I've been thinking about the debate of what brings salvation, faith or works. While personally feeling it is a false dichotomy, I decided to do a little bit of looking into it. I found the following:
1. Amongst "Paulian" Christians, there is, especially in recent years, a split concerning the role of faith and works. The classical belief is that faith alone brings salvation, and good works are a bi-product of that. The "New View" on Paul believes that faith brings good works which brings salvation. Those of you who know anything about the LDS faith know that this is hardly a "new" view on Paul.
2. Christ gave many sermons focusing on faith, saying that we should have faith, even if it's like a mustard seed. However, he also said things like only those who do the will of the Father will enter the Kingdom of Heaven
3. James is often quoted to advocate works, saying things like, "Faith without works is dead," and, "Shew my thy faith without works, and I shall show ye my faith by my works." Then there's when he said that the devils also believe.
4. Paul is often quoted to advocate faith, saying things along the lines of us being justified by faith and not works.
5. While reading the "Epistle of Paul to the Romans," I realized that in order to believe there really is a dichotomy, you would have to ignore half of what Paul says. In the first two chapters alone, there are at least 5 strong references to salvation by faith, and at least that many for works, as well. In fact, in the 2nd chapter, verses 5-6 and 13, he even says that during the judgment, we will be judged of our deeds (works). He goes on to later say in verses 25-29 of that chapter that circumcision (works of the Jews) is unnecessary.
So, I think it's safe to say that both faith and good works are necessary for salvation, if you believe in harmony in the gospel ("strait is the gate and narrow the way"). Why did Paul speak so forcefully against works and then say that we would be judged of them, that the doer of the law is justified? He must have meant two things by works, and that can be seen by being firm about circumcision being unnecessary.
The Law of Moses needed to be fulfilled through Jesus Christ, being the one who fulfilled the Law and revealed the higher law. After the law was fulfilled, all ordinances necessary for that law were done away with, including circumcision and animal sacrifice. In their places were the sacrament, and other ordinances received by Jesus and his apostles. We need to still be baptized and receive the Gift of the Holy Ghost, and do all else that Christ taught, faith being a prerequisite. Believing in a dichotomy puts a schism in the early church and makes Paul and others schizophrenic.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Saturday, September 25, 2010
Positive Effects of Climate Change?
As I have studied and listened to hysterics and skepticism over the climate change debate, I've realized that the debate boils down mostly to, "Uh, huh!," "Nu, uhh!" On one side, they are crying that the sky is falling and it's man's fault. On the other side, their saying either it's not falling or that it's not man's fault. My one critique of the debate is this: if the sky is falling, is it really going to be all that bad?
As human beings, we all to some degree or other fall prey to the "normalcy bias." This means that we think that things are the best the way they are now and any change will make things worse. What if, however, things get better?
It is the same, I think, with climate change. What positives might come through a warming change to the climate? I've made a short list of some of my own thoughts, but it is by no means exhaustive of all possibilities:
1. Milder winters=fewer cold-related deaths (which there are far more of in proportion to heat-related deaths, even in lower latitudes)
2. Vast amounts of newly arable land in Canada, Alaska, and elsewhere.
3. Greater diversity of life (even though scientists say many things are dieing out with warming climate, eras in geological history with the greatest amount of biodiversity have been much warmer than it is today)
4. Lowered cost of wardrobe budgets (fewer people will have to buy coats and long pants...but then again, I'm sure the money would be spent on ridiculously expensive bathing suits, etc. :)
5. Polar bears are pretty cute, but I don't think anyone ever thought that as they were being chased by one. Who will really miss them, anyway? (LOL)
6. Warmer seas=more water vapor=more clouds=more rain=fewer deserts and fewer droughts.
7. We're past due for an ice age, so if mankind can warm the climate through pouring trace gases into the atmosphere, lets do it. Life in all its forms, not just humans, would be much more devastated by cold than heat.
What other thoughts do you guys have? If anyone who is a firm believer in anthropogenic climate change and that we're all going to die in a fiery flood reads this, please try to consider any possible positives. The bottom line is that IF there truly is global warming, we're going to have to live through it one way or the other, and I'd rather be Polly Anna than Scrooge.
As human beings, we all to some degree or other fall prey to the "normalcy bias." This means that we think that things are the best the way they are now and any change will make things worse. What if, however, things get better?
It is the same, I think, with climate change. What positives might come through a warming change to the climate? I've made a short list of some of my own thoughts, but it is by no means exhaustive of all possibilities:
1. Milder winters=fewer cold-related deaths (which there are far more of in proportion to heat-related deaths, even in lower latitudes)
2. Vast amounts of newly arable land in Canada, Alaska, and elsewhere.
3. Greater diversity of life (even though scientists say many things are dieing out with warming climate, eras in geological history with the greatest amount of biodiversity have been much warmer than it is today)
4. Lowered cost of wardrobe budgets (fewer people will have to buy coats and long pants...but then again, I'm sure the money would be spent on ridiculously expensive bathing suits, etc. :)
5. Polar bears are pretty cute, but I don't think anyone ever thought that as they were being chased by one. Who will really miss them, anyway? (LOL)
6. Warmer seas=more water vapor=more clouds=more rain=fewer deserts and fewer droughts.
7. We're past due for an ice age, so if mankind can warm the climate through pouring trace gases into the atmosphere, lets do it. Life in all its forms, not just humans, would be much more devastated by cold than heat.
What other thoughts do you guys have? If anyone who is a firm believer in anthropogenic climate change and that we're all going to die in a fiery flood reads this, please try to consider any possible positives. The bottom line is that IF there truly is global warming, we're going to have to live through it one way or the other, and I'd rather be Polly Anna than Scrooge.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
The Tea Parties: The Anti-Populist Movement
Populism, in layman's terms, has been defined as the belief that the government should have control over both financial and social aspects of people's lives. The populist movement in the US was this, although they only articulated those aspects that were financial.
The populist movement started as a grass-roots political movement in the 1880s, strengthened into the 1890s because of a crippling economic depression. It was made up mostly of western farmers who were bearing the brunt of economic trouble. In 1892, the newly-formed Populist Party adopted their platform: "The Omaha Platform." In this, they laid out several demands and missions, as follows:
1. Labor Unions are and should be instituted in perpetuity
2. Wealth belongs to the working class
3. The government should take the railroad companies over, along with utilities, specifically telephone and telegraph companies
4. Adoption of a mixed silver/gold standard
5. Free and liberal coining of money
6. A graduated income tax, favoring the "domestic industries," i.e. farming
7. Taxes be limited to only the necessary expenses of government
8. Establishment of postal savings banks
9. All land should be owned by non-speculative private citizens. Any land in excess of needs owned by railroads should be taken by the government, as well as land owned by "aliens"
10. Secret ballot elections
11. Pensions for military personnel
12. Harsher immigration laws, specifically limiting the poor and unskilled
13. The 8-hour work day
14. Abolition of a mercenary military force (the Pinkerton system)
15. Institution of a national initiative and referendum
16. A Presidential term-limit of 1 term
17. Direct election of senators
18. Ending all subsidies to private business
While some of these call for things that are neutral to the size and scope of government generally speaking, most of the items above expand the government. If the Populists got their way, the government would have new power to regulate business in a minute way, print money liberally, take over any business deemed a public commodity, limit immigration and land-ownership in a nativistic way, steal power from the states through the direct election of senators, etc.
While most of these were co-opted by the Progressive Movement, which essentially followed the Populist movement, both political parties adopted different parts of this platform in order to stay relevant. In 1892, the Populist Party received 9% of the presidential popular vote and 5% of the electoral votes.
The Tea Parties have set out primarily with two aims: fiscal responsibility in government and shrinking the size of government. This is in stark contrast to the reaction of grass-roots activists of 100 years ago. The Populist Movement was successful because they clearly defined their beliefs and presented a compelling case to the electorate. The question is, can the Tea Parties, a veritable foil to the Populist Movement, clearly define and articulate their suggestions and solutions for the problems that they see?
The populist movement started as a grass-roots political movement in the 1880s, strengthened into the 1890s because of a crippling economic depression. It was made up mostly of western farmers who were bearing the brunt of economic trouble. In 1892, the newly-formed Populist Party adopted their platform: "The Omaha Platform." In this, they laid out several demands and missions, as follows:
1. Labor Unions are and should be instituted in perpetuity
2. Wealth belongs to the working class
3. The government should take the railroad companies over, along with utilities, specifically telephone and telegraph companies
4. Adoption of a mixed silver/gold standard
5. Free and liberal coining of money
6. A graduated income tax, favoring the "domestic industries," i.e. farming
7. Taxes be limited to only the necessary expenses of government
8. Establishment of postal savings banks
9. All land should be owned by non-speculative private citizens. Any land in excess of needs owned by railroads should be taken by the government, as well as land owned by "aliens"
10. Secret ballot elections
11. Pensions for military personnel
12. Harsher immigration laws, specifically limiting the poor and unskilled
13. The 8-hour work day
14. Abolition of a mercenary military force (the Pinkerton system)
15. Institution of a national initiative and referendum
16. A Presidential term-limit of 1 term
17. Direct election of senators
18. Ending all subsidies to private business
While some of these call for things that are neutral to the size and scope of government generally speaking, most of the items above expand the government. If the Populists got their way, the government would have new power to regulate business in a minute way, print money liberally, take over any business deemed a public commodity, limit immigration and land-ownership in a nativistic way, steal power from the states through the direct election of senators, etc.
While most of these were co-opted by the Progressive Movement, which essentially followed the Populist movement, both political parties adopted different parts of this platform in order to stay relevant. In 1892, the Populist Party received 9% of the presidential popular vote and 5% of the electoral votes.
The Tea Parties have set out primarily with two aims: fiscal responsibility in government and shrinking the size of government. This is in stark contrast to the reaction of grass-roots activists of 100 years ago. The Populist Movement was successful because they clearly defined their beliefs and presented a compelling case to the electorate. The question is, can the Tea Parties, a veritable foil to the Populist Movement, clearly define and articulate their suggestions and solutions for the problems that they see?
Saturday, September 18, 2010
On Saying the Pledge of Allegiance
All through school, whenever they would have us say the Pledge of Allegiance, I never had a problem. I always took it as something I could do to express my gratitude and pride in living in a truly exceptional country. I still believe that this country is exceptional and I am extremely grateful to live here. What other country gives so much of itself, both in fortune and blood, for the interests and welfare of so many living outside its borders? Additionally, most of our ancestors came to this land seeking the "American Dream." Most of us, the beneficiaries of these and other great sacrifices, enjoy a better lifestyle and more opportunities for personal progress than we would had our ancestors never come.
However, I have recently begun to rethink my feelings towards the Pledge of Allegiance. To me, the foundations of this country are great, as represented through the founding documents of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. I believe in these and would be willing to fight for the ideals represented therein. The flag, on the other hand, to me is not a representation of the foundations of our country but of the government. I am not willing to give my unquestioning stamp of approval on whatever the government does, and to me that is what the Pledge of Allegiance is. Our government is not infallible, but values and principles can be.
Also, the Pledge is a very serious and weighty thing to say. For us to teach 5-year-olds to say it every morning, pledging their energies and interests to the upholding of this republic, with their hands over their hearts, is a little doctrinaire and oppressive. They don't have the faculties to make such a promise, assuming they understood the words they were saying. Because it is extremely unlikely that they understand in even a small degree what they are saying, it is inappropriate that they be forced to rehearse it every morning during school.
However, I have recently begun to rethink my feelings towards the Pledge of Allegiance. To me, the foundations of this country are great, as represented through the founding documents of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. I believe in these and would be willing to fight for the ideals represented therein. The flag, on the other hand, to me is not a representation of the foundations of our country but of the government. I am not willing to give my unquestioning stamp of approval on whatever the government does, and to me that is what the Pledge of Allegiance is. Our government is not infallible, but values and principles can be.
Also, the Pledge is a very serious and weighty thing to say. For us to teach 5-year-olds to say it every morning, pledging their energies and interests to the upholding of this republic, with their hands over their hearts, is a little doctrinaire and oppressive. They don't have the faculties to make such a promise, assuming they understood the words they were saying. Because it is extremely unlikely that they understand in even a small degree what they are saying, it is inappropriate that they be forced to rehearse it every morning during school.
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Progressives?
I recently read an article in the Wall Street Journal written by Ronald Pestritto, the author of a book that aims to link the original progressives with modern-day progressives and liberals. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704554104575435942829722602.html?KEYWORDS=glenn+beck+progressives
I've been trying to decide for myself for a long time whether there was a worthwhile comparison between these two groups, and if there were, what that would mean.
I've come to the following conclusions:
Did progressives do some good things? We would all be intellectually dishonest if we answered "No." Some of the regulations they made in regards to child labor, food contamination, and safe work environments are vital parts of a thriving industrialized society.
Did they only do things that overstepped the constitutional framework? No. However, where they went wrong was where they overstepped their constitutional powers for the "greater good." In my mind, putting Japanese people in internment camps, strong-arming protesters (during each world war), and other limits on basic rights were where the progressives went wrong. Additionally, changing the way the government operated generally, including making a central bank that prints money and endeavors to control the market, taking power and representation away from the states in the name of "democracy" (the 17th Amendment), stripping states of sovereign territory (National Parks system), and the legacy that these interferences left with the National Government continuing to usurp power from the states and individuals for the "greater good."
In this way there is a definite link between the original progressives and modern-day liberals/progressives. They seek to increase the centralized power and authority of the government in order to create a society that fits their own idea of the "model society." In order to do this, they may subvert the Constitution or anything else for the "greater good." To them, the ends justify the means, as could be seen through both world wars and the squelching of protests and political prisoners, and then today with the passing of Obamacare "Chicago style."
Even so, did they have some good ideas that we could learn from? Sure. Even Hitler came up with a couple good ideas, like the autobahn. Do these ideas mean we should give them a pass and embrace everything they believed in? If that be the case, then we might as well embrace Hitler's ideas as well.
I don't begrudge them at all for the good they did in making the market safer. I do begrudge the legacy of the federal power grab and continual efforts to out-step their constitutional bounds.
I've been trying to decide for myself for a long time whether there was a worthwhile comparison between these two groups, and if there were, what that would mean.
I've come to the following conclusions:
Did progressives do some good things? We would all be intellectually dishonest if we answered "No." Some of the regulations they made in regards to child labor, food contamination, and safe work environments are vital parts of a thriving industrialized society.
Did they only do things that overstepped the constitutional framework? No. However, where they went wrong was where they overstepped their constitutional powers for the "greater good." In my mind, putting Japanese people in internment camps, strong-arming protesters (during each world war), and other limits on basic rights were where the progressives went wrong. Additionally, changing the way the government operated generally, including making a central bank that prints money and endeavors to control the market, taking power and representation away from the states in the name of "democracy" (the 17th Amendment), stripping states of sovereign territory (National Parks system), and the legacy that these interferences left with the National Government continuing to usurp power from the states and individuals for the "greater good."
In this way there is a definite link between the original progressives and modern-day liberals/progressives. They seek to increase the centralized power and authority of the government in order to create a society that fits their own idea of the "model society." In order to do this, they may subvert the Constitution or anything else for the "greater good." To them, the ends justify the means, as could be seen through both world wars and the squelching of protests and political prisoners, and then today with the passing of Obamacare "Chicago style."
Even so, did they have some good ideas that we could learn from? Sure. Even Hitler came up with a couple good ideas, like the autobahn. Do these ideas mean we should give them a pass and embrace everything they believed in? If that be the case, then we might as well embrace Hitler's ideas as well.
I don't begrudge them at all for the good they did in making the market safer. I do begrudge the legacy of the federal power grab and continual efforts to out-step their constitutional bounds.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)