History #2...last one!

There are three criteria when proving the authenticity of a document; 1) the document must not contradict itself within the work, 2) the document must coincide with the historical time period in which it was written, and 3) the author/bibliography must be reliable.
Firstly, there are no contradictions found anywhere throughout the new testament. The whole Bible checks out with itself. Secondly, the Bible most definitely coincides with the time period in which it was written and has been proven to be historically accurate. For instance, geographical locations match up with archaeological findings described in the Bible. Also, the Bible includes real figures of history, such as Caesar, King Herod, and Jesus. Yes, Jesus has been proven to be a real person from other sources in addition to the Bible. What is more, we have found the Dead Sea Scrolls which date way earlier than anyone expected and prove the authenticity of the Bible. If so many parts of the Bible have been proven to be correct, we can deduce that the entire work is reliable.
Lastly, we know the writers of the Bible are reliable because the New Testament was passed down orally by way of oral tradition. According to the culture during this time period, oral tradition was held in such high esteem that one had to pass down a story perfectly. Also, people hired scribes when copying the Bible and they too had to copy it perfectly. This part of the culture helps us to trust the accuracy of the Bible. It is hard to argue that the authors' motives were questionable, seeing as they were tortured and murdered for their faith.
This is what I would discuss with my study group.

History #1

First of all, you cannot honestly look me in the eyes and tell me that only winners have written history. Paige seems to be discrediting all of the archeological evidence, letters, and documentation found that compile what we know as our world's history. Not only have we found tangible evidence for the history we know about, but history was passed down word for word by oral tradition. How does Paige wish to discredit oral tradition? I'm not even sure who is Paige talking about when referencing these "winners." Yes, many major figures have had a part in shaping history, but many other people with less significant roles have contributed all the same. An example of this would be Martin Luther King Jr.: he never lived to see blacks gain their rights but he helped shape the course of history, sparked the revolution that gave blacks racial equality. Would Paige really argue that Mr. King Jr. didn't affect history? Hmm, there seems to be a whole month dedicated to respecting black history now...

Secondly, to say history is not objective is to say it is subjective, therefore discrediting all of the evidence found to date stating otherwise, and therefore calling history a lie. This just doesn't make sense. It seems she is trying to dum down the idea of history in order so it will fit her own idea of history. Furthermore, she is missing the importance of history which is this: we must pay attention to history so that we do not make the same mistakes. We have found that history tends to repeat itself. However, if we do our homework and study history, we can avoid catastrophies that have devastated those before us. THAT is why we should study for our history test.

Socialism

First of all, I think it really just makes sense that if you put in the work you reap the benefits. Same thing with money. If you work hard, you will reap financial benefits. Socialism breaks this principle. Socialism endorses spreading the wealth evenly. However, this does not make sense. If you go to school to be a doctor for ten years, I do not believe that person should receive the same wages as a janitor who doesn't even need to complete highschool. It just isn't logical. Same concept in the work place, if you work hard for a number of years in order to have a high paying position, it is illogical that someone who isn't willing to put in the work should receive a portion of their money they are working so hard for. That produces laziness, not fairness.
That's another point. Programs like welfare have good intentions, but many people take advantage of them. For example, someone may choose to stay below the poverty line so that they can keep receiving government funding instead of going out and finding a job. Welfare changes their mindset instead of encouraging them to earn a steady income. Yes, we should be willing to help the unable, there are special cases that call for that. But I don't see any reason to help the unwilling.
Lastly, socialism is not what our country is founded upon. It is founded upon liberty. Socialism definitely approaches communism, and a system where the government owns and controls our way of living obviously takes away our individual liberty. Nations built upon socialism and communism definitely have not lasted or operated in healthy ways. We have seen the results of socialism and communism and know that it takes away our basic rights as human beings.

Economics #2

Well, for starters, Christians definitely don't view earth as a powerful force or being. Honestly, the Declaration of the Rights of Mother Earth reminded me of Avatar, with all of the Avatars connecting to the source of life in the woods.
God created humans apart from the earth, and he created us to use the it. Because it is His creation we must respect and take care of the earth, but we are not supposed to glorify it. And we are definitely not connected to "Mother Earth" in some form of a living community. "She" is not the source of life. God is. Using things in a way that will benefit the earth is great, it helps preserve God's creation. That is called being a good steward. However, we do not do this for the earth's sake, we do it to honor God.

Economics #1

First of all, I would just like to say how contradictory Mr. Moore was throughout this entire video. However, what most interested me was his claim that socialism is democracy, Christianity, and all the other great religions. Hmmm, I don't think so...

First of all, socialism is NOT democracy. I don't even know how Mr. Moore came to that conclusion. They are two completely different ways to govern. Democracy allows for the people's voice to be heard. Socialism gives the government license to run the people's lives how they see fit. BIG difference.
Secondly, socialism is not Christianity or any of the other great religions he listed. Each of the religions Mr. Moore talked about allow people to own their own things and use them how they see fit. None of them give the government total control. Yes, Jesus wants us to share out wealth with the poor and help those less fortunate than us. But it seems that socialism and programs like welfare do not solve the poverty problem. Throwing money at poverty does not fix it. Instead, it has the opposite affect. Having the option to remain below the poverty line in order to receive income from the government produces laziness, not a desire to go out and earn an income. The Bible DEFINITELY warns against laziness. Indeed, the principle found throughout scripture is if you don't work you don't eat. Indeed, Proverbs 6:10-12 states,
"How long will you lie there, you sluggard? 
When will you get up from your sleep?
¹⁰ A little sleep, a little slumber,
    a little folding of the hands to rest —
¹¹ and poverty will come on you like a thief    and scarcity like an armed man."
So, the fruit of socialism definitely does not line up with the Bible. God calls us to be generous, to help those who are unable to work. But unwillingness should not be rewarded and is definitely not endorsed in the Bible or in any of Mr. Moore's listed religions.

dying is fine)but Death

dying is fine)but Death ?o baby i wouldn't like Death if Death were good:for when(instead of stopping to think)you begin to feel of it,dying 's miraculous why?be cause dying is perfectly natural;perfectly putting it mildly lively(but Death is strictly scientific & artificial & evil & legal) we thank thee god almighty for dying (forgive us,o life!the sin of Death

If by ee cummings

If freckles were lovely, and day was night, And measles were nice and a lie warn't a lie, Life would be delight,-- But things couldn't go right For in such a sad plight I wouldn't be I. If earth was heaven and now was hence, And past was present, and false was true, There might be some sense But I'd be in suspense For on such a pretense You wouldn't be you. If fear was plucky, and globes were square, And dirt was cleanly and tears were glee Things would seem fair,-- Yet they'd all despair, For if here was there We wouldn't be we.