One of the charges frequently made against followers of Christ is that the church is sexist and homophobic. While there are some who this may be true off, how would you respond to the charge that the Bible teaches this?
A lot of Christians seem to be either sexist or homophobic when in reality for the most part that isn't the case. The Bible clearly states that marriage should be between a man and a woman but it also says that we should be accepting of those who go against what the Bible teaches us to do. Throughout Genesis the Bible clearly establishes the man/woman marriage roles. Furthermore, it never says anything about men or women being better than the other. Although Christians may seem to be either sexist or homophobic neither is prevelent in the Christian society.
Thursday, February 3, 2011
Monday, January 31, 2011
UTT sociology blog
Respond to this statement: It is in the states best interest to be more involved in parenting, even to the point of controlling what is taught in the home.
It is not in the states best interest to be more involved in parenting. ESPECIALLY to the point of controlling what is taught in the home. Since the state has started to control what parents can and cannot do society has started going down hill. They are trying to make it illegal to spank your kids and you can't disipline your children in public most of the time anymore. I was spanked while growing up, as were most of the people my age, and we all turned out just fine; maybe even better than most of the children these days. It is rediculous to let the state have any say in how people displine their children in the home or what they teach them. This countries constitution says we have freedom of speech and religion and when we start controlling what people teach their children in their own homes then you start to take those freedoms away.
It is not in the states best interest to be more involved in parenting. ESPECIALLY to the point of controlling what is taught in the home. Since the state has started to control what parents can and cannot do society has started going down hill. They are trying to make it illegal to spank your kids and you can't disipline your children in public most of the time anymore. I was spanked while growing up, as were most of the people my age, and we all turned out just fine; maybe even better than most of the children these days. It is rediculous to let the state have any say in how people displine their children in the home or what they teach them. This countries constitution says we have freedom of speech and religion and when we start controlling what people teach their children in their own homes then you start to take those freedoms away.
Sunday, January 2, 2011
My Walk
So, I went on my walk this evening. It was very cold. The sky was clear, and I could clearly all the stars. I started walking down the street trimmed by frozen water and fallen leaves. I could see the crisp air as I breathed out. As I walked past my friend Kyles house and started thinking about him and all the fun times I've had at his house with him and my best friend Juli. Hanging out, watching movies, feeding Kyle's snake Sniff, ect. Then walking down to 711 I remembered all the times driving around so much that we almost run out of gas and barely make it to the gas station and get out all our change and money to get just enough gas to go drive around some more, all the engergy drink we've bought there for all our late nights watching movies and driving around. Walking back towards my house I walked up to the elementry school and went back to the play toy. I sat on it thinking about the time Kyle, Robert and I played Hot Lava Monster this last summer. We had so much fun. I also thought about all the late nights we all had going to parks and playing on the toys and walking around taking random pictures. I then started to look at the stars. I thought about how they twinkle and the light we are seeing was delayed because they are so far away in other gallaxey's. I was thought about how God's creation is so amazing. The stars in super far away gallaxey's give us light in the night sky. He created everything. We are just minute little pieces of dust in the universe yet God loves us. Thats amazing. My walk was amazing. I ended it with coming home and having a cup of hot chocolate to warm up. I had a lot of fun and think I will do it again. :)
Monday, December 13, 2010
Explain 3 problems with a naturalistic explaination for life.
The bacterial flagellum proves intelligent disign without a doubt because it is extremely intricate. It has many complex parts to it that cannot be explained by naturalism. There is no way that those parts came from premodial goop. They work in a specific order and if one thing goes wrong it all goes down the drain. Do you really think that just appeared or evolved from some goop in the middle of no where? It's not possible.
DNA is another major issue with naturalism. The complex parts of DNA could not have come from anything other than intelligent desisgn. It controls the organism its in and determins the many traits of the body. No one looks exactly alike. What's the likelyhood that something that evolved would not have a fingerprint that matched another or that not one tongue would be exactly the same? Its impossible. If there is one genetic mutation the whole thing goes down hill. Everything has a purpose and was created.
Okay, the most obvious of these is Mt. Rushmore. There is no way in heck that those were formed by the wind and rain over time. They were created. They are faces. It is something we can recognize. Just like every other thing in this world, it was created. Someone spent their time created it because thats what they were passionate. The likelyhood that those came from nowhere is like someone putting all the scabble letters in a bad dumping them out and it spelling out the simple line from Shakespear's "Hamlet" - "to be or not to be; that is the question". Its practically impossible.
The bacterial flagellum proves intelligent disign without a doubt because it is extremely intricate. It has many complex parts to it that cannot be explained by naturalism. There is no way that those parts came from premodial goop. They work in a specific order and if one thing goes wrong it all goes down the drain. Do you really think that just appeared or evolved from some goop in the middle of no where? It's not possible.
DNA is another major issue with naturalism. The complex parts of DNA could not have come from anything other than intelligent desisgn. It controls the organism its in and determins the many traits of the body. No one looks exactly alike. What's the likelyhood that something that evolved would not have a fingerprint that matched another or that not one tongue would be exactly the same? Its impossible. If there is one genetic mutation the whole thing goes down hill. Everything has a purpose and was created.
Okay, the most obvious of these is Mt. Rushmore. There is no way in heck that those were formed by the wind and rain over time. They were created. They are faces. It is something we can recognize. Just like every other thing in this world, it was created. Someone spent their time created it because thats what they were passionate. The likelyhood that those came from nowhere is like someone putting all the scabble letters in a bad dumping them out and it spelling out the simple line from Shakespear's "Hamlet" - "to be or not to be; that is the question". Its practically impossible.
UTT blog #3
Two parts for you to deal with. Mark tells you that ethics should be based on economics. Justify this, from a marxist perspective, in other words,"the ends justifing the means." Then, from a christian perspective, why can't this be true or right? If you can think of a real life example of this, great, bonus points.
A lot of times the ends DOES justify the means... example, World War II. tons of people died, we bombed Hiroshima BUT if we hadn't done that Russia would have taken over Japan with China's help and they would be a communist country... THEN they would have attacked us and we would also most likely be a communist country...
An example of when is doesn't is like getting a good grade on a test... but you cheated your way there... that end does NOT justify the means. Therefore, I think that statement is somewhat loaded. It depends on the situation.
A lot of times the ends DOES justify the means... example, World War II. tons of people died, we bombed Hiroshima BUT if we hadn't done that Russia would have taken over Japan with China's help and they would be a communist country... THEN they would have attacked us and we would also most likely be a communist country...
An example of when is doesn't is like getting a good grade on a test... but you cheated your way there... that end does NOT justify the means. Therefore, I think that statement is somewhat loaded. It depends on the situation.
UTT blog #2
Why can't Karma be the universal standard of right and wrong? Watch the video and explain to Nathan, what's wrong with Karma?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56hfjVi6MnQ
Karma cannot be the universal standard of right and wrong because....
Yes, things that we do effect future things, like if you murder someone you will go to prison. But the issue with Karma is that everything we mentally do does NOT effect the future necessarily. I mean come on do you really think if i step on a spider that a boulder is going to fall on me? Karma is wrong. It is not true. We see this in everyday situations where we do things that have no effect on the future.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56hfjVi6MnQ
Karma cannot be the universal standard of right and wrong because....
Yes, things that we do effect future things, like if you murder someone you will go to prison. But the issue with Karma is that everything we mentally do does NOT effect the future necessarily. I mean come on do you really think if i step on a spider that a boulder is going to fall on me? Karma is wrong. It is not true. We see this in everyday situations where we do things that have no effect on the future.
UTT blog #1
How would you respond to the suggestion that there are no absolute moral standards that apply to everyone?
First off, the definition of moral absolutes is the belief that an absolute ethical standard exists for all individuals regardless or era or culture; also known as the eternal moral order.
If you say there are no absolutes... is that an absolute? FAIL. You just tried to prove there are not absolutes with your own absolute.
If there are no moral absolutes then is it okay to murder someone? I'm sure if you ask anyone that they will say no its not okay. Unless of course they have major issues.... So my conclusion is that there is definitely a moral standard whether people want to believe it or not...
First off, the definition of moral absolutes is the belief that an absolute ethical standard exists for all individuals regardless or era or culture; also known as the eternal moral order.
If you say there are no absolutes... is that an absolute? FAIL. You just tried to prove there are not absolutes with your own absolute.
If there are no moral absolutes then is it okay to murder someone? I'm sure if you ask anyone that they will say no its not okay. Unless of course they have major issues.... So my conclusion is that there is definitely a moral standard whether people want to believe it or not...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)