In Conclusion....

I found the article “Conclusion: Two Futures: A.F. 632 and 1984” to be very interesting. The comparisons and similarities to Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World and George Orwell’s 1984 helped me better understand the respective societies of the two dystopias.

Some of the key points in A.C. Ward’s article concern the efficiency and stability of the societies represented in the two novels. Ward claims that Huxley’s society is both more efficient (“The political system envisioned by 1984 is simply not efficient, and, all other things being equal, efficiency leads to stability as inefficiency leads away from it.”) and stable (“The lust for power can be equally well satisfied by inflicting a humiliating pleasure rather than a humiliating pain; and the power of pleasure has the advantage of being more stabilizing.”) than the society presented in Orwell’s book.

I agree whole-heartedly with Ward’s assertion. Orwell’s society is incredibly inefficient on many levels. The most obvious inefficiency is cost; telescreens would cost millions to both research and produce, and to keep them running - and pay people to monitor and run them - would be incredibly costly as well. The cost to brainwash an entire society would be astronomical. Additionally, the impossibility of brainwashing our society is quite possible. Our society is too educated, too large, and too intelligent for such brainwashing to occur without incredible protest. Such an undertaking would be drastically inefficient, and would cause so much instability that an attempt would be promptly stifled.

As it is, our society is already strikingly similar to Huxley’s dystopia. Pleasure is the focus of Huxley’s dystopia, and it is also the focus of many American lives, with amusement parks, casinos, restaurants of every kind, and prostitutes readily available. All the American government has to do is loosen the reigns on our society a little more (in terms of sexual conduct specifically) and deny the existence of God. This could be easily done through internet protocols through TV programming, and through public education.

One of the most powerful quotes in the entire article states:

“In both cases, man must be intoxicated. For Orwell, the most potent intoxicant is power; for Huxley – at least at the time he wrote Brave New World – it is sex. But for Orwell, as for Huxley, only a state that takes the ultimate intoxicant into prime consideration can achieve stability. The choice of power leads to a stability based on repression; the choice of sex, to a stability based on license. The final aim is the same; only the means are different.”

This quote was extremely powerful to me, because thoughts of this nature had gone through my head as I was reading both of these novels. Both novels share the same cornerstone: repression of human rights. When Ward brought up the subject of plagiarism with regard to the authors of these novels, I thought, “Who cares?” Either way you go about it, a dystopia will end up repressing basic human rights. Even though similarities abound in these novels, the final aim is achieved through different means. The end is always the same in a dystopia; the means to the end is where the contrasts abound. These contrasts are irrelevant in the big picture; eventually all that will be left is a few people basking in infinite power as the rest of the society lives in complete ignorance to the truth.

Though these dystopias are frightening and difficult to read at times, their purpose is quite profound: to “help to prevent something from happening.” If we take anything away from these books, I hope that we at least grasp that concept – for the reality of a dystopia could be on our very doorstep.

Christianity

Christianity has always been a part of my life. I was born and raised in a Christian family and I’ve attended church for as long as I can remember. Yes, Christianity was something that was fostered and encouraged throughout my childhood, but there are many “merits” of this faith that convinced me on my own personal level to commit myself to this worldview and lifestyle.

I could probably write a twenty page paper on my Christian faith. However, for time concerns, I will attempt to be concise.

I am a Christian first and foremost because of Christ. The word “Christian”, when broken into its Latin roots, translates to “Christ-like.” Jesus Christ is God’s Son who saves all of us from our sins. Ever since Adam’s fateful disobedience to God thousands of years ago, the earth and all within it have been cursed by sin. This sin, which is inherent in all human beings as a result of Adam’s sin, separates us from God and condemns all of us to hell.

However, this is where Jesus comes in. God loves us, and He sent His son to save us from His own wrath that was our due because of our sins. He came down to the earth, was crucified, and bore the penalty of every sin that you and I have committed. Through this amazing act of love, each of us is forgiven of our sins and can have eternal life in heaven when we die. After three days in the grave, God raised Him from the dead, and shortly thereafter, Jesus ascended into heaven.

A Christian is someone who believes this story, and, out of love, adoration, and thankfulness, tries to be more like Christ (hence the word: “Christian”) and heeds His teachings. I am a Christian because of Jesus’ sacrifice for me. He has forgiven me and given me eternal life. Because of this fact, I can live right now as a young man with hope, peace, and joy, because I know that this life is temporary and my eternal destination is secure. Jesus gives me something to look forward to when things in this life seem grim. I have a purpose in life: to worship the one who saved me from eternal damnation. On top of that, I can have a personal relationship with God; the one who created the heavens and the earth and all within them. For these reasons and many others, I am a Christian.

Many of you may not buy into this whole Christianity idea. In most of my experiences, it is not the merits of Christianity that are questioned, but rather the fundamentals of Christianity itself. It may seem just too strange and too intangible. You may ask: “Prove God exists,” or “Prove the Bible is true.” I can answer both of these questions with questions: “Prove you’re not going to blink in the next twenty seconds. Prove you won’t stop breathing at this instant. Prove you won’t die in the next year.” Do you get the idea? There are a lot of things in life that require us to rely on faith. You have faith that you won’t die in the next year and that you will continue to breathe as you read this blog. The accuracy of the Bible and the existence of God are no exception.

Nevertheless, there is astounding evidence for the accuracy of the Bible. Various historical documents from ancient times recount the same events that are written in the Bible. Archeological expeditions have revealed exquisite accuracy in the documentation of events and geographic locations that are mentioned in the Bible. The accuracy of the Bible is indisputable for these reasons (among others of course).

The astounding fact is that the Bible was written in a period of time that spanned over thousands of years by kings, physicians, tax collectors, farmers, fisherman, singers, and shepherds. Yet, the marvel is that the Bible is cohesive, and it all points to the same person: Jesus Christ. Such a book could not have been written without divine intervention; the Bible proves the existence of God.

God’s existence can be shown in many other ways. The natural world screams of a creator. The complexity of a cell, the intricacy of our DNA, and the earth, stars, galaxies, and beyond are much too incredible to have been created merely by chance. There are thousands upon thousands of variables that would need to be perfectly balanced with each other if life were to occur with a big bang and through evolution. The theoretical probability was calculated by some scientists, and the probability was smaller than 1/googleplex, which is essentially zero. This proves that we could not have been created merely by chance; God most certainly exists.

As I conclude, I want to ask you a question: “Where are you going when you die? Heaven or Hell?” We all have the ability to make decisions in this life, and our decisions will determine the answer to this question. Will you acknowledge your sinful life, ask Jesus for forgiveness of your sins, and give your life to Him? Or, will you continue to live as you always have? Think about it.

Genetic Engineering

Genetic engineering is a controversial topic that often incites discussions that rival abortion debates. It is a field that has made tremendous leaps and bounds in the past century with new advances in technology, making seemingly impossible things, such cures for terrible diseases and disorders, a possibility. However, parents should not be able to genetically design their children because more social and moral problems than solutions will arise from this capability.

Many people support the idea of genetically designed babies for legitimate social reasons. Yet, each of these positives can be contrasted by a negative.

For one positive, these babies would be immune to diseases such as AIDS, HIV, and other sicknesses that are rampant in many parts of the world. Eventually, these diseases would disappear altogether when the only people living on our planet are genetically engineered. Also, DNA could be modified so that the lifespan of a human could increase. The flip-side to these positives is overpopulation. Genetic engineering would make the population so healthy that no one would die. Overpopulation would put a severe strain on world economics, potentially placing millions of people in terrible living conditions.

For those who are fairly sensitive and overly self-conscious, genetic engineering would eliminate “ugliness” from the world. Never again would a parent have to worry about their child waking up and screaming when they look in the mirror. Makeup, eye liner, and other beauty products would be a thing of the past, simply because they would be completely unnecessary. The economy would be drastically effected by the disappearance of “ugliness.” The beauty industry was worth $160 billion in 2003 (economist.com), and the decline of this industry would upset the balance of the world economy, potentially creating inhumane living conditions for many people.

Additionally, some believe that child abuse would diminish substantially if parents were able to genetically engineer their children. If parents put in all that time to design and pay for their child, then they wouldn’t want to hurt it. However, this argument fails to recognize other mitigating factors that contribute to child abuse. For example, an alcoholic who has been drinking would be so intoxicated that they would not be thinking about all the time, money, and energy that was spent when they designed their child; they would continue to abuse their children.

Obviously, there are many other reasons for the support genetic engineering from a societal perspective, but the pattern remains the same: for every positive, there is a negative that could create an even worse society.

There are many other societal negatives to genetic engineering. Genetic engineering would create more Einsteins, Schwarzeneggers, and Michael Jordans, which is bound to cause serious competition. Everyone would be competing for power and influence. Some simply won’t like democracy, or others will think they are too “smart” for democracy, tearing our country apart into different sects, only increasing crime rates and wars.

Genetic engineering will also change the face of warfare forever. If we make millions of superbabies and continue to perfect them, politics won’t be a question of how many nukes we have, but how many babies we produce. We’ll be able to make babies that are immune to radioactivity, and whoever can use their superbabies most efficiently will have world power. Balance of power will be a thing of the past. The country with the most superbabies will be the country with all the power. From a historical perspective, this is incredibly dangerous, further showing the immense harm resulting from genetic engineering.

However, the moral problems that are inherent in the capability to genetically engineer are even scarier. Obviously, science is a field that relies extensively upon trial and error, which means that we could go through a million embryos to create a superbaby. We will triumph in our successes, but what about all of the failures? Technically, we may destroy millions of embryos (which are clearly people – they are living and grow to become human people) to create a single, perfect superbaby. Is this not murder? Will we kill millions of human beings to achieve perfection? My friends, this is terribly wrong and unethical.

Think of it this way: If all of those embryos are so disposable, aren’t we, who may support genetic engineering, just as disposable? Yes, the embryo is one of the earliest stages of human life, but it deserves just as many rights as a 25 year old receives. When you were an embryo, wouldn’t you want to be treated with the same respect that you receive now as a fully developed human being? If we kill millions of embryos, we might as well be the next Hitler.

Genetic engineering is grossly inhumane. It might as well be considered genocide at a molecular scale. There will be “parents” who will buy a genetically engineered baby, only to have the baby act as a submissive butler, with no personality or ability to choose. This is a modern form of slavery, with genetic engineering as its fuel. Discrimination will arise among different “castes” of engineered babies; those who are incredibly smart will look down upon those who are not. In Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, genetic engineering was “the principle of mass production at last applied to biology” (Huxley 7). Humans are put on the same level as machinery when genetically engineered. Warfare will utilize genetically designed super soldiers whose sole purpose is to pull a trigger – not to be an individual. Society will be marked by millions of identical twins marked by standardization. But aren’t you more than a production from an assembly line? Isn’t there something that’s special about you, and only you? Genetic engineering destroys this variety, this voice, this individuality that we often take for granted. This inhumanity is something that should be avoided at all costs.

I leave you with this thought: what of the soul? Are we creating souls when we genetically engineer people? Such a thought sends tremors of fear through my heart. This is something unbelievably mysterious and awful; I have a terrible feeling that we will uncover things we were never meant to uncover.

So please - genetic engineering is not something to be reckoned with. Leave “playing god” to God.

Guts...

Hey all... I got this from a friend... this is killer.

When Minister Joe Wright was asked to open the new session of the Kansas Senate, everyone was expecting the usual generalities, but this is what they heard:

"Heavenly Father,

We come before you today to ask for your forgiveness and to seek your direction and guidance.

We know Your Word says,
"Woe to those who call evil good"

But that is exactly what we have done.

We have lost our spiritual equilibrium and reversed our values.

We have exploited the poor
And called it the lottery.

We have rewarded laziness
And called it welfare.

We have killed our unborn
and called it choice.

We have shot abortionists
and called it justifiable.

We have neglected to discipline our children
And called it building self esteem.

We have abused power
And called it politics.

We have coveted our neighbor's Possessions
and called it ambition.

We have polluted the air with profanity and Pornography and called it Freedom of speech and expression.

We have ridiculed the time Honored values of our Forefathers and called it enlightenment.

Search us, Oh God,

And know our hearts today;

Cleanse us from every sin

And set us free.

Amen!"

The response was immediate. A number of legislators walked out during the prayer in protest.

In 6 short weeks, Central Christian Church, where Rev. Wright is pastor, logged more than 5,000 phone calls with only 47 of those calls responding negatively.

The church is now receiving international requests for copies of this prayer from India, Africa and Korea.

Commentator Paul Harvey aired this prayer on his radio Program, "The Rest of the Story," and received a larger response to this program than any other he has ever aired."

Are we truly "One Nation Under God?"

Think about this: "if you don't stand for something, you will fall for anything."

What does it profit a man, to gain the whole world, but lose his soul?

-drube