Should the Driving Age Be Raised To 21?

Thanks to modern means of transportation, we can now meet people we would never have met, see more people more often, and conduct business with less cost with greater ease.

Previously, the driving age limit in parts of the US has been 16 years of age. However, some are contemplating the idea of raising the driving age to 21. This essay will give three reasons for why the enforcement of this idea would be ideological:

  1. Driving capability and trustworthiness is not a matter of age, it is a matter of experience and maturity.
  2. To raise the driving age to 21 would mean that new drivers would be the ones with the potential to use mind-altering substances.
  3. It puts young men and women trying to obtain a job or start a business at a disadvantage.

The first reason that the driving age should not be raised to 21 is that driving capability and trustworthiness is not a matter of age, it is a matter of experience and maturity.  It doesn’t matter how old you are.

The second reason that the driving age should not be raised to 21 is that new drivers would be the ones with the potential to use mind-altering substances. At age 21, they have full control on what and whether they drink, obtain drugs, and/or smoke. A driver of age 16 actually has the potential to be a safer driver due the fact that that driver cannot obtain those substances as easily.

The third reason that the driving age should not be raised to 21 is that it puts young men and women trying to obtain a job or start a business at a disadvantage. The younger generation will have to rely on their parents or friends who are older than 21 to take them to their jobs. Not wanting to go through the hassle, many will not bother and the economy will suffer as a result.

In conclusion, the driving age should not be raised to 21 because:

  1. Driving capability and trustworthiness is not a matter of age, it is a matter of experience and maturity.
  2. To raise the driving age to 21 would mean that new drivers would be the ones with the potential to use mind-altering substances.
  3. It puts young men and women trying to obtain a job or start a business at a disadvantage.

If you care about the economy, the safety of our roads, and the lives of the next generation, do not support the idea to raise the driving limit. Right now, please comment how you think we can prevent the government from enforcing this decision.

Thank you.

For you, my readers’ information, this was a persuasive essay assignment.

I showed great emotion in this essay; however, though I would like to hear your thoughts on how we can prevent the enforcement of such an idea, my conclusion was merely part of my assignment.

The call to action (action step) was also part of my essay, and it was supposed to make you start doing something about your newly acquired information.

A Ridiculous Piece of Utopian Literature

English Lesson 160

As you will all remember from my last post in which I covered several aspects of the very popular socialist utopian fiction novel Looking Backward (written by Edward Bellamy), the main character Mr. West (a man born in the 1800’s) was miraculously preserved in a vegetative sleep for over a century. I left off in my last post discussing the fallacious actions of Dr. Leete. I have now completed reading the book.

This book, as you will see if you complete reading my last post and this one, was a ridiculous piece of utopian literature. However, it amazingly inspired many people of the 18th century (the time in which the book was written) to embrace the concepts of communism. This book was a huge proponent in the rise of the communist ideology.

To bring you up to speed, Mr. West finds that he has fallen in love with Edith Leete. He then finds out that she is the grand-daughter of Mr. West’s old fiancé (the one to whom he was betrothed before he left her behind in the 19th century). He finds that she has also been in love with him…

And so it seems that they will live happily ever after. Then he goes to sleep.

Now he wakes up…except, he is back in the 19th century. The author now informs us that his vision of the 21st century was all merely a dream! Mr. West goes around views his society and the class system therein to be horrendous. It is with new eyes that he lectures and rebukes the men of the day on his enlightenment and the glory that the future can hold. However, the men reject him and are violent toward him – calling him names. Then, all of sudden…

He wakes up. Now the author informs us that he dreamed about having a dream and that the reality was what we would consider the least probable and the most akin to fiction. It is now that he goes and lives his utopian life.

This essay will be my opinion on which of the two “dreams” was more realistic: When he woke up in 1887 or 2000.

I will inform you that it was, in fact, rather disappointing to read that his utopian revelation had been but a dream; and that it was rather relieving to find that his dream of having a dream was a dream. However, it is my opinion that that his dream of waking up in 1887 was much more realistic.

The first reason for why the dream of waking up in 1887 is more realistic is because of the reactions of the countrymen. While Mr. West had been a pushover and simply accepted everything as “the way it is,” the countrymen thought him looney. They laughed and mocked him. Their reaction was a natural, realistic one.

The second reason for why the dream of waking up in 1887 is more realistic is because of the inconsistencies in the plot that had polluted the story thus far. While the novel had managed to convert thousands to the socialist mindset (in real life), it had not only failed to show how the characters in the novel had managed the peaceful, bloodless revolution of the transition from the peak of Capitalism to the alleged perfection of Socialism; it had neglected to include an action step – a call for action – the first step towards achieving the society outlined and portrayed in great detail throughout the book. It made no sense that the wealthy of society would, out of the blue, give up all their riches to the state where the state would re-distribute all the wealth. There was no mention to the steps of the formation of the government, only descriptions of how the government looked once fully formed.

In summary, the dream of waking up in 1887 after his vision of the year 2000 was more realistic than the “dream” of waking up in the year 2000 because of the reactions of the reactions to do socialist idealism and also because of the inconsistencies of the alternative option.

Why a blog site with lots of content will help me get my first full-time job after college.

English Lesson 150

This essay will present the reasons why a blog with lots of content will help me get my first full-time job after college.

An employer wants to know what you are capable of. The employer may have previous knowledge about you and what you are capable of doing, but for most people, that is not the case. In order to get your desired job, you need to differentiate yourself from the other job applicants. Since you’re new to the field and fresh out of college, you won’t have a lot on your resume.

So how can one set oneself apart?

From kindergarten to your college graduation, you have been pursuing an academic career. Most people neglect to adequately present the accomplishments of their academic career. This is very unfortunate. You need to show what you have spent the last 18-25 years of your life doing!

Granted, some graduates will list the college they attended; but as for myself, a homeschooler, there may be less public record of my academic achievements.

This is why a blog with lots of content will help me obtain a job: I will be able to communicate what I am able to do for a potential employer as well as show the (very important) added ability of clear writing.

The value of writing is greatly underestimated. Writing is necessary in nearly every aspect of life. You may have done many things that would be of great value to a potential employer, however, if you can’t tell him what it is that you have done, those things won’t be of much use to you.

If you can demonstrate, using the skill of writing, that you possess clarity, the potential for leadership, and experience in a particular field, you greatly increase the potential for success in said field because the employer will realize that the company can’t lose you – that you’re invaluable to the company, and as a result, the company will make an effort to keep you at all costs and to give you incentive to stay. 

Should the government be able to restrict content on the Internet?

We have all seen those famous Hollywood movies. The hero News reporter rushes to the scene and there she uses our favorite cliché, “blah, blah, blah…right to free speech.” That line wasn’t just made up, though; that line was is a legitimate statement of our rights.

Throughout the end of the 20th century and into present day, the internet has enlarged the world – yet, brought everyone closer at the same time. The internet became an extension of our current locations – an extension of our homes. It is a place for us to meet, debate, and discuss with others – a place to share our opinions. In such a place, would it not be completely necessary and unquestionably right to have the right of free speech?

The government, having a say in the way the internet is run, has given itself the liberty of suppressing opinions that do not coincide with their own. This is not right.

Consider this short story as an allegory:

John walked up to the podium. He was to read his dissertation on the opposition of government taxation and the Freedom Convention. He knew it was an unpopular opinion to give, especially considering the office he held. He gripped the podium and began,

“My brothers, today I give you my dissertation on the opposition of government taxation. We –”

John stopped short. He tapped his microphone…nothing. He had been silenced.

In this allegory, John began to give his opinion. When the operators heard what his topic was to be, they silenced him. He was unable to voice his opinion.

This example accurately portrays the way the government acts when they restrict content on the internet. Sure, they own the microphone; but they have offered us the use of it. The internet is an extension of our voices. If we truly have a right to free speech, then we should not be censored. But if not, then it is all a lie.

I once was in the presence of a wise lawyer. I believe he said something to the effect of the following,

“They may take all our rights away…but as long as we have the right to free speech, we can gain them all back.”

Guess what? They are suppressing our right to free speech. If they succeed, they may – under our corrupt legal system – destroy our freedoms. This is why we need the right to free speech.

In conclusion, as long as we have free speech rights, the government cannot, may not, and will not suppress our words. The government is suppressing various freedoms as it is; but even if all other freedoms be taken away, as long as we have free speech rights, we have freedom in our grasp. I call all my readers to action. I call each one of you to fight for your rights, to fight for our freedoms, and to fight for free speech! Show your beliefs by your actions; because without action, there is no proof of belief.

What is the Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything?

The other day, I was talking with one of my friends when his Mom called him. But before he left me to my mental solitude, he asked me a deep question which I wasn’t really prepared to answer: “What is the answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe, and everything.” I was like, “Whoa…” (but I didn’t tell him that, lol).

In this post I will touch on the history of this question, offer my opinions on it, and leave you to decide your answer.

Before you continue, please take a brief moment to reflect and consider what you currently believe to be the answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe, and everything.

So from where did this deep question originate?

Douglas Noel Adams wrote the science fiction novel, The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, and published it on October 12, 1979. It was very popular and sold 250, 000 copies in the first three months.1 It was in the book that the famous question was introduced. Here is how Wikipedia says that the question is introduced:

“In…the first novel, a group of hyper-intelligent pan-dimensional beings demand to learn the Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, The Universe, and Everything from the supercomputer Deep Thought, specially built for this purpose. It takes Deep Thought ​7 12 million years to compute and check the answer, which turns out to be 42. Deep Thought points out that the answer seems meaningless because the beings who instructed it never knew what the question was.”

Here is what the book adds to the question:

“There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory mentioned, which states that this has already happened.”

Thus, the question and the answer may never be known together. You may have the answer, or you may have the question. If you discover them both, then the universe disappears.

Here is something crazy to consider: If people find the answer, then all that is involved and contained in the question (life, the universe, and everything) disappears. This would indicate that the answer to the question might, in fact, be the question itself. 🤨

I find this interesting because it makes no sense. 42 makes no sense and there is a reason it makes no sense. People have tried to theorize on why the number 42 was chosen…and theorize they have! People have come up with the craziest of explanations. Here is one of them:

“…When using base 13; 613 × 913 is actually 4213 (as (4 × 13) + 2 = 54, i.e. 54 in decimal is equal to 42 expressed in base-13).”2

This “answer” is almost as shocking as the unexpected question! Just for the record, the author admits to having randomly picked the number. It holds no significance.

To get really picky, “everything” includes life and the universe. Thus, the question is rather redundant and could instead be phrased, “What is the answer to everything” which just intensifies the ridiculousness of the question.

Finally, the so called “question” makes no sense because the “question” is not even technically a question! It is like saying, “What is the answer to your bed?” and then expecting people to be able to find an answer to a question that doesn’t exist.

So what is the answer to the “Ultimate question of life, the Universe, and Everything?” You could argue that the answer is 42, the question itself, or even nothing. But what if one was to slightly rephrase the question so that it said, “What is the purpose of life, the universe and everything?” Now you open a whole new kettle of fish.

My friend said that the answer to this question was choice. What choice? He didn’t mention. But to each of us the answer to this question will differ.

In the New England Primer, there are catechism questions; one of which is, “What is the chief end of man?” I memorized this question and its answer in my early childhood. The answer: “Man’s chief end is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever.” To me, this is the purpose of life, the universe, and everything.

Sources:

  1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hitchhiker%27s_Guide_to_the_Galaxy_(novel)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrases_from_The_Hitchhiker%27s_Guide_to_the_Galaxy

My Workout Routine | Hold Me Accountable

For several years now, I’ve been a bit of a work-out buff. When considering where my enthusiasm for it came from, I considered it likely to have originated from the fact that, as far as I can remember, I’ve always been bigger and healthier than the typical guy my age (I was taller, stronger, faster, ate more healthily, and got sick less often as a result). I wanted to keep it that way.

But my attention was particularly devoted to my arms; not to the fitness of my whole body (as it should be). This year, I was introduced to a workout routine by Chloe Ting (a YouTuber) that specialized on the core. It is a two-week workout done in 10-minute daily periods. She claimed that you could get abs in two weeks. Of course, I thought, “2 weeks? 10 minutes a day?! Then I get abs! How hard can it be?” I decided to give it a shot.

I failed.

I am a strong dude, but the workout was pretty intense and sometimes it was inconvenient. I got to day four before it started getting irregular and eventually stopped. 

That is one of the reasons I am making this post. I want to be held accountable to more people as I do this exercise. Plus, it would be cool if you all joined me as I did it.

There is one thing I want to point out: Chloe wears really immodest clothing (by my standards) in this video. My solution was to write down the exercises and glance at the form to understand how to perform it. For those interested, here is the video:

Just wanted to share that with you. 😀

If you do decide to join me, please let me know! I am officially starting today, 11/29/20, and will continue to at least 12/12/2020.

The American War for Independence | The Rise of a Nation

At the first Continental Congress, they discussed the proposition that they should start training men and stockpiling weapons. The British got wind of it and decided to confiscate the weapons.

Many have heard of the story of Paul Revere; how he and William Dawes rode in from Boston to warn of the approaching soldiers. The distance between Boston and Lexington is no small journey, especially not on horse-back.

On April 12, 1775, The Brits arrived at Lexington to find the citizens already aware of their approach. They faced off. To this day it is unknown who fired the first shot that has come to be nick-named “the shot heard around the world;” nonetheless, it was fired. Though it is known today as The Battle of Lexington, it was not really a battle, but would be more properly classified as a “skirmish.” The colonists and the British fought for a short time, then the British retreated to Concord (which was their main targeted destination anyways.

There, the people had already hidden many of their firearms and were waiting outside the city. The British arrived, found them in this state, and proceeded into the city, leaving only a small party to guard the bridge. Inside, they discovered the firearms supplies and tried to destroy them; either by dumping them into the water, or by destroying it by means of smashing and-the-like (as they did to the cannons…rendering them un-usable.

The group of colonists waiting outside the city grew. They began to see smoke. Now over 400 men, they decided to go and check out what the British were doing; mind you, their intentions were allegedly peaceful…just for some random reason they were armed and had a leader. Hmm…

Upon approach, the British opened fire on them without warning or audible command. The colonist’s leader ordered them to retaliate. They colonist’s army grew and grew as more men continued to arrive. They destroyed both the group guarding the bridge and the British inside the city.

Then the colonists chased the surviving British army back to Boston and laid siege on them there for two months. George Washington led the colonial army (who drastically outnumbered the British, numbering 15,000 to 6,000).

On June 13 the colonists found out that the British were planning to capture the two hills near Boston. These hills would give the British an advantage, and yet, the colonists had not occupied them yet. However, when the colonists found out about the British’s plan, they hurried ahead of them and took the hills.

Thus, when the Brits came and found hills occupied, a battle ensued. The colonists eventually did have to retreat over the hill (Bunker Hill, after which the battle was named), but they only suffered 367 casualties. The Brits, on the other hand, suffered 1,054; a significant difference (especially so because they were already outnumbered greatly).

The British won the hills, and the claimed victory for it; but the colonists did not consider it to be their loss. Sure, the Brits had won the hills, but they had also lost a great deal more men and had instilled in the colonists a sense of courage and belief in their ability to hold off (for a time) the best trained army in the world.

The colonists did not want to fight. They wanted freedom. So, on July 5, they made a petition asking for a reduction of the Intolerable Acts; if the British would do that, then they would cease fire.

The King refused and pronounced them to be in rebellion.

With their requests denied, people began thinking about the concept of seceding from the British. Thomas Paine anonymously printed a pamphlet, Common Sense, describing this idea in 1776.

With more trust being put in the fighting ability of the colonial army, more soldiers were trained. During the early parts of the war, the colonists did very well, seizing Fort Ticonderoga (an important British fort in Canada, loaded with artillery that the colonists needed very badly), capturing British equipment as they proceeded to Quebec, and winning many of the fights they undertook. One of the amazing colonial fights happened when the colonists had to return to Fort Ticonderoga. There, they fought the battle of Valcour Island on Lake Chaplain. The British Navy was the largest and most experienced fleet in the world; however, the colonists, though they did have to retreat, were able to hold the British back for an amazingly long time.

In 1776, the colonists issued the Declaration of Independence. This demanded the cessation of the 13 British colonies. They were granted it, but now that they were independent, they had to fight to keep it. Otherwise, they would fall right back into British hands; quite possibly worse off than they were before.

The colonists were not alone, though. Actually, both the Spaniards, the Netherlands, and the French gave them aid. Since The Seven Years War there had been stress between France and Britain. France was more than willing to help them out…as long as it brought down the British. France did it secretly until the colonists pronounced independence.

But the British started to return with reinforcements. This is when things went turned a little south for the colonists. Due to a series of loses, New York was captured by the British. Now, Both Boston and New York were in the hands of Great Britain.

After a great start, the year 1776 wasn’t turning out so well for the colonists. Seemingly in an act of desperation, George Washington led the colonists across the frozen Delaware river on December 25, 1776. The very next day, he captured the British military city of Trenton.

Then in 1777, the colonists won a major victory at Saratoga when 5,700 British troops surrendered. This victory was led by Horatio Gates who had a rather interesting style of leading. He would sit out behind the side-lines and would command from there. Saratoga turned out pretty well, but he devastated his reputation in a later battle of Camden.

George Washington, Nathanael Green, Benedict Arnold, Marquis de Lafayette, Henry Knox, Baron von Steuben, Francis Marion, and the previously mentioned Horatio Gates are just a few of the most influential colonial leaders.

After Saratoga, the British would win some, then the colonists would win some; it kind of passed back and forth between them.

Then in 1778, France openly viewed the colonists as a separate country and so it was no longer required to help them in secret, they could do it publicly.

Now the colonists (who truly weren’t colonists any more) had a significant advantage on the Brits as they had all they army right there on the same continent, but the British army had to wait for long periods of time to get reinforcements and supplies.

The last battle that ended the Revolutionary war didn’t actually directly involve the colonists. It was a Naval battle fought between the French and British fleets. The British were returning with reinforcements for the holed-up British army, and the French were coming to the aid of the newly pronounced nation: United States of America. The French won the battle, and the war was basically over. There were a few other minor skirmishes, but those were mainly between parties were not aware that the war was over.

Britain signed various treaties with the Netherlands, the Spaniards, and also the French, but the treaty between the colonists and Great Britain was called the Treaty of Paris.

NOTE:

I apologize to the Ron Paul Curriculum for any direct quotes from the lectures that I may have accidentally put into writing. When I was writing down notes and historical facts several weeks ago, I don’t know if I rephrased the information in my own words, as I do now.

This is why I source you.

Sources:

The Grade 8 Ron Paul History Course (Lessons 20-25)

https://www.history.com/topics/american-revolution/treaty-of-paris

What should Virginia have done before giving editor Norman $500,000?

In the utopian fiction novel, In His Steps by Charles Sheldon, a rich, popular, and prosperous newspaper man, Edward Norman, falls into near bankruptcy after making a pledge to do what Jesus would do. Edward Norman does not, in fact, in my opinion, do what Jesus would do. He acts stupidly (see the footnote for greater information) by refusing to advertise anymore for the tobacco and beer industries and he also decides he will not cover any of the subjectively “un-godly” important news or gossip. He quickly reaps the consequences of making such an action and loses a great deal of subscribers and is on the verge of bankruptcy when he pleads his case to a rich young heiress named Virginia Page. Virginia had been feeling rather conflicted about what is to be done with her inherited funds, as she had also taken the pledge to do as Jesus would do. She felt that it was wrong for her to be possession of such a great deal of wealth, and was unsure of “What Jesus Would Do” in her situation.

So, when editor Edward Norman pleaded his case to young Virginia Page, she readily agrees to give him $500, 000 (adjusted for inflation, this number would be equivalent to millions in today’s dollar).

In this essay, I will present my opinion on what Virginia should have done before giving Edward Norman $500, 000.

First of all, we can well see that Norman has a failing business. When one goes from a state of great wealth, to one of poverty in a relatively short amount of time, you know that there is a problem that must be resolved.

So, what was the problem?

The problem was not that Norman didn’t have the original funds to make the newspaper work; he was previously a very wealthy man. No, the problem was in his business plan. It was that his business plan was a failure.

Thus, the first thing Virginia should have done was to investigate his business plan, see that it was an obvious failure, and help him to design a successful business plan.

As it turns out, Edward did have a new business plan in mind. But Virginia didn’t know that. For all she knew, she could have been wasting a great deal of money that could have done a lot of good for the poor people of her area.

Footnote:

Some of you may be wondering why I think that Norman acted stupidly by quitting his advertising for the beer and tobacco industries and by not covering any of the subjectively ungodly important news or gossip.

First of all, while I disagree with his ideology that the Bible says that it would be wrong to advertise for the beer and tobacco industries, if one believes that God is telling them to do so, then one should definitely do as one feels led.

However, Editor Norman earned almost all of his income through those advertisements and through coverage of those “ungodly” reports.

I would argue that instead of going bankrupt, Norman should have sold his business and with his life savings (which were very large) start a new (subjectively) more “godly” one.

Acts 15 – Obedience or Legalism?

“For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith–and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of Godnot by works, so that no one can boast.”

~Ephesians 2:8-9

In Acts 15, there are four groups that are identified:

  1. The first century leadership (Acts 15:4. Apostles and elders in Jerusalem)
  2. The legalists (Acts 15:1. This group is NOT defined as believers, and they taught that salvation is by the observance of the law)
  3. The believing Pharisees (Acts 15:5. This group IS specifically defined as believers, they are saved. Thus, they must know that salvation is by faith. BUT, they still keep the Law (as Paul does))
  4. Gentile converts (Acts 15:20 (and obviously, other places). This group consists of the new converts; however, they are still practicing that which is ungodly (idolatry, temple prostitution, the drinking of blood, etc).

So, WHAT IS THE DEBATE ABOUT?

We have 2 groups each having their own position:

  1. The first group believes that the Law is NECESSARY for salvation (Acts 15:1)
  2. The second group believes that salvation is through faith, but that the Law should be obeyed out of a love for God.  (Acts 15:5)

These are TWO groups from TWO geographical locations with TWO different doctrines. They both want their position to be projected upon the Gentile converts; the debate decides who is right. The answer to this debate will show clearly who is wrong and who is correct.

So far…

There are several parties at the Jerusalem Council:

  1. The Leadership
  2. The Legalists
  3. Believers
  4. Greek converts

It is ESSENTIAL to realize that the Legalists were NOT believers (Acts 15:1). It is ESSENTIAL to realize the Believers WERE TRUE BELIEVERS (Acts 15:5), AND they kept the Law.

Unfortunately, too often, people glance at this passage and think that it is about whether the Law is to be kept. This is clearly not the meaning of the passage. From the positions of the parties above, it is obvious that the meaning of this passage/debate is about whether the Gentile converts need to keep the Law for salvation.

In other words, people try to create a new debate with new context.

Nowhere in this passage does it present the position that the Law of God (which is clearly synonymous with the Law of Moses (see Luke 2:22-24)) is abolished!

Evidently, the Greek converts weren’t keeping the Law very well OR AT ALL, because otherwise, there would have been no need for the debate.

So what happens in the rest of the passage?

  1. Acts 15:8-9
  2. Peter stands up and gives testimony that the Gentiles were able to be saved ONLY by FAITH!

POINT 1 AGAINST THE LEGALISTS!!!!

  • Acts 15:10
  • Peter stands up and says that people were never able to be saved through works. It’s impossible – a yoke. Thus, salvation must be by some other means.

Quick note:

We know that the “yoke” referred to in this verse is NOT the Law, because GOD HIMSELF SAID that the Law was easy and light (Deuteronomy 30:11-16 and John 5:3). We know that Peter cannot be contradicting God.

POINT 2 AGAINST THE LEGALISTS!!!!

So far…

Peter blows up Position number 1’s view (the Legalistic view). He just shreds it. However, he says nothing against Position number 2. Peter clearly supports the view that the Believers in the faith should still keep the Law of Moses in obedience, but not for salvation, but BECAUSE of their salvation.

NO NEW DEBATE HAS BEEN INTRODUCED! ALL HAS SO FAR BEEN CONSISTENT WITH THE DEBATE IN ACTS 15:1, AND ACTS 15:5.

What happens next?

  1. Paul and Barnabas share stories of miracles among the Gentiles.
  2. James suggests a solution:

“It is my judgment…that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. For the Law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.”

~Acts 15:19-21

Now, the Law is not a yoke. We have already established that. The Law ONLY becomes a yoke when one thinks they can keep it for salvation. So why does James think that we should go easy on the Gentiles?

James is saying that it would be difficult to force the Gentiles to keep, and understand, the Law right away. No one can understand all of God’s ways right away. Thus, he says that they should stop doing those acts which are linked with pagan idolatry, and over time, they will learn about the other Laws because God’s Law is “preached in every city and is read in the synagogues every Sabbath.”

James proposes that, to make it easier on the Gentile converts, they should encourage the new believers to stop engaging in pagan cultic worship practices.  He states that over time, the Gentiles will eventually come to understand other ways that God wants to be loved.

Unfortunately, many Christians think that James was saying that those four things (to abstain from food polluted by idols, to abstain from sexual immorality, to abstain from the meat of strangled animals, and to abstain from blood) are all that Gentile Christians are required to keep. However, this is certainly not what James was saying:

  1. Because of context
  2. Because it would make no sense
  3. I would have to abstain from those four things, but I can go murder and steal?! No!
  4. Are we to assume that James directly quoted Laws out of the Law, to go and state that we do not need to keep the Law?! No!

It’s obvious that the last sentence “For Moses is read…” was part of their plan for the gentiles! It’s the,
“Do this now, then come and learn,” idea.

Conclusion:

Acts 15 is a debate. There are two parties in the debate:

  1. The Legalists (Acts 15:1)
  2. The Believers (Acts 15:5)

The first party believes that you need to keep the Law for salvation. The second party, specifically noted as believers, believes that one should keep the Law after salvation. These are the ONLY two points addressed in this passage.

In the end, the leadership sides with party number 2: The Believers. They say that all are saved through faith, but that one should keep the Law in obedience.

Here are the steps discussed as the proper road of salvation:

Step 1: Faith in God (Acts 15:7)

BUT…

After you have faith…

Step 2: Leave Cultic False God Worship (Acts 15:20)

Step 3: Learn the Law (Acts 15:21)

Step 4: Obey God’s Law (Acts 15:5)

Despite the clear stating of these points, many Christians refuse to realize their presence, and instead, choose to believe that Acts 15 abolished the Law.

However, to reach such a conclusion, they have to do the following:

  1. Ignore the purpose and the positions in the debate (Acts 15:1 and Acts 15:5)
  2. Create a new debate by interjecting a made-up new position.
  3. Ignore the fact that valid believers existed that taught and believed that, after salvation in faith, one should keep the Law.
  4. Ignore the fact that NOBODY corrected the Believers in the Acts debate, but instead, supported them!
  5. Ignore that the commands that James presented to give to the Gentiles came directly out of the Law.
  6. Ignore that Acts 15:21 is part of the decision for the Gentiles to follow.
  7. Ignore that Jesus said that, until heaven and earth pass away, the Law will NOT be abolished (Mathew 5:17).
  8. Ignore that Jesus said that those who teach that the Law has been abolished will be called least in the Kingdom of Heaven (Mathew 5:17-20).
  9. Ignore that Jesus said that those who teach – and practice – the Law will be greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven (Mathew 5:17-20).
  10. Ignore that Scripture calls the Law:
  11. Perfect (Psalm 19:7)
  12. Just (Nehemiah 9:13)
  13. Good (Proverbs 4:2)
  14. Life (Proverbs 6:23)
  15. Truth (Psalm 119:142)
  16. Light (Isaiah 8:20)
  17. The Way (Malachi 2:8)
  18. Freedom (Psalm 119:45)
  19. Holy (Romans 7:12)

Thus, it would be a VERY bad thing to abolish God’s Law. Taking Laws from a PERFECT Law, would only render it un-perfect, and incomplete.

Finally, check this out! 

Immediately after the Jerusalem Council, Paul, Silas and Timothy take the decision of the Jerusalem Council to the churches in Galatia.

 “Paul came to Derbe and then to Lystra, where a disciple named Timothy lived, whose mother was Jewish and a believer but whose father was a Greek. The believers at Lystra and Iconium spoke well of him. Paul wanted to take him along on the journey, so he circumcised him because of the Jews who lived in that area, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.”

~Acts 16:1-4

Okay, let’s just think this though:

  1. IF the Jerusalem Council DID in fact meet to discuss whether the Law should be kept
  2. And IF the Jerusalem Council DID in fact decide that the Law should not be kept
  3. Then why in the world did Paul CIRCUMCISE Timothy…to go and deliver the message that you don’t need to be circumcised?

Doesn’t make sense right?

Let me know what you think.  Please keep your comments relative to the subject matter presented.

“Missing Chapter” From ‘The War of The Worlds’

I was assigned by my English curriculum to write a chapter that the author could have written and that could have been in a science fiction novel called The War of the Worlds, but instead decided that he didn’t want to include it. The novel was written by H. G. Wells, one of the first early sci-fi novelists. As a bit of context, Wells had a rather despairing life, which could explain the rather depressing and despairing feel throughout much of the book.

I inserted a paragraph before and after my writing to introduce the story and also help you to find your spot in the book should you chose to read the entire book. These paragraphs are underlined.

Well, here is the missing chapter from The War of the Worlds (starting three paragraphs in to chapter thirteen of book one):

It would seem that these giants spent the earlier part of the afternoon in going to and fro, transferring everything from the second and third cylinders–the second in Addlestone Golf Links and the third at Pyrford–to their original pit on Horsell Common. Over that, above the blackened heather and ruined buildings that stretched far and wide, stood one as sentinel, while the rest abandoned their vast fighting-machines and descended into the pit. They were hard at work there far into the night, and the towering pillar of dense green smoke that rose therefrom could be seen from the hills about Merrow, and even, it is said, from Banstead and Epsom Downs.

That is when I decided that if anything was ever to be done, it must be done now. What with the Martians compiling their forces and more coming yet, I truly believed that we may never again get another chance. Annihilating the Martians was something that, aside from the chance shot that killed a Martian only hours before, seemed impossible.

I racked my brain for possibilities on how we could defeat them; by we I mean humanity at large. I wandered and paced the countryside and still came upon no ideas. I started toward the military base near where the Martian had fallen. I decided with whom else it would be best to exchange and discuss humanity’s plans about our military. As I approached the swarming militia the answer hit me as the great monster’s heat ray crashed into a house. I took off running and dodging and thrusting my way between the soldiers, and made my way to their headquarters. Perhaps it was the excitement in my eyes, or maybe the speed at which I rushed to and then past them, but for whatever reason no one – no one at all – attempted to hinder me. I burst through the tent flap and was instantly surrounded by military leaders.

“I have found it! The answer! I have figured it out!” I yelled.

“What is it? For goodness sake if you have, spit it out already!”

Unable to contain myself, I practically shook with excitement as I relayed my eutopia.

“There is one thing that our men can not stand, there is one thing that prevents our weapons from destroying their disgusting bodies, there is one thing that we need to put them back in their place –”

“Well, what it is?! Speak! Blast your eloquent speech and tell us straight what you have found!” They said impatiently.

“It is their tripod machines! Without their machines, they can not move, and it has never been recorded or observed that a Martian could fire the Heat Ray without the help of those machines!”

They exclaimed words of triumph and patted me on the back. “You have surely got something there!” They said.

“And that’s not all,” I continued, “I have reasoned that we can do better than merely dispose of the machines, we can use them too. You see, we must somehow sneak up upon the Martian tripod look-out un-aware, and then silently dispose of its operator and then quickly figure out how to use it. Then we can aim the Heat Ray at the Martians and destroy them with their own weapons!”

They again exclaimed; some yelled, one bawled. They took my ideas and turned them over through their wise minds and figured out what they believed the best course of action would be.

We wasted no time. The leaders rallied their troops and they chose which soldiers were to participate on this endeavor to save man-kind; only the very best soldiers were to come. I was also to join them.

By dusk, we had everything arranged. Fifty soldiers, four officers, the commander and myself were to go. We crept swiftly and stealthily across the scorched ground the Heat Ray had left. The trouble with it all was that there was little cover to do the destruction of the tread of their tri-pods and the deadly Heat Ray. Again, and again the Heat Ray would sweep the countryside, sometimes directly over our heads. We were extremely thankful that only three of our men were killed by that intense beam at that time.

As we approached the cylinder pit, we came to realize that there was only one look-out placed above the pit. We silently rejoiced at this wonderful discovery.

We continued to get closer and closer. Periodically, the strange green smoke would waft out of the pit.

We approached the Martian sentinel from behind. When we were within two-hundred yards, ten handpicked soldiers, the commander, and I went on while the other soldiers got into a position to fire if we should need the cover. Foolish we were to think that fifty puny guns would keep of a Martian.

We snuck up until we were only fifty yards away. We used no vocal communication for fear that the Martians might hear us (we did not know at the time the limit of their poor hearing capabilities). Now only one other soldier and I approached. We were to climb the Martian tripod’s legs and kill the Martian once we reached the top.

The soldier (I never learned his name) gripped onto the leg of the first tripod leg we came to. He immediately began climbing the sturdy, DNA-like shaped ladder. I cautiously went to the next closest leg.

My tri-pod leg was a great deal more dangerous than the soldiers leg considering that mine was partially in front of the Martian until about halfway up. Stealthily we climbed, he about ten yards higher than I, paused for a brief moment to let me catch up (and undoubtably also to catch his breath).

Higher and higher we climbed. These machines being a hundred or two feet tall gave us an amazing view of the Weybridge county area.

When we reached the top of the machine completely worn out. We came together on the platform just below where the Martian sat above on the next platform. We moved with excruciatingly slow movements which were completely necessary in order to keep from making even the slightest noise. He gestured to me to keep my gun trained on the Martian as he crept up behind it. The goal was to kill it with our cutlases to avoid even the slightest noise.

We crawled under the hood of the Martian machined so quietly the mere stretching out of our fingers sounded unexplainably loud and at every breath, every hand or knee placement, I fully expected the Martian to discover us.

Finally, we reached the desired area. Cautiously, I peeked over the edge of the platform and briefly gazed at the hideous creature which we were to exterminate. I carefully raised my rifle and gently laid it on the platform before me. It was completely loaded and if the Martian was to turn its head then I was to kill it right there and then.

The soldier lifted himself over the edge of the platform and, cutlass drawn, advanced to slay the creature. When he was only two feet away, the movement of his steps intercepted on a cord and it brought objects of some sort down beside the Martian. The alerted Martian quickly glanced at the fallen objects and just as the Martian was turning its head to see what had caused the fall, the soldier brought his sword down with incredible speed and struck the Martian a foot below the top of the Martian’s body. The Martian squealed and he brought the cutlass down a second time – then a third. Finally, satisfied, the soldier gestured for me to come. I squirmed over the edge and stretched my cramped body out to my full height. Then I walked over to where the soldier stood examining the Martian. He dragged it over to the corner of the little room and then joined me at the window which was where the Martian observed the life down below.

Now that the Martian was dealt with and the nearest living creatures were at least a hundred feet below us, we considered it okay to speak. We experimented with the controls and moved each lever forward or backward, and then returned it to its original position if it seemed to do nothing. The first movement we made jerked the tripod a step back, then we moved it back once more, then forward, and sideways. There were many levers and buttons, but it was a simple joy-stick that controlled the Martians main movements. We figured out how to raise the arms and tested firing the Heat Ray. We tried to gain as much understanding about the machine as we could before the other Martians returned. Our strange futile movements no doubt caused some curiosity among the Martians, and at the same time, alerted our fellow men below that we had taken the machine.

With each movement (which were many), the circularly shaped, dead Martian rolled hither and thither across the room. This worried us very much because if the Martian rolled out from underneath the hood, it would certainly alert the Martians below. The soldier, therefore crammed it between two square shaped, steel boxes. This touching of the creature, even though it was dead, disgusted me just as worms and insects and the like disgust young girls.

This was when the first group of Martians returned. The stress I was under at this point would have been enough to kill some faint-hearted men, no doubt the soldier felt the same. His sweat glistened on his skin as he turned the machine towards the other Martians. As I saw this, I became keenly aware of the fact that I too was perspiring greatly; it was as though a river flowed out of my skin.

I raised my heat ray towards the Martians and fired it a second too soon. The ray shot through the approaching Martian’s legs. The three Martians halted not sure what happened. I fired again at the center of the rooms where the Martian would be manning the controls. The shot exploded the left side of the Machine. The machine toppled over, but I am positive that I saw the Martian crawl away.

This time there was not mistake for the Martians they fired their Heat Ray at us and the machine shuddered upon impact as the shot shattered one of the legs. We remained vertical for a short amount, but it felt like a minute as everything moved incredibly slowly. Then we toppled over and sparks flew everywhere as the machine warped when it hit the ground. I landed on the soldier, but there is no conceivable way to explain how I survived. Surely, the fall should have killed me as it did the soldier, but for whatever reason, somehow, I survived. I crawled out from the wreckage and dashed into toward the group of soldiers that we had left earlier, but they had already run away. The Martian’s Heat Ray spoke out and patches of ground around me erupted into flames. I remember no more until I reached the shore.

The angary Martians pursued me to the shoreline and there they fired off at boats that were trying to get away from the wretched creatures. One of the rays hit a boat that was just within range. The boat erupted into flames and there is not doubt that its occupants died either from the immense heat surrounding them or the fact that they probably could not make it back to shore because it was a great distance.

I saw an abandoned boat, very small and remote, drifting down-stream; and throwing off the most of my sodden clothes, I went after it, gained it, and so escaped out of that destruction. There were no oars in the boat, but I contrived to paddle, as well as my parboiled hands would allow, down the river towards Halliford and Walton, going very tediously and continually looking behind me, as you may well understand. I followed the river, because I considered that the water gave me my best chance of escape should these giants return…continued on page 47 of The War of the Worlds.

How Do We Know that Jesus Really Lived? — Defend Your Faith

I’m sure we’ve all asked at one time or the other, “How do I know that the Bible is true?”

If not, you should.

I have been in correspondence with those who question the Bible’s historical validity. I don’t blame them. One should test every documents’ validity – especially those that will change your life.

But what if I showed you a place to start? A place to begin to find validity of the Bible in history?

Is there evidence outside of the New Testament that proves Jesus really lived?

How Do We Know that Jesus Really Lived? — Defend Your Faith

Why Homeschooling Is Beneficial For Students

Have you ever considered how homeschooling, being a rather unconventional approach to education, affects the student? Maybe you wondered if it really was beneficial; or maybe you thought that it was something that children with less learning capability did to keep up with the other learners; or maybe you thought directly the opposite, that homeschooling was for the nerds who surpassed all their peers. Whatever the case, in this essay I will address why homeschooling is beneficial for students.

The first problem with public schooling is that teachers cannot meet the needs of every student. Where a particular student is excelling, another student may be struggling. It gets more complicated when the class is divided between those who are struggling and those who are excelling. Part of this is solved through homeschooling where it is rooted in the Agile development concept. The Agile development concept is rooted in technological advancement, but is applicable in most areas of life. It is where information (needs, wants, and solutions) is passed to and from student to teacher and it accelerates the speed at which development happens. A homeschooling parent/tutor is dedicated to the learning of just a few children, so he/she is more able to see and fix the problems each of the students face.

The second problem with public schooling is that it puts children in bad environments. It is well known that kids get bullied and are exposed to peer-pressure in school. On top of this, kids are exposed to un-healthy relationships and situations. They do, learn, and say things they otherwise wouldn’t have if they hadn’t been exposed to it in the first place. It is known that a person is the average of the five people that they spend the most time with; those five people had better be the people you want your child to become.

In homeschooling, you can solve this problem because you can choose who your kids hang out with.

A common myth about homeschooling is that they don’t socialize. That is in fact not true. Actually, I would say that one of the benefits of homeschooling is the socialization. Here is what Calvert Education has to say about this:

“ …On average, homeschoolers participate more in their community, are less sedentary, and socialize with a wider mix of adults (especially professionals) than their public school counterparts.”

It has been my experience that homeschoolers are actually more outgoing than their peers in school. Homeschoolers also have a reputation for being rather well versed and dedicated. Homeschooling also facilitates better relationships between the parents and child.

In conclusion, homeschooling is beneficial for students because it allows for personalized learning and help, reduces bad influences and environments, builds better relationships within families. 

Assumptions About Me?

I’ve been seeing a lot of these type of posts on other people’s blogs, and it seems like an interesting idea (especially for someone who doesn’t share a lot about their private life).

So…Here are some ideas to get you started:

  1. What do you all think I look like? (Hair color, eyes, height, etc)
  2. Do I have an accent? What kind?
  3. What age am I?
  4. In what grade am I?
  5. What are my favorite things to do?

Oh, and don’t like this post if you aren’t going to answer! If you like this post and don’t answer, I’ll hunt you down!

…ok, I’m kidding. But I’m serious about not liking it if you aren’t going to comment.

What I’ve Learned Since Turning 16 …. (part 1.)

I highly recommend this inspirational read.

Yah's Girl

A few months ago … I turned 16!

I actually didn’t want to turn 16.

All my life, I’ve been dying to be older, but as I’ve actually attained those ages that were so eagerly anticipated, I’ve realized that with the perks and the privileges come a ton of responsibilities too. Now, I’m scared to be older, because that means that I have to make some big decisions about my future, who I am and who I want to be, what work I want to do, and what people I want to be around. It means remodeling my life, and it’s a really scary and uncomfortable phase.

I have all these expectations of what I’d like my life to look like, but I know that YHVH’s plan is the only plan. When I can’t see His plan, I get scared and either want to shrink and hide, or take control…

View original post 2,068 more words