As we begin to discuss this topic let us remember that God’s Word is the foundation for all life. God’s Word is a sword, it’s a weapon, not a band-aid. God’s Word is powerful, it teaches us how we should fear God, and love others. If we have been born again in Jesus, then we should strive to obey Him. If we truly fear Him, then it will present itself in our lives.
Two Kinds of People
There are two kinds of people in this world, those who fear God, and those who love themselves. These two kinds of people both act in such a way so as to reflect what they believe. Behavior is determined by the heart, a Christians’s entire belief is based on faith in Christ, which takes place in the heart . The fruit of their life should reflect the hope that is in them. Unbeliever’s behavior is based on their own personal interests. And therefore their behavior reflects on this and they have bad fruit.
Relative to the Little Ones
Children are no different, a child’s behavior reflects on their heart. Children are prone to behave selfishly, they were born in sin and thus act accordingly. What I am saying is that a child’s behavior is not the problem. A child’s behavior does not spring forth uncaused, it is noticed because it irritates and thus draws attention to itself. However, the real issue is the heart, a child’s behavior is determined by his heart. So if his heart is with the Lord then his actions will be determined accordingly.
The Blessings of Honor
Let’s take into account the commandment given by God requiring the honoring of ones parents. A child who fears the Lord will hope and strive to honor this commandment. This child will honor his parents because he desires to honor God. God promises many blessings to the one who honors this commandment, and even though none of us can ever hope to do this even a little bit, we pray that God looks at our heart and sees that we desire to do so, and bless us for it. Now a child that has rejected God’s commandments, will be cast off, because he did not honor God by honoring his parents. Let us strive, hope, and pray that we can always honor our parents, and thus honor God in His commandment to us.
The Fear of the Lord
A child who loves the Lord will act with love towards others, he will have others best interests at heart, and not his own. In the opposite, a child who does not have the fear of God in his life, will act selfishly, his only care in the world is his personal interests. In the light, a child who actually strives and longs to obey his God given parents, will be blessed by God. However, the child who doesn’t care, will be cursed. The center of all human behavior spring from the heart. The light of Christ should shine in those who love and fear Him. While others flee from that light, in their sin and wicked behavior. Christians stand firm in God’s Word, and their actions are that of love and kindness to all fellow men.
In his book Walden, Henry David Thoreau didn’t convey any part of his philosophy. Doing this can leave readers uncertain as to how Thoreau lived and thought. Henry contradicted himself to the point that his audience was left confused about what he actually believed. A poorly presented philosophy can leave readers in a state of resentment toward the author. The reason for this is the fact that now the reader trusts the writer less, and thus handles the narrative with uncertainty. Continue reading “The Importance of Philosophy”
One defect about Henry David Thoreau’s famous book Walden, is that Henry Thoreau completely omits any mention of his early life, education, or family. I think that if an individual is willing to spend time to read an autobiography, they should want to know more about the author’s childhood and family, this Thoreau did not offer. Failure to provide such information causes an autobiography to lose a great deal of value. The reader misses the most influential and psychological important time of every authors life…his childhood and early years.Continue reading “Criticizing a Man of History”
Who are Captain America and the Avengers? What do they do? What are they supposed to do? Should they have more restrictions, because they have more power? Should one over arching government control them because they have power? Do the Avengers have the right to stop evil? Or do the Avengers have the right to operate as a free enterprise as long as they obey the laws of whichever jurisdiction they are operating under? Are the Avengers allowed to stop a threat that no one else can? Should they even though it will cause more enemies to arise? Sure innocent people are going to die, which happens to be the very thing the Avengers are trying to prevent. But think of how many people would have actually died if the Avengers hadn’t even intervened in the first place. Does great good bring great evil? Does a great light shine on more darkness then no light at all? Does the light cause darkness? Is good the causality of evil? I think not.
Is it morally acceptable for the Avengers to sign the Sokovia Accords? Absolutely! Could it possibly lead to injustice because they are forced to do evil agents their will and therefore a bad idea? Yes! Is it morally acceptable to be forced to sign the accords? Absolutely not! Would it be morally acceptable for a nation to say that the Avengers are no longer welcome in their sovereign nation? Absolutely! I think that if a sovereign nation wished to act with nationalism, then that would be perfectly acceptable. But if they start saying that they are allowed to control others, thats where a line needs to be drawn.
Law and Liberty:
Tony Stark (Iron Man), believes that if good guys behave without boundaries, then they aren’t really “good guys” at all, but rather vigilantes. Cap knows that the accords are not only about boundaries, but also about control.
Oh, that’s Charles Spencer, by the way. He’s a great kid. Computer engineering degree, 3.6 GPA. Had a floor-level gig, an intel plan for the fall. But first he wanted to put a few miles on his sole before he parked it behind a desk. See the world, maybe be of service. Charlie didn’t wanna go to Vegas or Fort Lauderdale, which is what I would do. He didn’t go to Paris or Amsterdam, which sounds fun. He decided to spend his summer building sustainable housing for the poor. Guess where: Sokovia. He wanted to make a difference, I suppose. I mean, we won’t know because we dropped a building on him while we were kickin’ ass… There’s no decision-making process here. We need to be put in check! And whatever form that takes, I’m game. If we can’t accept limitations, we’re boundaryless, we’re no better than the bad guys.-Tony Stark
If one signed the accords not only would one have accepted complete limitations, but also complete control. Cap knows this, Tony doesn’t see it that way, he sees it as if he had had “limitations” he never would have caused the innocent deaths in Sokovia in the first place. If he wouldn’t have been allowed to create Ultron, then all those lives wouldn’t ever have been wasted. Lt. Col. James Rhodes (War Machine) thinks that he should sign the accords because the big guys said so, which is cowardice. Natasha (Black Widow) believes that signing the accords would be a disability to the Avengers as a whole, but at least the team could still operate.
Each person has their own way of understanding the Sokovia Accords, but which choice upholds law and liberty. Tony believes that signing gives the rest of the world liberty from harm, Steve believes that signing takes away his ability to choose what is right. Therefore taking away his liberty, and also those who sign. In the accords there is no liberty, there is no law, the Avengers would be subject to the agendas of the UN, no matter how evil they might become.
If we sign this, we surrender our right to choose. What if this panel [accords] sends us somewhere we don’t think we should go? What if there’s somewhere we need to go and they don’t let us? I know we’re not perfect, but the safest hands are still our own. -Steve Rodgers
One time best friend to Captain America, thought to be KIA in WW2, then brain washed by HYDRA to be used as a weapon of death. The big question about Bucky Barnes, aka the Winter Soldier, is wether or not he should be held accountable for the actions he committed while under mind control by HYDRA. Is Bucky held accountable because he was the one who actually committed the killings, or is HYDRA because they used him as a tool against his will. Bucky had no choice of wether are not he would comply, he couldn’t tell them no, he was subject to the powers of those who would do evil. Cap’s battle with the United Nations resolution and with Bucky are connected. Cap’s fear that giving the government control over the Avengers effectively mirrors with Barnes storyline as a former soldier, who was stripped of free will and controlled to do morally reprehensible actions. He believes that if he accepts the accords then he will be stripped of his free will, and subject to the agenda of those who control him. He doesn’t even want the possibility of being used for evil against his will. Cap was torn between his friends, and what was the right choice. Cap wasn’t fighting for Bucky, he was fighting for what was right. After the Winter Soldier was framed for the assassination of King T’Chaka, Cap thought it necessary to protect Bucky from injustice. Bucky, having no memory of his life before HYDRA control, struggled to know who to trust.
With the loss of his father, T’Challa hunts down his fathers killer. Blinded by rage and vengeance he no longer cares about the real reason he is fighting. The only thing he knows is that he wants to see Bucky Barnes dead, and the only way for him to see that through is to fight with Tony for the UN. T’Challa hunts Bucky with the purpose of vengeful murder, not caring what he must do to reach his prey. Then with the discovery that if he had been successful in killing Bucky, he would have killed unjustly, and would be therefore, a murder. T’Challa realizes that vengeance was consuming everyone, and that he would no longer fight for his own wants, but for what is right.
Even if everyone is telling you that something wrong is something right. Even if the whole world is telling you to move, it is your duty to plant yourself like a tree, look them in the eye, and say, ‘No, *you* move’.” -Sharon Carter
Let me start off by saying that whilst I am talking about the American slavery before the Civil War, and how it was morally evil. I know for a fact that there is however, a just form of slavery that God permits. In God’s eyes, if you owed a person money, you were their “slave” until you could pay off your debt. But, if a “master” physical harmed his slave, his slave was free to leave. Now in some cases men would chose to stay a slave to the person the owed after they had paid off the debt. The reason for this is because being a slave offered protection to a person, and lots of people want protection, wether it be financial or physical.
John Thompson could not persuade me more of the evil of the the American Slave System. Man’s selfish desire to be “god” put him a spot where he will grab power whenever he can. In the early 1800, the best way to have power was to have money. Now in those days, men exercised their “power” by buying slaves against their will, to do their work for them. You get this system when men have a faulty view of God, man, sin, and well……everything.
Thompson paints a very clear image of how cruel slavery in the South was. Slaves being whipped often and at times for no reason at all. In a biblical system, any slave who was mistreated was free to leave, thus resulting in the loss of a slave to a master. Many plantation owners had daily whippings just to keep the slaves in a state of humble submission. Slaves who were constantly beaten eventually committed suicide, because they would rather die then endure merciless treatment.
Justice inside most of the plantations was the word of the slave over the word of the Overseer. Thus the slave was always punished, and sometimes killed in their beatings. Some of these slaves may have been innocent of whatever they were accused of, but it didn’t matter because they couldn’t prove it. What is interesting to me is the fact that slaves were huge assets, and to disposing of them so lightly was a great waste of money.
Thompson gives so many horrifying examples of the mistreatment of slaves. Now this does not mean that all masters were cruel, or that all slaves hated their masters. There were many kind masters who didn’t really have slaves at all, their slaves worked for them because of the protection it offered. They loved their masters, and were more-or-less, their employees. Thompson believed that God would pour his wrath on this “Guilty Nation”. I think that God did judge the evil men of that time, just like he is judging the men of today. But I don’t think it will happen the way that Thompson wants it to happen. Which he conveys be they way he spoke against it.
The three aspects for a good advertisement Joyner stressed in his book, The Irresistible Offer, was:
1) A high return on investment for the buyer.
2) The information of the product, i.e. “it’s price.”
3) The buyers benefit.
In all of these he made clear that what you put in your ad needs to have great sense of believability. Your possible buyer needs to believe everything you say. If your advertisement is composed of these three parts, your advertisement according to Joyner, has become “irresistible.” Lets now look at some advertisements and determine which one captured us the most as irresistible.
This ad failed in two of the three aspects that make a good ad. It failed to show you where you can purchase the product, how much the product costs, and what benefits it brings back to the buyer. This ad did not meet Joyner’s standard for a good ad.
This ad presents a great return on the investment to the buyer. The buyer gets a fantastic education center, video game arcade, and information retrieval. The ad tells the buyer what the product will cost them, which was very affordable to the buying audience. The ad made great efforts to emphasize that it’s in color, the ad is comparing themselves to other companies, and showing you that you will receive more benefits if you buy Radio Shack’s product then others at the time. The ad also gives you a great and easy way to order it the product. This ad is better then the M&M ad, but it isn’t the most compelling of the four.
This commercial shows you a problem, a problem that you might have, and offers you a way to fix that problem. The ad gives you the technical specifications of the PC5, that it runs the same program that the home computers run on, while still being able to run larger more complex programs. This ad gives you a fantastic return on your investment. It says that if you buy the production, you will save $1000. As my dad always said, “Spend money to save money.” The only downside to this ad is it says to contact your local Commodore dealer to take advantage of this offer, not specifically stating were you can get this discount.
This ad is terrible, all it does is tell you that you can now spend money that you don’t actually have. Not to mention that it tells you nothing about where you can buy the product, what ROI it will give you, or how much it cost to use the credit.
Of the four ads, the Commodore IBM PC commercial followed the guidelines for an irresistible offer the best. The TRS-80 Radio Shack was also good, but it didn’t meet all of the standards. You would be a fool to pass up the PC, and that is what makes this product, “irresistible. ”
“What would I do in my autobiography that is different from what Darwin did?”
First let me just start out by saying that Charles Darwin is undoubtedly one of the most influential men in history. He is well known for his books The Descent of Man and Origin of Species, both having a great effect on the modern way of thinking. When Darwin wrote his autobiography he failed to thoroughly mention his experiences that lead him to write his influential books. He briefly mentioned his experiences on the Beagle, a voyage that ultimately changed not only his life, but many others as well. He spent a great deal of time in his autobiography writing about the experiences he had when writing some of his other inconsequential books. Darwin couldn’t determine what was relevant in his own life, thus he spent considerable time writing about topics that the reader might find vague and boring. Darwin was a part of some major changes, but the influence he had that caused those changes were repudiated in his narrative. In short, Darwin failed to write a decent autobiography.
If I happened to ignite a huge chaotic whirlwind of conflict, like Darwin most certainly did, I would go through great efforts to explain my experiences in detail. I would explain how my ideas changed my life and how they affected others. I wouldn’t skip over important events just to then proceed to talk about a subject with no value and holds no interest to readers. When writing an autobiography it is of the utmost importance that you keep your reader in mind. This will help keep you on track so you don’t ever stray from what is actually relevant. Darwin has a great writing style, he is superb at holding his ideas together, he just failed to write about the good “ideas.” I think the only reason I read his book was because he’s Charles Darwin and I wanted to know how he achieved all his success, but he never talked about it, so I only kept reading hoping he will eventually cover the topic, but he never does. When I write my autobiography I will focus on significant information, and I would attempt to construct stories interesting and perhaps useful to my readers. Darwin never puts anything personal in his narrative, he does briefly mention that he got married and had children, but then he moves on after a few remarks. Obviously having a family would have an effect on ones life, but you never heard what Darwin experienced with his family. Darwin chose poorly what topics he was going to cover in his narrative. He had no idea what was important in the world or his life for that matter. If I want to successfully write a satisfactory autobiography, I will copy Darwin’s writing style, which is surprisingly good, but I will do the exact opposite of what he did to determine subject matter.