"What do you want to be remembered for?

For being a Packer fan?  A state-championship winning athlete?  

A great Dad and a loving husband?

After you've asked yourself that, also consider what you do with your life that will truly have a lasting impact; Something of significance that doesn't fade, tarnish, or decay.  

We know that the Green Bay Packers have not and will not exist forever, 

so what do you dedicate your passion to that really matters?"

With the ever increasing demand for organs such as kidneys, livers, eyes, and skin, some people are of the opinion that healthy, responsible adults should be able to sell their organs to the highest bidder. I agree that people should have the right to do with their bodies what they please. The federal government, in prohibiting the sale of organs, is violating the basic premises of the Declaration of Independence. The Preamble to the Declaration reads: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” The government is violating all three of these basic human rights by not allowing organ sales to be legalized.

With the ever increasing demand for organs such as kidneys, livers, eyes, and skin, some groups are of the opinion that healthy, responsible adults should be able to sell their organs to the highest bidder. I disagree. I think there are at least four very sound reasons for the United States to keep our policies on this matter as they currently are. First, the seller’s life could be put in very real danger in multiple ways. Poor people may never be able to get organs because nobody would remain an organ donor. There is a serious possibility that people could be coerced into selling their organs. Finally, sellers may not get as much money as they were hoping for due to the increase in supply.

One day in my college Ethics class, we were having a class discussion about the Muslim faith. The current point of interest was the conflict between Muslims and Christians, and what the potential causes of the conflict were.

As the discussion progressed, a student asked if Muslims hate Christians because they view us as polytheists instead of monotheists. I thought this was a really good question, because this was one of the major conflicts between early Christianity and Judaism: the Jewish Pharisees and teachers of the law thought that Jesus and the church were promoting a religion of polytheism.

"But most people, instead of acting, take refuge in theorizing: they imagine that they are philosophers and that philosophy will make them virtuous; in fact, they behave like people who listen attentively to their doctors but never do anything that their doctors tell them. But a healthy state of the soul will no more be produced by this kind of philosophizing than a healthy state of the body by this kind of medical treatment." -Aristotle

Photo Credit

The following is an essay that I wrote during an Apologetics class at Big Sky Bible Institute back in the fall of 2007. This is a short paper and is very broad in scope. There is much more specific evidence that I didn't have time to address. Hopefully I will have that opportunity some time in the future.

The title that I chose for this paper was not phrased the way it is by accident. I am going to attempt to present evidence for the existence of the Christian God. I am not going to prove with one hundred percent certainty that the Christian God exists. I do, however, believe that the vast majority of evidence truly does point towards the existence of God.

Photo Credit

A study of world ethics could not possibly be complete without an examination of the Judeo-Christian view. Since the textbook that we are studying out of does not include a chapter covering the topic, our professor rightly added readings to compensate for the horrendous oversight on the author of our text.


Now if only those readings had come from an unbiased source! The book she photocopied chapters out of was Ten Theories of Human Nature by Leslie Stevenson. The reading selection was a classic example of a heavily skewed, relativistic-atheist view. If you want to read it out of curiosity, be sure to look it up. I may dive into the selection in greater detail in a future, but that is not the purpose of this present post.


But for now, here's a breakdown of an assignment from those readings, and my teacher's response:

I am currently enrolled in a world ethics class this semester entitled "Ethics from a Global Perspective." Our main text for the semester is Ethics Across Cultures: An Introductory Text with Readings by Michael C. Brannigan.

So far, I have found our text very interesting and informative. Despite being a secular textbook, it appears to take a very moderate, informative view instead of a heavily opinionated one, and I appreciate that effort. I've read Chapters 2, 1, and 11 so far, and in that order in accordance with our class syllabus.