A Testament to Facts

The B-I-B-L-E, yes thats the book for me! This childish ditty reminds Christians of the superiority of the scripture and the necessity of its reliability. When called into question, the New Testament is often criticized as a fraud and doubted because of its supernatural elements. Often, critics are attacking the message of the New Testament and fail to recognize its authenticity and reliability as a basic document. If sections of the New Testament is proven then the whole should also be considered true. Therefore, it is our role as Christians to discover the reliability of the gospels and reveal their historical accuracy. The New Testament contains historical markers that line up with the history of the early first century and is one of the most consistent documents in existence. Most importantly, our faith in the accuracy of the Bible is not groundless and therefore the message of scripture becomes (if possible) even more significant. Christians rely on the scriptures.

 Their reliability strengthens our trust in the words of God. 

Firstly, the historical accuracy of the New Testament is documented through the cohesion of the lives of Paul and the history of the first century. For instance, the figures of King Herod and Jesus Christ have been proven by non-biblical accounts and relate similar lives of each person. Geographical descriptions remain founded and have served to enlighten many in the quest for discovering various ancient places and details. Such as the journey's of Paul, which is not only supported by the writings under Emperor Nero, but the specific geographic details suggest accuracy and eyewitness accounts. Numerous events line up with trusted historical dates and provide a foundation for believing the authority of scripture. Several arguments arise such as "Oral Tradition is Unreliable" or the writers had a specific agenda hold little water when considering the culture of Jerusalem and the background of the Disciples. Firstly, oral tradition is considered a reliable means of relating facts and general meaning and secondly, must of the new testament was written down and then proceeded to copy. The idea of the writers possessing an agenda becomes silly when considering their subsequent torture, imprisonment, and death for the sake of the gospel. Selfishness could not carry men into sacrificing their lives for a personal agenda. Their agenda could not have succeeded due to the numerous eyewitness that observed the teachings of Jesus and could question the writings. Finally, the teachings of Jesus are confusing and if in possession of an agenda, these teachings would have been omitted. Not only do events support the reliability of the gospel, but the arguments prove irrelevant when considering the culture of the Jews. 

The manuscript evidence for the New Testament provides the greatest argument for the reliability of the gospel and Jesus' message. For instance,"There are presently 5,686 Greek manuscripts in existence today for the New Testament.1 If we were to compare the number of New Testament manuscripts to other ancient writings, we find that the New Testament manuscripts far outweigh the others in quantity." Even more so, these manuscripts can be cross-checked for accuracy and consistency between each article. The specific details of the New Testament's comparison to other ancient documents also suggests a bias toward the question of the New Testament (for more information go to carm.org/manuscript-evidence). To compound these details, "the internal consistency of the New Testament documents is about 99.5% textually pure.  That is an amazing accuracy.  In addition there are over 19,000 copies in the Syriac, Latin, Coptic, and Aramaic languages.  The total supporting New Testament manuscript base is over 24,000." A fragment of the gospel of John dates back to 29 years from its original writing and is simply unheard of within ancient documents. The manuscript evidence of the New Testament reveals the unheard accuracy of its ancient story and allows the Christian to trust the authority of scripture. 

Historically Accurate?

Paige is ignorant. This is not an ad hominem argument, merely an explanation of her foolish reasoning to forgo the lessons of history. History is one of the greatest gifts given to a literate society; we learn history so that we are not doomed to repeat it. Her explanation of history as determined by the winners is not only narrow-minded, but losses the compilation of winners and losers that create history. History is such a wonderful gift, a useful tool, and a inspiring message to the future. It should never be labeled elitist or racist. History is a story of facts. Sure, inconsistencies can occur, but the majority of history is founded upon archeological evidence and resources (books or oral stories) that have been tested for accuracy. Paige's claim that history is not objectively true boils down to her decision to disbelieve history and support that was poor reasoning. Objectively true is truth and to discredit the truth is to call it a lie. Therefore, Paige makes the assumption that history is a lie- obviously, she doesn't look at her car, phone, or streets. We live in a world that encapsulates the past and is defined by the advances made. History isn't a recording of the minority's uprising; it may include the lessons of civil rights and struggles against racism. History cannot be defined as subjective because it exists objectively. Furthermore, history is the "study of past events, particularly in human affairs" or "the past considered as a whole."Paige is changing history into something it is not in order to satisfy her belief in society's agenda. History is compiled based upon people's biases or the winner's power, yes they may have written some history down, but so did the losers. History is compiled based upon objective understanding of based events which is engendered by the the cohesion of winners and losers. 

The importance of the reliability of history is extremely important. It is our duty as citizens to check the accuracy of the facts and understand the perspective it was recorded in. While studying United States History, I came to understand the true reasoning behind the Civil War. It didn't ask as Abe Lincoln's call to free the slave and although that was a part of his motivation- the Civil War was fought due to dramatically different lifestyles, beliefs, and the need for resources. In the same thread, Prohibition seems ridiculous and foolish without understanding the motivation of the government, after seeking explanations history becomes a web of decisions based upon varying opinions. Subjectivity doesn't necessarily imply a crime, within the areas of history that have become subjective by society, it is man's role to bring the facts to light. The value is not removed purely by being subjective, in fact you can learn even more because the recorder was subjective for a specific reason. History is awesome. I love learning about history and discovering how past society's acted. To renounce the study of history because you believe it's decided by "winners", is to ignore the plight of Nathan Hale, Martin Luther King Jr., Abigail Adams. There dreams never came to fruition during their lifetimes and they died. Does that define losers or winners? Here lies the problem of labeling people in such a way- what makes them losers or winners? History doesn't depend on the outcome, it is the story of getting there. 

Socialism Sucks.

The simple rule taught at child, sharing is caring, is the main argument for socialism. It is defined as a compassionate means to alleviate the impoverished and helpless. As a economic system, socialism would produce a utopian society; a society transformed by mutual hard work and determination. The driving force of socialism stems from the association of socialism with compassion, however this is merely a naive view of the tendencies of socialism. Socialism is a compromise between capitalism and communism and exists to slowly destroy American principles of economic freedom. Also, socialism discourages the values and key components of American society- invention, creativity, and hard work. These two components compound and engender a system that 

demeans success and uplifts laziness. 

Firstly, Socialism is the economic system where the government owns the means of production. Institutions such as health care, business, and education are defined by the rigid and faulty hand of the government. The American government was established in order to check the power of a growing central government and guarantee the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness. Socialism, although preaching fairness and equal wealth, denounces the tenets of American liberty that founded are democratic system. Socialism marches toward communism and as such, celebrates the government's perfection and capability to dictate the lives of its citizens. Government functions as a system of protection and fairness. Therefore, it cannot steal from its citizens or sacrifice their rights in order to establish equal wages. Equality is not measured by the amount of money you make, nor the type of car or house. Instead of prompting citizens to enjoy government interference, American government should be encouraging independence and frugality. Socialism promotes a great sense of entitlement that corrodes the blessing of the rights we are appointed. The cruelty of communism stems from the mindset of socialism, that is, that government serves as a kind of salvation upon earth and must act in order to grant its citizens happiness and financial security. This task was not given to the American government and although it functions in the best interest of the people, it does not insure wealth and unmarred unhappiness. Socialism is producing a mindset within American of the government's correctness and ultimate power to declare truth. The similar mindset of socialism and capitalism produces a misunderstanding regarding the purpose of American government and the role of its citizens. 

Secondly, the facets of socialism promote laziness and even more so, idea of entitlement which furnishes a selfish mindset of greed and misunderstood equality. For instance, skills earned should not result in equal payment: a doctor should not be payed the same as a McDonald's employee. Occupations do have greater value in society than some, although a harsh fact, it is a poignant reality. Socialism decries the initiative and determination of American citizens as it continually raises taxes and cuts wages in order to produce equality. Welfare is beneficial for those incapable of working, but it produces a mentality of laziness and entitlement. It discourages workers to return to employment and continually cuts into the labors of workers in order to pay for their needs. Socialism would result in an apathetic society which is incapable of innovation or creativity. American society would simply produce a culture of selfishness and the desperate need for material equality. This idea stems from the corrupt thinking of socialism and therefore socialism promotes unhealthy thinking and action. 

Bow Down to Mother Earth

The environmentalists proclaim Mother Earth is a living being. Ok, not really. By definition Earth is a planet, it does not own an identity or form relationships. It is not a being, it is a thing. A wonderful thing, but still not on the plane of humanity. Firstly, Mother Earth stems from a belief rooted in Pantheism and a glofication of earth. Secondly, the description of Mother attached to earth connotates familiarity and humanity to earth when obviously, the earth is not human. The basic tenets of environmentalism- conservation, ecological responsiblity, and the gift of nature remain consistently true. However, environmentalists reordering of the natural hierarchy of man and earth is a violation of God's plan. Instead, a theocentric approach to nature produces rejoicing in the person of God and the gift of nature.

Environmentalism seeks to promote the rights of nature above the rights of man. This stems from witnessing man's destructive behavior and carelessness. However, instead of uplifting earth to godhood- Christianity imparts a practical and realistic approach to nature. In particular, Christianity is at odds with the tenets of radical environmentalism and argues directly against its beliefs. To begin, Christianity believes that population growth is biblically ordained and that man is created in the image of God and inherently possesses value. Therefore, nature is not innately better or equal to humanity. Even more so, we treat nature as a resource and animals and food. This does not mean the acceptability of crue treatment and misuse of these resources. Merely, a benefit of God's favor. As the natural guardians of earth, man must watch over and care for nature and thus comprehend the value and goodness of nature. Christians present a conservative approach to dealing with and respecting the environment. Thus, Christianity is opposed to radical environmentalism, but maintains an understanding of the importance of nature.

To clarify the Christian perspective, God commanded that we be stewards of his creation and as such, we must fulfill certain roles. As stewards of earth, we must respect nature and attempt to restore its beauty, wholeness, and productivity. Nautre should be respected and viewed as integral to the a well balanced lifestyle and the duties of a steward of God. We must appreciate the efficiency and orderly fashion of nature and continue to protect our resources. In order to do so, people must manage nature by growing and harvesting crops and managing the resources given by practical and conservative uses. Christians understand that nature has been corrupted by the innate sinfulness of man, and therefore man must restore the glory and beauty of nature. We must preserve the gift of nature and be intentional about our treatment of nature. But, the Earth is resislent. It survives the contamination and the abuse; God's healing hand continues to effect nature as well. Apocalyptic statements hold little meaning and serve as representative of the radical environmentalist movement. However, the purpose of the steward is to protect and enjoy nature. We should fulfill that purpose.

Michael Moore's Meaning

Capitalism is cruel. This thought continues to pervade the mind of society as capitalism becomes viewed as a brutal and unfair system of economics. Michael Moore, during an interview, discusses the contrasting doctrine of socialism to be the saving grace of the American people. He emphasizes the kindness and compassion associated with Socialism and depicts it as evolved form of economics. But, his argument contains contradictions and sweeping generalizations without discussing the actual consequences of socialism. Many of his statements exaggerate and avoid the true meaning of the speaker and uplifts the "common good" 

without taking into account the sinful nature of mankind. 

Mr. Moore states socialism is democracy. Not only is that a fundamental misrepresentation of democracy, but a grossly misconstrued definition of socialism. Socialism, by definition, places the ownership of the means of production into the hands of the government. Thereby infringing on the basic freedoms of America and dissolving the purpose of the Bill of Rights. The government was not intended to be a business or a provider of goods, but to insure that are civil liberties were being protected. This does not extend to healthcare and the distribution of money. Socialism is not democracy, in fact, socialism is a step in a achieving communism- the absolute of "moral and ethical care."Even more so, socialism promotes a reliance upon the government for employment, healthcare, and direction. It places boundaries around the lives of citizens and promotes a defiance against working hard and initiative. Upon exploration into the consequences of Socialism, Mr. Moore would find the system to innately promote corruption and laziness. The government would become wealthy and citizens unhappy. Ignorance is attached to the idea of socialism, whereas democracy understands the human condition and attempts to enhance it. For instance, Mr. Moore states that within socialism "We the people have the say" which suggests a naive view of socialism and the idea that a person's say automatically insures prosperity and happiness. Socialism crushes the economy and diminishes the basic facets of America's prosperity. It is a solution masked behind a facade of compassion, but merely serves to grant the state an exorbitant amount of power. Socialism is not democracy, 

nor will it ever engender the same freedoms. 

The second major flaw within Michael Moore's argument was his equalization of religion and their innate glorification of socialism. Firstly, Moore states "All great religions say that the wealthy shouldn't get nine slices of the pie while the rest fight over one peace." In response, Christianity does not support socialism and the idea suggested by Moore and furthermore nor does Islam. These two dominant worldviews promote the initiative of the worker and the importance of the principle "If you don't work, you don't eat."Rewards have importance based upon the merit of their work. Socialism is at odds with the basic principles of Christianity and Islam as it demands provisions without any action. Indeed, it defies the biblical exhort of a cheerful worker and diligence. The redistribution of wealth is a violation of the commandment "do not steal."Moreover, Deuteronomy 8:18 states "But remember the LORD your God, for it is he who gives you the ability to produce wealth, and so confirms his covenant, which he swore to your forefathers, as it is today." Biblical Christianity understands the gift of money and property and the ability to work to be ordained by God. Even more so, socialism casts wealth as evil and a product of nepotism or unfairness- it fails to recognize the goodness attached to hard work and the subsequent satisfaction. Michael Moore declares he "doesn't care what we call it", he merely wants an advancement of society. However, his argument fails to recognize the contrasting opinion of different religions and the importance of the values within capitalism. Religions are not all the same and nor is socialism automatically assumed to be superior. 

Abortion- What right do you have? (#1)

It's my choice. Really, is it? Is it your prerogative to murder another person? To steal? To kidnap? No. A choice is not an all inclusive free pass. It is not unlimited. The basic argument that it denies a woman her inherent civil rights to outlaw abortion ignores laws forbidding murder and sets a precedent against the safety of all people. By elevating a women's right to such a capacity, the government ignores its function to deliver justice and protect its citizens. A slippery slope is created by the government's refusal to ignore the cries of society and take an objective view of abortion. Instead, the chant of "My choice" rings in the ears of government officials and becomes commonplace- a type of propaganda. The government becomes dependent upon the misguided voice of the people. A civil right is granted to all people and therefore the question lies not in the area of basic rights and freedom, but in the qualitative analysis of a human. The woman does possess civil rights, but their limited to personal pursuits. What about the child? Does he or she not possess the same rights as their mother? Instead of asking this question, society focuses on the cruelty of forcing a woman to give birth to an unwanted child; the worries stem from the inconveniences of a child, but if the mindset of society would change this problem could be answered by adoption. No, the government does not have the right to force women to use contraception or undergo sterilization. This effects purely the woman's life. But, abortion effects that of a children and therefore a line must be drawn. Abortion is not equated to sterilization or contraception. Abortion is murder and must be treated as such. A civil right does not condone murder and

 therefore the real question must always be, what is the unborn?

The clarification of the unborn provides an explanation as to the unethical issue of abortion. First of all, living things reproduce after their own kind and therefore "How is it possible for human parents to produce an offspring that is not human and later becomes human?" (Klusendorf) This question reveals the inconsistencies prevalent among pro-choice advocates. How can a fetus be anything other than a human? Size does not determine personhood, nor does functional capacity. A large person is not more of a person that a short human. A handicapped person is no less human than a non-handicapped person. Our functionality cannot determine our personhood because at varying moments in our lives we lack a level of functionality- we should not be murdered! By prompting pro-choice advocates with questions such as "Were you ever an unborn child?" (Klusendorf) This yields a fundamental issue of abortion- that is, identity and personhood is seamless from conception to death. The issue of what is the unborn will most likely persist, but these critical questions demand a deeper level of thinking than before. Furthermore, "You cannot answer the question 'Can I kill this?' until we ask the question, 'What is it?'" (Klusendorf) No one would allow the murder of a toddler. A toddler lacks full functionality and a fully developed body, but he is still considered human. This same thinking must be applied to abortion. The question 'Isn't it my right?' stands pointless in view of the questioning of what exacting women are aborting. The fragility of maintaining civil rights cannot remain at the expense of millions of lives. Not only does abortion inflict damage to the woman's body and psychological state, it destroys the future. The world is not the same because of a single woman's abortion. A life is not dependent upon age or development. A child is conceived at conception and therefore abortion is murder. It is a simple, straightforward answer that remains convoluted by the sinful mindsets of society. A baby is still a baby.  

Mirror: Sylvia Plath

I am silver and exact. I have no preconceptions.

Whatever I see I swallow immediately

Just as it is, unmisted by love or dislike.

I am not cruel, only truthful ‚

The eye of a little god, four-cornered.

Most of the time I meditate on the opposite wall.

It is pink, with speckles. I have looked at it so long

I think it is part of my heart. But it flickers.

Faces and darkness separate us over and over.

Now I am a lake. A woman bends over me,

Searching my reaches for what she really is.

Then she turns to those liars, the candles or the moon.

I see her back, and reflect it faithfully.

She rewards me with tears and an agitation of hands.

I am important to her. She comes and goes.

Each morning it is her face that replaces the darkness.

In me she has drowned a young girl, and in me an old woman

Rises toward her day after day, like a terrible fish.

Title: The title begins the straightforward tone of the poem; providing little information apart from the main subject being the mirror. Due to the simplicity of the title, Mirror, the poem is developing the character of the mirror and its purpose. The mirror remains distinct and separate- characterized by the lack of surrounding words and likely containing thematic weight. 

Paraphrase: The poem consists of a mirror’s musings and eventually it begins to tell a story. It describes itself, who it is and the room in which it resides, and ultimately its purpose. In the second stanza, the mirror turns into a lake, retaining the same characteristics in a different form. The mirror then goes on to describe a face that transforms it, a woman who gazes deeply into the mirror and searches for her identity. She becomes angry with her reflection. Ultimately, the mirror describes the young girl the woman drowned in the mirror and the old woman that is gradually rising to meet her reflection in the lake. 

Devices:

1. Metaphor: “The eye of a little god”- The mirror is compared to the omniscience of a god and in possession of the power to alter lives; however, it remains a “little god” and therefore its purpose remains relatively insignificant. “Now I am a lake”- Through personification, the mirror is identified as a lake- still reflective, but now capable of extending the punishment of the woman. This comparison is continued through the “drowning of the young girl” and a “terrible fish” rising up. The language is cold and grotesque, full or violence and ugliness reflecting the torture of trusting in appearances. 
2. Personification: “I am silver and exact”- The mirror is given a voice- a voice that is honest and reflective and becomes the main character of the poem. Plath’s ability to evoke emotional connection to the mirror displays the prowess of her writing and the necessity to view the mirror as capable of feelings. Through personification, Plath ascribes to the mirror the ability to interact with the woman whose face appears in the mirror. “To those liars, the candles or the moon”- The personified candle and moon suggests a rather paradoxical idea that light is actually hiding the truth; it is distracting the woman from confronting the truth present in the mirror. 
3. Imagery- “Terrible fish” and “drowned a young girl” prompt vivid connections to death and the bizarreness of a nightmare. The wall of “pink”
4. Diction: “unmisted”, “faithfully”, “liars”, and basically all of the words that make up the poem. Through her diction, Plath indicates the feelings of a mirror and the gradual transformation of the woman. Each verb and “I am” emphasizes the mirror’s ability to reveal the truth and simple understanding of the complexity of the woman’s emotions. 
5. Allusion: The second stanza suggests an allusion to Narcissus, who was destroyed by gazing at his reflection. This is a bit of a stretch, as no mention of Greek mythology is really mentioned. 

Tone: Plath’s tone is objective and honest, gradually succumbing to a slightly frustrated tone regarding the behavior of the woman. The mirror speaks and reveals personality and emotion that casts the woman as foolish and cruel. As an inanimate object, the mirror’s voice is reflective and open and therefore Plath’s tone is indicative of the mirror’s contemplative musings. The simplicity of the mirror’s speech contrasts to the gravity of its reflection and portrays the misplaced hope of the woman. The reader identifies not with the woman, but the mirror.