So, you might have lost the argument in the 21st century like you might have in the 1st Century B.C. but maybe not. It should not be a continual clash of cultures but a melding of cultures since a lot of people arrive to enjoy safety and quiet so that they can not only thrive in this culture that saves life but also share their own personal, spicy culture. In other words, you need a culture that saves life because in the spicy food lands, they want a culture that saves life that is considered Western but three wise men came from the East. One was Hindu and one was Buddhist. The other was an original Jew from the House of Israel before the occupations and exiles. More importantly, if there is a people or culture that does not value life and another people that do, there is a CLASH when they come into to contact on issues of a social and religious nature. It is an innocuous clash that no one may have noticed since it cuts to the bone and essence of a human's outlook and attitude in a land that, in all overt indication, portends to save life and not only in its policy. But, a multiple choice test with 10 questions might help to see what someone believes about saving life. It might help for the continual melding and re-education to which they are resistant in that they eschew the value of education and wish to be preferred over others for their skin and complexion instead of understanding but they publicly extol educational value. The reason why they eschew the value of education they say is because they do not trust people or the process. But, they want the honor and the association. They may not understand the process of being evaluated for effort and expect that they should get what they believe their submission is worth. They quite often do not respect the evaluation based on individual effort and risk being arrested for a criminal offence with open plagiarism as it is uttering a fraudulent document. It would be better to answer the essay question and make references appropriately to works that provide support for your argument. They do not see that it is an entirely subjective process if it involves the social sciences. You cannot demand a grade and intimidate a teacher or lecturer with criminal damage. There are other more objective disciplines, however, such as law and actuarial sciences. They are willing to kill to further this dependency on communities that truly value education and care little for white washed appearances. When they hear about "white washed" grave stones they thought "white washed" was a bonus feature like Corinthian leather on a vehicle. They also think receiving forgiveness from God is cheating. You could use the ten question test next time. Who would argue about a good Samaritan or his due honor or would argue about who is more justified in his prayers? See Luke 18:13. But, if you were to win such an argument about life and its value with people who always talk about aggression, savy, and "what it takes", how would you win that argument?
Luke 18:13
10Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican. 11The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. 12I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess. 13And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner. 14I tell you, this man went down to his house justifiedrather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted. 15And they brought unto him also infants, that he would touch them: but when his disciples saw it, they rebuked them. 16But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.
No comments:
Post a Comment