The statement i will be writing about is, That which doesn't destroy us makes us stronger. I agree with this statement. I feel that if once you have been through something difficult it will most definitely make it much easier the next time if a situation like that were to come around again, thus making you stronger.
3. A person is innocent until proven guilty. I agree with this statement. I agree because there really is not any way that you can just go on and say that somebody is guilty until there is reasonable proof that it is guilty. I believe that in most cases, there needs to be substantial evidence, such as DNA, to show that this person is actually guilty. Also, just because somebody says that they saw what happened with their own eyes does not mean that the person is guilty. This might mean that the person who says they saw what happened might be guilty of accusing somebody a totally innocent person of doing something that the innocent person would never do. There are times when somebody innocent is found guilty, but is not really guilty. I believe that this is sad. How would you like to be framed for something and sent to prison for 15 years, even though you have never done anything wrong? This has happened, but how would somebody like this even be repaid? They lost how many years of their life to be in Prison, yet he or she has done nothing wrong in his or her life. This is why I believe that the statement is always true. I believe it is wrong to send innocent people to prison, so our government definitely needs to be sure of themselves when they prove somebody guilty to send off to prison for a period of time. Even though this process may take a long time prove innocent or guilty, the correct people will be locked away, and the correct people will be free.
The phrase I chose is that you are innocent until proven guilty. I disagree with this statement. I believe that you are guilty until proven innocent. There is a reason you are the defendant, so you must have some type of evidence against you. I don’t think the prosecutor should have to show the jury why you are guilty, I believe the defense attorney should have to do the work to show why the defendant is innocent. I just believe that too many people get let off the hook just because of the game that the attorneys play. It is more about which attorney wins rather than if the person is actually innocent or guilty. Maybe if you put that guilty tag on the person from the start, the defense attorney would have to work that much harder to show the jury why the person is innocent. If you start off with them being innocent, then something stupid could end up happening and then you can’t convict them just because of some stupid technicality in the justice system. You could make the argument that more innocent people could be prosecuted, but I believe this number wouldn’t be too extremely altered and the benefits would outweigh the mistakes. It really grinds my gears when people are guilty and they are allowed to walk away from it all. My grandpa was a cop and detective for 30 years and he said that sometimes he just knew that a guy did it, but the evidence wasn’t there to convict him, and it would just burn at him that that guy continued to walk the streets. That is why I believe it should be guilty until proven innocent.
The topic I would like to discuss would be "that which doesn't destroy us makes us stronger is". I would like to say this is true. I personally have been through a lot in my life. Death, Heartbreak, sickness so on and so forth. I think going though all these crazy things is just a way of showing that you can become stronger. I think you can go through a lot and still understand that you can make it through. Though on the other side of things if you go through way to much of stress, you kind of can take so much but you have to know that you have to take control of the situation and make the best of it. You will be alright in the end. I have seen so many people go through so many different obsticals in their short lives but they still make it. I have seen my cousins lose their mother and I have seen friends lose their friends one way or another. They are still going strong, knowing that they have gone through so much yet they are still fighting as much as possible and they have others to help them through the entire process.
Question Two Is there only one correct way to interpret the bible?
I guess it depends on whether you want to interpret according to reality; or to your own superstition and beliefs.
In reality; the bible can only be interpreted as false, and in all fairness; this goes for all holy documents. In the bible; the book makes many claims such as women being created from the rib of man; talking snakes; resurrection of the dead; and out right absurd claims such as men living in the stomach of giant fish for days. The logic which lye's within the bible is only describable as contradictory and inconsistent. Here is an explanation why. Creationism is based on the Bible that says that God created the world in 6 days about 10,000 years ago. Clearly the world was not created in 6 days about 10,000 years ago, so therefore the Bible is just plain wrong. If the world were merely 10,000 years old then how do you explain the dinosaurs that are millions of years old? We've discovered life fossils that date back billions of years. Even the skeletons of modern humans date back before the time of Adam and Eve.
If we were to believe the Bible, then we would have to believe the Earth was created before the stars, which is the wrong order. If the stars were created 10,000 years ago, we wouldn't be able to see stars that are more than 10,000 light years away. That's because if a star was further away than 10,000 light years, the light from that star wouldn't have got here yet. Our galaxy alone is about 100,000 light years across. If the Bible were true, we wouldn't be able to see but 1/10th the way across our own galaxy. We surely wouldn't be able to see other galaxies or galactic clusters or know that the universe is expanding.
Our modern technology has proved the Bible wrong. That means that if there is a God, he didn't write the Bible and the Bible is not his word. If the Bible were the word of God and the Bible is wrong, then God is wrong. And if God can't be wrong, then the Bible, which is wrong, can't be the word of God.
Men who lived thousands of years ago wrote the Bible. The authors had limited knowledge of the nature of the universe and wrote the Bible based on what they believed at the time. They didn't know the Earth was round and that it orbited the Sun, which is a star among billions of stars in the galaxy, which is but one galaxy in billions of galaxies that have existed for billions of years. To them, the world was flat. There was up and there was down and God lived in the sky. They didn't know the world was round and there was no such thing as "up". They didn't know that the sky was a thin layer of gas that surrounds the surface of this planet. We have been to the sky and we have been above the sky and God isn't living there.
2. there is only one way to interpret the bible. I believe that is a false statement, there is a bible story were a man is eaten by a very large fish and lives in its stomach for a while, everyone thinks that the only fish big enough to swallow a man whole is a whale but the whale is not a fish, it is a marine mammal. This is just one prime example there are many other . the reason that there is so much confusion on the interpretation of the bible is that it was originally written in a different language and not every word exists in each language. Just that fact arises many different error in the interpretation but also the fact that the time that has past the vocabulary and words that people use have changed meaning in their context so the words altogether could mean something different.
2. There is only one correct way to interpret the bible I disagree with this statement because I'm an atheist and I was only forced to go to church one time and even though I was very young at the time I had no interest in what the guy was "preaching." Yet I don't think there is only one way to interpret the bible if you believe its messages because the Muslim Quran is similar to the bible in more ways than one almost all religions are the same so there are clearly multiple ways to interpret this "holy book." I personally choose to be an atheist because religion was never forced on me and besides the only somewhat religious person I grew up around was my mother who never forced politics or religion on me. There are multiple ways to interpret the bible in our day and age unlike the "right way" back in the 1600's where as today we have people such as myself who interpret it at false or unrealistic. There are Muslim people who follow the Quran because of their religions and it is very similar to the Christian bible. So in short there are multiple ways to interpret it whether you believe or not. -Cole Dhein
Justice is best determined in a court of law is definitely a statement that I disagree with. The court of law is not the best way to serve justice because some criminals are not punished for the crime that they have committed. For instance, OJ Simpson was acquitted of murdering his wife, yet the evidence was there for him to be convicted. Also, I do not believe that sitting in prison for life is a fair punishment for taking someone’s life. Some say that it hurts the victim a moment, but I say it hurts the family forever. The pain that the convict has put the victim and his or her family is far greater than sitting in the can for the rest of his life. I don’t know how some people call this Justice. I understand that the family is relieved that the convict was punished, but the pain that he or she caused the family is far greater than the punishment that the convict received. I believe that the best way that justice is served is in the afterlife. Justice is served best when a person is denied entry to Heaven. Supposedly life on earth does not compare to life in Heaven, so being denied to Heaven is a pretty significant punishment. I believe that this is a better way to judge whether justice is served because God is the one who knows everyone the best. He is the only one who can tell if the crime was committed or not, no evidence needed. All in all, I believe that our justice system does not best determine justice, rather God best determines justice.
Dear Blogger, The difference between right and wrong is not often clear. After the moment when you make your decision it is very easy to look back on it to see what you did wrong. This is why you think it is easy to see the difference between right and wrong, but at the moment it is very difficult. Everything is going through your brain and you generally have to make a quick and rash decision that looking back on it, it could be a bad decision or it could be a good decision. If it’s a good decision you will look like a genius, but if it’s a bad decision you will look like a dunce. This happens a lot in sports. For example, an NFL quarterback. Even the best NFL quarterbacks make mistakes. This is because split seconds can mean the difference between a touchdown and an interception. This happens in baseball to. Just a few inches can mean the difference between an out and a Home Run. This applies in many other sports. Athletes have split seconds to make their decisions and they can often make the wrong decision. In conclusion, after the moment it is easy to see what the wrong decision was, which leads us to think that the line between the right and wrong decision is easy to see, but in the heat of the moment we can make a wrong decision but it could seem right at the time.
The statement I felt most strongly about is "That what doesn't distroy us, only makes us stronger." This statement I argree with because once someone goes through a difficult time one learns how to handle the situation in a different way to make the problem easier to handle. In sports today there is no way success is obtained if there is not training or any hard work at all. To train and build muscle takes a lot of stress and hard work and through this it makes us stronger. This is a good example on how what doesn't distroy us makes us stronger. The most important aspect in making ourselves stronger is when faced with an obsicle or challenge one must learn and work hard to get results.
The difference between right and wrong is always clear. I disagree; right and wrong are mainly determined by which side of something you are on. For example, most people would say that the Salem Witch Trials were wrong, but the people of the town would have thought it was the right thing to do and they were protecting their families. Another example is war, it may seem like the right thing to kill someone because they are attacking your country, but that person might see attacking your country as the right thing to do as well. Right and wrong can also be hard to determine in a new situation - like a child talking to a stranger, they do not know better, only that it is right to trust adults. After the fact, it seems easier to look at things and determine if they were right or wrong, taking in more details and consequences. However, at the heat of the moment, you can often only rely on what you believe and what seems to make the most sense.
The statement that I felt strongest about was: “That which does not destroy us makes us stronger.” I feel strongly about this because there are so many things that you learn throughout your life and some of those things can be hurtful or can really scar you, Those who are mentally strong though are able to come back from those setbacks and learn from what has happened to them. I also feel that those who have been through more “hardships” in their lifetime usually do become stronger, whether it is emotionally or mentally, and are able to use their newfound knowledge to improve aspects of their own lives. I always enjoy watching true stories about kids who grew up in a rough part of town and have defied the odds by becoming more than anyone ever thought they could be. For instance, Michael Oher grew up in a family of 12 children and had a mother who was addicted to alcohol and crack cocaine in Memphis, Tennessee. He was placed into the foster care system at age seven and alternated between strangers’ homes and the streets. Eventually, Oher was able to overcome all of these early life hardships when he was taken in by Leigh Anne and Sean Tuohy, who eventually adopted Michael into their family. He now plays as a left side tackle for the Baltimore Ravens in the National Football League (NFL). If he would have let his misfortunes stop him, he never would have become what he is today, which is a hero to many. Some things in life may set you back, but if they don’t manage to kill you they just make you stronger.
8. It is more difficult to forgive yourself if the person you have hurt doesn’t forgive you. I chose this statement to respond to because it has personal meaning to it for me. I have been in a situation where I have hurt someone that I loved and still care for very much. I was seeking their forgiveness for a long time but because they hadn’t forgiven me yet it was nearly impossible to forgive myself for what I had done. However once they saw that I was actually truly sorry for what I had done they did forgive me and then my seeking forgiveness from myself became much easier. Even though they have forgiven me though, I still do not forgive myself for what I did. There have also been other situations where I know my friends have been seeking forgiveness with a fight with one of their girlfriends and usually almost 99% of the time they don’t forgive themselves for causing the fight until they get the forgiveness from the person they are fighting with. There are also instances where I think that no one can truly forgive themselves until they know that the person that they have hurt forgives them. If you don’t get the forgiveness of the person you hurt there is no reason you should forgive yourself for hurting that person in the first place, especially if you care deeply for that person. So to answer the question of if its easier to forgive yourself once you have gotten forgiveness from the one you hurt? Yes it is, and I know this from my own personal experience.
1.) I believe that it is better to die for what you believe in rather than to lie to save your life. I chose this one because I think that if you lie and don’t die, you will feel kind of bad about yourself because you didn’t tell the truth. If you die because you told the truth, you aren’t going to feel bad anyway because you will be dead and won’t feel a thing. But, after you lie, you have to live with that guilt for the rest of your life and you will wish that you were dead. So instead of wishing that you were dead, you might as well have just told the truth and the person doing the killing would have killed yourself for you. It also might depend a little bit on what that it is you are going to be lying about. If it is just a little lie that won’t harm anybody or anything else, I think that you will be fine; but if it was just a little lie, they probably wouldn’t have a reason to want to kill you in the first place. If it is a major big lie though, you will feel really guilty after if you told the lie, versus if you told the truth you would b dead already. If this lie is going to hurt or effect other things and/or people, then you should tell the truth so that nobody else gets hurt. It shouldn’t be about yourself, it should be for what you believe in.
I strongly believe in the statement “That which doesn’t destroy us makes us stronger” for many reasons. One thing that supports my belief is many things in the world are painful to do, but once you do them you are glad you did, and you also learned a lot from them. An example is math homework, when you are beginning your homework, you do not want to do it, and you believe that it is so bad that you do not want to continue. After you finish it, you feel excited and you know you grew stronger in your knowledge and also in your mind being able to accomplish things you believed were not possible. Another reason that supports my belief is sometimes things happen to get you prepared for future things. For example if your dog dies, you are extremely sad and angry, but you understand why things happen and it is just a circle of life. Then a few weeks later another bad thing happens, but since your previous sad event, you are prepared for the event and can handle it. The last reason that supports my belief in the statement is that people do not understand what they can truly accomplish until they are pushed to the limit. So something that a person believes they cannot do once accomplished makes that person a stronger individual because they now are more confident and actually believe in themselves more. An extremely difficult event a person accomplishes makes that person stronger both mentally and physically because they now know what they can accomplish, and they believe in themselves more.
The question that I am responding to is “Justice is best determined in the court of Law”. I do not agree with this statement. There are a few reasons I do not agree with this statement. The first reason is that there are people who go to court for a crime that they did do and then they do not get anything out of what they did. Another is that they did get into trouble or did something against the law but they have a lot of money so they just pay someone off and then everything is blown off. Another way is that they are working in the government or they think that nothing can happen to them because they are famous and they doo get off of the crime. Another reason that I do not agree with is this statement is because there are people who are innocent but they take the fall for someone else that they care about so that other person does not get punished. Another reason would be that the person being tried really did not do it but because they do not have a solid alibi or because they were there before the crime happened and then they get the fall for the crime. Another thing is that someone could have set the other person up so it looks like they did it and then they get the punishment for something they did not do. Also I believe that there are things that people do that Justice is not served in court because what they did is not a crime but it could have hurt someone in some way by something that happened or that they did that trickled down to hurt someone else. there really is no Justice for that.
The statement that I will be writing about is “There is only one correct way to interpret the bible.” My opinion on this is that there are so many events that happen to people’s lives that change them and make them relate to different things. Such as Oprah Winfrey when she was nine through thirteen she was molested and raped by men around her neighborhood, this has changed her making her relate to people who went through the same situation. This relates to the bible and how people relate to it because what you went through in your life you relate to the bible and same events that they went through. Such as I relate this bible verse that talks about David fighting the lion and he comes out alive he in a way can be fighting something inside of him emotionally instead of really fighting the lion. Many people believe that Jesus did all of these things and this is exactly what we need to do. We should follow what he did and follow his positive role model. Many people interpret the way the bible by the way they were preached about. This can change and relate to different impacts that they did not realize before. Many people realize that there are many different ways to relate to the bible and to people in the bible. Many people use the bible to find out how to solve their problems and sometimes people relate to the bible in situations such as funerals, happy moments, or sacrifices.
I am writing on the third statement from the Crucible pre-reading survey. The statement said that a person is innocent until proven guilty. I definitely agree with this statement since it is unfair to make a snap-judgment. You would not want to call someone out for doing something wrong, when they are truly innocent. This would not only make you look like a moron for having the wrong information, but also make the accused feel embarrassed. This statement is also incredibly important when you are dealing with the court of law. When a party is accused of a crime, they are said to be innocent until proven guilty. This is to prevent quick judgments by the jury, judge, and people surrounding the crime. For the party to be truly guilty there must be substantial evidence proving so. You cannot put a person away in jail based solely on a person’s testimony, because what if that person was lying. That would mean that you made an innocent person live in solitude for years and years, without sufficient evidence. Sufficient evidence would include DNA tests, fingerprints, and multiple testimonies. The extra evidence would help you verify that the person is guilty, and keep innocent people from suffering in jail or prison. By using this statement in everyday life, you can also keep from spreading false gossip about other people. This will make people respect you more as a person, since you are not falsely accusing others of things they have not done.
The statement, “It is more difficult to forgive yourself if the person you’ve hurt doesn’t forgive you,” I feel is true. People who do wrong to someone often seem to think if they just say sorry, everything will be ok. They feel when they have that “forgiveness” from the person who they hurt, what they did really wasn’t very wrong and they easily got away with it and feel good about themselves. But when a person does something wrong and hurt another person’s feelings and then try to receive forgiveness from them when they won’t, the person starts to realize what they did to them and feel bad for themselves and regret what they did. Since the person who got hurt doesn’t forgive the person who did them wrong, it eats away at that someone who did the wronging and feel worse about the situation than before saying sorry. For example, a boy named Charlie cheated on his girlfriend named Jane. People found out that Charlie cheated on her so he decided to tell her and apologize before she found out from someone else. Jane got really upset about it and didn’t forgive Charlie. They broke up and Charlie started to really regret the decision he made for cheating and it kept bugging him. He didn’t receive that “I forgive you” and instead received a break up and upset people. If Jane would’ve accepted the apology and stayed with Charlie, Charlie would have felt much better about the situation and think it really wasn’t a big deal. In the end, he may even do it again since the first time he was forgiven and everything turned out ok. So in the end, I feel that it’s more difficult to forgive yourself if the person you’ve hurt doesn’t forgive you.
9. I do not agree with the statement, “There is a distinct line between right and wrong.” I do not agree with this for a few reasons. Let’s say that you are walking down the street and there is a small child being attacked by a dog. You run up to the small child who is screaming in distress and you grab the dog around the neck and kill it to save the child. Is this right or wrong? This is why I do not believe that there is a distinct line between right and wrong. There are many other scenarios similar to this one. There are many decisions made by each and every one of us, including our government. For instance, we sent in the elite six, which are the navy seals to illuminate Bin laden. Was this the right thing to do? Also most people of the world want to remove Numar Khadaffi from the throne, which is understandable because he killed innocent protesters. Now Pakistan has bombed a school filled with children, relations to Khadaffi and Khadaffi himself. The bombing killed many but did not kill Numar. Is this right? No, this is not right at all. I think it is completely outrages. No matter what when innocent people are killed it is wrong. This is exactly why I feel that, “is the line between right and wrong distinct” is a really easy question to answer.
I strongly believe in the statement which says “That which doesn’t destroy us makes us stronger”. I believe in this because once you have overcame something or been through something hard after you have accomplished it you feel good and realize that your capable of doing many more things and handling many more challenges. An example of this is at the beginning of a track meet when you getting ready to get down in your blocks and wait for the gun you don’t want to run the race but afterwards when it’s accomplished you feel good about yourself and successful and feel like your ready for anything. Another reason I support this statement is because once something bad has personally happen to you, you question god on why he makes bad things happen and if they happen repeatedly you realize after when these things happen over and over that you can handle more then you thought you could. Things that have pushed a person beyond their comfort zone and challenged them mentally and physically and they have overcame those obstacles will be prepared to overcome many more struggles in life and if they can overcome them without killing them they believe god is doing it for a reason.
The difference form right and wrong is everyone’s own decision. It’s hard to see the difference between right and wrong as the sort of thing that someone could forget once they have learned it. What this suggests is that developing a sense of the difference between right and wrong is not really a matter of acquiring an item of knowledge at all. Or if it is partly that, it involves much more besides. You cannot rely on education. If a person wants to do the wrong thing, or does not like to be told that he is wrong and that he has a personal responsibility for how they behaves, then they will continue to do so regardless. If it is against the law then it is wrong. You should always find the facts and reflect on you decisions to see if you did the right thing or not. Not everyone has the same answer on the same subject. You should always be fair to everyone. If one’s decision to do the wrong thing they should do it in a non-violence way instead of violence, to prevent people or other things from getting hurt or killed.
I choose the second question to talk about; there is only one way to interpret the Bible. I strongly disagree with this statement; there are many ways to interpret the Bible. There are many meanings to my statement, a literal meaning and a figurative meaning. The literal meaning is actually translating the Bible from its native language of Hebrew, into many languages that lack many of the same verbs and nouns. This has caused much variation in the translated Bible depending on who translated it and to what language is it translated. For example, King James ordered a Bible in English (previously, the Bible was only in the languages of Latin or Hebrew), but the Hebrew language had a word which meant ‘harmful practitioner of natural energies’ and English did not. This conundrum was side-stepped when King James put it down the word as witch, leading to many years of witch hunts. The other, figurative, translations of the Bible have to do with what the Bible actually says. Almost all of the current sects of the Christian Religion are due to differing interpretations of the Bible; sometimes the only difference is a single sentence! Also, the Bible offers advice which, if taken literally, completely contradicts what the Bible is supposed to represent. The Bible espouses filial love, yet it explicitly states: He that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death. -- Exodus 21:15 He that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death. -- Exodus 21:17 And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat. -- Leviticus 26:29 And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and of thy daughters. -- Deuteronomy 28:53 And I will cause them to eat the flesh of their sons and the flesh of their daughters, and they shall eat every one the flesh of his friend. -- Jeremiah 19:9 Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones. -- Psalm 137:9
For the people who believe that the Bible is always right…I suggest to stone them.
I strongly believe in the statement “that which doesn’t destroy us makes us stronger”. I feel that this statement is true because after going through something that brings you down or is a challenge will make you that much more of a stronger person. People go through many hardships during life and even though they do not know it, they are getting stronger. It builds character and confidence after you get through something that has challenged you. For example, running a marathon is a very challenging thing to do. There is also a lot of preparation that goes into training for the marathon. You may dread the training and it may be hard to motivate yourself. But the day of the race you will think back to all the days you worked so hard and those days will help you get through the race. Once the marathon is over you will be proud of yourself because you know you worked hard to get there. You will also gain confidence knowing you can do anything you set your mind to. This is something I think that will build you up for the next challenge that is brought to you. Accomplishing things help you to believe in yourself and push yourself to achieve even more. I believe another reason hardships makes us stronger is knowing you have the strength to get through it. Many people want to give up or stop trying but when you keep on trucking through you grow as a person.
The statement “That which does not destroy us makes us stronger,” I believe is true. Through out life everyone goes through hard times. At the time you may think that you will not be able to make it through and there is no end to come. But when the end does come near you will find that in the end you became stronger. You can learn from the setbacks that life will throw at you and use that for strength the next time a hardship comes your way. I myself have encountered a few setbacks. I know there were times where I thought there was no end and I wouldn’t be able to make it through. But there is always a light at the end of the tunnel. I have also seen my friends go through some rough times. I saw them overcome those times and in the end they came out even stronger than before. I know it was not easy for them and I knew there were times where it was too much but they survived and grew stronger. Therefore I believe that the statement “That which does not destroy us makes us stronger,” is true.
The Question that I want to write about is the question “the difference between right and wrong is always clear.” The reason I picked this statement is because very rarely have I came across numerous situations that the difference between right and wrong was about as clear as mud. I heard a saying once, there’s what is right and what you should do, this brief statement for being as simple as it is can make for a very daunting and argues decision. Take a solder for an example, they are constantly given tasks they must complete that state that they have to take out a building or kill off a small neighborhood because it is believed to house a high risk target or terror cell. When they get there or do final recon of the building or neighborhood they see that it’s not home to a terror cell or the intended target but to a group of school kids and their parents, or home to an old elder women who has nothing but her house. Yet they are told to go and destroy it they have to decide between what they were told to do and what they know, for most situations like this they would most likely pass on the objective because of what they know but for some it not that simple. All too often many teenagers and young adults are faced with a very similar choice but have a very different outcome. For a teen to be initiated into a gang they often either have that individual harm what usually ends up to be an innocent civilian or some other sort of violent related crime. But because they want to be part of that group or need a better rep on the street they resort to these beatings as a way for others to preserve themselves as one of them, and not for whom they are. And for this reason and many more is why is think that the answer between right and wrong is anything but clear.
I strongly agree with the statement “that which doesn’t destroy us makes us stronger”. I strongly agree with this statement because I have seen and experienced many struggles and problems, which in the end have made me or someone else stronger. Not only did the problem made me or someone else stronger in experience but, it also helped gained strength in knowledge. This statement is much like the statement “people learn from mistakes”. For example, when a person does something they know is wrong but, they do it anyway because they don’t think they will get caught. But then, a few days later they find out they are in trouble. They then start to think of all the punishment that they might receive or how that action might now affect them. But, after they final do receive or find out the consequence of their action they problem will think twice next time, when they are in the same situation. But this statement does not only refer to people becoming stronger, by learning from their mistakes. This statement also applies to people becoming stronger from experience they had no control over. For example during World War II and the Holocaust, many Jews were put through concentration camps where many were punished and killed. But those who survived the hardships of the concentration camps have become people and created a stronger faith in what they believe in. A person that has not survived a concentration camp might be devastated if their house burns down or if they become stranded on an island. But a survivor of a concentration camp will be untroubled for they know that they have survived harsh conditions before, so they came survive once again.
The difference between right and wrong is always clear. I don’t believe this statement is true. Many leaders throughout history thought they were doing the right thing for their people; for instance, Genghis Khan believed that conquering the known world would be best for the Mongols. Also, Adolf Hitler felt allowing his “master-race” to be the only race was a good thing. The difference between right and wrong is never clear because everyone has their own beliefs on what is right and what is wrong. Though some people saw bootlegging as a way of life, others deemed it immoral and wrong. While many deemed a government run by the people, or a democracy, as a positive thing, others, such as Communist countries, saw it as a blight on the world. Most people also see murder as unjust and wrong; however, some people may have no other alternatives, and believe that they’re doing the only thing they can, and that their reasons make the action justified.
I believe with the statement that “that which doesn’t destroy us makes us stronger”. I personally believe this because I have had times where I was at an all time low or something that i thought i couldnt come back from. But when i finally overcame those struggles they made me stronger and i felt that great accomplishment. This statement I also is true for everyone else because i see many people have something bad or not teh ideal happen to them but see them overcome it and become a stronger indivual. This statemnt is something people should live by and know that when you hit a low, you can only go up and become stronger because of it.
The topic I choose to write about was that I believe people should be able to do whatever they believe in even if it is against others common values. I feel that if someone doesn’t want to wear a robe for their religion, then they shouldn’t have to because it is their choice to do what they want. I also don’t know why people make fun of popular people for being photographed with pajamas or street clothes because, those people aren’t any different from us and do not deserve to be criticized for wearing comfortable clothing. For example, the presidents always have to wear fancy clothing like suits to speeches of theirs and rallies. If I were them, I would step out of the norm and wear what I would normally wear and show the people who I really am instead of hiding behind the suit. I feel that when people dress to impress they don’t feel comfortable like they would if they wore their normal street clothes. I also think that it is wrong for people in the middle east to force the women to wear big robes to cover up their faces, when the weather over there is so hot, it isn’t fair for the girls to have to wear heavy clothing and sweat to death just because it is a law for them to wear the robes.
The statement that i felt the strongest about was a person is innocent until proven guilty. If you are sent to trial and the jury has already decided what their verdict is, they will be very slow to change their minds, however if yu come in with a open mind, you will most likely find a better solution in the end.
The difference between right and wrong is not often clear. Once you make a decision you can look back at it and see what you did wrong. Sometimes the you think the right decision is to walk but then once that is over and you look back to it, you see that you should have ran. That if you ran you would be better at running and you would have ran faster and finished higher. Also you can have many things in your brain distracting you for making the right or the wrong decision. For example you could be riding your car and you see a guy walking home and it is raining really hard. Well if you pick him up and drop him off at his house you could be late and get grounded by our parents. The good decision at that time was to keep going and not be late. Now that you look back on it, it would have been a better decision to pick him up and drop him off because that would have been polite to do. Also if you do something that your parents think is bad could not be bad they just do not understand what the kids are doing these days. For example maybe not wearing your retainer because your teeth stay straight without it. You also may not wear it because your teeth seem to be shifting the wrong way. So it could be a wise decision that your parents do not understand.
The statement i will be writing about is, That which doesn't destroy us makes us stronger. I agree with this statement. I feel that if once you have been through something difficult it will most definitely make it much easier the next time if a situation like that were to come around again, thus making you stronger.
ReplyDelete3. A person is innocent until proven guilty.
ReplyDeleteI agree with this statement. I agree because there really is not any way that you can just go on and say that somebody is guilty until there is reasonable proof that it is guilty. I believe that in most cases, there needs to be substantial evidence, such as DNA, to show that this person is actually guilty. Also, just because somebody says that they saw what happened with their own eyes does not mean that the person is guilty. This might mean that the person who says they saw what happened might be guilty of accusing somebody a totally innocent person of doing something that the innocent person would never do. There are times when somebody innocent is found guilty, but is not really guilty. I believe that this is sad. How would you like to be framed for something and sent to prison for 15 years, even though you have never done anything wrong? This has happened, but how would somebody like this even be repaid? They lost how many years of their life to be in Prison, yet he or she has done nothing wrong in his or her life. This is why I believe that the statement is always true. I believe it is wrong to send innocent people to prison, so our government definitely needs to be sure of themselves when they prove somebody guilty to send off to prison for a period of time. Even though this process may take a long time prove innocent or guilty, the correct people will be locked away, and the correct people will be free.
The phrase I chose is that you are innocent until proven guilty. I disagree with this statement. I believe that you are guilty until proven innocent. There is a reason you are the defendant, so you must have some type of evidence against you. I don’t think the prosecutor should have to show the jury why you are guilty, I believe the defense attorney should have to do the work to show why the defendant is innocent. I just believe that too many people get let off the hook just because of the game that the attorneys play. It is more about which attorney wins rather than if the person is actually innocent or guilty. Maybe if you put that guilty tag on the person from the start, the defense attorney would have to work that much harder to show the jury why the person is innocent. If you start off with them being innocent, then something stupid could end up happening and then you can’t convict them just because of some stupid technicality in the justice system. You could make the argument that more innocent people could be prosecuted, but I believe this number wouldn’t be too extremely altered and the benefits would outweigh the mistakes. It really grinds my gears when people are guilty and they are allowed to walk away from it all. My grandpa was a cop and detective for 30 years and he said that sometimes he just knew that a guy did it, but the evidence wasn’t there to convict him, and it would just burn at him that that guy continued to walk the streets. That is why I believe it should be guilty until proven innocent.
ReplyDeleteThe topic I would like to discuss would be "that which doesn't destroy us makes us stronger is". I would like to say this is true. I personally have been through a lot in my life. Death, Heartbreak, sickness so on and so forth. I think going though all these crazy things is just a way of showing that you can become stronger. I think you can go through a lot and still understand that you can make it through. Though on the other side of things if you go through way to much of stress, you kind of can take so much but you have to know that you have to take control of the situation and make the best of it. You will be alright in the end. I have seen so many people go through so many different obsticals in their short lives but they still make it. I have seen my cousins lose their mother and I have seen friends lose their friends one way or another. They are still going strong, knowing that they have gone through so much yet they are still fighting as much as possible and they have others to help them through the entire process.
ReplyDeleteQuestion Two
ReplyDeleteIs there only one correct way to interpret the bible?
I guess it depends on whether you want to interpret according to reality; or to your own superstition and beliefs.
In reality; the bible can only be interpreted as false, and in all fairness; this goes for all holy documents. In the bible; the book makes many claims such as women being created from the rib of man; talking snakes; resurrection of the dead; and out right absurd claims such as men living in the stomach of giant fish for days. The logic which lye's within the bible is only describable as contradictory and inconsistent. Here is an explanation why. Creationism is based on the Bible that says that God created the world in 6 days about 10,000 years ago. Clearly the world was not created in 6 days about 10,000 years ago, so therefore the Bible is just plain wrong. If the world were merely 10,000 years old then how do you explain the dinosaurs that are millions of years old? We've discovered life fossils that date back billions of years. Even the skeletons of modern humans date back before the time of Adam and Eve.
If we were to believe the Bible, then we would have to believe the Earth was created before the stars, which is the wrong order. If the stars were created 10,000 years ago, we wouldn't be able to see stars that are more than 10,000 light years away. That's because if a star was further away than 10,000 light years, the light from that star wouldn't have got here yet. Our galaxy alone is about 100,000 light years across. If the Bible were true, we wouldn't be able to see but 1/10th the way across our own galaxy. We surely wouldn't be able to see other galaxies or galactic clusters or know that the universe is expanding.
Our modern technology has proved the Bible wrong. That means that if there is a God, he didn't write the Bible and the Bible is not his word. If the Bible were the word of God and the Bible is wrong, then God is wrong. And if God can't be wrong, then the Bible, which is wrong, can't be the word of God.
Men who lived thousands of years ago wrote the Bible. The authors had limited knowledge of the nature of the universe and wrote the Bible based on what they believed at the time. They didn't know the Earth was round and that it orbited the Sun, which is a star among billions of stars in the galaxy, which is but one galaxy in billions of galaxies that have existed for billions of years. To them, the world was flat. There was up and there was down and God lived in the sky. They didn't know the world was round and there was no such thing as "up". They didn't know that the sky was a thin layer of gas that surrounds the surface of this planet. We have been to the sky and we have been above the sky and God isn't living there.
2. there is only one way to interpret the bible.
ReplyDeleteI believe that is a false statement, there is a bible story were a man is eaten by a very large fish and lives in its stomach for a while, everyone thinks that the only fish big enough to swallow a man whole is a whale but the whale is not a fish, it is a marine mammal. This is just one prime example there are many other . the reason that there is so much confusion on the interpretation of the bible is that it was originally written in a different language and not every word exists in each language. Just that fact arises many different error in the interpretation but also the fact that the time that has past the vocabulary and words that people use have changed meaning in their context so the words altogether could mean something different.
2. There is only one correct way to interpret the bible
ReplyDeleteI disagree with this statement because I'm an atheist and I was only forced to go to church one time and even though I was very young at the time I had no interest in what the guy was "preaching." Yet I don't think there is only one way to interpret the bible if you believe its messages because the Muslim Quran is similar to the bible in more ways than one almost all religions are the same so there are clearly multiple ways to interpret this "holy book." I personally choose to be an atheist because religion was never forced on me and besides the only somewhat religious person I grew up around was my mother who never forced politics or religion on me. There are multiple ways to interpret the bible in our day and age unlike the "right way" back in the 1600's where as today we have people such as myself who interpret it at false or unrealistic. There are Muslim people who follow the Quran because of their religions and it is very similar to the Christian bible. So in short there are multiple ways to interpret it whether you believe or not.
-Cole Dhein
Justice is best determined in a court of law is definitely a statement that I disagree with. The court of law is not the best way to serve justice because some criminals are not punished for the crime that they have committed. For instance, OJ Simpson was acquitted of murdering his wife, yet the evidence was there for him to be convicted. Also, I do not believe that sitting in prison for life is a fair punishment for taking someone’s life. Some say that it hurts the victim a moment, but I say it hurts the family forever. The pain that the convict has put the victim and his or her family is far greater than sitting in the can for the rest of his life. I don’t know how some people call this Justice. I understand that the family is relieved that the convict was punished, but the pain that he or she caused the family is far greater than the punishment that the convict received. I believe that the best way that justice is served is in the afterlife. Justice is served best when a person is denied entry to Heaven. Supposedly life on earth does not compare to life in Heaven, so being denied to Heaven is a pretty significant punishment. I believe that this is a better way to judge whether justice is served because God is the one who knows everyone the best. He is the only one who can tell if the crime was committed or not, no evidence needed. All in all, I believe that our justice system does not best determine justice, rather God best determines justice.
ReplyDeleteDear Blogger,
ReplyDeleteThe difference between right and wrong is not often clear. After the moment when you make your decision it is very easy to look back on it to see what you did wrong. This is why you think it is easy to see the difference between right and wrong, but at the moment it is very difficult. Everything is going through your brain and you generally have to make a quick and rash decision that looking back on it, it could be a bad decision or it could be a good decision. If it’s a good decision you will look like a genius, but if it’s a bad decision you will look like a dunce. This happens a lot in sports. For example, an NFL quarterback. Even the best NFL quarterbacks make mistakes. This is because split seconds can mean the difference between a touchdown and an interception. This happens in baseball to. Just a few inches can mean the difference between an out and a Home Run. This applies in many other sports. Athletes have split seconds to make their decisions and they can often make the wrong decision. In conclusion, after the moment it is easy to see what the wrong decision was, which leads us to think that the line between the right and wrong decision is easy to see, but in the heat of the moment we can make a wrong decision but it could seem right at the time.
The statement I felt most strongly about is "That what doesn't distroy us, only makes us stronger." This statement I argree with because once someone goes through a difficult time one learns how to handle the situation in a different way to make the problem easier to handle. In sports today there is no way success is obtained if there is not training or any hard work at all. To train and build muscle takes a lot of stress and hard work and through this it makes us stronger. This is a good example on how what doesn't distroy us makes us stronger. The most important aspect in making ourselves stronger is when faced with an obsicle or challenge one must learn and work hard to get results.
ReplyDeleteThe difference between right and wrong is always clear. I disagree; right and wrong are mainly determined by which side of something you are on. For example, most people would say that the Salem Witch Trials were wrong, but the people of the town would have thought it was the right thing to do and they were protecting their families. Another example is war, it may seem like the right thing to kill someone because they are attacking your country, but that person might see attacking your country as the right thing to do as well. Right and wrong can also be hard to determine in a new situation - like a child talking to a stranger, they do not know better, only that it is right to trust adults.
ReplyDeleteAfter the fact, it seems easier to look at things and determine if they were right or wrong, taking in more details and consequences. However, at the heat of the moment, you can often only rely on what you believe and what seems to make the most sense.
The statement that I felt strongest about was: “That which does not destroy us makes us stronger.” I feel strongly about this because there are so many things that you learn throughout your life and some of those things can be hurtful or can really scar you, Those who are mentally strong though are able to come back from those setbacks and learn from what has happened to them. I also feel that those who have been through more “hardships” in their lifetime usually do become stronger, whether it is emotionally or mentally, and are able to use their newfound knowledge to improve aspects of their own lives. I always enjoy watching true stories about kids who grew up in a rough part of town and have defied the odds by becoming more than anyone ever thought they could be. For instance, Michael Oher grew up in a family of 12 children and had a mother who was addicted to alcohol and crack cocaine in Memphis, Tennessee. He was placed into the foster care system at age seven and alternated between strangers’ homes and the streets. Eventually, Oher was able to overcome all of these early life hardships when he was taken in by Leigh Anne and Sean Tuohy, who eventually adopted Michael into their family. He now plays as a left side tackle for the Baltimore Ravens in the National Football League (NFL). If he would have let his misfortunes stop him, he never would have become what he is today, which is a hero to many. Some things in life may set you back, but if they don’t manage to kill you they just make you stronger.
ReplyDelete8. It is more difficult to forgive yourself if the person you have hurt doesn’t forgive you.
ReplyDeleteI chose this statement to respond to because it has personal meaning to it for me. I have been in a situation where I have hurt someone that I loved and still care for very much. I was seeking their forgiveness for a long time but because they hadn’t forgiven me yet it was nearly impossible to forgive myself for what I had done. However once they saw that I was actually truly sorry for what I had done they did forgive me and then my seeking forgiveness from myself became much easier. Even though they have forgiven me though, I still do not forgive myself for what I did. There have also been other situations where I know my friends have been seeking forgiveness with a fight with one of their girlfriends and usually almost 99% of the time they don’t forgive themselves for causing the fight until they get the forgiveness from the person they are fighting with. There are also instances where I think that no one can truly forgive themselves until they know that the person that they have hurt forgives them. If you don’t get the forgiveness of the person you hurt there is no reason you should forgive yourself for hurting that person in the first place, especially if you care deeply for that person. So to answer the question of if its easier to forgive yourself once you have gotten forgiveness from the one you hurt? Yes it is, and I know this from my own personal experience.
1.) I believe that it is better to die for what you believe in rather than to lie to save your life. I chose this one because I think that if you lie and don’t die, you will feel kind of bad about yourself because you didn’t tell the truth. If you die because you told the truth, you aren’t going to feel bad anyway because you will be dead and won’t feel a thing. But, after you lie, you have to live with that guilt for the rest of your life and you will wish that you were dead. So instead of wishing that you were dead, you might as well have just told the truth and the person doing the killing would have killed yourself for you. It also might depend a little bit on what that it is you are going to be lying about. If it is just a little lie that won’t harm anybody or anything else, I think that you will be fine; but if it was just a little lie, they probably wouldn’t have a reason to want to kill you in the first place. If it is a major big lie though, you will feel really guilty after if you told the lie, versus if you told the truth you would b dead already. If this lie is going to hurt or effect other things and/or people, then you should tell the truth so that nobody else gets hurt. It shouldn’t be about yourself, it should be for what you believe in.
ReplyDeleteI strongly believe in the statement “That which doesn’t destroy us makes us stronger” for many reasons. One thing that supports my belief is many things in the world are painful to do, but once you do them you are glad you did, and you also learned a lot from them. An example is math homework, when you are beginning your homework, you do not want to do it, and you believe that it is so bad that you do not want to continue. After you finish it, you feel excited and you know you grew stronger in your knowledge and also in your mind being able to accomplish things you believed were not possible. Another reason that supports my belief is sometimes things happen to get you prepared for future things. For example if your dog dies, you are extremely sad and angry, but you understand why things happen and it is just a circle of life. Then a few weeks later another bad thing happens, but since your previous sad event, you are prepared for the event and can handle it. The last reason that supports my belief in the statement is that people do not understand what they can truly accomplish until they are pushed to the limit. So something that a person believes they cannot do once accomplished makes that person a stronger individual because they now are more confident and actually believe in themselves more. An extremely difficult event a person accomplishes makes that person stronger both mentally and physically because they now know what they can accomplish, and they believe in themselves more.
ReplyDeleteThe question that I am responding to is “Justice is best determined in the court of Law”. I do not agree with this statement. There are a few reasons I do not agree with this statement. The first reason is that there are people who go to court for a crime that they did do and then they do not get anything out of what they did. Another is that they did get into trouble or did something against the law but they have a lot of money so they just pay someone off and then everything is blown off. Another way is that they are working in the government or they think that nothing can happen to them because they are famous and they doo get off of the crime.
ReplyDeleteAnother reason that I do not agree with is this statement is because there are people who are innocent but they take the fall for someone else that they care about so that other person does not get punished. Another reason would be that the person being tried really did not do it but because they do not have a solid alibi or because they were there before the crime happened and then they get the fall for the crime. Another thing is that someone could have set the other person up so it looks like they did it and then they get the punishment for something they did not do. Also I believe that there are things that people do that Justice is not served in court because what they did is not a crime but it could have hurt someone in some way by something that happened or that they did that trickled down to hurt someone else. there really is no Justice for that.
The statement that I will be writing about is “There is only one correct way to interpret the bible.” My opinion on this is that there are so many events that happen to people’s lives that change them and make them relate to different things. Such as Oprah Winfrey when she was nine through thirteen she was molested and raped by men around her neighborhood, this has changed her making her relate to people who went through the same situation. This relates to the bible and how people relate to it because what you went through in your life you relate to the bible and same events that they went through. Such as I relate this bible verse that talks about David fighting the lion and he comes out alive he in a way can be fighting something inside of him emotionally instead of really fighting the lion. Many people believe that Jesus did all of these things and this is exactly what we need to do. We should follow what he did and follow his positive role model. Many people interpret the way the bible by the way they were preached about. This can change and relate to different impacts that they did not realize before. Many people realize that there are many different ways to relate to the bible and to people in the bible. Many people use the bible to find out how to solve their problems and sometimes people relate to the bible in situations such as funerals, happy moments, or sacrifices.
ReplyDeleteI am writing on the third statement from the Crucible pre-reading survey. The statement said that a person is innocent until proven guilty. I definitely agree with this statement since it is unfair to make a snap-judgment. You would not want to call someone out for doing something wrong, when they are truly innocent. This would not only make you look like a moron for having the wrong information, but also make the accused feel embarrassed. This statement is also incredibly important when you are dealing with the court of law. When a party is accused of a crime, they are said to be innocent until proven guilty. This is to prevent quick judgments by the jury, judge, and people surrounding the crime. For the party to be truly guilty there must be substantial evidence proving so. You cannot put a person away in jail based solely on a person’s testimony, because what if that person was lying. That would mean that you made an innocent person live in solitude for years and years, without sufficient evidence. Sufficient evidence would include DNA tests, fingerprints, and multiple testimonies. The extra evidence would help you verify that the person is guilty, and keep innocent people from suffering in jail or prison. By using this statement in everyday life, you can also keep from spreading false gossip about other people. This will make people respect you more as a person, since you are not falsely accusing others of things they have not done.
ReplyDeleteThe statement, “It is more difficult to forgive yourself if the person you’ve hurt doesn’t forgive you,” I feel is true. People who do wrong to someone often seem to think if they just say sorry, everything will be ok. They feel when they have that “forgiveness” from the person who they hurt, what they did really wasn’t very wrong and they easily got away with it and feel good about themselves. But when a person does something wrong and hurt another person’s feelings and then try to receive forgiveness from them when they won’t, the person starts to realize what they did to them and feel bad for themselves and regret what they did. Since the person who got hurt doesn’t forgive the person who did them wrong, it eats away at that someone who did the wronging and feel worse about the situation than before saying sorry. For example, a boy named Charlie cheated on his girlfriend named Jane. People found out that Charlie cheated on her so he decided to tell her and apologize before she found out from someone else. Jane got really upset about it and didn’t forgive Charlie. They broke up and Charlie started to really regret the decision he made for cheating and it kept bugging him. He didn’t receive that “I forgive you” and instead received a break up and upset people. If Jane would’ve accepted the apology and stayed with Charlie, Charlie would have felt much better about the situation and think it really wasn’t a big deal. In the end, he may even do it again since the first time he was forgiven and everything turned out ok. So in the end, I feel that it’s more difficult to forgive yourself if the person you’ve hurt doesn’t forgive you.
ReplyDelete9. I do not agree with the statement, “There is a distinct line between right and wrong.” I do not agree with this for a few reasons. Let’s say that you are walking down the street and there is a small child being attacked by a dog. You run up to the small child who is screaming in distress and you grab the dog around the neck and kill it to save the child. Is this right or wrong? This is why I do not believe that there is a distinct line between right and wrong. There are many other scenarios similar to this one. There are many decisions made by each and every one of us, including our government. For instance, we sent in the elite six, which are the navy seals to illuminate Bin laden. Was this the right thing to do? Also most people of the world want to remove Numar Khadaffi from the throne, which is understandable because he killed innocent protesters. Now Pakistan has bombed a school filled with children, relations to Khadaffi and Khadaffi himself. The bombing killed many but did not kill Numar. Is this right? No, this is not right at all. I think it is completely outrages. No matter what when innocent people are killed it is wrong. This is exactly why I feel that, “is the line between right and wrong distinct” is a really easy question to answer.
ReplyDeleteI strongly believe in the statement which says “That which doesn’t destroy us makes us stronger”. I believe in this because once you have overcame something or been through something hard after you have accomplished it you feel good and realize that your capable of doing many more things and handling many more challenges. An example of this is at the beginning of a track meet when you getting ready to get down in your blocks and wait for the gun you don’t want to run the race but afterwards when it’s accomplished you feel good about yourself and successful and feel like your ready for anything. Another reason I support this statement is because once something bad has personally happen to you, you question god on why he makes bad things happen and if they happen repeatedly you realize after when these things happen over and over that you can handle more then you thought you could. Things that have pushed a person beyond their comfort zone and challenged them mentally and physically and they have overcame those obstacles will be prepared to overcome many more struggles in life and if they can overcome them without killing them they believe god is doing it for a reason.
ReplyDeleteThe difference form right and wrong is everyone’s own decision. It’s hard to see the difference between right and wrong as the sort of thing that someone could forget once they have learned it. What this suggests is that developing a sense of the difference between right and wrong is not really a matter of acquiring an item of knowledge at all. Or if it is partly that, it involves much more besides. You cannot rely on education. If a person wants to do the wrong thing, or does not like to be told that he is wrong and that he has a personal responsibility for how they behaves, then they will continue to do so regardless. If it is against the law then it is wrong. You should always find the facts and reflect on you decisions to see if you did the right thing or not. Not everyone has the same answer on the same subject. You should always be fair to everyone. If one’s decision to do the wrong thing they should do it in a non-violence way instead of violence, to prevent people or other things from getting hurt or killed.
ReplyDeleteI choose the second question to talk about; there is only one way to interpret the Bible. I strongly disagree with this statement; there are many ways to interpret the Bible. There are many meanings to my statement, a literal meaning and a figurative meaning. The literal meaning is actually translating the Bible from its native language of Hebrew, into many languages that lack many of the same verbs and nouns. This has caused much variation in the translated Bible depending on who translated it and to what language is it translated. For example, King James ordered a Bible in English (previously, the Bible was only in the languages of Latin or Hebrew), but the Hebrew language had a word which meant ‘harmful practitioner of natural energies’ and English did not. This conundrum was side-stepped when King James put it down the word as witch, leading to many years of witch hunts. The other, figurative, translations of the Bible have to do with what the Bible actually says. Almost all of the current sects of the Christian Religion are due to differing interpretations of the Bible; sometimes the only difference is a single sentence! Also, the Bible offers advice which, if taken literally, completely contradicts what the Bible is supposed to represent. The Bible espouses filial love, yet it explicitly states:
ReplyDeleteHe that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death. -- Exodus 21:15
He that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death. -- Exodus 21:17
And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat. -- Leviticus 26:29
And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and of thy daughters. -- Deuteronomy 28:53
And I will cause them to eat the flesh of their sons and the flesh of their daughters, and they shall eat every one the flesh of his friend. -- Jeremiah 19:9
Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones. -- Psalm 137:9
For the people who believe that the Bible is always right…I suggest to stone them.
I strongly believe in the statement “that which doesn’t destroy us makes us stronger”. I feel that this statement is true because after going through something that brings you down or is a challenge will make you that much more of a stronger person. People go through many hardships during life and even though they do not know it, they are getting stronger. It builds character and confidence after you get through something that has challenged you. For example, running a marathon is a very challenging thing to do. There is also a lot of preparation that goes into training for the marathon. You may dread the training and it may be hard to motivate yourself. But the day of the race you will think back to all the days you worked so hard and those days will help you get through the race. Once the marathon is over you will be proud of yourself because you know you worked hard to get there. You will also gain confidence knowing you can do anything you set your mind to. This is something I think that will build you up for the next challenge that is brought to you. Accomplishing things help you to believe in yourself and push yourself to achieve even more. I believe another reason hardships makes us stronger is knowing you have the strength to get through it. Many people want to give up or stop trying but when you keep on trucking through you grow as a person.
ReplyDeleteThe statement “That which does not destroy us makes us stronger,” I believe is true.
ReplyDeleteThrough out life everyone goes through hard times. At the time you may think that you will not be able to make it through and there is no end to come. But when the end does come near you will find that in the end you became stronger. You can learn from the setbacks that life will throw at you and use that for strength the next time a hardship comes your way. I myself have encountered a few setbacks. I know there were times where I thought there was no end and I wouldn’t be able to make it through. But there is always a light at the end of the tunnel. I have also seen my friends go through some rough times. I saw them overcome those times and in the end they came out even stronger than before. I know it was not easy for them and I knew there were times where it was too much but they survived and grew stronger. Therefore I believe that the statement “That which does not destroy us makes us stronger,” is true.
The Question that I want to write about is the question “the difference between right and wrong is always clear.” The reason I picked this statement is because very rarely have I came across numerous situations that the difference between right and wrong was about as clear as mud. I heard a saying once, there’s what is right and what you should do, this brief statement for being as simple as it is can make for a very daunting and argues decision. Take a solder for an example, they are constantly given tasks they must complete that state that they have to take out a building or kill off a small neighborhood because it is believed to house a high risk target or terror cell. When they get there or do final recon of the building or neighborhood they see that it’s not home to a terror cell or the intended target but to a group of school kids and their parents, or home to an old elder women who has nothing but her house. Yet they are told to go and destroy it they have to decide between what they were told to do and what they know, for most situations like this they would most likely pass on the objective because of what they know but for some it not that simple. All too often many teenagers and young adults are faced with a very similar choice but have a very different outcome. For a teen to be initiated into a gang they often either have that individual harm what usually ends up to be an innocent civilian or some other sort of violent related crime. But because they want to be part of that group or need a better rep on the street they resort to these beatings as a way for others to preserve themselves as one of them, and not for whom they are. And for this reason and many more is why is think that the answer between right and wrong is anything but clear.
ReplyDeleteI strongly agree with the statement “that which doesn’t destroy us makes us stronger”. I strongly agree with this statement because I have seen and experienced many struggles and problems, which in the end have made me or someone else stronger. Not only did the problem made me or someone else stronger in experience but, it also helped gained strength in knowledge. This statement is much like the statement “people learn from mistakes”. For example, when a person does something they know is wrong but, they do it anyway because they don’t think they will get caught. But then, a few days later they find out they are in trouble. They then start to think of all the punishment that they might receive or how that action might now affect them. But, after they final do receive or find out the consequence of their action they problem will think twice next time, when they are in the same situation. But this statement does not only refer to people becoming stronger, by learning from their mistakes. This statement also applies to people becoming stronger from experience they had no control over. For example during World War II and the Holocaust, many Jews were put through concentration camps where many were punished and killed. But those who survived the hardships of the concentration camps have become people and created a stronger faith in what they believe in. A person that has not survived a concentration camp might be devastated if their house burns down or if they become stranded on an island. But a survivor of a concentration camp will be untroubled for they know that they have survived harsh conditions before, so they came survive once again.
ReplyDeleteThe difference between right and wrong is always clear. I don’t believe this statement is true. Many leaders throughout history thought they were doing the right thing for their people; for instance, Genghis Khan believed that conquering the known world would be best for the Mongols. Also, Adolf Hitler felt allowing his “master-race” to be the only race was a good thing. The difference between right and wrong is never clear because everyone has their own beliefs on what is right and what is wrong. Though some people saw bootlegging as a way of life, others deemed it immoral and wrong. While many deemed a government run by the people, or a democracy, as a positive thing, others, such as Communist countries, saw it as a blight on the world. Most people also see murder as unjust and wrong; however, some people may have no other alternatives, and believe that they’re doing the only thing they can, and that their reasons make the action justified.
ReplyDeleteI believe with the statement that “that which doesn’t destroy us makes us stronger”. I personally believe this because I have had times where I was at an all time low or something that i thought i couldnt come back from. But when i finally overcame those struggles they made me stronger and i felt that great accomplishment. This statement I also is true for everyone else because i see many people have something bad or not teh ideal happen to them but see them overcome it and become a stronger indivual. This statemnt is something people should live by and know that when you hit a low, you can only go up and become stronger because of it.
ReplyDeleteThe topic I choose to write about was that I believe people should be able to do whatever they believe in even if it is against others common values. I feel that if someone doesn’t want to wear a robe for their religion, then they shouldn’t have to because it is their choice to do what they want. I also don’t know why people make fun of popular people for being photographed with pajamas or street clothes because, those people aren’t any different from us and do not deserve to be criticized for wearing comfortable clothing. For example, the presidents always have to wear fancy clothing like suits to speeches of theirs and rallies. If I were them, I would step out of the norm and wear what I would normally wear and show the people who I really am instead of hiding behind the suit. I feel that when people dress to impress they don’t feel comfortable like they would if they wore their normal street clothes. I also think that it is wrong for people in the middle east to force the women to wear big robes to cover up their faces, when the weather over there is so hot, it isn’t fair for the girls to have to wear heavy clothing and sweat to death just because it is a law for them to wear the robes.
ReplyDeleteThe statement that i felt the strongest about was a person is innocent until proven guilty. If you are sent to trial and the jury has already decided what their verdict is, they will be very slow to change their minds, however if yu come in with a open mind, you will most likely find a better solution in the end.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe difference between right and wrong is not often clear. Once you make a decision you can look back at it and see what you did wrong. Sometimes the you think the right decision is to walk but then once that is over and you look back to it, you see that you should have ran. That if you ran you would be better at running and you would have ran faster and finished higher. Also you can have many things in your brain distracting you for making the right or the wrong decision. For example you could be riding your car and you see a guy walking home and it is raining really hard. Well if you pick him up and drop him off at his house you could be late and get grounded by our parents. The good decision at that time was to keep going and not be late. Now that you look back on it, it would have been a better decision to pick him up and drop him off because that would have been polite to do. Also if you do something that your parents think is bad could not be bad they just do not understand what the kids are doing these days. For example maybe not wearing your retainer because your teeth stay straight without it. You also may not wear it because your teeth seem to be shifting the wrong way. So it could be a wise decision that your parents do not understand.
ReplyDelete