Homophobia and sexism

First of all with the same sex marriage topic I would remind them that marriage is a biblical institution and term. If we grant same sex marriage then it is not actually marriage because it does not fit the definition, it is basically just a piece of paper that legally binds two people. I would also say that in a sense they are right, because we are against homo sexuality and it is wrong, we hate the sin and love the sinner. And finally the claim that the  church is sexist is wrong, everything in the bible creates equality and I would even say that woman is the pinnacle of creation because she was the last creation. Ultimately people dont look at what we as Christians actually believe and just come to rash assumptions because we dont just openly accept sin. And one could state that since the man is the head of the house hold the bible is sexist but ultimately there has to be one head or else decisions can never be made.

Sociology 1

Honestly the government cannot be involved with the family because of the idealogical problems in the government already. We legalize homosexuality and abortion and several other un-biblical and wrong actions so we cannot say what is wrong in parenting. Honestly each parent and each kid respond differently to different types of punishment. So if we were to allow the government to regulate any of these things it would not work universally. Some kids respond well to posotive reinforcement and every child is different, and the government is not raising the kids. I also think the right to raise a child the way you choose is one of your rights as a human, as long as it is an un-abusive manor. Overall I think that the government needs to stay away more from what happens at home and work to change the way we educate our kids.

Ms Weisman walk

Richard Jensen
Ms. Weisman
Period 3
3 January 2012
Alright first of all for my walk I kind of procrastinated, like pretty badly. So I ended up walking at night, while it was pouring down rain, and just observing stuff. At first I thought a lot about how dumb it was to wear flip flops and how my feet were cold, and also how I was probably pretty creepy looking just walking around at night. Then I started thinking about new years resolutions and all of that stuff, which I think is pointless. I started thinking about how people make them and forget them in the same day. I thought about this season, how were doing and were I am going to play at next year. I also thought a lot about how stupid new years resolutions are, and also how new years is mainly just used as an excuse for people to get drunk. But overall it was a solid walk, and I got to reflect a bit on 2011 and decided that even though I am nervous and have no idea what it holds, I am excited for 2012. I was also thinking a lot about the idea of going to a two year and were I would want to go. But jeesh that’s all so up in the air its not worth talking about.

Biology 1

There are multiple reasons that the naturalistic view on how life began is flawed. First of all this is one of the most debated topics in the world and neither side will ever give any ground, yet the Christian worldview has many more points that break down the naturalistic world view than the other way around. First of all the naturalistic view that life can be created from non life is impossible, this cannot be replicated and is impossible! Also the second law of thermodynamics states that over time species tend to go from order to non order, which really hurts the evolutionary theory. And finally there is no evidence to prove that any animal can change species, there is no way that a lizard can become an elephant and it will never be proven. Also the tremendous gap in fossil records can almost prove that there are no in between points for species which is a claim that evolutionists cling to.

Ethics Number 2

There are several ways you could respond to the statement that there are no moral absolutes. First you could state several horrors in the world and ask if you think that they would be ok in any circumstance. Because I cannot see any situation in which violent rape, or murder of an innocent person is ever justifyable. You could also punch the person in the face. And then just say "hey it wasnt wrong in my point of view, or just steal from them". I mean no moral relativist would say it is ok to murder and rape there family. If this is too strong for someone then you could also say that the statement that there are no moral absolutes is an absolute statement, therefore contradicting itself. And finally you could say that we all have a conscience for actions and that moral absolutes are what govern are world and what separate humans from animals. You cannot say there are no moral absolutes because it doesnt accurately portray society in any way. It is a statement that contradicts itself and at its roots makes no sense.

Karma UTT blog

Karma cannot be the universal standard of right and wrong for several reasons. First of all since Karma does not distinguish between actions and what is evil, how do we know what is right and wrong? And also if there is a natural right and wrong then there must be a sort of universal truth, which Hinduism and Karmeic followers deny. Therefore we cannot judge peoples actions as right in wrong unless there is a distinguishment between what is good and evil, which karma does not define."The theory of karma harps on the Newtonian principle that every action produces an equal and opposite reaction", this is honestly a ridiculous idea considering that many terrible people continue living happy lives on earth. The other problem with Karma is that it would create a separation of people because you would not want to help the less fortunate, since they are just taking the reprocutions of their actions. So in summation Karma doesnt work because it does not accurately portray the world that is, and it cannot define good and evil, and why we sin, and it also creates a very cold and harsh perspective towards the less fortunate.

Philosophy Number 3

Naturalism does not explain truth reality and knowledge at all. Since everything is a matter of chance it would not explain or consciousness or our souls. It also would state that everything we have mentally is just simple chemical reaction it cannot explain our knowledge or ability to think at all. Also since everything is just chemical chance we cannot know what reality is and also there can be no truth because it is just chemical and what we percieve. Therefore I feel that naturalism can have no moral absolutes. Therefore I dont think naturalism works as a philosophy because it doesnt accurately explain truth, reality or knowledge.