I would like to take this time to issue my fond farewell from the blogging world. I wish first of all to thank all of you who took the time and energy to make this project a success. I believe it has been a valuable debate in the short time it has existed. I feel, however, that the time requirements made in maintaining this blog as well as my need to further my personal studies must draw this to a close for now. I do this with a heavy heart, but also a hopeful future.
I have found hope that the democracy of America is still alive and well, living in this online world, finding it's spirit satisfied. I would urge everyone to continue to be involved in online discussions and debate, as debate is what, in the end shapes, the policies of the future.
To my frequent readers, posters and all others who have stumbled across this page randomly, I wish to offer my deepest gratitude and thanks. All the talks we have had and time we have spent here has not been in vain, as evidenced by what is seen in the archives and the topics brought to light. Let us all keep the debate alive and keep this country strong in its citizenry; the true backbone holding it all together.
Once again, thank you all, and if there is anything further you wish to talk with me about, feel free to email me at kelbylovelady@gmail.com.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Fostering an Environment of Freedom
Hello all! After my short vacation from blogging, I am back and ready to go forward. Thank you all for your patience in waiting. I would like to write today a short post on the current state of the US as I see it.
We live in a country which, by it's very nature, is meant to be free. It is meant to encourage it's citizenry to grow to their fullest potential. It is meant to be a country where the people are in control by who we elect and don't elect. It is meant to be one nation under God, with liberty and justice for all.
What is truly, then, the best way to foster this environment of freedom?
-Keep the government out of the way. How can we be free if we are being held down? Move restrictions of government out of the way and let the people live their life as they see fit. Freedom.
-Keep the government out of our pocketbooks. How can we be free if the government is spending our money for us? This is not to say that government doesn't need to have tax revenue; police forces and any public safety is very important. Do we, however, need to pay millions of our dollars to research cow flatulence? I don't think so. (Yes, this research is for real and happening with our tax money right now.) Let the people have their money and spend it as they please. Freedom.
-Keep the debate ways open. This is where our country is at it's best. We live in a place where freedom of debate is available and openly used. Let me, however, say what debate is not. It is not marching down the street, offending as many people as you can while destroying private or public property. It is not a disruptive force; it is a conversation. Let the people discuss the best way to move forward. Freedom.
Of course, what this all comes down to is the individual citizen's responsibility to be involved and informed about this country, the elected officials, and the events surrounding them. Ignorance of American citizens leads to a government with unlimited control over the citizenry; able to manipulate and guide their opinions. Awareness leads to freedom; it allows the citizens to understand not only what's happening, but a way to change what will happen. Let us all, therefore, be informed and ready to make the decisions this country asks of us; and as always God Bless America.
I leave you now with a quote from Thomas Paine's Common Sense: "A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom."
We live in a country which, by it's very nature, is meant to be free. It is meant to encourage it's citizenry to grow to their fullest potential. It is meant to be a country where the people are in control by who we elect and don't elect. It is meant to be one nation under God, with liberty and justice for all.
What is truly, then, the best way to foster this environment of freedom?
-Keep the government out of the way. How can we be free if we are being held down? Move restrictions of government out of the way and let the people live their life as they see fit. Freedom.
-Keep the government out of our pocketbooks. How can we be free if the government is spending our money for us? This is not to say that government doesn't need to have tax revenue; police forces and any public safety is very important. Do we, however, need to pay millions of our dollars to research cow flatulence? I don't think so. (Yes, this research is for real and happening with our tax money right now.) Let the people have their money and spend it as they please. Freedom.
-Keep the debate ways open. This is where our country is at it's best. We live in a place where freedom of debate is available and openly used. Let me, however, say what debate is not. It is not marching down the street, offending as many people as you can while destroying private or public property. It is not a disruptive force; it is a conversation. Let the people discuss the best way to move forward. Freedom.
Of course, what this all comes down to is the individual citizen's responsibility to be involved and informed about this country, the elected officials, and the events surrounding them. Ignorance of American citizens leads to a government with unlimited control over the citizenry; able to manipulate and guide their opinions. Awareness leads to freedom; it allows the citizens to understand not only what's happening, but a way to change what will happen. Let us all, therefore, be informed and ready to make the decisions this country asks of us; and as always God Bless America.
I leave you now with a quote from Thomas Paine's Common Sense: "A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom."
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Conservative Response to Liberalism - Part #3 - Government's Role
I would like to take a moment this morning to post the last part of my conservative response to liberalism series. (PART 1 HERE) - (PART 2 HERE) I haven't touched on this for a while now, since the topics of discussion were leading elsewhere, but I do feel it necessary to finish what I started. So, here is my last response to Mr. McKinley's Proud to Be A Liberal article.
To quote;
"Liberalism is "The Pursuit of Happiness." It is the freedom to create an environment where the individual can excel. What is freedom if it cannot be used to better our lives? A truly free society must be one where its members can rise above their limitations and expand their futures. We call it "The American Dream," and it's alive and well in the heart of the Liberal. Liberals believe in equal opportunities for all to rise above our means. Liberals believe in equal opportunities to rise above our education levels. Liberals believe in equal opportunities to rise above our social status. And Liberals believe each and every family should have an equal opportunity to make this world better for their children."
Once again, we are met with Mr. McKinley stating that liberalism is creating freedom. I cannot except this as true, however. Liberalism seems to do nothing but get in the way of freedom, and in the process, get in the way of the pursuit of happiness (as they are often times one in the same).
Liberalism is about growing government bigger. The modern liberal holds that the government can solve all the problems of the day. This 'big government' does nothing but block the individual's freedoms; it stops them from living as they want to. The bigger government gets, the less chance any individual has to do with there life what they want. If laws are put in place saying a person can't own a gun unless the are screened for months, register yearly, report there comings and goings, and face charges if their gun is used (even if they aren't the ones using it), than you are putting forth a situation where many wouldn't bother owning a gun. A freedom taken away. (This freedom is even constitutionally defined)
The modern American government is in our life constantly. It is telling the schools what to teach our children, and discouraging those who disagree and wish to homeschool. This is called, in many cirumstances, indoctrination. Don't get me wrong here, I don't believe that every class in every school is some type of government indoctrination. However, when the government says that the school cannot teach Creationism as an alternative to evolution, that is indoctrination. It is presenting only one side of the issue at hand and not letting any type of free decision to be made; it is stopping free-thinking from ever occuring.
In the end, do we really want the government to be growing, giving a small group of people more and more power? Sinful man, in his fallen state, cannot in most cases be trusted, unless fervently seeking God. Yet, our government has turned away from it's Christian founding. This government was founded by God-fearing people who looked upwards for the solutions to what they saw around them. The constitution was written on the premise that the government needs to stay as small as possible to allow freedom and liberty to reign across the land. The founders admitted their fallen, sinful nature and understood that power would corrupt government; they knew that the size of the government needed to be small to preserve the nation; and they knew that it was from a gift of God that they had a chance to form this country.
So where are we today? Our government is growing (along with the national debt), our President publicly states that we are not a Christian nation (even though we were founded on Christianity), our President is going around the world apologizing for our actions (instead of being proud of our heritage and what we have acomplished), and our people are turning their backs on God, leading to the moral deprivation of the individual.
Liberalism the pursuit of happiness? No, it's not. It is going farther and farther from it everyday. Only when man understands his governments role, and this nation is truly One Nation Under God, will this country be free and the people free to pursue happiness.
To quote;
"Liberalism is "The Pursuit of Happiness." It is the freedom to create an environment where the individual can excel. What is freedom if it cannot be used to better our lives? A truly free society must be one where its members can rise above their limitations and expand their futures. We call it "The American Dream," and it's alive and well in the heart of the Liberal. Liberals believe in equal opportunities for all to rise above our means. Liberals believe in equal opportunities to rise above our education levels. Liberals believe in equal opportunities to rise above our social status. And Liberals believe each and every family should have an equal opportunity to make this world better for their children."
Once again, we are met with Mr. McKinley stating that liberalism is creating freedom. I cannot except this as true, however. Liberalism seems to do nothing but get in the way of freedom, and in the process, get in the way of the pursuit of happiness (as they are often times one in the same).
Liberalism is about growing government bigger. The modern liberal holds that the government can solve all the problems of the day. This 'big government' does nothing but block the individual's freedoms; it stops them from living as they want to. The bigger government gets, the less chance any individual has to do with there life what they want. If laws are put in place saying a person can't own a gun unless the are screened for months, register yearly, report there comings and goings, and face charges if their gun is used (even if they aren't the ones using it), than you are putting forth a situation where many wouldn't bother owning a gun. A freedom taken away. (This freedom is even constitutionally defined)
The modern American government is in our life constantly. It is telling the schools what to teach our children, and discouraging those who disagree and wish to homeschool. This is called, in many cirumstances, indoctrination. Don't get me wrong here, I don't believe that every class in every school is some type of government indoctrination. However, when the government says that the school cannot teach Creationism as an alternative to evolution, that is indoctrination. It is presenting only one side of the issue at hand and not letting any type of free decision to be made; it is stopping free-thinking from ever occuring.
In the end, do we really want the government to be growing, giving a small group of people more and more power? Sinful man, in his fallen state, cannot in most cases be trusted, unless fervently seeking God. Yet, our government has turned away from it's Christian founding. This government was founded by God-fearing people who looked upwards for the solutions to what they saw around them. The constitution was written on the premise that the government needs to stay as small as possible to allow freedom and liberty to reign across the land. The founders admitted their fallen, sinful nature and understood that power would corrupt government; they knew that the size of the government needed to be small to preserve the nation; and they knew that it was from a gift of God that they had a chance to form this country.
So where are we today? Our government is growing (along with the national debt), our President publicly states that we are not a Christian nation (even though we were founded on Christianity), our President is going around the world apologizing for our actions (instead of being proud of our heritage and what we have acomplished), and our people are turning their backs on God, leading to the moral deprivation of the individual.
Liberalism the pursuit of happiness? No, it's not. It is going farther and farther from it everyday. Only when man understands his governments role, and this nation is truly One Nation Under God, will this country be free and the people free to pursue happiness.
Friday, May 8, 2009
Morality - A Summation of My Thoughts
Here is a writing I have been working on for some time now. I have tried to pull together all my ideas from the past couple weeks of discussion on this site and state them concisely and completely as possible. I apologize for the length of this posting, however, this is a huge topic. I intend this to be the last posting on this subject before moving on to something else, as well, unless popular demand deems otherwise. Anyway, enjoy and feel free to comment below. Thank you all for your time.
Morality, as a guidepost for human decisions, is built into each person. The long standing debate has been where this morality comes from. Some hold to an evolutionary theory explaining how social animals evolved into humans, and as such, the necessary rights and wrongs that develop in a social system are the instincts that have carried into humanity, as we are, in the end, only animals anyway.
Others, (myself included), hold that religion, (particularly the Christian religion), best explains morality. In this view, God has placed in each person a moral compass, built into our souls, residing in our flesh. This moral compass, often called our conscience, guides us to hold certain things as right, (i.e. giving, caring attitudes to others), and certain things as wrong, (murder, stealing, etc.). Christianity also holds all Christians accountable to God for the things they do. This accountability is one of the strongest differences in Christian morality and evolutionist morality.
So, in the end, morality is debated not on the basis of what it is, but on the basis of why it is there; whether through God or through evolution. This debate, then, changes depending on how it is framed. If it is started from a biblical standpoint, it becomes a debate about whether religion can explain the world best or not. If the debate is framed from the evolutionist’s standpoint, it then becomes whether evolution can answer the questions of the world.
Furthermore, because of this prerequisite way of framing the debate, as well as the length of time this debate has taken place, each side can pull from its “bag of tricks” that has been developed for years. There are certain things which cannot be known by modern science; this is one of them.
Where does that leave us in today’s society then? We have the people who hold to the Christian view of things and battle for morality and justice. We also have the Evolutionists who will battle for a more relativist approach to morality. Yet we live in a country where we both have a chance to speak, and everyone has a choice to make freely and openly.
All that’s left, really, is for us to each make our personal case for morality, religion, politics, etc. and let the individual decide by asking questions and debating what is presented. So, here is my concise presentation of my beliefs.
1. - If the Bible and Christianity is everything it claims to be, and is the Word of God, it should present itself with all the answers needed to respond to critics of it. I believe wholly and truly it does. [2 Tim 3:16; Matt 2:18; 1 Cor 2:7-14]
2. - If religion itself is important and true, each person should be unashamed of presenting it fully. [Phil 1:5-6; 1 Thess 2:13]
3. - Morality is written in our hearts by God, as presented in the Bible, and manifest in each person through the conscience. [Rom 2:15]
4. - Each person then must choose whether to answer God’s calling or ignore it and move into a lifestyle of sin. This lifestyle is full of constantly trying to justify personal decisions through man’s corrupt mind, and therefore, can never be complete, but instead, always searching. [Rom 1:18-32]
Of course, the evolutionist / naturalist could make a list of their beliefs too. I believe, however, that their answers would be missing something (God), full of errors in other places (science changes it’s mind rapidly), and incomplete (science cannot know the beginning or the end), and therefore incorrect.
Hopefully my presentation here is clear enough to get my point across, well written enough to be clear, and open enough to allow for questioning and debate. Thanks again for taking the time to read and being a part of this sites mission; open debate in a public forum about issues that effect us everyday. Thank you.
Morality, as a guidepost for human decisions, is built into each person. The long standing debate has been where this morality comes from. Some hold to an evolutionary theory explaining how social animals evolved into humans, and as such, the necessary rights and wrongs that develop in a social system are the instincts that have carried into humanity, as we are, in the end, only animals anyway.
Others, (myself included), hold that religion, (particularly the Christian religion), best explains morality. In this view, God has placed in each person a moral compass, built into our souls, residing in our flesh. This moral compass, often called our conscience, guides us to hold certain things as right, (i.e. giving, caring attitudes to others), and certain things as wrong, (murder, stealing, etc.). Christianity also holds all Christians accountable to God for the things they do. This accountability is one of the strongest differences in Christian morality and evolutionist morality.
So, in the end, morality is debated not on the basis of what it is, but on the basis of why it is there; whether through God or through evolution. This debate, then, changes depending on how it is framed. If it is started from a biblical standpoint, it becomes a debate about whether religion can explain the world best or not. If the debate is framed from the evolutionist’s standpoint, it then becomes whether evolution can answer the questions of the world.
Furthermore, because of this prerequisite way of framing the debate, as well as the length of time this debate has taken place, each side can pull from its “bag of tricks” that has been developed for years. There are certain things which cannot be known by modern science; this is one of them.
Where does that leave us in today’s society then? We have the people who hold to the Christian view of things and battle for morality and justice. We also have the Evolutionists who will battle for a more relativist approach to morality. Yet we live in a country where we both have a chance to speak, and everyone has a choice to make freely and openly.
All that’s left, really, is for us to each make our personal case for morality, religion, politics, etc. and let the individual decide by asking questions and debating what is presented. So, here is my concise presentation of my beliefs.
1. - If the Bible and Christianity is everything it claims to be, and is the Word of God, it should present itself with all the answers needed to respond to critics of it. I believe wholly and truly it does. [2 Tim 3:16; Matt 2:18; 1 Cor 2:7-14]
2. - If religion itself is important and true, each person should be unashamed of presenting it fully. [Phil 1:5-6; 1 Thess 2:13]
3. - Morality is written in our hearts by God, as presented in the Bible, and manifest in each person through the conscience. [Rom 2:15]
4. - Each person then must choose whether to answer God’s calling or ignore it and move into a lifestyle of sin. This lifestyle is full of constantly trying to justify personal decisions through man’s corrupt mind, and therefore, can never be complete, but instead, always searching. [Rom 1:18-32]
Of course, the evolutionist / naturalist could make a list of their beliefs too. I believe, however, that their answers would be missing something (God), full of errors in other places (science changes it’s mind rapidly), and incomplete (science cannot know the beginning or the end), and therefore incorrect.
Hopefully my presentation here is clear enough to get my point across, well written enough to be clear, and open enough to allow for questioning and debate. Thanks again for taking the time to read and being a part of this sites mission; open debate in a public forum about issues that effect us everyday. Thank you.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Eternity, Morality, Gaia Theory and God - A Continuing Conversation
Hello all and thank you for the conversation started here. It makes my job much easier when it comes to writing new posts :) So, I would like to refresh the conversation started on the comment string of Morality - Absolutism v. Relativism with new post here. This is, however, simply a response to conversation below.
First off, to J.C. ~ I do agree with you that we can look into the Bible as our guide for what is to come and see that the world is going to do alright until God decides when it is time for judgement. I have always found it interesting that the event which will eventually destroy the universe, (nuclear explosion it seems [2 Peter 3:10]), was built into the world from the beginning. I have read that it would take a matter of seconds for an uncontrolled nuclear explosion to eliminate the entire universe. Very interesting. Another sign of God knowing the end from the beginning. I would, however, like to have you elaborate on your two God statement. The way I think about it, I believe in one God manifest in three Persons, but it is very possible to have more than one infinite being, as all Christians will one day be infinite, physical beings living with God in New Jerusalem. (Rev 21) Something to think about...
Anonymous - Glad to see you are engaged here, and I thank you for the time you are putting into this conversation. It's much appreciated.
Now, to expand on what I started yesterday (about the personal objective God and the impersonal, subjective 'infinite beings'). I would like to move to your next question about animals.
I believe that animals do not have a soul, but are simply physical beings on this planet that were created by God. That does not, however, mean that they do not have the means to think. Their brains can still function and make decisions; even some basic reasoning functions are present in animals. The soul, on the other hand, is something different. It is eternal and ever-lasting. The soul allows us, as humans, to have the hope of future glory in eternity.
I wonder, if animals have souls, as you say, and we all evolved in a billion year long process (am I wrong in assuming you believe this?), where the soul came from? I cannot come to an answer there, which leads me away from that theory and back to my Bible, the source of God's word and knowledge.
To answer one further question you have brought up, (I hope I am getting them all, let me know what I am missing), I believe that humans are valued above all living things because we were created apart from the rest of creation in God's image. During the creation week, God made all the animals in groups, (land creatures, creatures of the air, creatures of the sea, and bugs), but Man was created separately. The history of the world is not centered around the history of animals, but the history of man. Animals are a resource, and as such, should be treated with care and compassion, yes. However, human life is so much more valuable. If we were on the same level as animals, we would then be forced to say that it would be better to save twenty cows from death than to save one person from death. That is something I cannot except, and I believe that if that were excepted, human morality would be lost.
Thank you for the information about Lovelock and the Gaia theory. I did do some research and found it to be quite interesting. I think that the Gaia theory does, in a very unscientific way I will admit, attempt to explain a biblical view of the world (without the Bible, however).
And thank you to all who are reading this now. I welcome anyone to join in on this conversation with the comment section below, or by emailing me at kelbylovelady@gmail.com.
First off, to J.C. ~ I do agree with you that we can look into the Bible as our guide for what is to come and see that the world is going to do alright until God decides when it is time for judgement. I have always found it interesting that the event which will eventually destroy the universe, (nuclear explosion it seems [2 Peter 3:10]), was built into the world from the beginning. I have read that it would take a matter of seconds for an uncontrolled nuclear explosion to eliminate the entire universe. Very interesting. Another sign of God knowing the end from the beginning. I would, however, like to have you elaborate on your two God statement. The way I think about it, I believe in one God manifest in three Persons, but it is very possible to have more than one infinite being, as all Christians will one day be infinite, physical beings living with God in New Jerusalem. (Rev 21) Something to think about...
Anonymous - Glad to see you are engaged here, and I thank you for the time you are putting into this conversation. It's much appreciated.
Now, to expand on what I started yesterday (about the personal objective God and the impersonal, subjective 'infinite beings'). I would like to move to your next question about animals.
I believe that animals do not have a soul, but are simply physical beings on this planet that were created by God. That does not, however, mean that they do not have the means to think. Their brains can still function and make decisions; even some basic reasoning functions are present in animals. The soul, on the other hand, is something different. It is eternal and ever-lasting. The soul allows us, as humans, to have the hope of future glory in eternity.
I wonder, if animals have souls, as you say, and we all evolved in a billion year long process (am I wrong in assuming you believe this?), where the soul came from? I cannot come to an answer there, which leads me away from that theory and back to my Bible, the source of God's word and knowledge.
To answer one further question you have brought up, (I hope I am getting them all, let me know what I am missing), I believe that humans are valued above all living things because we were created apart from the rest of creation in God's image. During the creation week, God made all the animals in groups, (land creatures, creatures of the air, creatures of the sea, and bugs), but Man was created separately. The history of the world is not centered around the history of animals, but the history of man. Animals are a resource, and as such, should be treated with care and compassion, yes. However, human life is so much more valuable. If we were on the same level as animals, we would then be forced to say that it would be better to save twenty cows from death than to save one person from death. That is something I cannot except, and I believe that if that were excepted, human morality would be lost.
Thank you for the information about Lovelock and the Gaia theory. I did do some research and found it to be quite interesting. I think that the Gaia theory does, in a very unscientific way I will admit, attempt to explain a biblical view of the world (without the Bible, however).
And thank you to all who are reading this now. I welcome anyone to join in on this conversation with the comment section below, or by emailing me at kelbylovelady@gmail.com.
Friday, May 1, 2009
Morality - Absolutism v. Relativism - Response to a Comment
I have received a lot of great feedback from people to my last post about morality and relativism in modern society. (Thank you all) It has set off a lot of hot-button issues (abortion, faith, morality) that I believe really need to be talked about openly, so I am going to break from my 'conservative response to liberalism' series for a moment and talk on this some more.
The latest comment left by an anonymous person chastised me for calling humans "infinitely more valuable" than animals. I want to take a moment to answer them very directly.
To The Anonymous Poster - While I may be wrong because I can only look at what you have written here, I believe you are an example of what I was talking about earlier; someone who has taken moral relativism and evolutionary theory to their full extent and drawn the only conclusion that can come from it - humans are not of any higher value, but are actually equal to animals, since we are just animals in the end. This theory, then put into action, leads directly to using a program like eugenics to selectively breed only the best humans to make a better and stronger race. (Hitler was trying this with his Aryan race experiments) (It was also, interestingly, started in the US around the time of the Depression, but was ended very quickly when people found out what was happening) While most would see this as a very dangerous path to go down, it really truly is naturally where relativism leads to.
Here's how I see it. This world was created in six, twenty-four hour long, days. When man was created, he was set apart from the rest of creation, made in God's image. (Gen. 1:26) And, as we all know how the story goes, Man became sinful and fell from God's glory (Gen 3). This was the start of redemptive history from the beginning of time, and continuing now. Man was told to "...subdue the Earth", (Gen 1:28). He was not told to walk along side animals as equals, nor was he told that he came from animals in a great evolutionary system, but that he was created "...from the dust of the ground" (Gen 2:7). This world is made for us by God to have dominion over (Gen 1:28), and as humans, we have spirits within us, we have reasoning minds, and we have a huge range of emotions, longings, and desires, as well as a conscience (Rom. 2:14-16), helping us to discern right from wrong (essentially, helping us follow God's word).
In our fallen, sinful world, we are taught by the "modern culture" that this type of thinking is foolish, yet it has never been proven wrong, and continues to show how right it is everyday. We are taught to have "open-mindedness". However, as the pastor John MacArthur says, having an open mind is a dangerous thing. It lets in all things, not discerning or sorting out information, but excepting it all. It's like having a house and leaving the door open at all times. Anything could come in at anytime, and if the door's open, who's to stop it. Of course, things could also leave at anytime. MacArthur's analogy fit's the modern "open-mindedness" perfectly, and we see where it leads people everyday.
So, in the end, you and I have two different places we are framing this argument from. I am looking at it from a biblical, moral absolutist standpoint (through faith in Christ), and you are looking at it from a moral relativist, evolutionary standpoint (through faith in naturalism). We are both assuming a starting point and going from there. To an outside observer, we really need to start this argument, then, from a new point - where did humanity come from, apes or God? Why do we have reasoning? Where did this world come from? Why? This would then allow us to move into questions such as the value of human life, the absolute or non-absolute morals that guide our day to day life, etc.
I hope not to offend anyone with what I have said, but I also hope that it makes people think about their situation in this life and where they stand in the grand scheme of things. Thank you all for taking the time to read this, and as always, feel free to leave comments and let me know your thoughts. Thank You.
The latest comment left by an anonymous person chastised me for calling humans "infinitely more valuable" than animals. I want to take a moment to answer them very directly.
To The Anonymous Poster - While I may be wrong because I can only look at what you have written here, I believe you are an example of what I was talking about earlier; someone who has taken moral relativism and evolutionary theory to their full extent and drawn the only conclusion that can come from it - humans are not of any higher value, but are actually equal to animals, since we are just animals in the end. This theory, then put into action, leads directly to using a program like eugenics to selectively breed only the best humans to make a better and stronger race. (Hitler was trying this with his Aryan race experiments) (It was also, interestingly, started in the US around the time of the Depression, but was ended very quickly when people found out what was happening) While most would see this as a very dangerous path to go down, it really truly is naturally where relativism leads to.
Here's how I see it. This world was created in six, twenty-four hour long, days. When man was created, he was set apart from the rest of creation, made in God's image. (Gen. 1:26) And, as we all know how the story goes, Man became sinful and fell from God's glory (Gen 3). This was the start of redemptive history from the beginning of time, and continuing now. Man was told to "...subdue the Earth", (Gen 1:28). He was not told to walk along side animals as equals, nor was he told that he came from animals in a great evolutionary system, but that he was created "...from the dust of the ground" (Gen 2:7). This world is made for us by God to have dominion over (Gen 1:28), and as humans, we have spirits within us, we have reasoning minds, and we have a huge range of emotions, longings, and desires, as well as a conscience (Rom. 2:14-16), helping us to discern right from wrong (essentially, helping us follow God's word).
In our fallen, sinful world, we are taught by the "modern culture" that this type of thinking is foolish, yet it has never been proven wrong, and continues to show how right it is everyday. We are taught to have "open-mindedness". However, as the pastor John MacArthur says, having an open mind is a dangerous thing. It lets in all things, not discerning or sorting out information, but excepting it all. It's like having a house and leaving the door open at all times. Anything could come in at anytime, and if the door's open, who's to stop it. Of course, things could also leave at anytime. MacArthur's analogy fit's the modern "open-mindedness" perfectly, and we see where it leads people everyday.
So, in the end, you and I have two different places we are framing this argument from. I am looking at it from a biblical, moral absolutist standpoint (through faith in Christ), and you are looking at it from a moral relativist, evolutionary standpoint (through faith in naturalism). We are both assuming a starting point and going from there. To an outside observer, we really need to start this argument, then, from a new point - where did humanity come from, apes or God? Why do we have reasoning? Where did this world come from? Why? This would then allow us to move into questions such as the value of human life, the absolute or non-absolute morals that guide our day to day life, etc.
I hope not to offend anyone with what I have said, but I also hope that it makes people think about their situation in this life and where they stand in the grand scheme of things. Thank you all for taking the time to read this, and as always, feel free to leave comments and let me know your thoughts. Thank You.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Conservative Response to Liberalism - Part #2
In a continuation of the post below, here is part two of my response to Mr. Brian McKinley's analysis of what liberalism is.
The next section put forth in the "Proud to be a Liberal" article by Mr. McKinley is as follows:
Liberalism is "Liberty." It is the freedom to do as your conscience dictates without impeding another's rights. Fleeing oppression in mother Europe, our founders established a nation where personal belief and self-determination are protected, not persecuted, where hard work is rewarded, not demanded, and where each person is bestowed with the ability to better his or her life because of citizenship, not class. Liberals believe in freedom of speech to protect us from political oppression. Liberals believe in sound regulations to protect us from economic oppression. Liberals believe in just laws to protect us from social oppression. And Liberals believe in quality education to protect us from the oppression of ignorance.
My first thoughts after looking at this part draw me back to the first line over and over, where it says '... the freedom to do as your conscience dictates'. This is being shown every day to be a major sticking point between conservatives and liberals. It was brought up in the comments on the previous post (thank you J.C. Klemencic). Perhaps a good place to start would be where I personally view this subject.
Liberalism holds to a moral relativism that is degrading the society. This relativism that is pushed onto people teaches that things may seem wrong to some people and right to others, and both are fine views. This view, then, appeals to the very basic, sinful side of human reasoning. It allows the person to justify their thoughts and actions, no matter what they are, or how selfish they are. For example, abortion as I see it, is murder of an unborn child. However, someone holding onto relativism can speak of the life of the mother, the quality of life the family will have, etc. and try to legitimize it all in their mind. Of course, even the thinnest veil of legitimacy is enough when your mind is wrapped up in relativism; which then convinces the liberal that anyone who doesn't think that way is 'behind the times' or 'not as sophisticated' as they.
Many conservatives, (not all, as I dare not lump all into this group), hold to a different set of moral beliefs. It can be called original sin (if the morality originates through the person's religious views) or I've also heard it said to be a black/white morality. Either way, it states that certain things in this world are right, and certain things are wrong. For example, murder and theft are wrong, where taking care of the poor and weak is right. By putting morality into these black and white categories of right and wrong, we are led to have certain misgivings that are held to strongly. This also provides a base with which to look at the world; it provides a reasoning behind the thoughts and conclusions one comes to about the world around them. There is, then, no need for long debates over whether something is moral or not. It simply is right, or it is wrong, end of story. I, personally, receive this moral view through my religion, though some come to it by simply looking at the world around them and understanding that there is right and wrong.
This morality is not 'out of touch' or 'behind the times' at all, but holds to what we all have in our conscience; what we all know to be right and wrong.
I don't mean to sound preachy here, but moral relativism, when pulled to it's conclusion, destroys all value of human life. If everyone who believed strongly in moral relativism, (even if they didn't realize that's what it is called), thought about what they were doing, this world would destroy itself immediately. There would be no reason to have children, as it is to much of a burden for the self-gratification seeking relativist. Besides, why not seek self-gratification, this world is all there is, right? Anyway, there would also be no reason to value human life at all. What makes us more valuable then, say, an animal, or a tree? (PETA comes to mind here) So, we could all just kill each other, and it wouldn't really matter. Besides, it might be seen as right and just in the killer's eyes to kill. How can he be wrong if there's no morality?
As you can see, it's a dangerous path. The only thing stopping a relativist from going that far is a little piece of the conscience drawing a line and not taking relativism to its full conclusion.
So, a conservative, (at least most conservatives), believes that there is a moral right and wrong, and uses it as a guide post with which to look at the world. It is not impeding someone else's rights. It is, simply, right or wrong. It is valuing human life. And, through valuing human life, a conservative then is brought to valuing human opinions, valuing human work ethic, valuing human freedom, and valuing human liberty. Conservatives do not believe in taking from the rich people to give to the poor. Conservatives believe in helping that poor person to work hard and raise themselves up from their situation into a better one.
Basically, the response to Mr. McKinley's entire look at 'Liberalism is Liberty' all comes down to where the morality comes from. That, also, of course dictates how you, the reader, will react to what I have just said, and really how this entire debate is framed.
I am at a loss of where to go from here, and this post is getting quite long, so I will leave this open ended for now and gather my thoughts on it some more. Feel free to leave comments below and let me know what you think. As always, thank you for taking the time to read my thoughts and show your involvement in the open debate that has made this country what it is today, and will continue to guide it to what it's future will be.
The next section put forth in the "Proud to be a Liberal" article by Mr. McKinley is as follows:
Liberalism is "Liberty." It is the freedom to do as your conscience dictates without impeding another's rights. Fleeing oppression in mother Europe, our founders established a nation where personal belief and self-determination are protected, not persecuted, where hard work is rewarded, not demanded, and where each person is bestowed with the ability to better his or her life because of citizenship, not class. Liberals believe in freedom of speech to protect us from political oppression. Liberals believe in sound regulations to protect us from economic oppression. Liberals believe in just laws to protect us from social oppression. And Liberals believe in quality education to protect us from the oppression of ignorance.
My first thoughts after looking at this part draw me back to the first line over and over, where it says '... the freedom to do as your conscience dictates'. This is being shown every day to be a major sticking point between conservatives and liberals. It was brought up in the comments on the previous post (thank you J.C. Klemencic). Perhaps a good place to start would be where I personally view this subject.
Liberalism holds to a moral relativism that is degrading the society. This relativism that is pushed onto people teaches that things may seem wrong to some people and right to others, and both are fine views. This view, then, appeals to the very basic, sinful side of human reasoning. It allows the person to justify their thoughts and actions, no matter what they are, or how selfish they are. For example, abortion as I see it, is murder of an unborn child. However, someone holding onto relativism can speak of the life of the mother, the quality of life the family will have, etc. and try to legitimize it all in their mind. Of course, even the thinnest veil of legitimacy is enough when your mind is wrapped up in relativism; which then convinces the liberal that anyone who doesn't think that way is 'behind the times' or 'not as sophisticated' as they.
Many conservatives, (not all, as I dare not lump all into this group), hold to a different set of moral beliefs. It can be called original sin (if the morality originates through the person's religious views) or I've also heard it said to be a black/white morality. Either way, it states that certain things in this world are right, and certain things are wrong. For example, murder and theft are wrong, where taking care of the poor and weak is right. By putting morality into these black and white categories of right and wrong, we are led to have certain misgivings that are held to strongly. This also provides a base with which to look at the world; it provides a reasoning behind the thoughts and conclusions one comes to about the world around them. There is, then, no need for long debates over whether something is moral or not. It simply is right, or it is wrong, end of story. I, personally, receive this moral view through my religion, though some come to it by simply looking at the world around them and understanding that there is right and wrong.
This morality is not 'out of touch' or 'behind the times' at all, but holds to what we all have in our conscience; what we all know to be right and wrong.
I don't mean to sound preachy here, but moral relativism, when pulled to it's conclusion, destroys all value of human life. If everyone who believed strongly in moral relativism, (even if they didn't realize that's what it is called), thought about what they were doing, this world would destroy itself immediately. There would be no reason to have children, as it is to much of a burden for the self-gratification seeking relativist. Besides, why not seek self-gratification, this world is all there is, right? Anyway, there would also be no reason to value human life at all. What makes us more valuable then, say, an animal, or a tree? (PETA comes to mind here) So, we could all just kill each other, and it wouldn't really matter. Besides, it might be seen as right and just in the killer's eyes to kill. How can he be wrong if there's no morality?
As you can see, it's a dangerous path. The only thing stopping a relativist from going that far is a little piece of the conscience drawing a line and not taking relativism to its full conclusion.
So, a conservative, (at least most conservatives), believes that there is a moral right and wrong, and uses it as a guide post with which to look at the world. It is not impeding someone else's rights. It is, simply, right or wrong. It is valuing human life. And, through valuing human life, a conservative then is brought to valuing human opinions, valuing human work ethic, valuing human freedom, and valuing human liberty. Conservatives do not believe in taking from the rich people to give to the poor. Conservatives believe in helping that poor person to work hard and raise themselves up from their situation into a better one.
Basically, the response to Mr. McKinley's entire look at 'Liberalism is Liberty' all comes down to where the morality comes from. That, also, of course dictates how you, the reader, will react to what I have just said, and really how this entire debate is framed.
I am at a loss of where to go from here, and this post is getting quite long, so I will leave this open ended for now and gather my thoughts on it some more. Feel free to leave comments below and let me know what you think. As always, thank you for taking the time to read my thoughts and show your involvement in the open debate that has made this country what it is today, and will continue to guide it to what it's future will be.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
