History 1

First of all, it really is completely impossible for history to be completely objective, and for someone to expect this of history is ignorant and …well, stupid. Just like with any accident when witnesses are asked what happened, although they all saw exactly what took place, each retelling is going to sound a little bit different depending on the person. Does this mean that that accident is pointless or it never occurred because no one seems to know what happened? Of course not, this is to be expected of human beings, perspectives are different and actually this confirms it took place because so many people witnessed it. As for the winners part of her objection and in keeping with my analogy, the retelling of the story will be different if one of the witnesses was a close relative of the victim, their story would be full of emotion and sympathy and so on. If another witnesses, however, was one of a stranger or even one of the vengeful criminal's sidekicks, their story is probably going to sound a lot different, probably bitter, maybe even sarcasm and such. This is the same with history, depending on who witnessed it and then retold it, of course the retellings of the events, people and wars in history are each going to sound a little different, but that’s only because of the natural bias that people place (just like in my analogy). You can't take the bias out of the person and you cant (really) take the bias out of history. These miniscule differences and biases don’t change, generally speaking, any of the important content of events, dates and occurrences, so with that history is vitally important to any nation's success and should not be disregarded because someone's naïve idea that it isn't objective, because it never will be. Yes, attempts can be made but the simple fact of the matter is that whether or not it objectivity is attempted, history is needed and is written by both the winners, the losers and the observers who weren't involved.

Economics 2

Simply put, socialism won't work because it is innately impossible to execute on this earth.  Man is inherently stained by sin and really is incapable to equally sharing anything for an extended period of time. Sooner or later, evil nature will kick in, and greed and perversion and abuse of power will take over. It’s a fantasy.

            But to address the things that Mark, Sarah and Mr. Moore all brought up: how would the State owning everything teach anyone to share anything equally? Does a parent tying their 12 year old child's every time teach their child how to tie their shoe? No, it teaches them how to wait for their parent whenever they need their shoe tied. Just like having the state own everything would NOT teach the public to share everything but to instead depend on the state to do every other menial task. Also, it would be physically impossible to share everything equally people of man's cheating, greedy and selfish nature, someone is bound to cheat the system! Human being can't comply! Additionally to reveal why socialism cant work is, if the state did own everything to "teach" the people to share equally, wouldn't that create an unequal society? For if the state owned everything, they would have power over everything and that would contradict socialism/communism's dream of a classless society.

            Furthermore, a redistribution of wealth and taking the wealth out from under the evil minority upper class  to share with the rest sounds nice, but how would that actually fix anything? How could that actually come into fruition? On a side note, this idea is based off the belief that the rich upper class did nothing to earn this wealth. It's assumed that as Michael Moore said, they're just "sitting on the money… with no interest in helping you… with your life". Why is it their responsibility to help everyone? Plus, if everyone were equal, you have to base that standard of equality on the lowest member. I don’t think socialism and communism would be as popular or politically correct as it is if it was made known that if we were to create a standard of equality, we would probably all be living in dirt huts with hardly any water or necessities. Also, the upper classes' wealth is NOT a national resource, each receives and calls their own what they bought or worked for. Lastly, if all wealth was distributed equally, the economy would die immediately for competition is what runs and makes an economy thrive. However, that would be lost in socialism.

            Overall, socialism is a childish approach to fixing national economic issues and it would never work.

Mr. Moore's Socialism "argument"

Throughout the duration of the almost 3 minutes that Mr. Moore spoke, he made so many overarching statements that it was hard to keep up, so in my response I'll do my best to straighten some of his more prominent generalities…

          Moore's opening statement that socialism is democracy, Christianity, Judaism, Islam and Buddhism was quite interesting, considering there actual beliefs and worldviews. When he said this, one the first essays we read came to mind where it was the analogy of the 3 blind men exploring different parts of an elephant and each declaring what it was. If you take any idea or belief and dilute enough, he's right, it will match up with socialism or any other idea…but the key word here is diluting. There's a reason why they all can't seem to wholly agree or get along (in general), its because they don’t all advocate the same things. Furthermore, his statement (that wasn’t grammatically correct by the way J) that structuring an economy that "you and I run" by "we the people" are essentially the tenets of socialism blew me away. Firstly, he completely misquoted with what seems like no understanding of our constitution that supports society working independently and interdependently, to be self sufficient in order to achieve happiness, life and enjoying these liberties, not mooching off the hard work of another. That’s just laziness. Also, to use Moore's words, "you and I" can't fully structure anything because "you and I" will never fully agree or accomplish anything completely because "you and I" have different perspectives. That’s where independence  and work comes in.

          However, apart from all of this, I do have to give props to Moore for how he presented his point of view (I wont call it an argument because it wasn’t). He told his audience that socialism is about preventing the "rich man" from taking "9 slices of the pie and leaving the remains for the rest" and tying in all the trigger names: Christianity, founding fathers, islam, the common good and so on. Also, instead of pointing out the negative context of socialism or even mentioning in the slightest what would need to occur in order for socialism/communisim to take place, he literally says to not "box it up" and we "shouldn’t get caught up in the terms" which distracted the audience from the negative and focused them on the nice, happy- go- lucky things he was saying. He victimizes the "poor" and propagates that it’s the whole entire nation's goal to care solely for them and he in turn, criminalizes all the rest.

Clever, not original, but clever.

What do you think the ramifications of a global secular government would be?

          Before I describe what the actual ramifications of a supposed "global secular government" would be, I must first address that there could never be such a thing. Any attempt at such a utopian ideal of a global government is going to end in failure because of and inherent problem with man's sinful, selfish, greedy, stubborn and evil nature. Although the ideas sound wonderful about everyone in every nation getting along, in order to do this, people would need to compromise, which would strain man's "niceness" and end in a convoluted mess. This relates to what we discussed earlier in the year about everyone accepting everyone else's truth or religion, the end result really amounts to nothing because by the time each society found something to agree on, that thing is worthless because it has been so watered down. Similarly, by the time each society agreed on every law and such, the "government" would either amount to nothing or end in anarchy because no one can be so magnanimous or able to agree on a global consensus. Also, the need for each nation to give up its religion, weapons, and cultural beliefs is simply, impossible.

          But now to address the possible ramifications of a global secular government, there would probably be two outcomes, with one being the most likely. First, the most likely, would be a global government under the tyrannical rule of one or few leaders who would control EVERYTHING.  This amount of control inevitably, again because of our sinful nature, would result in corruption and greed. Therefore, widespread corruption and selfishness, immorality and greed would be rampant as well. Other ramifications would be loss of every kind of freedom, oppressive regulations, compromises or watering down of religion (resulting in the persecution of Christians). Becoming almost an extreme "big brother" reality. *Secondly, it also could result in no government at all, where because so much compromise and "agreements" have been made, the reality of human nature has been ignored and nations still adhere to their own rules/beliefs/religions but pay lip service to the global government… so anarchy but secret anarchy. This to me is almost the scariest because unlike "big brother" where its requirements are definite and absolute, with this lip service scenario it's secretive and ambiguous.

*Please excuse this last scenario, I had an idea and was trying to think outside the box for you here but I believe all I posted was just a word-full mess.

1.The ability of a woman to have control of her body is critical to civil rights. Take away her reproductive choice and you step onto a slippery slope. If the government can force a woman to continue a pregnancy, what about forcing a woman to use contraception or undergo sterilization?

First off, in order to dissolve this “argument” we need to examine all the parts, the first being that “the ability of a woman to have control of her body is critical to civil rights”. How can personal control over your own body be associated with civil rights? Secondly, why does “forcing” a women to continue a pregnancy (or enforcing common sense or forethought) necessitate or result in “forcing a woman to use contraception” etc.? These things do not flow into a coherent argument! This “argument” totally ignores the real question and instead fills it up with illogical, absurd conclusions that distract you (at first it distracted me too!) from breaking it down logically. The focus is all on the “women’s right” her “reproductive choice” and how banning abortion would oppress and inhibit her “choice”. The argument completely ignores what is actually being addressed, aborting an unborn child. So they are in fact begging the question of what really is being aborted, or what is the unborn? They are assuming that there is only one body involved in the act of abortion! In turn, the debate is no longer about “choice” and who gets to decide. We need to identify what would actually be killed in a supposed women’s choice.

So to break down this argument, I am going to address what here, is being ignored, I am going to define what the unborn is:

Scientifically to begin, the law of biogenesis reveals that living things reproduce after their own kind. Therefore, humans reproduce humans, so if the abortion argument says that fetuses are not human, than what are they? The fetus can be nothing less than human, born or unborn. So back to the question, taking away a women’s supposed reproductive choice is not in fact taking it away but guarding the sanctity of human life that would be destroyed if she acted that out (which in this case really bottom-lines to aborting babies).

I would continue philosophically with the acronym Mr. Klusendorf gave to describe the only differences between the unborn fetus and a newborn:  S.L.E.D. In reference to Size, large people are no more human than small people, so a fetus, being smaller than a newborn, can be no less human than a dwarf/little person to a fully matured adult. Next, Level of development, in keeping with these laws and rules, a four year old is also no less a human being than a 14 year old which is the same case as a fetus being no less human than a newborn baby. Thirdly, as for Environment, where you are does not change your nature, or who you are. A child that is in grocery store in the U.S is no less human than a child that is a market in Switzerland! Therefore, a newborn in an incubator is no less human than a child outside the womb! Lastly, Dependency, those who are diabetics, have kidney failure and those with insulin issues who are dependent on machines, people and organizations to sustain their life but are still human. Dependent, but none the less still human. Just the same with unborn fetuses, they are dependent on other people and machines to sustain them but they are still humans; "because you have a human nature that was present from the moment you were conceived that allows us to say that we are the same person now that was conceived 19-20 years ago. The only difference is function- your abilities have changed but your essential nature is the same."

In conclusion, now that we have defined what the unborn is, the person's illogical argument for a woman's "choice" can provide no reason to kill an innocent unborn fetus.

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

According to the CLS as presented in the article, "equality" and "justice" are defined by their social and individualized subjectivity, and that "legal reasoning" (the strong fortress of objective rationality as equality and justice should be) is instead "a fragile structure fraught with contradictory and arbitrary categorizations that are endlessly redefined and reworded". Under this thought, these terms are twisted and misconstrued to support the "satus quo" and to support the whims of feminist and left wing agendas. Also "equality" and "justice", as summarized as the "law" in this article, is seen and simply a collection of beliefs and prejudices that covers the injustices of society with a mask of legitimacy! It is viewed as "an instrument of oppression used by the wealthy and the powerful to maintain their place in the hierarchy"! These Marxist postmodern ideas have began to rot the foundation of absolute truth which is seen in the verses listed.

          Conversely, according to God and his word "equality" and "justice" are not mere social comfort meters but steadfast, absolute, authoritative foundations that guide and direct man on earth. As evidenced in Deut 10:12-19, the Lord asks of us that we "fear the LORD your God" that we "walk in obedience to him" and love, serve him with all our heart and soul. These commands can be based off the immoral opinions of the nations but off God's simple, yet difficult task of obeying, loving and serving him! With that command, all else can really fall into place! The reason why we obey him is not because we don’t want to offend the ideas of others but because our God is the "Lord of Lords" and he is great, "mighty and awesome who shows no partiality and accepts no bribes" (Deut. 10:17). He defines what is just, right, what is good and how to act justly! So in keeping with his word, that is how Christians should "do justice" by doing what he asks of us in Deut, Jeremiah, Micah and James! It all comes down to obeying, serving and loving with him with all our heart soul in mind. Equipped with that, we can not only act justly, but discern and sift out the lies that CLS screams at our society.

What are the differences between the Islamic view and approach to law and the Christian view and approach to law?

          The Islamic view and approach to the law is largely based off of their view of man and world view in general. Firstly, although Islam does recognize that God is the ultimate lawgiver, it holds that Allah has not revealed himself and his nature but rather his law, which lends itself perfectly to a cold, detached system of rules and regulations that Islamic, or Shari'ah law is. The Shari'ah law, which is a combination of four main works (Koran, hadith, ijma', and the qiyas) attempts to depend exclusively on the Koran and on the works/practices of Muhammad (the others) but it simply doesn't cover all the legal issues mankind creates. There is no solid basis for their legal standards or foundation; instead it’s a fusion between the telling and practices of another human being. In effect, Muslims are expected and oppressively forced to adhere to an uncountable number of rules in an attempt to please an unknowable God, yet it impossible because man, inherently, will fail. Yet also, the Islamist model for their legal/religious/ moral system "is predicated on the belief in government by morally impeccable individuals who can be counted on to resist temptation, it does not generate institutions capable of functioning autonomously by means of structural checks and balances" (295). This is where we see the Rex Lex idea come in because the leaders are not held completely accountable to their legal system for one because it's impossible.  All personal rights and liberties are denied and there is a complete lack of personal freedom. The idea is simply not par of the Muslim legal traditions.

          In contrast, Christianity is the only worldview that provids a basic for law that both respects human dignity (created in the image of God) and human depravity (our fall into sin). Mankind has the right to life and life more abundantly in this worldview. This can only happen here because the Christian view and approach to law is solidly founded on the divine and infinite nature of God where he gave us his divine laws and the means of discovering them. Instead of creating a choppy and contradictory set of rules, God gave us his word to follow and create our earthly legal systems after. He gave us a framework, there's no guess work involved (in general, of course mankind creates all sorts of issues). This "fixity", as Noebel calls it, produces a system that doesn’t fluctuate but it remains constant in its purpose and goal. His system is orderly and equitable and therefore each person has the right to be judged by the same standard of justice, this is where Lex Rex comes in (all are under the law).  However, what also sets Christianity apart is that it recognizes that morality and legality are not synonymous (as attempted to couple by muslims), that a specific law cannot enforce every moral action, the human race will fail but is redeemable. As for a legal system here on earth, the Christian law should stabilize society and promote justice while leading us to reinforce an understanding of our fallen nature and need for a Savior! J

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

No, legal standards are not, and should not be limited to interpretation and determination of each individual! If it were, our society and government would be in a state of utter chaos. Laws were not created by God to be subject to the irrational and selfish whims of human beings; instead, he meant them to be subject to his will, which is unchanging! Steadfast! No matter the time nor the culture! Leaving legal standards up to individual interpretation risks immense consequences for the result is a loss in the respect for the law by its citizens. If someone murdered a rival in cold blood yet thought it was okay or shouldn’t receive all of the intended sentence because the victim first mistreated him, that would be ridiculous! The law then would be so reduced that we would no longer consider it sacred but also fail to consider it binding as well. It would no longer hold any significant weight. If law, originally intended to be steadfast in its implementation was continually revised, pacified or even ignored because of this postmodern/relativist point of view, then there is no law. Simply chaos. We need laws that are worthy of our obedience, but we cannot discover a consistent moral code within ourselves or how we feel and such. If an absolute legal standard does not exist, then all things are permissible. Granted, some interpretation does lend itself to be used because of man's fallen nature and also to the world's situation; for although murder is wholly against the law and will be punished, its consequence is subject to some legal interpretation. For example, in relation to the hypothetical premeditated murder case above, it a drunk driver inadvertently killed a car full of people, the punishments of these murder cases, although severe and recognizing the obstruction of the law in both, would vary in their focus and "specific severity". The consequences of each case must fit the crime; however, some will be different than others yet in keeping with the absolute standards of the law.

In conclusion, there is no room for relative personal interpretation in relation to legal standards. It's not flexible or subject to whims. However, the only flexibility is in specific cases where the punishment differs in severity and such.

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

Governments are most definitely NOT the ultimate authority for creating laws. God rather, gave us divine laws and the means of discovering them and implementing them in specific societal “laws” or rules. It’s these discoveries and implementations that are the government’s actions and if I daresay, only real purpose. However, as we see in every country on the globe and in our history (Stalin, Hitler, Castro, India, capitalism in the Western world, countless examples) governments tragically fail in creating laws as the ultimate authority because they recognize neither our dignity as God’s image-bearers nor our fallen nature. With this ignorance, people like Sarah who believe that laws are only created by society, most likely come from the Secular Humanist perspective that all humans are inherently good but evil comes from traditional institutions and then government has the responsibility to evolve with our growing society and therefore has ultimate authority to change laws, rules and what is good and moral and so on. This mindset is a dangerous one. For if this was to be the case (not that it isn’t present and reigning today) our world would be a dark, chaotic and horrific place to live (as seen in the examples given above).

However, as already mentioned above, God did create an absolute moral order that is literally hardwired into every human being. This “mankind- wide” understanding of what is right and wrong and what is obey God’s will and what is rebellion against it, leaves no excuse for humanistic selfish world views that desire to eradicate any  personal responsibility given by a supernatural God. In keeping with this inherent moral law, God also gave to man the responsibility to establish this law on earth with the help or organization of government and legislation. However, man, in his selfish tendencies, can’t help but rebel and deny his wonderful divine plan.

God is the ultimate authority for creating laws and we are ultimately responsible to him for our actions. Although the government necessitates a certain amount of authority in order to establish a certain amount of order, God is our law giver and divine authority that supersedes all that man can attempt to establish here on earth.

:)

What is the Christian view of feminity?

The Christian view of feminity is clearly outlined in the very first few chapters of the Bible. Firstly, in Genesis, God makes it clear that both male and female equally bear the image of God, HOWEVER they bear it differently and uniquely. Society today have horridly morphed and degraded the wonderful system that God originally intended for his "gendered" children. Radical feminists, and unfortunately now society in general, focuses on the "differently and uniquely" part of creation and removes the whole basis for the difference. That first God did make both man and female equal and that our uniqueness in bearing His image is in fact a wonderful blessing! How boring and incredibly inefficient for God to make two different genders with the same make up, roles, and purpose? This is similar to a CEO of a baking company only hiring employees that can gather buy and produce the ingredients for the baked goods he wants to sell! Yes, they are great employees and are talented in what they do but that business will ultimately fail if the CEO doesn’t hire other employees to fulfill a different purpose of mixing, baking and decorating the baked goods. Though these other employees serve a unique purpose, they are equal and just as important as the others. Just as God's creation of man and women. Additionally, God outlines general tasks for men and women to do, but he also assigns to the genders to more specific tasks. God intends for the women the sacred and vitally important role of nurturing, helping, giving life (not just literally/physically) and also being a warrior for her family. Although can be primarily seen in raising children and caring for her husband, feminism defies this ideal and instead labels it as stifling and oppressive! When for these roles and purposes (not just in the home mind you but in fulfilling these special roles in every place and relationship) was women created! Going back to my baked- goods company analogy, this rebellion is similar to if the employees who only baked all of a sudden decided to stop baking and now only gather and buy ingredients. Although relationships and raising a family should not be a women's only occupation this beautiful balance between male and female and their equality in bearing the image of God should be celebrated and enjoyed! Unfortunately however, feminism (the prominent radical generalization), just like any other man- made ideal, twists his divine balance into a selfish battle for the self.

Sexists and Homophobes

The primary adjectives that describe societal groups often generalize the ideas of those who are the loudest, or are the most radical, thus labeling them according to views of the lesser number of members. Whether referring to Islamic groups, business corporations, green campaigns and Christianity, all suffer the consequences of being pinpointed and known for these adjectives. As already mentioned, Christians are frequently made out to be sexist and homophobic while this is just not the case (though sadly some are and this is a different can of worms). Despite the fact that these attempt to smother and distract the voice or productivity of Christians in society, the Bible does really outline specifically how Christians are to approach "sexual orientation" issues and the relation between men and women. However, merely having a stance that doesn’t either completely follow in line with the cultural feel or that simply "doesn’t make a wave" alone causes Christians the most trouble. Also, because the things outlined in the Bible are and can be offensive! Shocker! I don’t get a warm feeling reading in the first chapters of Genesis that I am a damned sinner, yes there is redemption but I am inherently evil because of my nature! Additionally, the Bible says that homosexuality is a sin and therefore must not be committed, let alone condoned and given a golf clap of relativity silent approval. However, just like every other sin that the human race incessantly, NEVER ceasing-ly commits, there is redemption, there is hope and there is forgiveness and his name is Jesus. He, when approaching these confusing and "controversial" topics, should be the focus. The cause and the behavior should be address and condemned, not the person. In keeping with the rest of Scripture, we are simultaneously called to love our neighbor, called to treat others with respect, kindness, humility patience and love. We are called to hate the sin, just as God hates and despises it BUT we are also called to love the person just as God loves us for our other sins. As for the sexist remarks, the Bible also clearly outlines these roles and Christianity/ God's standard doesn’t align itself with society, so their will be friction and argument and name calling, hence the "sexists" and the "homophobes".

In conclusion, I would respond to these names as I outlines above, all remembering that ultimately we are to hate the sin, love the person and lead them to the complete redemption Jesus offers.

Sociology Post

Considering that this question pertains to the United States, I am going to answer yes and no, but essentially no; which I will strictly explain in a moment.

When it says "the state's best interest" to controlling every household in its jurisdiction to the extent of dictating what is and isn't being taught, could be seen in one aspect as in their best interest because the government or state would be made up of men, and since men are innately sinful, the government is going to have a natural tendency toward evil or greed or misuse of power to gain more control etc. It is only for these selfish reasons that it could be even slightly in the states best interest (the ability to lavish in these precious and fragile privileges- so this is the yes part-). However, just like any body of authority, too much control leads to none and too much power and wealth eventually leads to loss of power and wealth. Secondly, it would be nearly humanly impossible to control parenting to the extent of dictating how the household is raising its children because that would take such man power, exhaustive training, rule making, literal brainwashing and resources that would ultimately end in violence of some sort because any body of people in authority attempting to control such minute details as to the ins and outs of each home ends in rebellion. Human nature does not respond well orders and rules so strict as these would need to be unless already  they were already living in that fashion. If you tell me to tie my shoes, my initial though is not to, or better yet, untie them even more. If you tell me I can't have special foods or entertainment in my home, my initial reaction is to gain as many of those forbidden things as I could! So considering human nature in the people and in the state, it would be nearly impossible for the state to control the home let alone be in its best interest. In closing this idea, I am reminded of the fall of Rome and the statement, "absolute power corrupts absolutely". Rome had expanded its borders and sphere of authority but they over exceeded their human ability, reached their limit and their inability to really keep control led to their demise; exactly how it would be with such a "in your face" state as the one described.

Thirdly, although this idea is primarily founded in the Marxist/ socialist worldview, from an American/ Democratic perspective, it isn't even in the states sphere of authority to consider controlling the home to that extent. That job lies within the home, at the choosing of the parents, and if a Christian household, by the word of God.

New Years Photo Walk!!

So unfortunately I really wanted to post all of my photos, but I cant seem to find a way to post all of them... because I took a lot, so here is just a little sample of my beautiful, fairly early, crispy cold, January morning...
I took this walk so excited to be outside and just be! All of my times at the Redondo boardwalk have been during the summer, so I was especially excited to go in the freezing cold, yet bright winter morning. I think my pictures tell what I was captivated by on my walk. I love the sea. I love the sand. I love the clouds. I love the sky. I love the cold air leaving my mouth as I breath. I love the all too unfamiliar quiet of nearly being alone, outside! I love the water. I love the sun's glow upon every structure and surface. I love the light scratchy- crunchy sound the sand makes when you walk upon it. I love the contrast of the logs washed up onto shore and the gray sand and sea that meets it. I love gazing at its beauty. Although I couldn't help think about how fast I had to go because reality and life awaited me, starting my day and also my year with this wonderful, delicate, outstandingly beautiful pause made me ecstatic! I so wanted to stay there, walk some more, sit and gaze some more, I wanted to just take it all in. And I did, and while i listened quietly to "i will exalt you", I marveled at God's provision over my life. The wonderful, perfect balance he has given me. And also the world and crazy awesome city he has placed me in. I worshiped him, this time not with my mouth, not with my voice, not even with my arms or really my legs, but with my heart and with my eyes. I was overcome with his keen eye for beauty.
:)