New years eve and resolutions

Most people are blogging today or at least at some point about this subject. this is a disclaimer.

Mine might not be as interesting because I have yet to decide what I am going to write about.

I could write about how this year, like the past 3 years, I have set a goal to get skinny (which never happens I might add.

I could write about how again for probably the 7th year in a row, my resolutions with include reading my Bible every day.

I could swear off boys again, which I do about every other year that usually last a whole 3 days.

But, (another disclaimer this could seem cynical) I think measurable resolutions are a bad decision. at least for me.

Every year I set almost impossible and unattainable resolutions that I will only remind me of my inadequacy, and lack of self-discipline in 3 weeks. This year, frankly, I don't want to set my self up for failure.

If you know me at all, you know I love to plan and set goals. Measurable ones.

This could be me growing up, and maturing or it could be me choosing to be ignorant to my failures. But there is a quote that I have been reciting very frequently recently that fits in this situation.

"If you do what you have always done, you will get what you have always gotten."

I'm not going to set the same resolutions that I always do because they haven't worked in the past.

I think that the most important thing I can do this year is try to relinquish control. Its not going to happen over night. It will take lots of time, and lots of failure. But I have to realize that I cant be a dictator over everything that happens and how other people act.

My first thought when people started talking about resolutions was, "I wish I could make resolutions for other people that they had to stick to."

How pompous is that? I think that defines my problem right there.

I think the reason people make resolutions is to take out some of the mystery and uncertainty that comes with entering into the unknown, into a new year. people get scared about things changing, but if they have a set of rules to live by then it removes some of the ambiguity of the new year.

So this year I want to try to embrace ambiguity.

the ambiguity of the future, the ambiguity of God and his purpose and plan, and the ambiguity in the way people act and respond.

I don't know if this is attainable for me. It would change a part of the very essence of who am but I think it would only bring me happiness in the long run and bring those that I love, that I am always trying to mold and control, happiness, and strengthen my relationship with Christ.

Take this for what its worth. Just working out thoughts on paper.

and Happy New Year.

Free Will and Determinism in relation to my life

As we discuss a lot of philosophical concepts, many from my point of view seem a little abstract in my life. The subject of free will and determinism wasn’t something I focused on a lot at the time of our class discussion but throughout the semester, the issue has become more relevant, challenging and less of an absolute in my life. I have spent the last few days trying to figure out something to write about and struggling with finding relevance or interest in the things we have recently discusses in class. Ironically in my real life, since at least Thursday, the majority of all personal conversations have been focused on the idea of pre-destination, the evaluations my friends and I are trying to make and the effects the struggle over this subject has caused in our lives. After starting several blog entries and not being able to finish, or them being crap, I realized all of the sudden that we this struggle is philosophical and something we have approached in class.

When we discussed it in class, I considered myself a soft determinist. Today, I would probably call myself the same, but I’m not sure that’s what I am supposed to believe. I have struggled with the issue within my own faith during the semester, but instead of calling it Free will and Determinism, it is more specified to one issue and called Arminianism and Calvinism. In most churches it isn’t discussed that often. But at the church I currently attend, the issue has been brought up this semester, and It was clearly stated that they believe that scripture states that God choses who will be saved. This could be called Predestination, Election or Calvinism. Calvinism has 5 points. Before now, I have thought it was both. That God choses every one of us and we also have the choice to choose him or not. I had never had any kind of relationship with anyone who was Calvinist, or at least not openly. I have read certain things in scripture that point towards predestination but there are plenty that talk about our freedom as well. I am going to explore the 5 points of Calvinism and explain the best I can what it means to me, or even to the general population and I am going to try and do it in a way that is understandable to someone who isn’t familiar with Christian Theology or Scripture. There are also posted links that go more in depth if anyone would care to read them for better understanding or if what I am saying doesn’t make sense or is confusing.

There are 5 points of Calvinism

1. Total Depravity (original Sin)

2. Unconditional election (God's election)

Limited atonement (Particular Redemption)

4 Irresistible grace (effectual calling)

Perseverance of the Saints

http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/dabney/5points.htm

I understand the first point, is that all men are fallen. We as humans are sinful creatures after Adam and Eve at the forbidden fruit. No man besides Jesus who was 100% man and 100% God was without sin. Humans are incapable of going their entire life without sin. Sin might be a difficult concept to grasp, but it is inclusive of a multitude of things that most people do daily. It doesn’t have to be outward but sin can take place solely in your head and in your heart. Things like anger and lust, although not acted on outwardly are sins before they can be manifested physically in your life. This is something I agree with.

The second point is something that is a lot harder for me to accept. It is something I have not accepted yet but am learning about through scripture (both arguments for and against) in order to be educated. Neither Calvinist nor Arminianist believes (as far as I know) that whether you interpret scripture for or against Election has any effect on your salvation. This being said, I may never decide but I do want to be educated on the issue. So the second point is unconditional election. Charles Spurgeon states this.

“We believe that God's election of individuals is unconditioned and sovereign. They believe that while eternal and particular, it is on account of God's eternal, omniscient foresight of the given sinner's future faith and repentance, and perseverance in holy living.”

He also says

“Says the Arminian: God certainly foresaw that Saul of Tarsus would believe and repent, and, therefore, elected him. But I say that if God certainly foresaw Saul's faith, it must have been certain to take place, for the Omniscient cannot make mistakes. Then, if this sinner's faith was certain to take place, there must have been some certain cause insuring that it would take place. Now, no certain cause could be in the "free-will" of this sinner.”

I hope this is making sense. I don’t think I can explain it any better than Spurgeon but I will put it in my own words in hopes of simplifying it. Armenians do not question Gods Sovereignty. That God is in everything and over everything, but they do believe that he allows people to make the decision to follow Christ, to invite the Holy Spirit into their lives. Calvinist’s believe that if he is all knowing then he must have made the decision for them. That all humans, given the choice wouldn’t chose God, but themselves so knowing how everyone would chose, he chose for them. Elected them to his kingdom. To make this perfectly clear, he chooses who goes to heaven.

Particular Redemption, the third point of Calvinism To the best of my knowledge this means that Christ Died only for those who have been elected, not every person. With my current understanding of scriptures this is not something that I agree with.

The fourth Point of Calvinism is Irresistible grace. What I understand of this is that if you are called, or elected you have no free will. The short version of a very long and confusing description states,

The saving grace of God is effectually applied to those whom he has determined to save (the elect) and, in God's timing, overcomes their resistance to obeying the call of the gospel, bringing them to faith in Christ.-Wikipedia

I’m not sure I really understand or grasp this means that men cannot be convinced to serve God and participate in God’s will without God’s powerful intervention.

The fifth and final point in Calvinism is perseverance of the saints. This in the words of my Baptist upbringing is what was described through the saying, “Once saved, and always saved.” An idea that people argued both ways that I had no idea was part of an entire system of beliefs. I think I agree with this. If someone falls away from the Lord, in my opinion they were probably never saved in the first place. If you have ever read The Screw tape Letters by C.S. Lewis though this doesn’t make that much sense. If you can’t fall away from the Lord, what is the purpose of demons? I do believe in Satan and the fallen angels that followed him and if Satan was indeed an angel he would know that there was nothing he or his demons could do to distract the chosen. They would never turn away so what is the point? This is not what was expressed in The screw tape Letters. C.S. Lewis is a very valued and intelligent theologian in my eyes so I just googled it and this is what I found about his views.

“I wore Calvinism for about 25 years, from a couple of years out of Bible college until a few years back when I hung it back up on the rack because it didn’t fit. It just doesn’t seem to be relevant to anything real. The whole point-counterpoint between Calvinism and Arminianism seems to be trying to answer questions that the Bible does not ask or means to answer.”

These are the points of Armenianism which counter the points of Calvinism and I don’t believe have any need for description.

(1) election (and condemnation on the day of judgment) was conditioned by the rational faith or nonfaith of man;

(2) the Atonement, while qualitatively adequate for all men, was efficacious only for the man of faith;

(3) unaided by the Holy Spirit, no person is able to respond to God’s will;

(4) grace is not irresistible; and

(5) believers are able to resist sin but are not beyond the possibility of falling from grace.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/35372/Arminianism

So after reviewing this further than I have previously, I have no absolute answer. (Following at least one of the 14 precepts of Buddhism) I am open to change my mind. But in order these are my current views.

God elects all of us, he chases after every human and they have the choice to choose him too or not too. This is a way he shows us grace and love.

Jesus died for all of us, not just those who accept him; it only affects those who choose him though.

God had to have changed my heart, because by myself I am selfish and wouldn’t have chosen the betterment of the kingdom, at this point I don’t believe I could turn back on God. I don’t know if God has stripped my free-will from me to do so, or if I just wouldn’t change my mind given the chance because I have experienced God and wouldn’t chose anything else.

The verdict is definitely still out on whether a person can fall from the Lord. I have no idea. I know I belong to the Lord, and Jesus wins so how could Satan interfere in that? Maybe before I belong to the Lord, before my heart is officially his. So does that mean salvation is a process?

If you have noticed there are no Bible verses listed within this blog, that would make this go on forever and would create hours upon hours of evaluation. Make no mistake, my philosophy relies solely on scripture but both of these theologies have been taken from scripture and both are widely adopted so I’m not sure my interpretation of a scripture would say the same thing to another reader. If scripture referring to either is what you are looking for, don’t hesitate to contact me, I have and am continually collecting information on the issue that I am more that welcome to share. I guess at the end of the day, (at least today), I am still a soft determinist in the philosophy world. I think.

To live responsibly, lying, and the end of the world

After the presentation by Laura in class and reading the article by Wendell Berry on the Pleasures of eating I felt it was necessary to address this issue from a more rural point of view. The Article as well as the presentation, and class discussion the philosophical point was that people should eat responsibly and I definitely have no disagreements to this but I feel like it’s not just eating but living responsibly.

I am going to start with confessions from my eating habits and my credentials when it comes to eating. First of all, I believe I am in the minority of our class that will confess that I am not a vegetarian, nor have I ever been a vegetarian; however, MEAT DOES SCARE ME. As much as Berry emphasizes preparing your own food, (which I do) I have a hard time handling raw meat. The texture color, blood and the like kind of grosses me out. Mom says I will be a vegetarian one day but I doubt it. I plan to continue to overcome my aversion of meat handling. I usually don’t eat red meat when I go out to eat out of fear of food poisoning but recent research from knowledgeable people have educated me about the safety of eating red meat in public restaraunts.

My small tidbit of information I didn’t know before. I always order any type of red meat well done because I am fearful of food poisoning. A friend well versed in the industry informed me that the inside of a steak has never been exposed to oxygen thus, it cant have been tainted from bacteria making it safe to order your steak rare. But in regards to hamburger meat, never trust a place that asks you how you want your hamburger cooked. It has all been exposed to oxygen, thus they should all be cooked well done. Now moving on to philosophy.

First I want to share some observations that I have made with no intention of passing judgement. I will be discussing my observations of two separate groups: My hometown, population 1,011 and our philosophy class. Population 18(or so). My Hometown goes by the name of O’Donnell and is located in west Texas. Most all people that live there are farmers, mostly cotton, or Ranchers. That isn’t everyone, we have teachers that teach at the school district and few bankers, one postmaster and a few people who work at the two restaurants in town. All kids are raised around agriculture with most of them participating in Stock shows and FFA. Stock show is where students raise steers, pigs, lambs, goats and chickens. I might add they are fed often, cleaned, clipped and exercised to put them in the best show shape. After their last show, they are sent to the truck, which means they are to be slaughtered. People in my area, I would say are very knowledgeable about animals. Agriculture and horticulture are all they know. I grew up in that town my whole life, I would say I know everyone there and I have only ever met one girl who transferred in who is a vegetarian. Guesstimation ratio non-veg to vegetarians: 1,010/1.

In our class, we are comprised of 18 or so students, they are all intelligent, very educated honors students. From what I know, (and I have made observations and asked questions) none of these students have agricultural backgrounds but have watched videos and read articles about animals and their treatment and our of those 18 people there are at least 5 vegetarians. I find this a very interesting statistic.

In the article and in class we discussed lying a lot. Is it morale? When is ok to lie? And the discussion of Pork providers lying. I feel like this is a necessary to discuss. In the video we saw a mistreatment of animals. There is no argument that it happens, that companies try to lie about it and cover it up. In my view, lying about this is wrong. I will discuss my philosophy on lying and then discuss why what these companies do is morally wrong from my point of view.

Once again we are going to start with the basis of my moral compass: The Bible.

The 9^th commandment states : Do not bear false witness against your neighbor.

In class I started to wonder well, what exactly does it mean? How do I interpret that. I looked it up online and the most easily comprehended and complete analysis can from Wikipedia. Every group of people that follows the ten commandments, interprets the commandments differently and each interpretation is listed. I am protestant and this is the interpretation give on the wiki page.

“Requires the maintaining and promoting of truth between people, and of our neighbor’s good name and our own, especially in witness-bearing.
Forbids whatsoever is prejudicial to truth, or injurious to our own, or our neighbor’s, good name.”

This is my basis although Im still unsure where I fall on the Santa Clause issue but I am sure that I believe that companies who hide the way they treat animals is lying and immoral and the things that they are doing are immoral in other ways as well, but does this mean that out of respect for animals, we should stop eating meat?

Now in the article and in class, we discussed the concept of eating responsibly. I have no problems with that philosophy, but my philosophy goes deeper than that and is for the purpose of survival, and my philosophy is to Live Responsibly. In class, the same day we discussed eating responsibly and educating ourselves of where your food is coming from, we also discussed the end of the world. I do not believe that the end of the world is in December of next year but I do believe tough times are coming and that people should be able and capable to live if things become worse and we cannot be dependent on imports, exports and prepackaged food.

What I mean by this is people should be educated on the things they need to know in order to survive. This is how to grow all kinds of food, not just knowing how to check out in the grocery store. That includes fruits, vegetables, grains and animals. Everyone wants humane treatment for animals. Do they even know what a humane death of an animal looks like or how to do it? Someone who has grown up in a large city their entire life makes it improbable. Do they know basic survival skills? Like how to build a fire or tie a knot? All of these skills have faded from our society as it has advanced and I think it’s a very scary thing that the children of this country aren’t learning these things. Instead they learn to use a computer at age 3.

I have discussed previously in a blog my views on animals so if you are unsure on them you can review my previous blogs.

To tie the lying and this industry together, I will state why the lies of some people in the meat industry should not be the basis of vegetarianism. Disclaimer: I hope my views have never come across as anti-vegetarian. I have absolutely not problem with it, but I do have a problem with people making that decision based on limited information. Here is my claim.

There are people that are immoral and lie in every industry. Would you stop voting because many politicians have been exposed of their lies? Then why would you quit eating meat because some of the meat producers have been exposed of their lies? If you like meat, and you don’t feel like its too much effort, step out and find out where you meat is coming from, how the animals are treated, and evaluate whether they violate what you feel like moral responsibility entails.

But if you would like to follow my philosophy, go spend the summer with the Amish or with a family member that lives on or near a farm and learn the basics of survival so that you might be able to be responsible for yourself.

My analysis of Plato's Ideal Society

So, for anyone reading this that isn’t in my philosophy class, I am going to sum up what my understanding of what Plato’s Ideal society is before I try and rip it apart.

From what I understand, Plato’s Ideal society breaks everyone into two classes. The workers and the guardians. The guardian class has two parts, the guardians and then the leaders. The worker class is comprised of most vocations, they are allowed to have families and work whichever jobs they would wish except for those that are given to the guardians. The guardians are not allowed to have their children although they do reproduce. To become a guardian you must be more advances physically as well as intellectually. What I understand as the guardians “job” would be most government jobs: police, army, legislature, etc. The leaders are only a select few from the guardian class that have reached “enlightenment”. No one in the guardian class is allowed to own property of any sort. This is not hereditary; everyone takes the physical test to see if they are eligible to become a guardian.

Im going to start with the guardian class because I feel like their situation is the most troubling, granted, I might not be placed into that class so my mindset might not be one that can even comprehend how satisfying being a guardian could be for some people. I am a communication studies minor so I study lots about the necessity of interpersonal relationship. So in relationship to my presentation over leadership, Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, what some say is necessary for successful relationships and happiness, I will use the combination of these things to describe to you my philosophy on happiness to describe how, at least for me, the guardian class would be a very unhappy place.

Maslow’s Hierarchy of needs are as follows: physiological needs, safety needs, belonging and love needs, self-esteem needs, and self-actualization needs. The physiological needs are met by the support of the working class, the purposed of the guardian class is for safety. But what about belonging and love needs?

From what I understand from discussion in class is that the guardians are not allowed particular relationships. They are a community, they do have relationships but they cannot place favoritism in one man or woman or even particular children whether they are their blood child or not. What I have learned about relationships in my communication classes is that three things are needed for happiness and success in relationships.

These are as follows: Inclusion, affection, and control. To a certain extent there is inclusion of everyone equally as one group, but the inclusion discussed in class is more of a particular inclusion, it’s a sense of feeling wanted. Think of your relationship with your best friend, when he/she does things you want to be included. People often, identify you as one, like my friends Kelsey and Zack. They are referred to in this way, because they always include each other. This special relationship is what creates happiness and fulfillment.

People also need affection. Physically, this isn’t something the guardian class members get on a normal basis. They are very job and task focused and they aren’t allowed to show specific affection to anyone, and when they can get it at all, its regulated.

As for control, the guardians have none. An example of this type of control is when you allow someone you love to have a say in the decisions that you make; however, most decisions are made for all guardians by the rulers so this isn’t even an option to give to someone in order to create that bond. When I think about a life without all that it is a very sad existence.

As for the self-esteem and self-actualization needs, I believe those are met to a certain extent for the guardians through their work. As discussed in my presentation, Satisfaction comes from Purpose, Mastery and Autonomy. It seems as if the guardians find their purpose in their jobs, there is no wealth to be gained so mastery and purpose are clearly what they are working for, but I am unsure how much autonomy they get in their jobs. Is everything they do, directed by the rulers? If they do have autonomy, I can see how maybe this job is satisfactory that members of this class are not concerned with the relational aspects missing from their life, but is definitely not for me. My sister, I can see this working for, so maybe it’s just not my class but whether it is acceptable for some, I will say that I don’t believe it is ideal. There are better ways.

My next issue with Plato’s Ideal society is the other part of the Guardian class, the rulers. As described earlier, the leaders are those who have reached enlightenment. My issues with this might come from the disconnect between the idea of enlightenment and its absence in today’s society. First of all, even in a different time, I feel like enlightenment it subjective. How can there be an objective, definitive way of deciding who has reached enlightenment and who has not. Could anyone (within the guardian class) just say “I have reached enlightenment.”? And become a leader? This is only my opinion but most of the people we have discussed in our class that think they have reached “enlightenment” are way out of touch with the everyday people of society. It is like they are a completely different species.

If we did become a society like the one Plato thinks is possible, who would be the rulers of our country? Do you know anyone who is enlightened and should be running our society? What are the characteristics of this person that give you the idea that they are enlightened?

I also have an issue with the separation of classes. Why? What is the purpose? And if this is an ideal society, why is there a need for “protectors”? In an Ideal society, I would choose peace. Why would Plato choose the need for an army group if he can create whatever he wants for this society? For that reason alone, I feel like it invalidates his society for me. I would never chose a society with war, if I could choose one without it.

I also don’t like that peoples identity is defined on their physical ability and intellect. Wouldn’t this create low self-esteem for those that done measure up? Why does your identity have to come from 2 measurable qualities? There are a lot of things that do not fall into these two categories. I also don’t think people should do one specific thing their entire life. At least for me, I need variety. Nothing should be so fixed and Permanente.

When the word Ideal passes through my head, I think of the best possible. I’m not saying that Plato’s Ideal society is the worst ever but it is definitely not the best possible situation for all people. For this reason I declare that Plato’s Ideal society is not my ideal society.

Passing, Covering, and the affects it has on gender equality for women

Although we read and discussed the article about the PMS defense by Dershowitz and the article about passing and covering by Yoshino separated by a few other topics, I feel like they are really relatable and go together in my head. The PMS case could be an example of both covering and failing to cover. She might have had another round of drinks with men in order to not seem like she had a lower alcohol tolerance, however, whether this was her excuse are not, it is not the kind of covering you should be partaking in.

Warning! If at some point covering puts you in danger or others in danger, do not partake. It is not worth it. If the situation requires covering and it is dangerous, change you job.

As a doctor, there is no doubt that she knew how much less alcohol a womans body can take in without being legally drunk, which is about half of a mans. If she was “covering” in order to keep up the mens’ drink intake she should at least be responsible about it and waited to drive home or called her husband to come pick them up especially with children in the car. This is how she might have been covering but the important part is how she didn’t cover, if she was even telling the truth, in order to use a difference to get away with something. If woman want to be seen as equals to men in the eyes of the world, they should not use excuses like, I was PMSing to get out of a ticket. I will make the assumption that everyone knows drinking has a tendency to make some people lash out, why wasn’t this the reason she lashed out at the police officer. Secondly, There is no proof that she was PMSing at the time of the arrest?How does one even prove they were PMSing? Is there a scientific length of time in which every woman pms’s previous to starting her period? Well I looked it up on the internet and it says 1 or 2 weeks prior. That means women could be PMSing half of the month. So if a person concluded that this gender difference is an excuse for not being responsible for your actions, what does that mean for those who work or care for children?If woman should not be held responsible for their actions when they are PMSIng, should they not be trusted, or paid, for their duties during this time period either? Should woman not be responsible for the safety of their children when they are PMSing either?

Both men and women should be responsible enough to make wise decisions on behalf of their child. What if a father was driving his children home, drunk, then beat up the cop when asked to take a breathalyzer? He would have been thought irresponsible and violent. I think woman should be held to the same standard. She was drinking and driving. PMS makes her not responsible for that?

This woman is a hypocrite for wanting to work in a field that traditionally was all male, but wants to the benefits of being a female. If I knew this lady personally, I would have told her to “Man up”. If you pay the crime, you do the time. I’m not sure how much impact this one particular case has on the court system since it wasn’t a Supreme Court case but if it had gotten significant attention from the all americans I would be livid. It isn’t really difficult to make small changes in order to cover. Men aren’t stupid, they know that women have periods but women do not have to use it as an excuse for everything that goes wrong in their lives or make it so blatantly obvious to the public when they are.

Here are some tips for women to non chelantly deal with male/female differences.

1. For instance, instead of taking midol, or pamprin in public, I take Tylenol. I don’t feel a dramatic difference, and it’s a lot less discreet because it is multi-purpose .

Explaination- Most women cover when they are PMSing. Do you hear women in the office going around saying oh, I have cramps, I cant come to work today? Or “Don’t talk to me, Im PMSIng and if you cross me, I might lash out at you and start beating you up? No. most women, not all, try to be discreet.

2. What about pregnancy? Definitely something you cant help but notice and pretty impossible to hide.

My suggestion- Do your best to make it to the bathroom while you have morning sickness opposed to throwing up in your office trash can. Don’t ask all of you co-workers to touch your belly, its kind of creepy for one, and it definitely draws even more attention to your stomach.

I’m not saying that women should be spending all their time and energy covering, but I am saying that in situations away from friends and family, where you want to be taken seriously, women should consider making small changes to not be seen as week.

Situations where it is acceptable for women to use their physical features to benefit themselves do exist like on dates or within a marriage as long as both parties agree to their gender roles but there are times where I would shy away from using them to your benefit.

Like what Kelsey was asking about in class, would be a woman wearing a low cut blouse or short skirt and making her feminine benefits obtruse. Is this fair? Women who want to be taken seriously should not blame their gender for their faults, nor should they use their physical differences to get ahead when working or dealing with cops.

I’m not asking for women to pass as men, I’m simply saying that if you are going to complain and riot for equality in the work force, then do your part too. Dry to bridge that gap, and not make certain female problems so obtruse that your boss cant help but wish he would have hired a male. . There are plenty of situations in which men might struggle and fear that they have to cover. Men for instance my quietly tear up instead of sobbing loudly when the family deals with a catastrophe in order to be able to comfort his wife, and be strong for his family. Granted this isn’t a situation that brings all to a more common ground but it is a cover in order to meet a social norm. I feel like most things that we all strive to cover about make us stronger, builds character and brings us closer to the ideal. I have not experienced the situations from both sides so I cant know for sure, but both men and women have to cover, but men have to do it at home too.

Women do not have to cover if they don’t chose to, but if they don’t if the work force it will be harder on them to move up. If they don’t want to join the work force, there are less times where it is necessary to cover. Trophy wives are meant to use their differences to get what they want and have few responsibilities that would force them to cover. Or in households where gender roles are rigid and the wife stays home (which isn’t an easy task I might add) there is also less need to cover. I only ask one thing of all women and it is this.

Don’t give society excuses to hold the female gender to a separate standard. It took 50 years after African Americans were allowed to vote before women were able to and its instances like the PMS case that could prevent America from having a female president 50 year after having an African American President.

Artificial Insemination

In class and through an array of articles we read regarding sex and consent among other topics regarding the psychology of those involved, and what is and isn’t moral.

In the Bellioti article sexual exploitation and respect were covered. I think in terms of respect Bellioti covered accurately what you should or should not have sex with if respect for the object or person are the only thing governing your choices. The statement I liked best from the Bellioti came towards the end, (no pun intended). It states. “It must be pointed out that to state that a certain act is not immoral does not entail that it is advisable to pursue.” That statement sums up my reaction the article. I understand that other people might not think like me, but most of those things have never even crossed my mind up until reading the article. Recently, after reading through the plethora of sex related articles and dealing with members of the opposite sex, my thoughts aren’t what the human race can have sex with but how can we get away with not having sex with the other race. Maybe instead of worrying about all of this we should just stop having sex all together. At this point we don’t really even need to come into contact with the other sex in order to reproduce. We have artificial insemination. In the case of sex, we wouldn’t have to worry about consent or disrespect. I realize that this doesn’t solve the problem of sexual desires but it does solve the predicament of consent. Unless a woman steals a mans sperm out of a test tube, there is consent. See clip from The Switch posted at the bottom.

This is a lot more clear cut then deciding if a woman is consenting to sex if she takes of her clothes or kisses you while on top of you. Here are some more questions that went through my head that Im going to do my best to work out on paper.

What do people have the right to consent to?

How do you know if someone has consented?

Can you prove someone consented?

As you can see by these tough questions and the obvious difficulties that come from dealing with the opposite sex, it’s no wonder I think that test tube babies would be the simplest answer to all of our sex related problems. Plus, we would no longer have to worry about STDs or accidental pregnancies.

Now to attempt to answer the first question: What do people have the right to consent to? More directly is who do you belong to? Who has authority over your body. Most people would answer (yes I’m speaking generally) would say that “I have authority over my own body, no one can consent except me!” But there is a lot of other answers that one might not think of right of the bat. Like when you are under 17 years of age. The age of consent. Does that mean your parents can consent for you? Under U.S. law, no. but does that mean it is illegal to have sex under the age of 17? No, not if your partner is also under age. But your parents are your legal guardians so shouldn’t they have the authority over your body until you turn 18? You can’t tattoo your body without their permission until your 18, but you can have sex without their permission as long as your partner isn’t an adult? This doesn’t make sense. Cant sex do a lot more harm than a tattoo? It doesn’t add up. Ok, so what if you are over the age of 18, are you the only one that has authority over your body? What about God? (I know, predictable answer to come from B.G.B) In romans it discusses that you are either a slave to sin or a slave to God. (later it discussed that we are friends and sons and daughters of God thanks to the death of Jesus on the cross but that is unrelated to this topic). So from my view point God has authority over your body, whether you chose to adhere to that authority or not, whether you believe in God or not. But even if you don’t believe in God and that type of authority is irrelevant doesn’t your spouse, if you ever get married, have some authority over who you can consent to? When you get married aren’t you promising to “love, honor and respect” that person. And if you’re not, why get married? For financial reasons? Insurance reasons? Arranged marriage?

Advice from B.G.B.-Don’t get married for any of these reasons.

So my conclusion in this is, that in my lifetime, I have never and will never have the freedom to consent without the prior consent of God first, for a period of time, my parents, and at some point my husband. That’s a lot of people to get permission from in order to have sex. (just saying)

Next question-How do you know if someone has consented?

We wrote a summary for class, or brought a clip of consent for class but I bet not all of our answers were the same. My point in this being is that the only way for someone to absolutely positively know that someone is consenting is to ask this “are you consenting to me putting my hand on you hip?” other person: “yes, I consent.” And so on and so forth until its over. But the other question is how do you know if that person is legally able to consent? You better get a BAC test and make sure you test for GHB and other date rape drugs! Some might think that the Antioch College sexual offense policy was too extreme, it’s probably the most accurate way to protect the students and avoid lawsuits and crime.

The next question, Can you prove someone consented?

So on pondering this question the answer is yes. How you might ask?

Get a tape recorder, ask the accomplice if they consent, what day it is, and what time it is, (because you can consent to sex in the same day at one point in time and be raped by the same guy later that day. ) Have your accomplice initial by the test strip for the BAC level and GHB test that he/she is neither drunk nor drugged and is capable of consent. Leave the tape recorder on during the activities so that as both are consenting to every progression there is a record of consent. Keep a copy of every sexual contact consent packet just in case there is a legal discrepancy. Sounds like a lot of work to have sex doesn’t it?

This is my reasoning behind the push for A.I. all the way around. There would be no STD’s, wife battering (no need to get married if there is no need for sex), no need for paternity test, and above all, NO ISSUES with consent.

Note: I realize that I didn’t address how people would release sexual tension if we only used A.I. I’m not even sure A.I. matches up with my religious beliefs so honestly, I don’t think I have answer to what you should do to get rid of that pent up sexual frustration. Bellioti might be able to help you though. <-disclaimer: the Bellioti statement was a complete joke.

link to an example of non consent using A.I.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkuOg4DxeK0

Selfishness, Harry Browne’s big rubber ball, and a probable truth

I will write this post in chronological order of thoughts from reading to class to thoughts I had after class.

As I read Harry Browne’s article the thing that bothered me the most was his read ball theory. Who decided there was only one read ball? Who says only one person can be happy at one time? I don’t know who wrote those ruled of life, but Im pretty sure if there is only one red ball full of happiness is this whole world, I must have already been a lot more fortunate than most, because I have had it a lot in my life. Im not saying my life has been a barrel full of monkeys; I have had my share of catastrophe and sorrow, but it’s those who surrounded me in those times that helped me get out of that sorrow. We should share in each others sorrow and joy. Why cant we all have red balls don’t we all have happiness to share? Whether your selfish or not, life is going to be difficult. Things are going to happen that selfishness cannot fix or cope with. No one is going to want to help you if you have only ever looked out for yourself, thus creating a selfish misery.

My next train of thought turns to how I deal with my own pain and anguish. When my sister passed away, the best way for me to cope was to be strong for my parents and friends of my sister; Encouraging them, loving on them, and trying to comfort them in a time of pain, even though I was in pain as well. Thinking about other people’s problems and trying to help them deal help me not to dwell on my own. What would have happened to me, who I would be if I would have focused only on myself and dealt with everything internally. My misery would have lasted a lot longer. I’m not saying my sadness is gone, but my “joy” comes from something that is so much more permenant than my temporary situation and if my smile, or kind act can bring someone happiness than, I am will to do that. Even when I feel like I am dying inside. I don’t believe that happiness can be found in a certain situation, you have to create your own happiness. Sometimes certain situations get in the way of that, but I have learned you gotta fake it until you make it. And helping someone else “make it” is where my happiness can be restored, even though my joy never left.

In my leadership program we talk a lot about service and sacrifice and how those are foundations leadership is built on. In my reading following this class this is something I found in one of my books. “Your service could inspire people and your sacrifice could help lighten someone’s load opposed to everyone dealing with their misery alone.” Pg. 74

No man is an island.

How would the government work if we only looked out for our own interest? People already think politicians are self-serving as it is, what if they didn’t even pretend to care for people other than those who could benefit them? The answer is, we would be better off with no government that be in a country led by someone only looking out for themselves.

But then again I am not exactly like everyone else in this world. I thrive off of the energy I receive from others. People (and Jesus of course) are what I live for. It’s why I get out of bed every morning. I love people too much to shoot for my happiness at the expense of others.

Now here comes the Jesus stuff. I realize that it might seem like the only reasoning for any of my thoughts that I have, but the Bible is my philosophy. In John 15:13, Jesus is talking and he states, greater love in none but this, that he lay down his life for his friends.

My purpose in life is love, not happiness. Love is above all things. (scripture can be provided ig you like). This will be discussed further at the end of the blog. I believe that from love, comes happiness at times.

My probable truth was discussed in class as well as the article and it is the closest thing that was stated in the article that I can agree with.

Probable truth- to some degree, helping others is for my own good and happiness.

So does this mean that I believe in transactional happiness? Judging by the way I live, one might say yes, however; I strive to love regardless of what I can get out of the situation. Transactional happiness in discussed in the Bible as well, again, straight for Jesus’ mouth.

Matthew 5:46-If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

I guess the difference is where I plan on receiving my reward. If I am rewarded on this earth for the good that I do on earth, I need not be rewarded in heaven, and scripture points towards a conclusion that I wont. I would much rather be rewarded in heaven than here on this earth where the rewards are temporary. Eternity is forever. Doing what the Lord wants me to do, (serve others) brings me joy in the long term which is much greater than the temporary satisfaction one gets from making a decision to serve themselves.

Now let’s return to purpose. “I want to be happy” is probably the most common answer when people are asked what they aspire to in life. For me, Happiness doesn’t bring meaning. What brings meaning to your life? My purpose and goal in life is much more than just being happy. Once again, this world is temporary. But even so, my goal isn’t to rack up treasures in heaven, at least I don’t want it to be. I want to fall in love with service. I want to be obedient to Christ not so that he will bless me, but because of who He is. He gives me something that is not even comparable to happiness, and that is joy. Joy never leaves.

souls

The question was posed in class, Do animals have souls? The has been a widely discussed issue in my life because I am friends with lots of animal lovers who could not imagine that their best friends, didn’t has souls. My stance has always been no. I had never really thought about why not, until now. This has caused many different theories to pass through my brain in relation to souls.

First I will discuss what thoughts went through my head. Animals don’t have souls because they weren’t created in the image of God, so why would they have souls. This thought starts with that God cared for humans by allowing us to have knowledge of him. We have the bible not animals. Im not saying that animals don’t know that God created them. I have no way of knowing that. But Im pretty sure that Christ died for us, not animals. Im not certain but the Bible states that he died for us while we were still sinners. I have never considered an animals wrong doing against me, a sin. But maybe it is. John 3:16 says God so loved the world that he sent his only Son that who so ever shall believe in him shall not perish but have eternal life. Animals are not aware of Christ so how could he die for them.

Secondly, if animals do have souls that means everything has a soul, insects, reptiles, amphibians. All living things. Maybe even plants. This directly sent me to the fact that animals are different from plants and insects because God told noah to put them on the ark. Not insects or plants just 2 of each animal. So animals could possibly have souls, even if plants and insects do not.

Thirdly, I had not consulted the bible nor could I recall any bible verse that related to whether animals had souls or not. So..I consulted a book I have by Hank Hanegraaff, also known as the Bible answer man. The book is called the complete bible answer book that answers many questions people have about the bible. The question most closely correlating to our discussion in class that was in the book was, “Will there be animals in heaven?” The book describes that scripture doesn’t conclusively tell us but there are certain clues. The first being, there were animals in the garden of eden so that is presendent that there will be animals in eden restored as well. The book goes on to say that some of the keenest thinkers like C.S. lewis and Peter Kreeft are not only convinced that animals in general but pets specifically will be restored in resurrection. That it would be a sign of God’s overwhelming grace and goodness. The book goes on to say that scripture suggests that animals have souls. Both moses in genesis and John in revelation communicate that the creator endowed animals with souls. Genesis 1:20 and revelation 8:9. The book refers to philosphers of Descartes and Hobbs when saying it wasn’t until philosphers like the 2 previously named and others in the enlightenment era that people thought otherwise about animals.

But!!!! The bible answer book goes on to say that an animal’s soul is qualitatively different than a human soul there is reasonable doubt that it can survive the death of its body. Scripture in Isaiah 11:6 suggests once again that there will be animals in heaven. “the wolf will live with the lamb, the leopard will lie down with the goat, the calf and the lion and the yearling together; and a little child will lead them. Parts of this were adapted from a book called resurrection.

So in conclusion with this thought, based on my belief that the Bible is true, I was wrong. Animals do have souls, they are different from human souls and my friends will be happy to hear they will be joining us in heaven. I would venture to say that a human soul has more value than an animal soul, at this point in my life. This could change in my fute but for now it is what seems right.

Now we also discussed in class the treatment of certain objects, items and things based of the fact that they have souls. The conclusion on this that I have come to is, whether something has a soul or not. I will respect it. Dog, cat, spider, blanket, marker, what have you, I try not to destroy any of this or anything else without a purpose. I’m not going to break something just for the sake of breaking something. I try to respect all things and be intentional and have a purpose for my actions. It’s the logical part of me. I treat things according to their functions and that is why I have no problem eating meat. I believe it is part of their function. If I don’t value, respect or have a use for something, I will give it to someone who does. So these are the conclusions I have come to about things, alive or not alive, those that have souls and those that are soul-less.

The search for objectivity

In class we discussed after reading the allegory of the cave that we should search for objectivity. The more we know and the more we search the closer we are to enlightenment. This might seem like an odd statement coming from someone with such strong spiritual beliefs but I don't really believe in absolute truths. I would gamble in saying that there is no way to prove something is absolutely true. There is no Truth, only opinions and everyone's opinions are relative to their life experience and the way they have been nurtured and taught. if your goal is knowledge and you believe that learning as much as you can will enlighten you or even bring you joy, you are certainly not me. I would say that I am a person who is uncomfortable with ambiguity.

I don't like being unsure of things but I think I am pretty sure that in searching for "Truth", proof, and more knowledge with only bring more confusion. What I am sure of is that on this earth I am not going to find proof that I was I believe is absolute truth without someone finding some reasonable explanation of why what I think to be true is doubtable. I think that this is true in everyone's life. I have found peace and solace in the fact that I dont have proof,and that I don't need to have proof. That is where faith steps in.

Faith is necessary for what philosophers refer to as enlightenment. The knowledge found here on earth is temporary. we live short lives and I don't want to spend my short time her trying to figure out things that, if I was supposed to know, would be revealed to me. I trust that there is someone who has much more control over my enlightenment than I do, so instead of searching for knowledge on this earth which in my opinion is temporary, I chose to search for love and dig deep for love, because love never fails and never dies. But once again this is a subjective point of view and I have little power to change what someone believes to be absolute truth. Only God has the power to do that. my absolute truth come from the Bible.

In John 2:23-24 Jesus explains that he doesnt trust the kind of faith that comes from seeing miraculous things. Its not difficult to imagine why. Such faith is likely to be fair-weather faith. It will believe when signs are performed, prayers are answered, things are going well. Bit it is not the sort of faith that will survive the loss of a child, a period of illness or some other trauma. Persevering faith comes through the word of God.

Once again this is my subjective view, based on my life experiences and what my teachings growing up taught me. I have been through severe trauma in my life, more than the vast majority, if not all the 20 year olds, I know. If I spent my time searching for proof that there was a God, instead of spending time trying to help others heal, love God, be loved by God, and love other people, i would be in a world of hurt. Because if I would have been looking for proof, I would have never found it. I need faith in order survive, to find joy and peace in my life. I need faith, not objectivity.

God is true to me and he has the power to change what someone feels about him or anything else. People chose to react in whichever way they chose based on their opinions based on their perception of reality based on their experiences. My point being, everything is subjective. In this line of thinking, of faith, I wont know if I'm right but whatever the cost of believing, its worth it for the hope and peace that believing brings. the ideas of a rationalist, believing that reason is the only way to reach absolute truth seams like a very sad life. Life as a philosopher, always searching for something that is unattainable and having faith in your own self, in nothing else, seems like a shallow and miserable life. Im so glad I dont aspire to be a philosopher. To spend every day revolved around my own knowledge and my own thoughts. Getting lost in my own brain everyday. I think it is a shallow existence. i want to live for something bigger than myself. Philosopher's seem to be very self absorbed. People are in pain, they struggle with death, and life and depression and philosophy only seems to confuse them further.

If people knew the answers,we wouldnt spend hours discussing why something is wrong or right and never come up with a definitive answer. so instead of telling a hurting person to search for objectivity, I am going to love them, to listen to them, pray for them, feed them and try to bring them a little bit of joy in hopes that the person who has all the answers to all the hard questions no one here on earth knows, will bring them the peace that he brought me in my struggle and hard times.