Interesting read..

http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/11/ferguson-conspiracy-exposed/

Especially the statistics.  I haven't seen the video yet.
I have seen the general trend of white people apologizing or being made to feel they should apologize for being white.
Ultimately, there is a force in our country driven to stir up division. By race, gender, wealth, world-view or anything else that is politically expedient. imho, this force is also fighting to supress critical thinking & the educational atmosphere that promotes it. I did a search on Ferguson conspiracy because I heard this week that protestors are being paid to stir up trouble. I know there are very few who read what I write, but no one reads what is never written.

The What If's

First, let me ask a few questions.  Have there ever been whites to take a stand against racism against a black person?  Before you answer, take a look at who has been involved this week.  Have there ever been blacks to take a stand against racism against a white person?  Before you answer, yes, there is racism against white people.

What if Wilson did not shoot?
What if Brown got Wilson's gun?
Would there be any news?
Would there be any protests?
Would Wilson be alive?
Are you thinking that Wilson would deserve it?
So aren't you racist to think that?
I wonder if Brown would have been caught if Wilson did not survive.
Who would care then?
Yes our country is torn apart by racism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_card

crfu.co.nz/crfuclubs/index.cfm/

http://www.diversityinc.com/ask-the-white-guy/does-playing-the-race-card-make-you-racist/
I found this particularly interesting  so I looked up racism: http://goo.gl/OYK5Wz

How would I define playing the race card?  It is making a hasty assumption or a prejudicially motivated action that claims something is racially motivated out of convenience without knowing the facts.  An example would be to say you did not receive a job offer because the interviewer is racist without any other evidence than not getting the job.  That's playing the race card.  We can say that about anything and unfortunately in pc America no one is calling folks out on it.  You say #Ferguson is about racism.  I say you are right.  It is about America turning this tragic event into a racial issue with a wholesale distribution of and slamming down the race card.  The flames are flashing as I type these words.
Should I even be involved with this?  When I see Cindy being discriminated against because she is white.  I think maybe yes.  Too long have believers sat on their laurels as our nation and liberties come crashing down around us.  I personally think it is too late, but I know who holds tomorrow, so it matters not if I know what tomorrow holds.

In case you missed it the First Time

Here are a few excerpts from Obama's comments with a few notes of insight IMHO.

I also appeal to the law enforcement officials in Ferguson and the region to show care and restraint in managing peaceful protests that may occur.  Understand, our police officers put their lives on the line for us every single day.  They’ve got a tough job to do to maintain public safety and hold accountable those who break the law.  As they do their jobs in the coming days, they need to work with the community, not against the community, to distinguish the handful of people who may use the grand jury’s decision as an excuse for violence -- distinguish them from the vast majority who just want their voices heard around legitimate issues in terms of how communities and law enforcement interact. 
-insinuates law enforcement are not working with the community.

Finally, we need to recognize that the situation in Ferguson speaks to broader challenges that we still face as a nation.  The fact is, in too many parts of this country, a deep distrust exists between law enforcement and communities of color.  Some of this is the result of the legacy of racial discrimination in this country.  And this is tragic, because nobody needs good policing more than poor communities with higher crime rates.  The good news is we know there are things we can do to help.  And I’ve instructed Attorney General Holder to work with cities across the country to help build better relations between communities and law enforcement. 
-racial differentiation and insisting discrimination is rampant 

-- but also who are interested in working with this administration and local and state officials to start tackling much-needed criminal justice reform. 
-insinuating that this was a case of injustice.
**lynch mob justice is not justice.  For more details, see recent posts.

But what is also true is that there are still problems and communities of color aren't just making these problems up.  Separating that from this particular decision, there are issues in which the law too often feels as if it is being applied in discriminatory fashion.  I don't think that's the norm.  I don't think that's true for the majority of communities or the vast majority of law enforcement officials.  
-Finally, Obama admits that with problems in some places in the country, that does not mean it is the case here. (however, the damage is already done in first remarks)

Those of you who are watching tonight understand that there’s never an excuse for violence, particularly when there are a lot of people in goodwill out there who are willing to work on these issues. 
-I find it difficult to give Obama the benefit of the doubt that he is not inciting violence with his double talk. Especially in light of his track record.

then we can make progress not just in Ferguson, but in a lot of other cities and communities around the country.
-another insinuation that this case was a case of injustice (I strongly disagree)

**Let me add that the very first I heard of this story led me to believe that Wilson did commit a crime.  Law enforcement who commit illegal acts must be held accountable.  Wilson faced the gauntlet and was found to be exonerated.  Guess what folks, this happens with cases around the country every day.  Someone is only indicted when the evidence points to them actually committing a crime.  You do not take a case to court if there is no case.  You can even learn that from watching Perry Mason.

Here's a quick update... I just read these comments on the same topic & thought I would add them as a followup to mine.

http://www.city-journal.org/2014/eon1125hm.html

Talk of the town

I see everybody talks, but nobody listens. I don't think I can do much better, but since I do like to say 2 cents twice daily, I thought I would include another article I found helpful: enjoy!!
http://www.city-journal.org/2014/eon1006hm.html

Part of the Solution: Making the case for Justice

Part of the Solution

Making the case for Justice and self-defense.
Make no mistake about it, Brown died in the perpetration of a crime.  He was not a victim.  Obama incites violence and condemns it with the same words.  Should we shoot criminals?  No.  Should we allow officers to defend themselves?  Should we avoid mob mentality?  How can Obama imply that the justice system is broken just because the race card did not trump this trick?  When we sacrifice truth and justice for political expediency and the preferential treatment of anyone who says they face discrimination, we pulverize the marble foundations of this American experiment.  The clock is ticking.  How many decades, years, or days will pass before the republic falls to the mob of chaos, tyranny, or anarchy?

Race cards gone wild

http://www.city-journal.org/2014/24_4_racial-microaggression.html

Here is the natural progression of race card use without being challenged. The precedent was set in the murder trial of O J Simpson. I'm glad someone wrote this article

Bl-Inkable

I thought this sounded pretty good... what do you think?

How does one describe an unknown thing to a friend?  How can one share its meaning?  If only there were a way to use ideas and knowledge the listener already understands.  Perhaps by using some correlation to what is already known.  That may just be possible.  In fact, it has been attempted throughout literary history.  Was the writer successful?  A dear friend, Robert Frost used such descriptions, better known as metaphors, in his poem, “Fire and Ice” (Frost, R. 1920).  He speaks of the end of Earth in terms of fire and ice, yet he allows the reader to ponder the interpretation of how fire or ice could end the Earth.  Does this create images of what Frost could be describing?  This is the power of figures of speech.  It calls up the reader’s own experience and knowledge, empowers and drives the emotion within.  What substance makes up ink that would give it such power over the lives of men?

Frost, R. (1920). Fire and ice. http://www.poetryfoundation.org/poem/173527

Hey Hey Here's my Paper

So i have been going on and on about how higher learning is pushing humanism on the paying students... I wrote a paper on it and got a pretty decent grade on it... I didn't feel like I covered the topic sufficiently, but thought I would share it nonetheless
https://www.dropbox.com/s/4p52loiq3o35mya/The%20Lowering%20of%20High.docx?dl=0 

aBominable

Just Posted:

Hi class,

Before I give a direct response to Jennifer's comments, I would like to take a few moments to stand on the soap box.  In most every discussion where issues of faith are introduced, there is almost an immediate knee-jerk reaction about how Christians are cramming their beliefs down the throats of others.  I won't mention much about this other than my most recent discovery which is the fact that the institution of higher learning in America so vehemently attacks traditional judeo-christian values that it could be considered an honorary minor for every student.  I personally find this abominable and repulsive.  It is hypocrisy of the highest order to condemn me for mentioning anything of religious consequence and in the same breath promote the secular humanist world-view which is nothing short of a religion itself.  Not only do I wholly reject this horrific disregard for critical reasoning, I whole-heartedly and actively oppose it.  You may consider my conclusions unfounded, but I assure you that in every week of every lesson of every course in this University, it is crammed down my throat.  I have not hitherto done so, but hereafter, I pledge to annotate and reference the instances I face for the purpose of providing you with the evidence I have alluded.  If you are interested in some of these observations, check out the blog: http://reallyinsertquestionmarkhere.blogspot.com/ 

stepping down from soap box

For more details refer to the post on value pushing... I am building the list of evidence there..

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UssO_dx1Lm-TWzaDW_hjvbo4gX004qAc-JQp3Nf4VXo/edit?usp=sharing 

Unstoppable

I so enjoy finding opportunity to speak out on spiritual matters... here is one post I just added:

Hi Roxie,

People in the world have so many excuses to not believe in God.  Instead of considering the evidence of his existence, they dedicate their lives to persuading others that he is not real.  Bill Nye is one of the most outspoken crusaders against the citadel of religious faith ("Bill Nye | Official Website For Bill Nye The Science Guy", 2014).  As you mentioned, one of the most often used concerns about God's existence is, "if God is real, how could he let such awful things happen?"  Here is a movie trailer for a movie that addresses this question https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A22V5rIvmr4 .  The movie is available on Netflix in case you are interested.

Reference

Bill Nye | Official website for Bill Nye the science guy. (2014). Retrieved from http://billnye.com/

Hey Hey @TheScienceGuy

I wish I had more time to write, but I gotta get to work...
Just a quick note... How do you answer someone you know is wrong?  And how do you connect with someone who is trying to convince you that you are wrong?  How do you take mistake, sin, or general, oopses, and make your time and money count better than before?  Yeah, needs more time to simmer.

Checking Out

Just take my word for it... this course has been a serious disaster in regards to the Learning Team... Here was my final post to the team... what do you think?

Hi Ladies,
I can't say it hasn't been a real blast working with you guys.. I am very far behind on getting my individual assignment completed.  My plan is to leave this discussion.  If you must contact me, (which is fine), just call me on the mobile. xxx-xxx-xxxx.  I will be checking out so I can get my individual assignment done.  If I can be any help in the future, please feel free to contact me and I will be happy to help any way that I can. 2 Cor. 13:14

Leveraging Fear

Thought this was worth posting here...

I know that this course is about academic writing.  Previously I went into great detail about my concern about the institution of education using its influence to project its view on issues and more importantly its world view on the youth and college age students across America.  There are so many issues presented in this course that make me want to point out my own views; however, I also realize that arguing a position is not always the most effective means of persuasion.  Persuasion may not be the best word to use.  I will use my brother Ted as an example.  While we agree on many points, we have differing views on many others.  When explaining and supporting my perspective does not convince Ted to my opinion, I have found that I have another way to influence him.  I have learned that using kindness when it doesn’t make sense can have a profound impact on the opinion of others.  There is a saying I learned in the Army that makes sense in this example:

People don’t care how much you know until they know how much you care.  I actually learned this principle from the Bible.  This is the principle of verses like “love your enemies, do good to them that hate you.” and “go with him the extra mile”  Demonstrating compassion and kindness has resulted in more people changing their views than providing them with sound proof that your view is correct.  Think of “pay it forward” and “random acts of kindness”.  Could this be considered an appeal to emotion?  The difference is making the connection with the application where people are.  I don’t mean to ramble, but maybe someone you know can use this.

Value pushing in academia

Just put this on at school...

Value pushing in academia

The trend I see continuing in colleges everywhere is the persuasion of a singular point of view on controversial issues.  I certainly appreciate the mention of both sides of many arguments in the text, but the dominant tone in this course's text and others I have read is grounded in liberal philosophy.  I fully understand that I should not expect everyone to agree with my position on controversial issues; however, I find at best that it is dishonest, if not outright agenda based, to fail to maintain an unbiased balance when addressing such issues.  In truth, for an institution to insist that I am "cramming my views down people's throats", is the rankest form of hypocrisy when one honestly considers the propagation of only one viewpoint through academia.  Bearing that in mind, I feel duty bound and justified to uphold the opposition perspective, if for no other reason than to insist that in the classroom, students are pressured (both directly and indirectly) to conform to the views of the institution on such matters.  Furthermore, I contend that it is in this manner that said instituitions purposefully indoctrinate impressionable minds with their philosophies with the intent to perpetuate their influence on society.  I have made additional comments on my blog which includes references to quotes from this and other courses' texts.  Feel free to peruse and make any comments.  I have learned to not take personally someone's opposing opinion.  It is in how such opinions are applied with which I sometimes take issue.  This is my approach to the application of logic as mentioned in chapter 10.

http://reallyinsertquestionmarkhere.blogspot.com/

... For anyone interested, I have recently started building the case of evidence taken from courses at University of Phoenix.  I am loosely citing the information in the APA format.  If you have specific comments about the evidence, I will be happy to discuss...

Here is the link to my working document:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UssO_dx1Lm-TWzaDW_hjvbo4gX004qAc-JQp3Nf4VXo/edit?usp=sharing 

#woot another #eurekaMoment

another quote:

Example of a Scenario

Imagine, for a moment, that a disease like this exists—it affects babies in the womb, is often fatal, but may be treatable using some very fancy new technology. The treatment (which is experimental and not guaranteed to work) involves injecting the unborn fetus with a special extract of human cells. The only drawback is that the cells are derived from living adults. The cells in question must be “harvested” from adults suffering from Alzheimer’s disease or Parkinson’s disease [who are to be] humanely and quietly killed and their cells used to save the lives of babies. A disturbing scenario—one which would hopefully never be allowed to happen. But the exact reverse of this is, apparently, fine.

Ed Walker, “We Must Not Kill to Cure”

A Perspective of the Gay Marriage Debate

First, let me say that as much as I disagree with the idea of same sex marriage, I do not have an "extra-biblical" argument to effectively support my view.  Of course I can show you why it is wrong, but can I convince you that it is universally wrong to the point you agree?  I am sad to say that while traditional conservative values in America are still a solid voice, American culture and education (especially in media and entertainment) are literally carpet bombing the nation's youth with the demand to push back against anything construed as righteous, traditional, or "born again".  With that in mind, let me proclaim a thunderous "Hallelujah!!" to being done with that very biased mythology course.  My new course is about writing an effective argument.  Well, needless to say there are plenty of controversial issues available for discussion in the course so far.  I found this segment from the course reading text (reference is posted at the bottom) chapter 16.  It's a perspective I have not considered before, and frankly, I find it to be the strongest extra-biblical argument that I have come across..
The publishers of this book want you, the reader, to disagree with what the article asserts, but I can't fault them for at least presenting what the man has to say..
Food for thought:

“Why Gay Marriage Doesn’t Measure Up”

About the Author: Robert W. Patterson

Robert W. Patterson is a writer and commentator who has worked as a speech writer for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and has served as a research fellow for the Howard Center for Family, Religion, and Society. He regularly contributes to the Howard Center’s monthly newsletter, The Family in America. Patterson has published articles in the Weekly Standard, Touchstone, Crisis, Books & Culture, Christianity Today, Christian Century, and Presbyterian Outlook. This article first appeared in Human Events in March 2004.

Before You Read

1. What does the title imply about the book’s thesis? Are you inclined to agree or disagree with Patterson? Why?
2. What do you suppose is the purpose of the Howard Center? Do you think that it would endorse civil unions or be critical of them? How do you know?
3. What does Patterson’s background suggest to you about his point of view?

Why Gay Marriage Doesn’t Measure Up

If any man can show any just cause why they may not lawfully be joined together, let him now speak, or else hereafter forever hold his peace.

Book of Common Prayer

1. Not very long ago, ordained ministers posed this proposition to congregations early in weddings just before addressing the bride and groom about their intentions of becoming husband and wife. That most clergy today leave it out of wedding liturgies is unfortunate, as the question reflects a critical understanding of marriage largely lost on Americans today and especially upon those seeking civil recognition of same-sex couples.
2. The fact that a minister, functioning as an agent of the state, would seek approval of a marriage from parties other than the couple is revealing. That solicited confirmation expresses the reality that marriage is not just a legal contract between two individuals but also a dynamic relationship that, according to social historian Allan C. Carlson, stands at the core of a complex web of social bonds that begins with the couple, finds support from their respective families and extended kin, and extends to society at large.
3. When family and friends assent to a marriage, they are judging the union good for society, not just good for the couple. In fact, this approbation is also granted on behalf of the future children that all related parties anticipate will naturally flow from such union.

Kinship Bonds

4. This communal dimension is virtually nonexistent when it comes to same-sex relationships, evidence that such relationships should never be deemed equivalent to, or even an alternative to, marriage. Unlike marriage, same-sex relationships are static, self-focused, and center almost exclusively on what the relationship delivers for the two partners, not what it represents to the supportive families or to society.
5. Does a homosexual partner even solicit the blessing of his prospective partner’s family? Do his aunts and uncles travel cross-country to celebrate the occasion? Who are the third parties to these pairings? Rarely conducted in a community setting like a church or synagogue, these new-fangled arrangements are essentially private affairs with no organic ties to anything. Ironically, this private identity is praised by advocates like Andrew Sullivan who assert that gay marriage can’t possibly impact the traditional marriages of others because it concerns only the two persons involved.
6. This narrow focus on the couple dominates even the campaign for legal recognition of gay marriage or civil unions. It’s all about them. The stated justifications for same-sex marriage have nothing to do with how this approach to mating can contribute to the common good, but everything to do with what society can, or must, do for the couple. They seek health insurance, survivor benefits, and hospital visitation rights (even though no law prevents these things now). They demand these “benefits” and other “rights,” the legal side effects that accrue to marriage that are rarely on the table when a man and woman decide to wed.

Marriage, Family, and Children

7. As every husband and wife knows, the real benefits of marriage are not technical legalities conferred upon it by an outside party, in this case the state, but are generated from within the institution itself—children, and eventually grandchildren. Nevertheless, because homosexual relationships are by definition sterile—because they cannot produce what really matters—their demands extend to finagling with biology or exploiting the brokenness of failed heterosexual relationships to “have” children, again at the expense of others.
8. The tragedy of the celebrated Episcopal bishop, Eugene Robinson, vividly illustrates how homosexual relationships fall short of common good. His decision more than ten years ago to enter into a “relationship” with another man may be looked upon by some as what justice and compassion require, but it exacted a huge toll on his family, as well as those close to his family. Robinson had to violate his marriage vows, divorce his wife, and desert his children—all so that he could fool around with his boyfriend.
9. How do his children defend their father to their peers? Is this behavior that the state wants to encourage and uphold as virtuous? Is it good for the families involved, good for the Episcopal communion that Robinson represents, good for society?
10. Granted, some married, heterosexual men do the same and run off with their girlfriends, which is why the states need to repeal no-fault divorce and hold men (and women) accountable to the promises they make, without any coercion, to their families and to society on their wedding day. But just because no-fault has wreaked havoc on a generation of American children is no excuse for state legislatures to sanction (or for courts to decree) more social pathology with another dubious experiment that, like divorce, treats women and children as disposable.
11. That not all homosexual debuts are as messy as Robinson’s may suggest that women are not always casualties. Nevertheless, being twice as prevalent among males than females, homosexual behavior ends up excluding a portion of women from the sexual equation, not to mention marriage, an injustice that feminists overlook. In other words, homosexuality is mostly about men, who are sexually wrapped up in themselves, directing their passions toward other men who are also wrapped up in themselves.

Natural Division of Labor

12. This is not to suggest that gays are self-centered in all aspects of life, as individuals surely make contributions to society that transcend their sexual behavior. But even here, the aggregate contribution of gay couples is muted relative to husband–wife couples.
13. Building upon the insights of Nobel Laureate Gary Becker, who has argued that homosexual couples do not specialize their economic roles as efficiently as do heterosexual couples, economist John Mueller has calculated that average life-time earnings for married heterosexual couples are significantly higher than all other comparable household arrangements, including a divorced husband and wife in separate households, a cohabiting heterosexual couple, and two same-sex individuals in the same household. The reason: Mueller points to the social science literature that finds, confirming Becker’s theory of comparative advantage and the sexual division of labor, that the economic behavior of men changes for the better when they have a wife and children to support, a dynamic missing from same-sex arrangements.
14. What this comes down to should be obvious: Gay marriage, like all the liberal ideas of the 1970s—including no-fault divorce, abortion on demand, cohabitation, and day care—does not and cannot serve the common good.
15. When elected officials, like the minister in a wedding ceremony, ask whether the public objects to what is being proposed in Massachusetts and San Francisco, the American people need to rise up and speak their minds for the sake of the children, for the sake of women, and for the sake of the republic.

Thinking about the Argument

1. What is Patterson’s claim? Can you identify it in the text? What significant reason(s) does he cite to back up his argument?
2. What evidence does Patterson cite to validate his argument? Is it adequate? Is it convincing? Why or why not?
3. What does the author mean when he suggests that marriages should be “good for society, not just good for the couple?”
4. Why does Patterson believe that same-sex marriage is an unnecessary and socially unhealthy formality?

Responding to the Argument

1. Has your opinion of same-sex marriage changed in any way as a result of Patterson’s argument? How so?
2. Patterson suggests that for society to endorse same-sex marriage places too much emphasis on the desires of the individual and not enough on the greater health of society. How might same-sex marriage be damaging to society as a whole? Conversely, how might publicly recognizing same-sex unions be good for society?
3. Should marriage (same-sex or otherwise) always be “about” the individuals, or should the marriage’s effect on others—children, parents, society in general—be considered as well?
4. How might Patterson’s argument be refuted?

Writing about the Argument

1. Write a refutation of Patterson’s argument. In your argument, explain why publicly recognizing gay marriage is good for society as a whole, and not just for the individuals involved.
2. Write a brief argument supporting Patterson’s point of view.
3. In a brief argument, explain whether the good of society or the good of the individual is more important in any public endorsement of marriage. (There could be a slippery slope here—if the good of the individual is more important than the good of society, then what is to prevent marriages between adults and young teenagers? One might effectively argue that it would be beneficial for a 15-year-old girl to be allowed to marry a 50-year-old man if the man were loving and removing the girl from an abusive household, for example.)

Lamm, R., & Everett, J. (2007). Dynamic argument. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin

Just thought of this

I think that perhaps we as believers should either reconsider our approach or at least include a disclaimer...
Personally, I have no opinion of the choices others make in their lives.  I do however have a responsibility to proclaim the Gospel message.  I also feel I should not be made to feel apologetic for reminding folks what God says.  To be honest, in light of who God is and what he can do.  It is really more like a public service announcement, i.e. I'm doing them a favor regardless of how they feel about it.
It really makes me think of a sinking ship.  I feel responsible to let passengers know they need to evacuate the sinking ship, but they angrily tell  me not to tell them what to do.
So hate me for trying to do you a favor.
I think sometimes we take such things personally, or we become like pharisees and consider that we are somehow better that anyone else.  The truth is that we simply have an accurate perspective about eternal matters.
When we see ourselves properly, and we are hated for our message, I will try to remember what Jesus said, They will hate you because they hate me.

Tantamount

Re: Paradoxy

posted by EDDIE SLUSSER (you)

Aug 29, 2014, 4:20 AM   

• S

Hi Millee,

My Comments were indirectly addressing the overall thesis of the course.  I have personally struggled with this course because of its point of view.  I understand that everyone is free to decide for themselves what they believe, but it has been difficult, yet not impossible, to appreciate the philosophical perspective of the course because of its overbearing assertion that the biblical perspective, to which I strongly hold, is myth.  There is altogether no consideration for the possibility of a reality other than the secular humanism perspective.  In my humble opinion, this is a self defeating truth claim.  I probably do not make sense, and while I have enjoyed a great deal of what the course offers and how it approaches the impact and benefit to society of myths, I believe it is greatly lacking in not addressing the possibility of the other perspective.  Finally, the video itself has great input, but it also reflects the overall shortcoming I mentioned.

• Comment on Aug 30, 2014, 1:35 PM

  

  Re: Paradoxy

  posted by JUSTIN xxxxxxxK

  Aug 30, 2014, 1:35 PM   

  I can see how this course can be very challenging to those with strongly held religious beliefs, because you are exposed to so many similar stories from different cultures.  Maybe you were told that these cultures did not contain the truth, and that your religion alone contains the truth.  But I think people might be missing the point of this class when the study material lumps the stories of the Christian religion (which appears to be a very common and touchy subject in this class) as part of myth.  I do not believe the material writes off ANY religion as "false" whatsoever.  They may be call it "myth", but that does not mean they are false.  The way you resist calling the "biblical perspective" myth is exactly the same, I would imagine, as any other believer of a different religion would be.  All myth contains truth no matter what culture, and like you said, people are free to decide what to believe.

  • Comment on Aug 30, 2014, 8:25 PM

    

    Re: Truth: Class, Justin, Eddie, and Millee

    posted by Harold xxxxt

    Aug 30, 2014, 8:25 PM   

    Justin, Eddie, and Millee: your discussion has brought many thoughtful responses.  I have a hard time viewing the stories of my religion as myth because I believe they are history.  I would never claim a religion nor follow the god of a religion that is based on false narratives; to do so is an exercise in futility.  A religion based on false narratives is not a religion but a philosophy.  To believe all religions as equally true is to deem that all stories in each religion are mostly allegorical and were only penned to teach us humans moral lessons; this renders all religions as an organized philosophy.

    
    

    If humans did not believe myth stories were true, would we have religion (why)?

    • Comment on Aug 30, 2014, 10:46 PM

      

      Re: Truth: Class, Justin, Eddie, and Millee

      posted by EDDIE SLUSSER (you)

      Aug 30, 2014, 10:46 PM   

      Hi Harold,

      Your response is much better than mine.  I have a slightly more specific response, but I am not so certain I will post one.  I am not certain that it will serve its purpose as well as yours has.  I am thinking through your question, but I am not sure how to approach it.  If you will humor me, I will let my typing help me through the process of answering.  I have read testimonials from former Muslims who said they felt as if their religion was hollow with nothing to offer that was true.  In that regard, I would have to say that under coercion or other social pressures, one could participate in a religion which he or she did not believe.  For those who were involuntary human sacrifices, I would assume they did not want to participate, but did not really have a choice.  In these cases, there are some who do not believe in their own religion, but others would have to believe in order for the religion to exist.

  • Comment on Aug 30, 2014, 11:37 PM

    

    Re: Paradoxy

    posted by EDDIE SLUSSER (you)

    Aug 30, 2014, 11:37 PM   

    Hi Justin,

    Thanks for your kind consideration in response to my post.  While I can appreciate your observations, they do not accurately reflect my perspective.  With your kind permission, I would like to clarify myself, if not for your sake, certainly for mine.  I will not include the portion of my response which Harold has already discussed in his response, so please consider his post as well.  While there are certain truths upon which most religions would agree, for example, the night sky is full of stars which we can not accurately count, many religions, if not religious sects, hold to certain truth claims that are not shared by any other.  This is not all inclusive, but many fall into this category.  This does not bother me whatsoever.  I am fine with comparing different beliefs or explaining how they are similar.  In fact, I like to use the myriad of flood and origin myths as evidence to validate the facts of my faith to humanists.  I believe your primary argument regarding my complaint of the course is the matter with which I take exception.  While I do not condemn you for not sharing my beliefs, and I am not foolhardy enough to consider you to be open minded to examining the evidence, I do feel vindicated in at least clarifying my original statement.  According to Merriam-Webster Online (2014), "Myth is an idea or story that is believed by many people but that is not true."  So, yes, the assertion presented by this course is that my beliefs are not true.  More importantly, the assertion of this course is to claim the belief that God can not exist to be true exclusively.  This may not make much sense, but to say God does not exist is just as much a religious belief as to claim that God does exist.  I like to call this religion humanism.  I do not want to take your time to present my case of this particular question.

    However, even on this point I am not disappointed the most.  My key complaint is my concern, founded or unfounded, that I am being asked to accept and agree with the religious claims, myth if you will, of this course and its materials.  For me this is tantamount to recanting my faith.  You may or may not be aware that millions of Christians have lost their lives simply because they were Christians.  Many of them because they would not recant their beliefs, and many of the executions were carried out by the Roman Catholic Church.  

    Please understand that I am working through this course and am very thankful to have the latitude to assert my perspective in the discussions.  I simply commented that under the said conditions, this course has been very difficult for me.  I took so many words because my fewer words did not seem to clarify.  If you have gotten this far in my post, I thank you for hanging in there, and I hope that I have better explained what I said earlier.

    
    Myth. (2014). In Dictionary and Thesaurus - Merriam-Webster Online. Retrieved from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/myth

  
  
• I am so glad this course is done...

??Opening Arguments??

I suppose the days of me sitting idly by while others maliciously or innocently commit sacrilege are over.  I may be in error for taking such a stand, but I take great offense.... no I'm just sick and tired of how people are so in your face Christian bashers.  "Just don't cram your religion down people's throats"... well, to that I say, don't dictate to me what I should and shouldn't believe about sharing my faith...

Anyway, this just happened, and I thought I would post it...
btw, this young lady mentioned in another post that she has a "wife".  That would clarify the reference to Romans.

Any readers who care to comment, go ahead... at least I will know that bots aren't the only ones reading

Re: Mythological Significance

posted by JENNIFER xxxN

Aug 30, 2014, 2:38 PM   

Comments removed by request... In summary, Jennifer stated the Bible was written by a rabbi and eventually gained popularity.  For others like Jennifer who take offense I would say that it is hypocritical to point a finger at me for not accepting your life choices, but not wanting me to express my views. 

Re: Mythological Significance

posted by EDDIE SLUSSER (you)

Aug 30, 2014, 7:25 PM   

I may be wrong, but you seem to contradict yourself.  First I must interject that I am not ignoring the myths that have foundations on historical events, for example, theoretically, there could have been a Trojan war that was embellished into what we know today as the myth or legend.  In modern circles, "group think" is a significant source for many types of productions.  I can not imagine that ancient myths were developed as a group project.  So, of course there was an individual origin of many myths, some of which I imagine were early forms of literary works.  I suppose the real question is, "How is significance determined or defined?"  Personally, I have many places, objects, etcetera which hold great significance for me.  I do not however expect or anticipate any of them to hold significance for anyone else.  Regarding your comments of the Bible, I will humbly submit that your facts are simply inaccurate.  Feel free to express your views on the topic; just do not be surprised when I do the same. One example is my referring you to the first chapter of Romans.  If that does not disturb you, then I suppose it describes you well; however, if it does disturb you, I suggest it is evidence that there is truth to what I have mentioned in my previous posts.  At any rate, I only hoped to mention that your point does not contradict the point which I made previously.  By the way, great job on finishing strong in this course.  

http://reallyinsertquestionmarkhere.blogspot.com/

Paradoxy

Comments after watching a video stating that man needs myths to answer the great questions of life.  Man needs to have more out of life than just birth, life, and death.

Here was my reply


This video would be funny if it were not so sad.  Throughout the video, we are presented with man's timeless need for more than birth, life, and death.  Again, we see the evidence and the argument for things eternal even though it is given as myth.  This perspective of myth is itself a myth.  The denial of God's existence in light of the empirical evidence demonstrates once again that faith is a choice.  One can choose to accept the evidence at face value and believe that the universe was created by design, or one can choose to presume a forgone conclusion that "...there is no God" (Psalm 53:1 Authorized Version) and then explain away the evidence.  So what belief is so strong that a man will hold to it though it cost him his life?  For 2000 years, Christians have been forced to choose to turn from their faith or choose to be put to death.  John Foxe's Book of Martyrs lists only a small percentage of all the multiple thousands who have elected death over denying their Saviour.  Around the world, everyday, believers suffer for their faith.  I dare say that they have offered additional evidence of what has been repeatedly and erroneously touted as myth throughout this course.  I have an additional solace knowing that the time will come when all doubts will be removed as we meet our Maker.

General Revelation

Here is a pasted conversation I just submitted and thought it would be fitting to publish here as well.  Enjoy...
btw, just had a pot of oolong.. mmm mmm

Eddie, you have pondered this topic thoroughly and the following comment is insightful: "Instead of giving a list of theories, I will simply say that faith is a choice."

The Jews believed that God is apprehended through hearing and perceived through revelation.  God transcended human ability and effort in discovering Him.  Humans cannot find God through deductive and inductive reasoning; our human efforts are lacking.  If we can see God, then we can measure Him and evaluate Him; humans would determine if God measured up to their expectations.  Again, God transcends our judgments of Him; thus, we cannot see Him.  As stated before, we apprehend God through hearing, and we perceive God through revelation.  For this reason, the Jews put much value on the logos (the word): "In the beginning God said . . ."   Consequently, faith comes by hearing.

How would you explain a person who believes without seeing?

Hi Harold,

Thank you so much for humoring me and giving me continued opportunity to present some important truths.  I can not answer your question sufficiently without referring to scripture, so I hope you will bear with me as I give a few in order to answer your question.  As you mentioned, and even as I am referencing, we have a written record of God’s message.  Even as the New Testament was being written, we are given how God’s message was received, “God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by [his] Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds” (Hebrews 1:1-2 Authorized Version).  From visions and dreams to an audible voice and even stone tablets, we have God’s message sent to men.  The prophets preface again and again, “Thus saith the LORD…”  There is however, an older message, “God exists, and God is marvelous.”  This message is seen in the grandeur of the universe. "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork." (Psalm 19:1 Authorized Version)  This message is called general revelation.  This is something we can see.  Man’s innate tendency toward worship is by design and is a clue as to the origin of myths.  God places a spark of spiritual light and sight in every man. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. ... In him was life; and the life was the light of men. ... There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe. He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world." (John 1:1, 4, 6-9 Authorized Version) We are given witnesses and when we choose to trust and believe their testimony it is faith.  Man then has two responses to the light they have seen.  One is to seek God. "Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious [These are the Greeks who worshipped the olympian gods]. For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you. God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; ... That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:" "But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him." (Acts 17:22-24, 27; Hebrews 11:6 Authorized Version) The other response is to reject this light and choose to believe a different claim of truth. "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools," (Romans 1:18-22 Authorized Version).  While I do not know if my explanation is a clear explanation, I trust that it is sufficient to answer the question.