Not the book! I read that once; it took FOREVER to get through...but actually, this post is more about setting high expectations. In America, it is only too easy to slip by without trying. In college group projects, if you don't pick up the slack, someone else will. But you still get the great grade! What good fortune! We have the No-Child-Left-Behind Act that encourages teachers not to let students fall behind...really it just encourages teachers to edit grades just enough that students pass. It is now socially acceptable to not care too much about physical appearance; people can walk in to stores looking like a hot mess with their bedhead and pajamas.
What happened to cause this? I believe it is in part due to the lowering of standards and expectations. Time and again it is shown that when expectations are high, people will rise to the occasion to meet them. But if they don't have to "rise" to the occasion, why bother, right?
Since the general standards and expectations are lower, people need to set for themselves the higher standards, making themselves the benchmark of greatness. This takes self-discipline, motivation, and commitment but the results are invaluable. People striving for excellence in all that they do achieve things they never thought possible. The goals they may originally deem impossible to meet, get accomplished and in turn become even higher goals. People who do this gain self-respect and pride in who they are. They realize what they can accomplish. They learn and grow as an individual and cause those around them to grow as well.
Monday, April 16, 2012
Sunday, April 1, 2012
Ethics
Ethical dilemmas cross our paths frequently. People have choices that affect the outcome of the situation. The following ethical dilemma is taken from http://www.differencemakers.com/swapshop/pdf/dilemma_examples.pdf
"Teacher
You have a student who is from a single parent family. The student must work to
attend college. However, the job is interfering with the student’s performance and
several assignments have not been turned in. You have determined that a “D” is all
the student can make when a counselor informs you that the student need a “C” to
qualify for an academic scholarship.’
What do you do?"
Many Americans would simply look the other way to give the student a C. This is indirectly encouraged through our "no child left behind" program. There are also many Americans who realize that ethically, it is not right to pass the student. They may face losing their job due to low results, but they have done the right thing when they do not pass a failing student. Giving the student a C when they deserve a D will only hurt the student later. They will be unprepared for any subsequent courses in the same subject. However, if the teacher and the student were willing, they could work together to get the student tutoring, extra practice problems, or counseling - whatever it took to get the student on track for a C. The student will know that they earned the grade they received and should feel a sense of pride in that.
"Teacher
You have a student who is from a single parent family. The student must work to
attend college. However, the job is interfering with the student’s performance and
several assignments have not been turned in. You have determined that a “D” is all
the student can make when a counselor informs you that the student need a “C” to
qualify for an academic scholarship.’
What do you do?"
Many Americans would simply look the other way to give the student a C. This is indirectly encouraged through our "no child left behind" program. There are also many Americans who realize that ethically, it is not right to pass the student. They may face losing their job due to low results, but they have done the right thing when they do not pass a failing student. Giving the student a C when they deserve a D will only hurt the student later. They will be unprepared for any subsequent courses in the same subject. However, if the teacher and the student were willing, they could work together to get the student tutoring, extra practice problems, or counseling - whatever it took to get the student on track for a C. The student will know that they earned the grade they received and should feel a sense of pride in that.
Say no to Gun Control!
College students and guns. As things are now, guns are not permitted to be carried on college campuses by anyone other than security/law enforcement. This means that large groups of students are sitting ducks to psychotic gunmen. Take for example the Virginia Tech Massacre: Seung-Hui Cho killed 32 people and wounded 25 others. This is outrageous. For some reason many people think that by banning guns from campus (and other locations) everyone will be safer. Instead, criminals, who are going to ignore the rule to carry out their evil intent, are free to walk right in and commence shooting - without resistance. If one sane student had a gun at Virginia Tech that fateful day in 2007, the result could have been much different.
Thursday, March 1, 2012
To be or not to be...
Tolerant. Okay, so that's taken a little out of the original context, but it works. Tolerance is preached everywhere in the U.S. We must be politically correct. We must not offend others with our own point of view. Be tolerant of other's opinions. We have bumper-stickers proclaiming TOLERANCE using different symbols of different faiths.
In America, everyone is supposed to be free to have their own point of view, but I do not think we should be tolerant of everyone's point of view. One of the funniest things about tolerance is the fact that if someone finds my point of view to be intolerant of theirs, they get mad. How is that tolerating my point of view??
“To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment.”
― Ralph Waldo Emerson
This is so true. People need to realize this. Whenever we tolerate a view that originally differed from our own, we conform to accept that view. How can things such as atheism and monotheism both be true? They cannot. Why would we tolerate both views, accepting them just because society thinks we should? Why not instead fight to understand why a position is supported, what the logic is behind it so that you can then judge it to determine if it is right or not?
Often, people are too concerned with offending others to actually analyze the facts and challenge another. The challenge can inspire dialogue and discussion that is uncomfortable, so tolerant people avoid the confrontation. This acceptance or tolerance is not healthy. Dialogue and discussion encourage the person being challenged to explain what they believe. It encourages them to learn more and grow deeper in their beliefs. For the person challenging the believer, it increases their knowledge of the issue/belief. When the discussion is through, either one of the people will decide to change their belief or they will agree to disagree. Both will be better for it.
In America, everyone is supposed to be free to have their own point of view, but I do not think we should be tolerant of everyone's point of view. One of the funniest things about tolerance is the fact that if someone finds my point of view to be intolerant of theirs, they get mad. How is that tolerating my point of view??
“To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment.”
― Ralph Waldo Emerson
This is so true. People need to realize this. Whenever we tolerate a view that originally differed from our own, we conform to accept that view. How can things such as atheism and monotheism both be true? They cannot. Why would we tolerate both views, accepting them just because society thinks we should? Why not instead fight to understand why a position is supported, what the logic is behind it so that you can then judge it to determine if it is right or not?
Often, people are too concerned with offending others to actually analyze the facts and challenge another. The challenge can inspire dialogue and discussion that is uncomfortable, so tolerant people avoid the confrontation. This acceptance or tolerance is not healthy. Dialogue and discussion encourage the person being challenged to explain what they believe. It encourages them to learn more and grow deeper in their beliefs. For the person challenging the believer, it increases their knowledge of the issue/belief. When the discussion is through, either one of the people will decide to change their belief or they will agree to disagree. Both will be better for it.
Sunday, February 26, 2012
Party. It. Up. ... Not.
I am not a partier. (Just how are you supposed to spell that, spell check?) No one in my family is a partier either. I do not even have any close friends who party. However, since I am in college, I frequently come across other students who live it up on the weekends and sometimes during the week too. They seem to love the idea. They seem to have tons of fun partying. They get to drink, meet people...some do drugs or hook-up...I hear their stories; I see that they think it is all worth it. But is it really?
I don't get it. I mean, I am of age. I enjoy having a drink every now and again, but I cannot understand the love of partying. Most of the time, people act retarded when they are drunk. They can even get violent. Plus there's the fact that if you are using, you're worsening everything - destroying braincells with alcohol AND drugs. Then if you are sexually active at a party, odds are you don't actually know the person or their STD's. The thought of getting an STD from a party hook-up is just splendid. What do you do when the night's over? Stay and spend the night? or go drive drunk with the possibility of getting a DUI and getting jail-time (or wrecking and injuring yourself and/or others). And, as much fun as you have, half the time, you can't even remember what happened by the next day. Then too there's that tremendous head-ache from the hangover...that lovely sense of grogginess. It just makes the whole scene appealing.
For real. What the heck? Why does our culture think that partying is awesome? People seriously get STD's, other health issues, DUI's, Jail-time, loss of driver's license, loss of job, and bad grades all for a terrible lifestyle. I don't know. Maybe I'm crazy but it seems to me that for these reasons, partying is a waste.
Regardless of what I think though, what I believe through God's word solidifies it. The Bible says in multiple places something similar to what it says in Ephesians 5:18 "And do not get drunk." And then in 1 Corinthians 6: 18-20 it says, "Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body. Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body."
Partying does not glorify God. I realize that most who party are not Christians and don't care what the Bible has to say about drunkenness and immorality. However, if you are reading this and are a Christian, you can use these verses to help you to reach those you have come across who are partiers. They are lost people. They need Jesus' love. They need to know that there is more to this life than this. They need to know that partying will last for a day in comparison to eternity. Maybe they justify it by saying that they'll change their lifestyle later, but...that may be too late. God cares about them and wants them to turn to Him - NOW. It kills me that so many people are separated from Him just because the fun of this life is more important.
I don't get it. I mean, I am of age. I enjoy having a drink every now and again, but I cannot understand the love of partying. Most of the time, people act retarded when they are drunk. They can even get violent. Plus there's the fact that if you are using, you're worsening everything - destroying braincells with alcohol AND drugs. Then if you are sexually active at a party, odds are you don't actually know the person or their STD's. The thought of getting an STD from a party hook-up is just splendid. What do you do when the night's over? Stay and spend the night? or go drive drunk with the possibility of getting a DUI and getting jail-time (or wrecking and injuring yourself and/or others). And, as much fun as you have, half the time, you can't even remember what happened by the next day. Then too there's that tremendous head-ache from the hangover...that lovely sense of grogginess. It just makes the whole scene appealing.
For real. What the heck? Why does our culture think that partying is awesome? People seriously get STD's, other health issues, DUI's, Jail-time, loss of driver's license, loss of job, and bad grades all for a terrible lifestyle. I don't know. Maybe I'm crazy but it seems to me that for these reasons, partying is a waste.
Regardless of what I think though, what I believe through God's word solidifies it. The Bible says in multiple places something similar to what it says in Ephesians 5:18 "And do not get drunk." And then in 1 Corinthians 6: 18-20 it says, "Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body. Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body."
Partying does not glorify God. I realize that most who party are not Christians and don't care what the Bible has to say about drunkenness and immorality. However, if you are reading this and are a Christian, you can use these verses to help you to reach those you have come across who are partiers. They are lost people. They need Jesus' love. They need to know that there is more to this life than this. They need to know that partying will last for a day in comparison to eternity. Maybe they justify it by saying that they'll change their lifestyle later, but...that may be too late. God cares about them and wants them to turn to Him - NOW. It kills me that so many people are separated from Him just because the fun of this life is more important.
Sunday, February 19, 2012
Abortion Ends Life
The topic of abortion is a very touchy topic in the American culture. Women's rights movements say that women have the right to choice and should be able to decided what they want to do with their body. This movement and Planned Parenthood justify abortion through statements like, it is a blob of tissue, it has no feelings, it's like cosmetic surgery...These groups nullify the action of abortion.
It is legal, so is it right? What about the morning after pill? Maybe people don't support a surgical abortion, but the pill is not abortion...or is it? It is a woman's body, but what about the man who fathered that baby - doesn't he have a say in this? Just when does that blob of tissue become a "baby" because even late term abortions are legal...? Isn't the earth getting overpopulated, abortion helps that problem, right?
Almost everyone has heard of Roe v. Wade. It is one of the most controversial cases in our history. Christians/Catholics/Protestants detest it. Women's Rights Activists/Abortion Clinics support it. Since the act was passed in 1973, 57,596,687 abortions have been performed. This is no small number. In fact, it is obscenely large. The truth of the matter, we have taken the lives of 57,596,687 babies. Truth is ugly sometimes.
Now to get into my logic on the matter. Besides the fact that I am a Christian and I do believe that God "knits you together" in your mother's womb (Psalm 139:13), I believe that abortion takes the life of a baby. When I say abortion, I am including late term, mid term, and even the morning after pill. I believe that life starts at conception. Think about the science of it. When a sperm penetrates an egg, a chemical reaction occurs. Otherwise, why would we need the morning after pill to put a stop to it? So we all agree, a chemical reaction occurs. With that point accepted, people sometimes argue that the heartbeat can't be heard until around 8 weeks. They argue that until the heart is beating, there is not life. I disagree. I think that life begins at conception. I think this because from the moment conception occurs, this baby has begun to develop. Immediately cells begin splitting and building - all to develop this baby. (I'm not a science major, so forgive my non-technical terminology!!) At the end of the pregnancy, everyone knows that a baby is born. When a baby is born premature, it's a baby. When a woman miscarries, people think, "she lost the baby". Just like other mammals, during the entire pregnancy, the being within is the same as what it will be at the very end of the pregnancy. A kitten does not start as a puppy to be born a kitten. In the same way, a baby does not start as a lifeless blob of tissue. It is tissue, but it's not lifeless at all. To help support my point, I want to share an argument I was once taught...
Scott Klusendorf, a pro-life advocate suggests that there are just four differences between the unborn and the born. These differences are size, level of development, environment, and degree of dependency. He states that the living have these differences as well. There are short people and tall people; they are different in size but neither is less of a human. There are toddlers and adults; they have very different levels of dependence but are both human. There are people who can be on the moon and people on earth, yet they are still people no matter their location/environment. There are people who live solely because they have a pacemaker; but they are still people regardless of their dependency.
What about the legality of it? If it is legal, it must be okay. This is a bad argument for several reasons. It goes back to the famous motherly quip, "If your friend jumped off a bridge would you jump too?" Anywhere that Shariah law is in effect (this is the Islamic law) it is permissible for a woman to be beaten and raped legally. Following me? It is LEGAL for a woman to be beaten and raped. In America, this will get you put in prison. We think this is morally wrong. Yet it is legal in those countries. Just because abortion is legal does not make it right.
Then there is the argument that the earth is getting overpopulated. Abortion cures that. Well I have news for you. The earth is not overpopulated. Consider the population density of New York City per square kilometer: 2,050. Now consider the square kilometers of the United States: 9,826,675. The earth has a population size of 6 billion people. It is growing but not quickly. This means that (6 bil/US sq. km) there would be 610 people per square kilometer if the entire world moved into the United States. This is nowhere near as crowded as New York City. We are not overpopulated.
An unplanned pregnancy may be inconvenient, it may be unwanted, but it is not an issue to be solved by abortion. Abortion takes life. If you do not want this life put your child up for adoption. Do your research. Check with multiple sources before deciding that you have a lifeless blob of tissue growing inside of you that must be aborted.
Some sources:
http://www.prolifetraining.com/Five-Bad-Ways.asp
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html
http://rtlindy.com/
It is legal, so is it right? What about the morning after pill? Maybe people don't support a surgical abortion, but the pill is not abortion...or is it? It is a woman's body, but what about the man who fathered that baby - doesn't he have a say in this? Just when does that blob of tissue become a "baby" because even late term abortions are legal...? Isn't the earth getting overpopulated, abortion helps that problem, right?
Almost everyone has heard of Roe v. Wade. It is one of the most controversial cases in our history. Christians/Catholics/Protestants detest it. Women's Rights Activists/Abortion Clinics support it. Since the act was passed in 1973, 57,596,687 abortions have been performed. This is no small number. In fact, it is obscenely large. The truth of the matter, we have taken the lives of 57,596,687 babies. Truth is ugly sometimes.
Now to get into my logic on the matter. Besides the fact that I am a Christian and I do believe that God "knits you together" in your mother's womb (Psalm 139:13), I believe that abortion takes the life of a baby. When I say abortion, I am including late term, mid term, and even the morning after pill. I believe that life starts at conception. Think about the science of it. When a sperm penetrates an egg, a chemical reaction occurs. Otherwise, why would we need the morning after pill to put a stop to it? So we all agree, a chemical reaction occurs. With that point accepted, people sometimes argue that the heartbeat can't be heard until around 8 weeks. They argue that until the heart is beating, there is not life. I disagree. I think that life begins at conception. I think this because from the moment conception occurs, this baby has begun to develop. Immediately cells begin splitting and building - all to develop this baby. (I'm not a science major, so forgive my non-technical terminology!!) At the end of the pregnancy, everyone knows that a baby is born. When a baby is born premature, it's a baby. When a woman miscarries, people think, "she lost the baby". Just like other mammals, during the entire pregnancy, the being within is the same as what it will be at the very end of the pregnancy. A kitten does not start as a puppy to be born a kitten. In the same way, a baby does not start as a lifeless blob of tissue. It is tissue, but it's not lifeless at all. To help support my point, I want to share an argument I was once taught...
Scott Klusendorf, a pro-life advocate suggests that there are just four differences between the unborn and the born. These differences are size, level of development, environment, and degree of dependency. He states that the living have these differences as well. There are short people and tall people; they are different in size but neither is less of a human. There are toddlers and adults; they have very different levels of dependence but are both human. There are people who can be on the moon and people on earth, yet they are still people no matter their location/environment. There are people who live solely because they have a pacemaker; but they are still people regardless of their dependency.
What about the legality of it? If it is legal, it must be okay. This is a bad argument for several reasons. It goes back to the famous motherly quip, "If your friend jumped off a bridge would you jump too?" Anywhere that Shariah law is in effect (this is the Islamic law) it is permissible for a woman to be beaten and raped legally. Following me? It is LEGAL for a woman to be beaten and raped. In America, this will get you put in prison. We think this is morally wrong. Yet it is legal in those countries. Just because abortion is legal does not make it right.
Then there is the argument that the earth is getting overpopulated. Abortion cures that. Well I have news for you. The earth is not overpopulated. Consider the population density of New York City per square kilometer: 2,050. Now consider the square kilometers of the United States: 9,826,675. The earth has a population size of 6 billion people. It is growing but not quickly. This means that (6 bil/US sq. km) there would be 610 people per square kilometer if the entire world moved into the United States. This is nowhere near as crowded as New York City. We are not overpopulated.
An unplanned pregnancy may be inconvenient, it may be unwanted, but it is not an issue to be solved by abortion. Abortion takes life. If you do not want this life put your child up for adoption. Do your research. Check with multiple sources before deciding that you have a lifeless blob of tissue growing inside of you that must be aborted.
Some sources:
http://www.prolifetraining.com/Five-Bad-Ways.asp
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html
http://rtlindy.com/
Saturday, January 28, 2012
Living Together!
No...not as roommates...as a dating couple. I am specifically referring to people who choose to live together while dating. They do this for a variety of reasons. You have to see if you are compatible for marriage, right? You have to be sure that your sex life is good. That he puts the lid on the toothpaste. That she can relax and let you have your beer and pizza nights with the guys. Our culture says living together before marriage is the way to go. But is it?
More than likely, people who are living together are justifying it either because they do not have any morals against living together (who cares, right?) or because they have decided that this person is "the one". They plan to marry someday. Since they will someday get married, what's the point in waiting? It is financially easier - and more fun - to just move in! What is the point in waiting til marriage? What's the point of abstinence? (I'll cover that at a later date.) Well...living together/premarital sex does not increase your odds of living happily ever after.
In 2002, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention published a study declaring that 40% of women aged 15-44 lived with a sexual partner of the opposite sex. 10% of these never married. The probability that the relationship will be "disrupted" when a couple has had premarital sex is great. During the first year, 25% of these relationships are disrupted, 3 years a total of 44%, 5 years 58%, 10 years 71%. By 15 years, 80% of these relationships have been disrupted. This means 8 out of 10 people who have had premarital sex will lose their relationship after 15 years. How sad.
I don't think the culture is right on this one. The Bible says:
1 Corinthians 7:2 Each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband.
Hebrews 13:4 Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral.
To me, those verses seem pretty clear. Only sleep with your spouse! Those who did not live together before marriage had a statistically better chance of making it after marriage. Why not wait a few months? Over a life span, this is not a lot of time to wait for your future spouse. Waiting - instead of moving in - will increase your commitment to one another. It will test your loyalty. It doesn't work the other way around!
Check out the study here: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_23/sr23_022.pdf
(Footnote: Yes, there are other things that contribute to the "disruption" rate, but for the sake of your scrolling finger and the amount of read-time you have, I'm not going to delve into that now.)
More than likely, people who are living together are justifying it either because they do not have any morals against living together (who cares, right?) or because they have decided that this person is "the one". They plan to marry someday. Since they will someday get married, what's the point in waiting? It is financially easier - and more fun - to just move in! What is the point in waiting til marriage? What's the point of abstinence? (I'll cover that at a later date.) Well...living together/premarital sex does not increase your odds of living happily ever after.
In 2002, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention published a study declaring that 40% of women aged 15-44 lived with a sexual partner of the opposite sex. 10% of these never married. The probability that the relationship will be "disrupted" when a couple has had premarital sex is great. During the first year, 25% of these relationships are disrupted, 3 years a total of 44%, 5 years 58%, 10 years 71%. By 15 years, 80% of these relationships have been disrupted. This means 8 out of 10 people who have had premarital sex will lose their relationship after 15 years. How sad.
I don't think the culture is right on this one. The Bible says:
1 Corinthians 7:2 Each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband.
Hebrews 13:4 Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral.
To me, those verses seem pretty clear. Only sleep with your spouse! Those who did not live together before marriage had a statistically better chance of making it after marriage. Why not wait a few months? Over a life span, this is not a lot of time to wait for your future spouse. Waiting - instead of moving in - will increase your commitment to one another. It will test your loyalty. It doesn't work the other way around!
Check out the study here: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_23/sr23_022.pdf
(Footnote: Yes, there are other things that contribute to the "disruption" rate, but for the sake of your scrolling finger and the amount of read-time you have, I'm not going to delve into that now.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)