While having a rather heated debate about religion, someone brought these two concepts and definitions to the argument. They said faith is what theists call their guesses. They said the term faith simply assumes that what that person believes to be is actually what it is in reality. They went on to say that belief is a guess that is subjective.
The question I began pondering is this, are faith and belief one in the same? If so, are they both subjective?
Let's begin with belief, as I think this is the easier of the two concepts to explain and understand. Throughout history, language has continuously changed, adopting new meanings, ridding itself of meanings, and altogether ceasing to be used. The term 'belief' is often used to descrobe a personal understanding one has of something, or an opinion. Can such things have a truth value? The answer is yes. However, since no one on this planet can truly be objective in all matters, it is possible, and most often the case, that we do not know the truth values of beliefs. Now, the problem derives from this, when we say a person's beliefs or opinions are wrong, what are we really saying? Are we saying that their believing in something that is untrue or non-existent is wrong, or are we suggesting that they do not truly have the belief or the opinion? In any case, one can feel/believe something just because they do, without any explanation or evidence. Belioef is based on one's emotions and thought patterns.
Faith, on the other hand, as long as it's not blind faith, is based on evidence. There is historical evidence of Jesus' birth and of those who wrote the Bible. We witness miracles on a daily basis, though many people sadly brush thjese off as "coincidence." Faith is more than just how one feels or thinks, but rather it is trusting the evidence placed before you and accepting it as proof for the truth.
Saturday, January 27, 2007
Thursday, November 09, 2006
Capital Punishment
Can you truly be pro-life if you support capital punishment?
The prison industry has become one of the largest industries to date. Some of the concerns regarding capital punishment is the fact that throughout history, capital punishment has appeared to be racist. Majority of people on death row were black at one time. Although most capital punishment worthy crimes are committed by women, most of the people on death row are men.
An argument for capital punishment is that it is a deterrent for other criminals. However, over 3,000 people are on death row. I believe it was either in 2005 or 2004 that 60 people were executed. At this rate, it would take over a decade to execute everyone, even if we didn't add any more people. If the death penalty is really a deterrent, then why are there so many people on death row.
Maybe we focus too much on punishment rather than rehabilitation. We spend so much money on appeals and on supporting those who are incarcerated instead of focusing on helping these people. Often times, people on death row have been in and out of jail since they were teenagers. Kids in juvenille detention should not be simply brushed off as rebellious kids. We should help these kids, who usually have behavioral, emotional, or mental problems. I think rehabilitating these kids can help prevent them from becoming criminal adults.
I don't think it's possible to truly be pro-life if you are pro the death penalty.
The prison industry has become one of the largest industries to date. Some of the concerns regarding capital punishment is the fact that throughout history, capital punishment has appeared to be racist. Majority of people on death row were black at one time. Although most capital punishment worthy crimes are committed by women, most of the people on death row are men.
An argument for capital punishment is that it is a deterrent for other criminals. However, over 3,000 people are on death row. I believe it was either in 2005 or 2004 that 60 people were executed. At this rate, it would take over a decade to execute everyone, even if we didn't add any more people. If the death penalty is really a deterrent, then why are there so many people on death row.
Maybe we focus too much on punishment rather than rehabilitation. We spend so much money on appeals and on supporting those who are incarcerated instead of focusing on helping these people. Often times, people on death row have been in and out of jail since they were teenagers. Kids in juvenille detention should not be simply brushed off as rebellious kids. We should help these kids, who usually have behavioral, emotional, or mental problems. I think rehabilitating these kids can help prevent them from becoming criminal adults.
I don't think it's possible to truly be pro-life if you are pro the death penalty.
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
Philosophy and God
Aristotle believed that every human has a telos. This, we agree on. However, unlike Aristotle, I believe our telos is to serve God. He believed humans' telos was to attain a eudaimon life. According to Aristotle, in order to achieve such a life we must acquire certain virtues. This is basically the foundation in which the Theory of Virtues is founded.
I agree that most humans seek out a life of happiness. This should not be our sole goal though. If we must suffer some negative feelings in order to become worthy of living an eternal life with our Father, then so be it. In fact, we as mere humans can never be worthy of our Lord. It is for this reason that the Father sent His Son to die on the cross. We no longer have to carry our burden of sins alone. Once we genuinely ask God for forgiveness, we are forgiven. It is truly that simple.
Happiness is so temporal. It is impossible for humans to always be happy. Unlike happiness, joy is permanent. From joy stems hope. With hope for better comes a belief that there is something/somewhere better. All this can only be found in our Father.
Why is it that so many people are willing to accept the idea of virtues from a long dead philosopher, but they are unwilling to adhere to the commands of the still living God? Is there anyone alive today who can say they met Aristotle? Are any of his family members still breathing? The answer is that he probably has descendants, but they are very distant from him now. We can accept his ideas and even rules he has set forth about morality based on old writings that have been translated and reprinted many times. Doesn't this sound familiar? The bBible was translated and reprinted many times as well. The Bible explains and sets forth rules concerning morality and many other aspects of human life. For years, philosophers have been formulating and reformulating moral theories, trying to come up with objective truth. Yet, we have a standard for objective truth, God and His Word. It seems like we are blind if we continue to seek out answers to questions that have already been answered. We are just not satisfied with the answer. I do not think we should try changing the answer, but rather we should try accepting the answer. Part of having a personal relationship with God is to try to understand the answers.
How can we follow the rules of a fallible man when we refuse to follow the perfect God?
I agree that most humans seek out a life of happiness. This should not be our sole goal though. If we must suffer some negative feelings in order to become worthy of living an eternal life with our Father, then so be it. In fact, we as mere humans can never be worthy of our Lord. It is for this reason that the Father sent His Son to die on the cross. We no longer have to carry our burden of sins alone. Once we genuinely ask God for forgiveness, we are forgiven. It is truly that simple.
Happiness is so temporal. It is impossible for humans to always be happy. Unlike happiness, joy is permanent. From joy stems hope. With hope for better comes a belief that there is something/somewhere better. All this can only be found in our Father.
Why is it that so many people are willing to accept the idea of virtues from a long dead philosopher, but they are unwilling to adhere to the commands of the still living God? Is there anyone alive today who can say they met Aristotle? Are any of his family members still breathing? The answer is that he probably has descendants, but they are very distant from him now. We can accept his ideas and even rules he has set forth about morality based on old writings that have been translated and reprinted many times. Doesn't this sound familiar? The bBible was translated and reprinted many times as well. The Bible explains and sets forth rules concerning morality and many other aspects of human life. For years, philosophers have been formulating and reformulating moral theories, trying to come up with objective truth. Yet, we have a standard for objective truth, God and His Word. It seems like we are blind if we continue to seek out answers to questions that have already been answered. We are just not satisfied with the answer. I do not think we should try changing the answer, but rather we should try accepting the answer. Part of having a personal relationship with God is to try to understand the answers.
How can we follow the rules of a fallible man when we refuse to follow the perfect God?
Saturday, October 28, 2006
Women and Equality
Women empowerment has been a continuous theme throughout the world. We fight for equality, to be like men. Are we really equal? Doesn't the fact that we think men have this superior position cause us to be inferior?
From a historical standpoint, I understand the desire for "equality." Women were oppressed and expected to follow laws they had no say in creating. However, I do not think that some of the constraints on women were all bad. The moment women were given more of a sense of equality, they took it to an extreme. Sex became a form of expressing such equality. Women began to dress provocatively and began sleeping around. Instead of caring about family, women began to live the "single" life. They no longer wanted children because they didn't want responsibility. I do not see these changes as a good thing.
Divorce was a lot less common as well. It is true that women were forced to stay in unhealthy relationships, but some women were not. Today, there are marriages that don't even last a year. Divorce is such an easy way out now. Women can ask for a divorce for the dumbest reasons.
Women were closer to God's ideal when they weren't so busy tring to fight for "equality." They were more willing to submit to their husbands as is a woman's duty. They were more open to caring for their homes and their children.
Do not misunderstand me. I am beyond grateful for the achievments of women throughout time. I am thankful that I have say over my own life. However, I think it is important for women to accept that we are not men. We are different from men in many ways. We should be embracing our differences. We should be looking to God and His Word to find our p[urpose and place in the world. The truth is, I believe that much of this gender cross over business has caused much more sin in our society. The whole idea of transexualism and transgenderism derived from people not accepting their God given place in the world. When we are given too much freedom, we take advantage and further sin against God. If we have too many rules, we feel the need to rebel and we sin anyway.
Will we ever be satisfied?
From a historical standpoint, I understand the desire for "equality." Women were oppressed and expected to follow laws they had no say in creating. However, I do not think that some of the constraints on women were all bad. The moment women were given more of a sense of equality, they took it to an extreme. Sex became a form of expressing such equality. Women began to dress provocatively and began sleeping around. Instead of caring about family, women began to live the "single" life. They no longer wanted children because they didn't want responsibility. I do not see these changes as a good thing.
Divorce was a lot less common as well. It is true that women were forced to stay in unhealthy relationships, but some women were not. Today, there are marriages that don't even last a year. Divorce is such an easy way out now. Women can ask for a divorce for the dumbest reasons.
Women were closer to God's ideal when they weren't so busy tring to fight for "equality." They were more willing to submit to their husbands as is a woman's duty. They were more open to caring for their homes and their children.
Do not misunderstand me. I am beyond grateful for the achievments of women throughout time. I am thankful that I have say over my own life. However, I think it is important for women to accept that we are not men. We are different from men in many ways. We should be embracing our differences. We should be looking to God and His Word to find our p[urpose and place in the world. The truth is, I believe that much of this gender cross over business has caused much more sin in our society. The whole idea of transexualism and transgenderism derived from people not accepting their God given place in the world. When we are given too much freedom, we take advantage and further sin against God. If we have too many rules, we feel the need to rebel and we sin anyway.
Will we ever be satisfied?
Monday, October 16, 2006
Animal Cruelty
It has been argued that animals do not have souls. During the years that philosophers like Kant lived, this argument was used to justify torturing animals and allowed scientists to perform heinous experiments on them. This continues to be a debate, though not so open.
When Adam was created, God gave him reign over the animals. This obviously gave mankind dominance over non-human animals. However, animal played a significant role in the bible. It was the blood of animals that was sacrificed to the Lord so that the Isrealites could receive forgiveness for their sins before Jesus came and died on the cross. God even gave a donkey the ability to speak to a man in order to get His point across. When the Lord flooded the Eath, he told Noah to save a male and female of every type of animal. This must at least imply that animals are important. More significantly, God created animals, which gives them importance independent of their use for humans.
An argument that has been posed in against animal cruelty is that animals whimper/cry when they are being hurt. However, during times when animals' rights weren't being protected, scientists claimed that the cries of an animal were simply a spring that was hit during the experiments. Animals were said to be machines and we do not have to treat machines with any type of morality.
While I believe that we have a God given right to use animals for food, clothing, and ethical experiments, I am strongly against abusing animals. If animals are only a means to an end for humans, then let us consider the idea that it has been observed that people who torture/abuse animals are more likely to hurt other humans. Some of the most well known killers, like Ted Bundy, tortured animals. This type of behavior initiates aggressive, disturbing, and dangerous behavior.
We have a responsibility to take care of our environment. If we fail to take care of our animals, our society will fade quickly. We would not be able to survive without the blessing of non-human animals that God has given us.
When Adam was created, God gave him reign over the animals. This obviously gave mankind dominance over non-human animals. However, animal played a significant role in the bible. It was the blood of animals that was sacrificed to the Lord so that the Isrealites could receive forgiveness for their sins before Jesus came and died on the cross. God even gave a donkey the ability to speak to a man in order to get His point across. When the Lord flooded the Eath, he told Noah to save a male and female of every type of animal. This must at least imply that animals are important. More significantly, God created animals, which gives them importance independent of their use for humans.
An argument that has been posed in against animal cruelty is that animals whimper/cry when they are being hurt. However, during times when animals' rights weren't being protected, scientists claimed that the cries of an animal were simply a spring that was hit during the experiments. Animals were said to be machines and we do not have to treat machines with any type of morality.
While I believe that we have a God given right to use animals for food, clothing, and ethical experiments, I am strongly against abusing animals. If animals are only a means to an end for humans, then let us consider the idea that it has been observed that people who torture/abuse animals are more likely to hurt other humans. Some of the most well known killers, like Ted Bundy, tortured animals. This type of behavior initiates aggressive, disturbing, and dangerous behavior.
We have a responsibility to take care of our environment. If we fail to take care of our animals, our society will fade quickly. We would not be able to survive without the blessing of non-human animals that God has given us.
Sunday, October 15, 2006
Mark Foley Scandal
Most people who watch the news, read newspapers, or listen to the radio have heard about the Mark Foley scandal. In a Political Science class I am taking, one of my fellow classmates continues to argue that Mark Foley should suffer no consequences for his actions because the pages probably tried to seduce the senator and because they were not actually involved in any sexual activity. He argues that by the time a child is 15-16, advancements by adults should not be considered such an abhoring deed.
Here are my arguments against my classmate...
1. This is not just a moral issue, but a legal one. With Mr. Foley being a senator, he should know better than most the laws governing our nation. He should be aware that it is illegal in the U.S. to engage in sexual activities with a minor, whether or not the minor consents.
2. A major issue is not just that these were minors, but that sexually harassing anyone is a crime. Not only because he is a senator, but because he is an adult, he should know better than to make sexual remarks to another when it is clear that they have a strictly professional relationship.
3. Another huge problem with this is that he was sending these text messages to males teenagers. As I have demonstrated in my previous posts, I am strongly against homosexuality. This type of behavior with teenagers can be very damaging to their development.
4. Mr. Foley held a position of authority. I am sure many of these young pages he was sending sexually explicit texts to were highly intimidated by him. No American should be considered above the law.
5. "The people" elect senators to represent our states. How can we trust our representatives when they are as deceitful and untrustworthy as Mr. Foley. We believe our representatives should at least be truthful with those who gave them that position in the first place.
These are the strongest arguments I am able to think of at the moment. It should be mentioned that it is believed that other members of Congress were aware of Mark Foley's appalling behavior. It is sad when we have a government that is supposed to represent our views and ways of life, yet we do not even know whether they are honest, genuine people.
Here are my arguments against my classmate...
1. This is not just a moral issue, but a legal one. With Mr. Foley being a senator, he should know better than most the laws governing our nation. He should be aware that it is illegal in the U.S. to engage in sexual activities with a minor, whether or not the minor consents.
2. A major issue is not just that these were minors, but that sexually harassing anyone is a crime. Not only because he is a senator, but because he is an adult, he should know better than to make sexual remarks to another when it is clear that they have a strictly professional relationship.
3. Another huge problem with this is that he was sending these text messages to males teenagers. As I have demonstrated in my previous posts, I am strongly against homosexuality. This type of behavior with teenagers can be very damaging to their development.
4. Mr. Foley held a position of authority. I am sure many of these young pages he was sending sexually explicit texts to were highly intimidated by him. No American should be considered above the law.
5. "The people" elect senators to represent our states. How can we trust our representatives when they are as deceitful and untrustworthy as Mr. Foley. We believe our representatives should at least be truthful with those who gave them that position in the first place.
These are the strongest arguments I am able to think of at the moment. It should be mentioned that it is believed that other members of Congress were aware of Mark Foley's appalling behavior. It is sad when we have a government that is supposed to represent our views and ways of life, yet we do not even know whether they are honest, genuine people.
Saturday, October 14, 2006
Child Abuse
Punishment for child abuse is so miniscule in this country. Children in our nation are dying because they are beaten so badly. Why do we wait for something so drastic to happen before we take action? It is these same abused children who grow up and become thieves, murderers, anorexic/bulimic. We then call these scarred people crazy. Are we doing enough to prevent such behaviors in people? We are so adept at tring to prevent such things as pregnancy, but we don't prevent child abuse. There are too many children in foster care that are being physically, mentally, and emotionally abused. Where are the social workers who are supposed to be checking up on these children? Is it not bad enough that these children will probably already have emotional scars from being put up for adoption in the first place? Do they really need more trauma in their lives? Can we blame them for acting out? I don't think we can. We try and argue that there is a certain point when we know right from wrong independent of our environment, but I disagree. They are crying out for attention, for help.
We also don't take into account the full scope of abuse. We often think of it as just physical, but the reality is that the scars left by emotional abuse can take years to heal, if they heal at all. This is usually what causes the trauma for children. The physical scars heal, but it is the scars on the heart that sting and can so easily be reopened. Why shouldn't every child talk to a therapist? Even if there is no type of abuse going on, shouldn't they be able to release any stress they do have? I think this should be part of every school's curricula. I realize an argument against this may be that there isn't enough money to institute such a program, but maybe we need to make teachers take a few psychology classes before obtaining their certification. I am not suggesting individual therapy, unless needed, but perhaps 15 minutes during lunch or free time. I think this should be done until every child turns 16.
Why spend years on rehabilitation programs for extra tax dollars, when we can build in a prevention system in our schools?
We also don't take into account the full scope of abuse. We often think of it as just physical, but the reality is that the scars left by emotional abuse can take years to heal, if they heal at all. This is usually what causes the trauma for children. The physical scars heal, but it is the scars on the heart that sting and can so easily be reopened. Why shouldn't every child talk to a therapist? Even if there is no type of abuse going on, shouldn't they be able to release any stress they do have? I think this should be part of every school's curricula. I realize an argument against this may be that there isn't enough money to institute such a program, but maybe we need to make teachers take a few psychology classes before obtaining their certification. I am not suggesting individual therapy, unless needed, but perhaps 15 minutes during lunch or free time. I think this should be done until every child turns 16.
Why spend years on rehabilitation programs for extra tax dollars, when we can build in a prevention system in our schools?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)