Excerpt 1:
From: http://jameshannam.com/literature.html
"With the aimed destruction of any thought that went against religious dogma, the Christians tried to destroy every pagan and scientific literature including the great libraries of the world. The destruction of the library of Alexandra (the greatest learning center in the world) and the murder of Hypatia by Christians in 415 C.E. marked the beginning of the Dark Ages. As Ruth Hurmence Green once wrote, "There was a time when religion ruled the world. It is known as the Dark Ages."
Thankfully James Hannam, a wise and knowledgeable man in my opinion, knows a bit or two about his history. His response to the idea that Christians of the earlier days destroying the most well known and respected library in all of history greatly enourages me. James accurately proves this statement to be false and claims that it has no strong evidence, or rather no proof at all. He says that there is no real credibility shown in the evidence that the avid believers of the statement above refer to constantly in arguments and debates. The statement made of crucifixion is strongly prooved to be incorrect; for instead of crucifying they disreguarded their claims as truth and classified them as superstitious and fictional.It is almost unbelievable how valuable art is, even today. In some cases it has been said that it is more valauble than a human life in people's opinions. If this were true, which would likely be so, why on earth would the church seek to destroy the beautiful and classis pieces?
Excerpt 2:
From: http://jameshannam.com/conflict.htm and some of The Flat Earth Myth
"As for those who began to think scientifically, Christians burned the priest Giordano Bruno to death for the charge of holding opinions contrary to the Catholic faith. They imprisoned Galileo for his heretical ideas of heliocentric solar system, and rejected his science (by the way, The Greek thinker, Aristarchus, developed the first heliocentric theory in 270 BCE, not Copernicus as many Christians falsely believe)."
Galileo's intented argument and controversary was not toward the Christian church, but to the many scientists that held geocentric views. He was not put in prison for Science versus Religion, instead he was placed there for Science versus Science. In Giordano Brunos case, that Walker so istutely speaks about, his scientific views did not bring upon his death, but rather his heretical views. The cause of his death is still questioned but people believe that he wanted to create some type of religion that the Christian church highly opposed of (There is a difference between these two men and I would argue that some tend to mix up the two in certain situations, non-intentionally. In which case, myths and rumors may possibly be started, but that is solely an observation).
Excerpt 3:
From: http://agnesscott.edu/lriddle/women/hypatia.htm
"I don't know about you but when I search for a doctor to cure me, I don't want one who believes in superstitions, miracles, or divine intervention (for how could I ever know if he resorts to his faith rather than his medical training?). I want a doctor who uses the best scientific medical knowledge and that means a doctor who doesn't hold Christian or any religious beliefs."
When I read this excerpt the first thing that comes to mind is the ongoing packet that Mr. Yeh most recently handed out and classified as our "notes". Based on his two week lecture, I feel that Christians do believe in an orderly and rational earth and universe. It has been perfectly created by the Maker of all the laws of man and nature. Christians did not just solely limit their beliefs to the scripture, but saw beyond the book and into the world of mystery. They saw what scientists were hungry and eager to know more about and explore into depth. Nature has not only been an extremely valued source in all kinds of studies, but has inhanced believer's faith and allowed them to see how majestic God is. Of course Christians then, and even Christians now believe in silly superstitions and miracles, but that does not take away from their solid beliefs and foundation in Christ.
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Hello, I am the Sun and the World Revolves Around Me"
http://reasonableanswers.blogspot.com/2009/01/galileo-against-scientists-dispelling.html
1. What is geocentrism and what is heliocentism? What was the name for the primary geocentric model in use for over a thousand years? Who proposed the heliocentric system (ie who is it named after)?
What is geocentrism you ask? It is the idea that the sun moves around the earth, therefore the earth is the center of the universe; whereas heliocentrism is the idea that the earth moves around the sun, therefore making the sun the center of the universe. Now, according to our knowledge which one would make more sense? The primary geocentric model that was used in the second century was created by a man named Ptolemy. His famous model was known as the Ptolemic system, an extremely original name don't you think? Around the same time Nicolas Copernicus presented his established heliocentric system.
2. According to the article, who were the chief opponents to Galileo and the heliocentric model of the solar system?
The first time reading it through and thouroughly I thought that the Christian Church of the time was the chief opponent of the heliocentric model, but then once I read it over again I realized that it was originally other scientists (more specifically the Aristotelean scientists) who were against Galileo's model. It is true that the Church opposed the idea, but that does not speak for all of the people. Scientists who strongly believed in the geocentric system were the strongest of the opponents (ie "the fact that heliocentrism was first opposed by the scientists of Galileo’s time, and that Galileo’s fight was with other scientists, not the Church").
3. What were the two astronomical observations that Galileo made that supported heliocentrism? Why were these observations not considered conclusive proofs that the heliocentric system was correct? What did most scientists of the time consider to be conclusive evidence that the geocentric model was correct?
There were two astronomical observations that Galileo made to support heliocentrism that included the telescopic observation and the phases of planet Venus. This showed that planet Jupiter had it's own series of moons which provided valuable information to Galileo's studies that not all significant bodies or water were required to orbit directly around the earth. The Tychonian theory proved that the other theories were not conclusive. This theory centered in both primary ideas: geocentric and heliocentric. Interestingly this theory concluded that the sun revolved around the earth, but proposed that all other planets orbited around the sun which would create an almost impossible explaination.
4. Was the debate between geocentrism and heliocentrism primarily a theological, Scriptural, or scientific argument? What does the author state is the primary reason that the Church continued to hold to a geocentric system?
The majority of the debate was carried out by Galileo and the Aristotelean scientists. Both sides argued for what they believed was the correct observations. The Church did not continue to stay put with their original position about the earth being immovable therefore making the planets orbit around the earth. The church lacked the evidence that was needed for believing in the heliocentric idea, it was not so much that they knew everything about it and opposed it.
5. According to Augustine's hermeneutic, what is needed before we can conclude that a re-interpretation of Scripture may be required?
According to Augustine's hermenuetic, we must somehow declare the need for a conclusive demonstration before anyone comes to the final conclusion that a re-interpretation of scripture must be required in order to finally determine what is fact and what is fiction.
6. What was the "killer proof" that Galileo proposed demonstrated the motion of the Earth, and what did other scientists think of this "proof"? When did true observational proof for the motion of the Earth come about, and what were these two observations?
Galileo first presented the "killer proof" in his book, Testise on the Tides. He proposed that it is the earth that moves around the sun (heliocentrism). The two observations didn't make sense to the scientists: stellar abberation and late on the stellar parallax.
Stellar parallax-observation that stars in the sky shift positions with the movement of the earth as it orbits around the sun.
Scientists later proved his killer proof wrong because Galileo stated that there was only one tide per day, but in reality there is one every 12 hours or so.
1. What is geocentrism and what is heliocentism? What was the name for the primary geocentric model in use for over a thousand years? Who proposed the heliocentric system (ie who is it named after)?
What is geocentrism you ask? It is the idea that the sun moves around the earth, therefore the earth is the center of the universe; whereas heliocentrism is the idea that the earth moves around the sun, therefore making the sun the center of the universe. Now, according to our knowledge which one would make more sense? The primary geocentric model that was used in the second century was created by a man named Ptolemy. His famous model was known as the Ptolemic system, an extremely original name don't you think? Around the same time Nicolas Copernicus presented his established heliocentric system.
2. According to the article, who were the chief opponents to Galileo and the heliocentric model of the solar system?
The first time reading it through and thouroughly I thought that the Christian Church of the time was the chief opponent of the heliocentric model, but then once I read it over again I realized that it was originally other scientists (more specifically the Aristotelean scientists) who were against Galileo's model. It is true that the Church opposed the idea, but that does not speak for all of the people. Scientists who strongly believed in the geocentric system were the strongest of the opponents (ie "the fact that heliocentrism was first opposed by the scientists of Galileo’s time, and that Galileo’s fight was with other scientists, not the Church").
3. What were the two astronomical observations that Galileo made that supported heliocentrism? Why were these observations not considered conclusive proofs that the heliocentric system was correct? What did most scientists of the time consider to be conclusive evidence that the geocentric model was correct?
There were two astronomical observations that Galileo made to support heliocentrism that included the telescopic observation and the phases of planet Venus. This showed that planet Jupiter had it's own series of moons which provided valuable information to Galileo's studies that not all significant bodies or water were required to orbit directly around the earth. The Tychonian theory proved that the other theories were not conclusive. This theory centered in both primary ideas: geocentric and heliocentric. Interestingly this theory concluded that the sun revolved around the earth, but proposed that all other planets orbited around the sun which would create an almost impossible explaination.
4. Was the debate between geocentrism and heliocentrism primarily a theological, Scriptural, or scientific argument? What does the author state is the primary reason that the Church continued to hold to a geocentric system?
The majority of the debate was carried out by Galileo and the Aristotelean scientists. Both sides argued for what they believed was the correct observations. The Church did not continue to stay put with their original position about the earth being immovable therefore making the planets orbit around the earth. The church lacked the evidence that was needed for believing in the heliocentric idea, it was not so much that they knew everything about it and opposed it.
5. According to Augustine's hermeneutic, what is needed before we can conclude that a re-interpretation of Scripture may be required?
According to Augustine's hermenuetic, we must somehow declare the need for a conclusive demonstration before anyone comes to the final conclusion that a re-interpretation of scripture must be required in order to finally determine what is fact and what is fiction.
6. What was the "killer proof" that Galileo proposed demonstrated the motion of the Earth, and what did other scientists think of this "proof"? When did true observational proof for the motion of the Earth come about, and what were these two observations?
Galileo first presented the "killer proof" in his book, Testise on the Tides. He proposed that it is the earth that moves around the sun (heliocentrism). The two observations didn't make sense to the scientists: stellar abberation and late on the stellar parallax.
Stellar parallax-observation that stars in the sky shift positions with the movement of the earth as it orbits around the sun.
Scientists later proved his killer proof wrong because Galileo stated that there was only one tide per day, but in reality there is one every 12 hours or so.
Monday, October 19, 2009
"Save the Trees! Let's Kill the People!"
Embryo destructive stem cell research is unnecessary and should be stopped.
I think the first thing that needs to be presented is the idea that embryos are potential humans. Why on earth should we destroy something that has so much potential to be a human? It must be some sort of murder, and yet unfortunately our world and society is so messed up now, that we'd rather save a tree than a human. Something, like an embryo, is not a toy and it seems that as more time goes on scientists believe that they are things that can be played around with. They have presented their case on how embryonic stem cells can indeed help with medical purposes, but so do many other things. Should we keep abusing potential human embryos to make sure that someone else can be healed? How marvelous a privilege! Yea right. Why are embryos needed? There must be other ways that scientists and doctors can come up with that allow a sick patient to be healed without using a potential human. It shouldn't even matter if they woman gives someone permission to use the extra embryonic stem cells. If a woman told you that she didn't want her children anymore, would you go and say okay, lets use them for research? If you did, I would suggest that you go visit a mental hospital because indeed that is morally wrong. Shame on you. Point is, the embryo could be a human. Why would we ever want to harm it, if one day it could turn into the next Oprah Winfrey or Gandhi?
As I mentioned above, there end up being left over embryos every once in awhile. Of course, what do scientists and doctors want more than left over embryos to play with?! They would want a woman to decide that it would be okay with her if they used embryos for stem cell research. Left over embryos are generally frozen for later use, or used for experimentation. When the scientists and doctors get a hold of the embryos they are looking for ways to medically breakthrough illnesses and injuries. What they are hoping to find, is that these embryos can be a good use to the pursuit of healing unexplainable illnesses and pains. When they are frozen they generally do not die, and if the woman wants to come back later and possibly have another fertilized, she may very well do so, but if not they may be donated to stem cell research.
Many would most likely know that there are medical benefits hidden somewhere within the research of these tiny potential humans. Embryos can possibly help cure well known diseases such as Parkinson's disease and Alzheimer's. Knowing how exactly they do, I do not know, but it has been said that the left over embryos that have been donated, have helped with these diseases. Now, that leads me back to my original question, should we give up a human in order to help find these cures? And you may present me with the statement that women have given you permission to use the extra embryos. Then I will once again refer back to my original point. If women no longer had use for her children and gave them to you, would you and should you use them for research purposes and scientific studies?
Therapeutic cloning is when DNA is taken from an embryo. That is then allowed to grow and mature for two weeks or more. When that process is finished, then it becomes time for the taking out the stem cells and encouraging and helping them to grow into matured human organs. Not humans, but organs. As much as I believe that is absolutely amazing that we have the science and technology to do that is, again, if it means that it will be destroying the chance of life, then what makes it worth it. It can be helping save people's lives, but really does this mean that it will end up always working? Unfortunately it will not always work, which will lead to pure destruction of a human embryo a.k.a potential person.
Here is lastly the important issue. I have done my research on adult stem cells. Why can't we just use adult stem cells? They are not harming the person as far as we know, so why would we have to use embryos that can potential turn into a person? This is where I believe some people have really belittled humanity. If there is a better alternative where there is no harm being done, then do it! Embryos should not been seen as a toy and if already living humans can contribute to the medical world by giving some of their stem cells dwelling within their brain, bone marrow, blood vessels etc. It makes so much more sense. With this idea presented, it is as if Embryonic Stem Cell research is completely unnecessary.
Embryos are potential humans and scientists studying them is completely unnecessary when there are other possibilities. This world is corrupt, and it shows by how willingly they are to destroy life. Thank goodness we have few people with sense in this world.
I think the first thing that needs to be presented is the idea that embryos are potential humans. Why on earth should we destroy something that has so much potential to be a human? It must be some sort of murder, and yet unfortunately our world and society is so messed up now, that we'd rather save a tree than a human. Something, like an embryo, is not a toy and it seems that as more time goes on scientists believe that they are things that can be played around with. They have presented their case on how embryonic stem cells can indeed help with medical purposes, but so do many other things. Should we keep abusing potential human embryos to make sure that someone else can be healed? How marvelous a privilege! Yea right. Why are embryos needed? There must be other ways that scientists and doctors can come up with that allow a sick patient to be healed without using a potential human. It shouldn't even matter if they woman gives someone permission to use the extra embryonic stem cells. If a woman told you that she didn't want her children anymore, would you go and say okay, lets use them for research? If you did, I would suggest that you go visit a mental hospital because indeed that is morally wrong. Shame on you. Point is, the embryo could be a human. Why would we ever want to harm it, if one day it could turn into the next Oprah Winfrey or Gandhi?
As I mentioned above, there end up being left over embryos every once in awhile. Of course, what do scientists and doctors want more than left over embryos to play with?! They would want a woman to decide that it would be okay with her if they used embryos for stem cell research. Left over embryos are generally frozen for later use, or used for experimentation. When the scientists and doctors get a hold of the embryos they are looking for ways to medically breakthrough illnesses and injuries. What they are hoping to find, is that these embryos can be a good use to the pursuit of healing unexplainable illnesses and pains. When they are frozen they generally do not die, and if the woman wants to come back later and possibly have another fertilized, she may very well do so, but if not they may be donated to stem cell research.
Many would most likely know that there are medical benefits hidden somewhere within the research of these tiny potential humans. Embryos can possibly help cure well known diseases such as Parkinson's disease and Alzheimer's. Knowing how exactly they do, I do not know, but it has been said that the left over embryos that have been donated, have helped with these diseases. Now, that leads me back to my original question, should we give up a human in order to help find these cures? And you may present me with the statement that women have given you permission to use the extra embryos. Then I will once again refer back to my original point. If women no longer had use for her children and gave them to you, would you and should you use them for research purposes and scientific studies?
Therapeutic cloning is when DNA is taken from an embryo. That is then allowed to grow and mature for two weeks or more. When that process is finished, then it becomes time for the taking out the stem cells and encouraging and helping them to grow into matured human organs. Not humans, but organs. As much as I believe that is absolutely amazing that we have the science and technology to do that is, again, if it means that it will be destroying the chance of life, then what makes it worth it. It can be helping save people's lives, but really does this mean that it will end up always working? Unfortunately it will not always work, which will lead to pure destruction of a human embryo a.k.a potential person.
Here is lastly the important issue. I have done my research on adult stem cells. Why can't we just use adult stem cells? They are not harming the person as far as we know, so why would we have to use embryos that can potential turn into a person? This is where I believe some people have really belittled humanity. If there is a better alternative where there is no harm being done, then do it! Embryos should not been seen as a toy and if already living humans can contribute to the medical world by giving some of their stem cells dwelling within their brain, bone marrow, blood vessels etc. It makes so much more sense. With this idea presented, it is as if Embryonic Stem Cell research is completely unnecessary.
Embryos are potential humans and scientists studying them is completely unnecessary when there are other possibilities. This world is corrupt, and it shows by how willingly they are to destroy life. Thank goodness we have few people with sense in this world.
Friday, October 2, 2009
Well, What's the Difference?
If someone were to ask me what stem cells were I would have to tell them that they make up whatever the humans attributes can be. These cells can renew themselves through something called cell division or mitosis. While they do this they also function as organ cells which can come in handy to those who need specific transplants or ect. Stem cells can generate different replacements in the body such as repairing internal injuries such as a tear in a muscle or ligament and bacteria within the body itself. Then if another person asked me (or the same person it doesn't matter) what these cells everyone is talking about can be used for, I would tell them in some cases they can help heal burned skin, help slow the process of a particular brain disease called alzheimer, and help reduce the side effects of parkinsons disease. There are treatments today with antibiotics and over the counter drugs that can help reduce the side effects of diseases that attack the body.
Now the thing is the difference between embryonic stem cells and adult cells. Embryonic stem cells come from embryos living within the uterus of a woman. They are developed from eggs that have been fertilized into the vitro-fertilization process which in most cases are donated by a woman for research purposes, or even to reproduce. The adult stem cell or what some may call it the "undifferentiated" cell is found within the cells that renew itself within the tissue or organ. They work to repair, as I wrote about above. The controversy, however, is brought up more often when people are speaking about the embryonic stem cell and the research that is going on. People that are pro stem cell research see these cells as a way to heal illnesses and disabilities that are uncommonly cured while those against the research see these cells as potential human beings. Both make complete sense, but when it comes down, once again, to what is morally acceptable and right, if it is the beginning of a human, we should not use it in any other form.
In my opinion stem cell research could be used for good, but I disagree with it because it is indeed potentially a human being.
http://www.topnews.in/files/embryonic-stem-cells.jpg
Friday, September 25, 2009
United States of Abortions
Strategies pro-lifers use to argue against pro-abortionists are not limited to one sole argument. There have been many arguments represented my multiple pro-lifers. In this case, for this week's assignment, I have to stick with the "Trot out the Toddler" tactic. I say this because if I were arguing for abortion, then I would be most convinced of my wrongness through this tactic. Whatever the question, whatever the situation, whatever the time period, using "Trot out the Toddler" in my opinion is most affective. This argument does work and the only way that I could see how someone could leave the conversation without a change of heart would be if the question of when life begins is brought up and there is no proven answer. The tactic allows people to think logically about what they are supporting and whether or not what they are doing is morally correct. I do not see how someone could believe that killing a two year old child could be morally correct, but hey these days you never know. If people want to marry their animals, then I guess there are people out there that would think this tactic is a bunch of nonsense. As much as I believe that all of the other arguments presented are reliable and adequate, this argument seems like it would have the most positive results.
I could go on for hours about my position on abortion, but if I had to summarize it into a paragraph or two it would go a little something like this: The idea of abortion has been in place for over thirty years. There have been numerous cases of women who have accidentally become pregnant whether married or unmarried that do not want to bare the child. Unfortunately our government has decided that abortion is an "okay" thing to do because it involves the woman's choice. Many people who are for abortion believe that abortion is okay because a child is not a child until a certain stage or that an unwanted child should not be brought into this world. When I first heard that, I was almost in tears. I could not believe that people in this world truly wanted that and thought that. In no way should a child not have the chance to live because of a greedy parent that is simply unfair. There are better ways to go about this; adoption.
There have been laws made, posters scattered across the halls of colleges and schools, campaigns across the nation, and lectures within classroom about the topic of abortion. From my knowledge, I know that there is a better way than abortion. Women who become pregnant out of wedlock, women who are raped, and women who did not want a child, have other options beside abortion. If they are concerned about what people will think about them, that is the least of their worries. Having to live for nine months with embarrassment compared to living a lifetime of guilt...which one seems better? By choosing to abort, women are not giving the baby a chance, they are being selfish and unfair to the being living inside of them. There is no wrong in adoption, but a lot of wrong in abortion.
How is it exactly that abortion is acceptable and the fetus is not considered human to the majority of our nation, but infanticide is a crime? So, for example if a woman three months were to go out today and have an abortion because she is unmarried and does not want to go through the questions and embarrassment from her family and friends, then she could and it would not be considered immoral or wrong. If that same woman were driving in a car on the freeway she was involved in a head-on collision and killed, the man responsible for that crash would also be convicted of a crime for infanticide and second degree murder. There are two contradictions presented there. One, that it is acknowledging that the pregnant woman indeed has a person living inside of her, and that the killing of this woman and child is completely immoral and wrong. What is wrong with this?! Our laws contradict themselves at times.
As much knowledge as I do have about this topic, I did learn that the rate for abortion is even higher than I expected. It makes me so sad and sick inside to know that there are women in the world who cannot have children, and yet there are women who can who are abusing their privilege and killing the children. The idea of that is hard to think about, even if someone is as tough as a Now and Later candy.
http://www.abortionfacts.com/literature/literature_9438MS.asp
This link allows people who argue against the fetus being a child, to see that even in the medical world, the medical professionals believe that life begins at conception. This would be a good article to help people realize that they indeed are killing a living being.
I am praying for those who accept the views of a pro-abortionist, for I grieve for their hearts.
Friday, September 18, 2009
"All Abort!" said the Pro-Abortionist
The author of this article is a phenomenal writer in my opinion. His words are so true, aren't they? As I read it aloud to myself and family I realized just how true this article is. The assumption of pro-abortionists is correctly stated, "It is not human, it is only a fetus." He nailed it right on the dot! That is the question that pops up for every argument abortionists present.
When the idea of an unwanted child comes up, or possibly a rape case, what's the answer to that? That's when pro-lifers pull out the "trot out the toddler" tactic and begin asking questions particularly by using the "if you had a two year old...". In any abortion argument, there is always a way to make the opponent think long and hard about their answer without sounding ridiculous and repetitive. The tactic helps the argument along by coming to the same question over and over again, "Is the fetus the same as a human being?" or "What is the unborn?" In most cases, the opponent will not have a logical or reasonable answer.
"It's unfair for an unmarried woman to have to face the embarrassment of pregnancy."
In my opinion, that is a bunch of hooey. First of all, it is her fault for being so irresponsible. If she did not want a child, than she should have thought about messing around as an unmarried woman. If a woman does not want to face the embarrassment of pregnancy, than she should think about whether or not it is worth it to sleep around with a load of different men. If that same woman has a two year old toddler, would it be fair for that toddler to be killed because it is embarrassing for the mother?
"Abortion should be allowed for a woman whose unborn baby is diagnosed as deformed or handicapped."
The only response I could possibly give besides the trot out the toddler tactic, would have to be, "Try explaining that to a family with a disabled child and see if you will come out alive." If I were using the tactic I would begin once again with the two year old. If someone had a two year old child that was handicapped would it be okay for one to kill that child solely because it was too stressful? I would hope the opponents response would be ,"No."
"If abortion is outlawed, more unwanted children will be born, and these children are likely to be abused or neglected. It is better for such children to never be born than to live such a miserable existence."
If the child is unwanted, then the mother has the adoption option. There is no reason to not allow that baby a chance to live; a chance to make their own decisions; a chance to live how they want to. If you abort the baby, you never gave them a chance, instead you killed life before it could mature and develop into someone like you. If you had a two year old and decided you did not want them anymore, would it be okay for you to kill them? If not, than what makes you think that it is okay to abort one?
My beliefs on the abortion are strong, and I will refute any pro-abortionist anyday. There is no reason for the death of a child besides someone being selfish. The woman making the choice had a right to live, so why shouldn't the child?
When the idea of an unwanted child comes up, or possibly a rape case, what's the answer to that? That's when pro-lifers pull out the "trot out the toddler" tactic and begin asking questions particularly by using the "if you had a two year old...". In any abortion argument, there is always a way to make the opponent think long and hard about their answer without sounding ridiculous and repetitive. The tactic helps the argument along by coming to the same question over and over again, "Is the fetus the same as a human being?" or "What is the unborn?" In most cases, the opponent will not have a logical or reasonable answer.
"It's unfair for an unmarried woman to have to face the embarrassment of pregnancy."
In my opinion, that is a bunch of hooey. First of all, it is her fault for being so irresponsible. If she did not want a child, than she should have thought about messing around as an unmarried woman. If a woman does not want to face the embarrassment of pregnancy, than she should think about whether or not it is worth it to sleep around with a load of different men. If that same woman has a two year old toddler, would it be fair for that toddler to be killed because it is embarrassing for the mother?
"Abortion should be allowed for a woman whose unborn baby is diagnosed as deformed or handicapped."
The only response I could possibly give besides the trot out the toddler tactic, would have to be, "Try explaining that to a family with a disabled child and see if you will come out alive." If I were using the tactic I would begin once again with the two year old. If someone had a two year old child that was handicapped would it be okay for one to kill that child solely because it was too stressful? I would hope the opponents response would be ,"No."
"If abortion is outlawed, more unwanted children will be born, and these children are likely to be abused or neglected. It is better for such children to never be born than to live such a miserable existence."
If the child is unwanted, then the mother has the adoption option. There is no reason to not allow that baby a chance to live; a chance to make their own decisions; a chance to live how they want to. If you abort the baby, you never gave them a chance, instead you killed life before it could mature and develop into someone like you. If you had a two year old and decided you did not want them anymore, would it be okay for you to kill them? If not, than what makes you think that it is okay to abort one?
My beliefs on the abortion are strong, and I will refute any pro-abortionist anyday. There is no reason for the death of a child besides someone being selfish. The woman making the choice had a right to live, so why shouldn't the child?
Friday, September 4, 2009
Response to "Stand to Reason"
As I see it, an ambassador is known to have three main skills. These skills do represent a leader, a person who can be of great influence to the many people he or she may be surrounded by. The first skill that Gregory Koukl writes about indicates that the ambassador must have knowledge. Not just any knowledge, but knowledge about HIS ruler HIS king. This knowledge cannot be merely what any man or woman would usually pertain, but instead it must exceed in a way that allows the ambassador some kind of superiority. Secondly, the knowledge must not be explained in a plain or simple way, but must be described in detail, with wisdom that gives listeners a sense of direction, purpose, and persuasive enough to the point listeners will leave thinking carefully about what was presented to them. Lastly, there is the ambassadors character and personality. In order for people to take he or she seriously, he or she must be kind, thoughtful, true, honest, wise, caring, and willing to listen not solely speak.
Now the Columbus tactic, well that is probably the most interesting idea out of Gregory's entire article. For many people who are trying to, not convert because that is not the main idea, figure out what others point of view may be on a particular topic such as religion. If I were to have a conversation with a guy my age, perhaps another student from one of the local high schools, instead of opening up a conversation with my thoughts, I would ask him what he thinks about it. That way a relationship (in the friendliest way possible) would develop and trust may be put into action. By asking questions instead of talking the whole darn time, I can get a lot further and deeper into a great conversation rather than "Sure, yea, see ya!" The point of engaging with other people and trying to make them think, open up, and ask questions, one must be willing to do the same. This is, if you may, an example of the Columbus tactic: a series of questions which lead to a conversation that allows the other to be comfortable speaking to you; makes them feel that you are willing to listen and want to know their opinion; makes them think long and hard about what exactly it is they are trying to explain and believe; allows you to communicate better in the conversation.
I recall learning about the Suicide view in my junior year Bible class, Philosophy and Apologetics. It was my favorite class last year, particularly because it solved many mysteries and introduced so many new truths that I had quit trying to figure out the years before. It can be summed up quickly and easily as "a clear picture that points out a statement that is self-refuting" such as the example that was brought up in our Bible class today, "Never say never." How true is it that we hear those sayings everyday? I didn't quite realize it until today, I hear those all the time. It is so common that people use those phrases without being serious, but when in a serious situation, it can backfire in a way that leaves you looking nothing less than stupid. What becomes more and more obvious as you study the suicide tactic, is that relativism doesn't truly exist. Really. If you take time to think about it, the suicide tactic explains it crystal clear. A relativist's main point is, "What's true for you is true for you and what's true for me is true for me." Cool, but does that mean that you think I am wrong? Obviously they contradict themselves when they blame the pastor of a local church for being wrong and a fool for believing in what God says. Or possibly when they blame Sally, their neighbor, for believing that fairies exist and magic is in the air of the human world. You get what I am saying? Their ain't no such thing as a non-self-refuting, non-critical, relativist.
Altogether, the tactics can be a useful tool if one applies them correctly. I have always been curious is finding out what people believe and why they believe it, so now that Gregory has done such an eloquent job at explaining in detail just how the Columbo tactic can be used, I am all for using it when the opportunity arrives. In order to use it, I must first now what I believe and importantly how I can explain it myself. As far as the suicide tactic, it is genius. How true it is that so many people refute what they say! Now, we know that we can easily point that out and ask questions to have others explain just exactly how they can believe in something, yet have obviously proved that what they have just said is self-refuting. They can be used anytime any day, and I can't wait to try them out! I am ready and willing.
Now the Columbus tactic, well that is probably the most interesting idea out of Gregory's entire article. For many people who are trying to, not convert because that is not the main idea, figure out what others point of view may be on a particular topic such as religion. If I were to have a conversation with a guy my age, perhaps another student from one of the local high schools, instead of opening up a conversation with my thoughts, I would ask him what he thinks about it. That way a relationship (in the friendliest way possible) would develop and trust may be put into action. By asking questions instead of talking the whole darn time, I can get a lot further and deeper into a great conversation rather than "Sure, yea, see ya!" The point of engaging with other people and trying to make them think, open up, and ask questions, one must be willing to do the same. This is, if you may, an example of the Columbus tactic: a series of questions which lead to a conversation that allows the other to be comfortable speaking to you; makes them feel that you are willing to listen and want to know their opinion; makes them think long and hard about what exactly it is they are trying to explain and believe; allows you to communicate better in the conversation.
I recall learning about the Suicide view in my junior year Bible class, Philosophy and Apologetics. It was my favorite class last year, particularly because it solved many mysteries and introduced so many new truths that I had quit trying to figure out the years before. It can be summed up quickly and easily as "a clear picture that points out a statement that is self-refuting" such as the example that was brought up in our Bible class today, "Never say never." How true is it that we hear those sayings everyday? I didn't quite realize it until today, I hear those all the time. It is so common that people use those phrases without being serious, but when in a serious situation, it can backfire in a way that leaves you looking nothing less than stupid. What becomes more and more obvious as you study the suicide tactic, is that relativism doesn't truly exist. Really. If you take time to think about it, the suicide tactic explains it crystal clear. A relativist's main point is, "What's true for you is true for you and what's true for me is true for me." Cool, but does that mean that you think I am wrong? Obviously they contradict themselves when they blame the pastor of a local church for being wrong and a fool for believing in what God says. Or possibly when they blame Sally, their neighbor, for believing that fairies exist and magic is in the air of the human world. You get what I am saying? Their ain't no such thing as a non-self-refuting, non-critical, relativist.
Altogether, the tactics can be a useful tool if one applies them correctly. I have always been curious is finding out what people believe and why they believe it, so now that Gregory has done such an eloquent job at explaining in detail just how the Columbo tactic can be used, I am all for using it when the opportunity arrives. In order to use it, I must first now what I believe and importantly how I can explain it myself. As far as the suicide tactic, it is genius. How true it is that so many people refute what they say! Now, we know that we can easily point that out and ask questions to have others explain just exactly how they can believe in something, yet have obviously proved that what they have just said is self-refuting. They can be used anytime any day, and I can't wait to try them out! I am ready and willing.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)