Rules were made to be kept (Prompt #4)

Rules keep a society functioning smoothly. Yet a familiar adage states, "Rules were made to be broken." Some, like the late Martin Luther King, Jr., have applied this addage to laws: "An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust...is in reality expressingthe highest respect for the law.

What is your opinion of the claim that breaking the rules is sometimes necessary? In an essay, support your position by discussing an example (or examples) from literature, the arts, science and technology, history, current events, or your own experience or observation.


There is a common expression that says "Rules were made to be broken." But if that's true, what's the point of having the rules? If rules are set in place and ignored, how does that help anyone?

Rules were created for the benefit of the people and for the stability of the kingdom. They establish a concrete foundation of what is wrong (not allowed) and what is right (allowed) in a certain area. This brings up a question, can morality change with the terrain? The answer is no. Morality is the same all over the planet, but the perception and protection of morality differs.

Rules do all these things, most of the time. The effectiveness of the rule or law is based on how many people actually pay attention to it. A country could have the greatest laws ever and it wouldn't help at all if no-one obeyed them.

Laws should be broken, but only in certain conditions, etc. In the Bible, David and his men ate the holy bread from the temple because they were starving. It was against the law to do this, but it is clear that God approved.

In conclusion, yes, it is necessary to break some laws, but only in dire need, when the law is foolish, or when it goes against your religious convictions. Rules were made to be kept.



Stupid time restraint.

Illegal copies (Prompt #3)

Full prompt: When it comes to downloading music off the internet, P. Diddy claims "when you make an illegal copy, you're stealing from an artist." U2's Bono states that "bootlegs are fine if you're making a few of them for your friends."

Assignment: Are the notions of copyright and intellectual property relevant in today's file-sharing environment? Is it right or wrong to download music off the web?



P. Diddy says "When you make an illegal copy, you're stealing from an artist." Is that true? Is it stealing to just to copy one or two petty little songs? How bad can it be?

Well, it can get pretty bad pretty quickly, especially in the online world of music downloads. Sure, there are those who just download one or two of their favorite songs, but there are many out there who download thousands of songs, not looking for the music but for the profit. So, is it ok to get a couple of songs off of the internet? The answer is no. Even if they're only for your own personal use, it is still illegal. Allowing some people and not allowing means that a court of law would have to judge someone's motive, something they are not capable of doing.

There are those who have no money, no friends, no CDs; they want music. What do they do? They get copies. After all, it's a win-win situation, right? The band becomes more popular and the person gets their music. However, popularity won't help a band at all if no one pays money to listen to their songs.

The fact is, illegal downloading is exactly what it says, illegal. It does take money away from musical artists, and we can't know how much revenue they need; we can't judge ourselves, saying, "it's not that bad, they'll survive." We can't make excuses, we can't make compromises.

In the end, it really doesn't matter if we think it's right or wrong, the government has made laws about it and we are to submit to those laws.

You can't take it with you(Prompt #2)

Ideas about money have been on the minds of great thinkers for centuries. Henry Fielding said, "Make money your God and it will plague you like the devil." Ken Hakuta once said, "Lack of money is no obstacle. Lack of an idea is an obstacle."

Maybe money is, after all, NOT The key ingredient to providing some of life's most sought-after answers?

Assignment: How do you feel about the idea that there are more important things in life than money?



Henry Fielding once said "Make money your God and it will plague you like the devil." This statement is entirely true, but it is not because money is inherently evil. Idolizing money, however, is a sin.

Despite the dangers that money brings with it, it is a very useful medium through which people can carry out business transactions and do many other things. Without money, in the present day united states, one could not buy or rent a house or apartment, could not eat, could not get clothes or other extremely useful items. Very quickly would come a transformation into what we call a "homeless person".

There are dangers though; the two primary reasons that anyone would idolize money are power and comfort. In our modern culture, comfort is everything. Money buys our comfortable beds and other furniture; it buys our tasty food; it buys our air-conditioned cars; it buys cable TV. Money facilitates easy access to our favorite sins: sloth, gluttony, addictions (alcohol, drugs, immorality)

There are many things which are much more important than money to have and care for. First and foremost is our soul. For what gain is it for a man to gain the whole world if he loses his soul? No matter what television or radio or culture or anyone else says, money isn't everything. There is at least one thing money can't buy. Money can't buy heaven.

So rather than storing up treasures on earth that decay and get stolen, gather up spiritual treasures, because if there's one thing that's true, it's this. You can't take it with you when you go.

Pushing it too Far (prompt #1)

Stupid writing prompts...

In the world of medicine there are many studies trying to prove that use of the mind can effect a physical change, in other words, "Mind over matter." As Christians, we know that this type of "mind over matter" would be the power of prayer. We also know that sometimes God answers "no" to our prayers. Study the following quotes:

One can believe intellectually in the efficacy of prayer and never do any praying. --Catherine Marshall

When I pray, coincidences happen, and when I don't pray, they don't. --William Temple

Those who do not believe do not pray. This is a good functional definition of faith. Faith prays, unbelief does not. --John A. Hardon

Assignment:
In 25 minutes, without the use of outside materials, please write a focused essay explain the validity of ONE of the findings below.

Long-Awaited Medical Study Questions the Power of Prayer
By BENEDICT CAREY
Published: March 31, 2006, The New York Times
"One conclusion from this is that the role of awareness of prayer should be studied further," said Dr. Charles Bethea, a cardiologist at Integris Baptist Medical Center in Oklahoma City and a co-author of the study.
Other experts said the study underscored the question of whether prayer was an appropriate subject for scientific study.
In other words:
Do you believe that this is an appropriate scientific study? Why or why not?


"When I pray, coincidences happen, and when I don't pray, they don't." William Temple's view on prayer is clear. However, can one study prayer? Is it possible to use science to explain spiritual matters?

Prayer is indeed a spiritual matter. There is absolutely no other way to classify it that would allow it to retain its definition. Prayer is a petition to a greater power, from a human. As such, it would be very odd to try to use science to explain it. How could the scientists know the earnesty of someone's prayer without actually being the person? How could they gauge the effects? After all, everyone is individual and everyone has a different mental reaction to different stimuli. Prayer comes from the mind and the soul; how are we to understand it? We barely even understand the human brain, the physical counterpart of our immaterial mind; and the soul has not even been touched upon in science.

Then again, prayer does have physical reactions. Whether because of one's mental state or one's spiritual state has yet to be determined. Prayer is calming and sometimes, after prayer, odd things happen; miracles happen. When we get to the bottom of it, we can't even explain these physical changes, let alone their cause.

In essence, prayer is an unexplainable human communication to higher spiritual powers, namely, god(s). In order to study prayer as something apart from just thinking or speaking, as something spiritual, one has to first acknowledge that there is something spiritual to pray to. In order to use prayer as a valid scientific study, one must first scientifically prove one of two things. Either God exists or he doesn't. There is no scientific way to prove that god does not exist, so option A is out of the question. Proof by lack of evidence is not only illogical, it is unscientific. As regards to the other option, I don't believe there will ever be any "scientific proof" that God exists. There is evidence everywhere, but no proof.

In conclusion, we find that, for the moment at least, prayer is an inappropriate scientific study. There could possibly be a study about the mental effects of what we call "prayer", but even that would be pushing it too far.