for anyway, and goats are immune to.
It is just as "clean" as past. milk when it comes out of the cow....cleaner, in fact, because you have to be a lot more careful if you aren't going to kill the bacteria later on. But of course if you aren't careful with it, it will be dangerous. And it should be labeled with the usual cautions. And I should be able to buy it.
Conclusions: There is a delicate balance between too much restriction and too little. You have the right to know what you are eating: whether it has artificial hormones or GMOs, whether it's organic, local, grass-fed, whatever.
Please comment, ask questions, whatever. I love to talk about this sort of stuff!!
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
More On Followers Say...
A few quick reminders and things to say about Followers Say:
1. Make sure you've emailed me if you want to participate. I still need an emails from Katrien Scarlet and Lisabailey (not a follower), but I think everyone else has emailed me.
2. You can post up to three times on up to three different topics.
3. Posts will not be removed due to profanity or insults. I don't believe in removing comments and posts because of that. If you want to sound like an insecure fool, that is up to you.
Topics that I know will be covered:
1. Political correctness
2. "I am a democrat/republican because..."
3. Word Inflation commentary
4. Global Warming
5. Health/food
6. Freedom
7. Our President
Looking forward to hearing what you all have to say this Saturday!!
1. Make sure you've emailed me if you want to participate. I still need an emails from Katrien Scarlet and Lisabailey (not a follower), but I think everyone else has emailed me.
2. You can post up to three times on up to three different topics.
3. Posts will not be removed due to profanity or insults. I don't believe in removing comments and posts because of that. If you want to sound like an insecure fool, that is up to you.
Topics that I know will be covered:
1. Political correctness
2. "I am a democrat/republican because..."
3. Word Inflation commentary
4. Global Warming
5. Health/food
6. Freedom
7. Our President
Looking forward to hearing what you all have to say this Saturday!!
Saturday, September 19, 2009
Announcement
This is a reminder to all participants of Followers Say! In one week, I will send you an email invitation to post on the blog. You can post up to three posts on up to three different subjects. See the earlier post if you want more information.
For you to participate, I have to have your email address, so if you want to post, please email me at livinglovinglaughinglearning@gmail.com if you haven't already.
The people I have already "signed up" are:
1. Cavender James
2. Katrien Scarlet
3. Einar
4. Christopher
5. Alex Floyd
6. Bethany
7. Muse of Randomness
I'm very sorry I haven't been posting at all lately. I've been trying to decide if I want to continue my series on Evolution, and my conclusion is: no.
My passion is with the Evolution debate partly, but I didn't start this blog to get into science and politics. I started this blog to voice my new and different thoughts and philosophies on life.
I may post on Evolution from time to time, but for now, I'm just going to post the way I used to.
Er, starting NEXT Saturday XD
For you to participate, I have to have your email address, so if you want to post, please email me at livinglovinglaughinglearning@gmail.com if you haven't already.
The people I have already "signed up" are:
1. Cavender James
2. Katrien Scarlet
3. Einar
4. Christopher
5. Alex Floyd
6. Bethany
7. Muse of Randomness
I'm very sorry I haven't been posting at all lately. I've been trying to decide if I want to continue my series on Evolution, and my conclusion is: no.
My passion is with the Evolution debate partly, but I didn't start this blog to get into science and politics. I started this blog to voice my new and different thoughts and philosophies on life.
I may post on Evolution from time to time, but for now, I'm just going to post the way I used to.
Er, starting NEXT Saturday XD
Thursday, September 10, 2009
The New America is Here
As I was reading through some older (from summer '08) story bits of mine, I came across something that astounded me. (Just in case I ever finish this, no taking the horrible idea XD) I had started a story titled "The New America". One of the most important characters is one that you never meet or see, but just gets talked about. I called him Alexander Williams.
Let me quote from my "Story Ideas" folder:
"Alexander began to see that things were going badly in America. People were losing jobs, inflation was up, global warming was taking over (bite me), people were looking for somewhere to turn. Alexander stood up and said, 'Hey, follow me. Listen to me. I can help you. I can make everything all better. I'll give you jobs, homes, stability, someone to count on and look up to.'
"With the help of a couple of friends, Alexander led the American people slowly to change their thinking. Alexander rose to power, eventually becoming the leader of America. Most people loved him, and anyone who didn't was labled "old-fashioned" or "against change". Alexander promised change, good change, and people believed him.
"After a little while in power, he began to lead the American people to change their faulty ways. He made new laws that, although they were completely against the Constitution, gave Americans less responsibility, and allowed them to lean more on the government, giving them peace and stability. Alexander made laws and regulations that covered so many aspects of life, that things were just plain easy for the people! No one had to take responsibility for anything anymore! It was a dream life.
"Even when Alexander's laws began to restrict things like what you could say, whom you could talk to, and how you could treat sick people, everyone loved him because he would make life better for them.
"Eventually, Alexander had laws governing almost every aspect of life. He had been ruling longer than most other leaders, but no one seemed to mind. Children were taught that Alexander had saved America, and everyone must love him. Alexander had complete power over the people, and no one seemed to care."
There's Alexander for you, just as his character sketch straight from my notes from summer/fall 2008 depict, word for word. Funny isn't it? How personal freedoms and the republic died at the hands of the most popular man in America? Isn't that funny?
Yea, I'm not laughing either.
I know this isn't in my Evolution series, and it's not Saturday, but this has been preying on my mind all day, I wanted to say that.
I don't understand. I just honestly don't understand. I don't understand how someone could swear an oath to uphold the Constitution, and then say in an autobiography that he thinks the founding fathers have no place in today's society, and the Constitution is a joke. Why would you swear an oath like that if you believed so the opposite? And why haven't people seen that?
How can you try to pass a health reform bill that restricts freedoms and is completely unconstitutional?
How can you promise to give better health coverage, to more people, and swear that it will cost LESS?
How can you peddle all these paternalistic ways of thinking and call this America? A Constitutional Republic? America is not about the leaders patting people on the back and saying, "There, there, I'll take care of you. You don't worry about a thing, I've got it covered." Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime.
America is about teaching a man to fish, not giving him the fish on a silver platter and then telling him how to eat it.
Big government is what we ran from in England. Small government, power to the people, "give me liberty or give me death", stop taxation without reprsentation. Has America really forgotten all of this? Has America forgotten that people, good people, fought bravely and DIED so that we would never have to live with the kind of government our president is promoting? Have we forgotten, America?
The American people are one of three things at this point:
1. Against the direction our government is heading
2. Ignorant of the direction our government is heading
3. In support of the direction our government is heading
You can't really believe that this is heading a good direction. If you think it is, or you think it's at least not heading in a BAD direction, then you are fooling yourself. I'm sorry, but these kind of laws and ways of thinking lead to only one thing (socialism), and that is NOT what America is all about.
Do you support where this is going? If so, fine. Support it. If you are ignorant of it, please, open your eyes.
I am a strong believer in people chosing their own beliefs, thoughts, principles, ideas. Don't let yourself be indoctinated. Think. Look at history. This story we're living has been told hundreds of times in many different eras and civilizations. Time and time again governments do this. This leads to one thing, and one thing only: socialism, loss of freedoms, and destruction.
I have nothing left to say except, "Think." Think, America. You have a brain. You have a voice. Use them.
Let me quote from my "Story Ideas" folder:
"Alexander began to see that things were going badly in America. People were losing jobs, inflation was up, global warming was taking over (bite me), people were looking for somewhere to turn. Alexander stood up and said, 'Hey, follow me. Listen to me. I can help you. I can make everything all better. I'll give you jobs, homes, stability, someone to count on and look up to.'
"With the help of a couple of friends, Alexander led the American people slowly to change their thinking. Alexander rose to power, eventually becoming the leader of America. Most people loved him, and anyone who didn't was labled "old-fashioned" or "against change". Alexander promised change, good change, and people believed him.
"After a little while in power, he began to lead the American people to change their faulty ways. He made new laws that, although they were completely against the Constitution, gave Americans less responsibility, and allowed them to lean more on the government, giving them peace and stability. Alexander made laws and regulations that covered so many aspects of life, that things were just plain easy for the people! No one had to take responsibility for anything anymore! It was a dream life.
"Even when Alexander's laws began to restrict things like what you could say, whom you could talk to, and how you could treat sick people, everyone loved him because he would make life better for them.
"Eventually, Alexander had laws governing almost every aspect of life. He had been ruling longer than most other leaders, but no one seemed to mind. Children were taught that Alexander had saved America, and everyone must love him. Alexander had complete power over the people, and no one seemed to care."
There's Alexander for you, just as his character sketch straight from my notes from summer/fall 2008 depict, word for word. Funny isn't it? How personal freedoms and the republic died at the hands of the most popular man in America? Isn't that funny?
Yea, I'm not laughing either.
I know this isn't in my Evolution series, and it's not Saturday, but this has been preying on my mind all day, I wanted to say that.
I don't understand. I just honestly don't understand. I don't understand how someone could swear an oath to uphold the Constitution, and then say in an autobiography that he thinks the founding fathers have no place in today's society, and the Constitution is a joke. Why would you swear an oath like that if you believed so the opposite? And why haven't people seen that?
How can you try to pass a health reform bill that restricts freedoms and is completely unconstitutional?
How can you promise to give better health coverage, to more people, and swear that it will cost LESS?
How can you peddle all these paternalistic ways of thinking and call this America? A Constitutional Republic? America is not about the leaders patting people on the back and saying, "There, there, I'll take care of you. You don't worry about a thing, I've got it covered." Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime.
America is about teaching a man to fish, not giving him the fish on a silver platter and then telling him how to eat it.
Big government is what we ran from in England. Small government, power to the people, "give me liberty or give me death", stop taxation without reprsentation. Has America really forgotten all of this? Has America forgotten that people, good people, fought bravely and DIED so that we would never have to live with the kind of government our president is promoting? Have we forgotten, America?
The American people are one of three things at this point:
1. Against the direction our government is heading
2. Ignorant of the direction our government is heading
3. In support of the direction our government is heading
You can't really believe that this is heading a good direction. If you think it is, or you think it's at least not heading in a BAD direction, then you are fooling yourself. I'm sorry, but these kind of laws and ways of thinking lead to only one thing (socialism), and that is NOT what America is all about.
Do you support where this is going? If so, fine. Support it. If you are ignorant of it, please, open your eyes.
I am a strong believer in people chosing their own beliefs, thoughts, principles, ideas. Don't let yourself be indoctinated. Think. Look at history. This story we're living has been told hundreds of times in many different eras and civilizations. Time and time again governments do this. This leads to one thing, and one thing only: socialism, loss of freedoms, and destruction.
I have nothing left to say except, "Think." Think, America. You have a brain. You have a voice. Use them.
Saturday, September 5, 2009
Posts 8-12 In One
I'm a week late posting. I apologize.
I'm beginning to re-think my series. I plan to finish it, but since I did not start this blog for political reasons, I'd like to get through those debates and get back to the things I really want to post about (see my earlier posts).
To do this, I'm going to combine the rest of the Logic posts into this one.
Also, don't forget about Followers Say coming up in just two weeks!
Logical Fallacies to Watch Out For (continued):
8. Straw Man Argument:
Another personal favorite. This occurs when someone distorts their opponent's oppinion to make it easier to attack.
Christians are especially vulnerable to this. This is partly due to the "Inherit the Wind" standard set up, and partly because of the truly stupid arguments some Christians have made.
Darwinists like to make the public think that only the most extreme religious fundamentalists disagree with their theory. This is simple not true. (If you think it is, please provide some evidence.)
A 2009 poll by Pew Research Center found that "just 32% of the public accepts [Evolution] as true."
I find it hard to believe that all 68% of America are extreme religious fundamentalists.
Why do Darwinists like to portray the argument as Science vs. the Bible?
Because, guess what? When the debate is set up that way, science always wins.
Despite what many Darwinists say, the evidence for Evolution is shakier than they would like. To draw attention away from this, they set up the Straw Man Argument.
9. Begging the Question:
An argument is said to be begging the question if it assumes the answer to the inquiry in question.
Example:
Question: Why should we believe what the Bible says?
Answer: Because the Bible says so.
Question: What evidence proves that life evolved from non-living molecules?
Answer: Don't reject a scientific theory just because of religious bias.
The latter answer assumes what is in dispute: that the evidence for chemical Evolution is so strong that only prejudiced people would be skeptical.
In arguments that beg the question, answers usually assume that science and reason are always on the same side.
This fallacy ties in to the Straw Man as well. If you let a Straw Man define the terms, you will always lost.
10. Lack of Testability:
We must learn to distinguish between theories that put themselves at risk (can be tested) and ones that cannot be show to be either true OR false.
Not everything a scientist says is scientific, and some theories coming from eminent scientists might be about as accurate as musings about Heaven. Both Creationism and Evolution can be stated in safe or risky ways.
If a Creationist says that they believe in Creation on faith, then there's nothing we can do to prove or disprove the theory. However, if a Creationist says that the evidence says taht living organisms are the product of intellegent life and could never have come into being by completelyl natural means from a probiotic soup of chemicals, that statement invites scientific testing.
Darwinism was first stated in a testable, risky way. It predicted that fossil hunters would eventually discover a great number of transitional intermidiates between the major groups (they didn't) and that animal breeders would succeed in creating distinct species (they didn't).
Today, Darwin's theory is stated in a risk-free way. Naturalistic evolution is identified with science itself, and any different theories or suggestions are immediately disqualified as "religion". This makes it impossible to have a scientific debate over whether the theory is true.
11. Vague and Shifting Definitions:
When debating, people (unfortunately mainly Darwinists) like to use the "bait and switch" strategy. They will lead you to agree to a harmless definition, and then use teh definition later in a very different way. Terms that are commonly subjected to this switch are "science" and "e/Evolution".
Someone might lead you to agree that dog breeding is evolution. Well, you might agree with that. Sure. If what "evolution" means is that there are variations within speicies, sure. (By the way, dog breeding is guided, and only variation, not evolution.)
The correct answer, then, for when someone asks you if you believe in evolution is:
"Define 'evoulution'."
12. Original Sin:
We need to look at all the facts with an open mind (not so open that your brain falls out, of course). Beware the original sin: believing what we want to believe. We are all guilty of this. It's human nature.
In the words of Richard Feynman: "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself--and you are the easiest person to fool."
Thank you, and talk to you next time!
I'm beginning to re-think my series. I plan to finish it, but since I did not start this blog for political reasons, I'd like to get through those debates and get back to the things I really want to post about (see my earlier posts).
To do this, I'm going to combine the rest of the Logic posts into this one.
Also, don't forget about Followers Say coming up in just two weeks!
Logical Fallacies to Watch Out For (continued):
8. Straw Man Argument:
Another personal favorite. This occurs when someone distorts their opponent's oppinion to make it easier to attack.
Christians are especially vulnerable to this. This is partly due to the "Inherit the Wind" standard set up, and partly because of the truly stupid arguments some Christians have made.
Darwinists like to make the public think that only the most extreme religious fundamentalists disagree with their theory. This is simple not true. (If you think it is, please provide some evidence.)
A 2009 poll by Pew Research Center found that "just 32% of the public accepts [Evolution] as true."
I find it hard to believe that all 68% of America are extreme religious fundamentalists.
Why do Darwinists like to portray the argument as Science vs. the Bible?
Because, guess what? When the debate is set up that way, science always wins.
Despite what many Darwinists say, the evidence for Evolution is shakier than they would like. To draw attention away from this, they set up the Straw Man Argument.
9. Begging the Question:
An argument is said to be begging the question if it assumes the answer to the inquiry in question.
Example:
Question: Why should we believe what the Bible says?
Answer: Because the Bible says so.
Question: What evidence proves that life evolved from non-living molecules?
Answer: Don't reject a scientific theory just because of religious bias.
The latter answer assumes what is in dispute: that the evidence for chemical Evolution is so strong that only prejudiced people would be skeptical.
In arguments that beg the question, answers usually assume that science and reason are always on the same side.
This fallacy ties in to the Straw Man as well. If you let a Straw Man define the terms, you will always lost.
10. Lack of Testability:
We must learn to distinguish between theories that put themselves at risk (can be tested) and ones that cannot be show to be either true OR false.
Not everything a scientist says is scientific, and some theories coming from eminent scientists might be about as accurate as musings about Heaven. Both Creationism and Evolution can be stated in safe or risky ways.
If a Creationist says that they believe in Creation on faith, then there's nothing we can do to prove or disprove the theory. However, if a Creationist says that the evidence says taht living organisms are the product of intellegent life and could never have come into being by completelyl natural means from a probiotic soup of chemicals, that statement invites scientific testing.
Darwinism was first stated in a testable, risky way. It predicted that fossil hunters would eventually discover a great number of transitional intermidiates between the major groups (they didn't) and that animal breeders would succeed in creating distinct species (they didn't).
Today, Darwin's theory is stated in a risk-free way. Naturalistic evolution is identified with science itself, and any different theories or suggestions are immediately disqualified as "religion". This makes it impossible to have a scientific debate over whether the theory is true.
11. Vague and Shifting Definitions:
When debating, people (unfortunately mainly Darwinists) like to use the "bait and switch" strategy. They will lead you to agree to a harmless definition, and then use teh definition later in a very different way. Terms that are commonly subjected to this switch are "science" and "e/Evolution".
Someone might lead you to agree that dog breeding is evolution. Well, you might agree with that. Sure. If what "evolution" means is that there are variations within speicies, sure. (By the way, dog breeding is guided, and only variation, not evolution.)
The correct answer, then, for when someone asks you if you believe in evolution is:
"Define 'evoulution'."
12. Original Sin:
We need to look at all the facts with an open mind (not so open that your brain falls out, of course). Beware the original sin: believing what we want to believe. We are all guilty of this. It's human nature.
In the words of Richard Feynman: "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself--and you are the easiest person to fool."
Thank you, and talk to you next time!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
