Sorry it took me so long to write. A friend asked me to post my history paper, but I didn't do to well on that paper, and I'm kinda embarrassed of it, so, I'll enlighten everyone with my Assemblies of God Doctrine paper from last semester. It's about the AG's book of 16 Fundamental Truths (done to the professors specifications). Also, to not be completely biased to my beliefs I'm attaching a paper i wrote about Television. I have written many papers, one of which i had no idea what to write so i asked my professor for ideas and she asked what are you interested in, i replied, the homeless, so i also have a paper on my thoughts of the homeless. Let me know what you think. To all my friends: HAVE A GREAT DAY!!! Um.. also I have no idea how to attach my papers or if that's even possible on this.. ???????? OK so ill just copy and paste... but it will be long...here are the two papers:
Lee
THE 233 AG Doc/His
Section A
Dr. Michael Di Giacomo
11/15/06
The 16 Fundamental Truths
The book Bible Doctrines: A Pentecostal Perspective was one that defined and described all of the 16 Fundamental Truths. Also included in this book are the original statements of fundamental truths from 1916. The truths all together were not put in place to be a statement of belief, but they were just intended to be used for ministry. This book is very straight forward, and clearly describes the Pentecostal perspective in all 16 instances.
While all of the truths are worth writing about I chose to write about the “Ordinances of the Church.” I decided to focus on the 6th truth because I have been saved for 6 years and still I have not been baptized, but am eagerly looking forward to it. Also, the Lord’s Supper is constantly being used in the wrong context, but here it is stated clearly. I completely agree with the authors (Menzies, and Horton) and the Bible (Romans 6: 1- 4). Water baptism is a simply an act that shows, and reenacts the beginning of the ones life with the Holy Spirit. It is publicly declaring ones relationship with Christ, and everything He has done so that we have life with Him. Some important facts about water baptism are that it is for the believer only, and it is not for infants (although they do believe in baby dedication). The second part of this fundamental truth is The Lord’s Supper. I also agree completely with the authors in that Communion is a time of remembering Jesus’ death, and the sacrifice He made for us; also a time of giving thanks; also a time of fellowship. A good point they emphasize on was that when taking the Lord’s Supper “we are to wait for each other;” it says this in 1 Cor. 11:33. The author said “That is, we are to wait until we can recognize the body of Christ in each other and partake of the Lord’s “Supper in unity of love and faith, honoring Christ and God’s Word. I guess I never really thought of communion as a process that we all need to wait on each other for. We do this because sin could hinder our fellowship with brothers and sisters in the church. Jesus commanded us to do these two things, not as rituals but as remembrance and to show obedience.
The second fundamental truth which is titled “The One True God” describes the nature of God, His existence, His Attributes and the Trinity. There are five classical arguments: The ontological argument, the Cosmological argument, the teleological argument, moral argument, and the fifth argument is based on beauty or aesthetics. All of these point to how God has to exist. Secondly, God is defined in many ways; some of these are described in his divine names. Some examples of these are El (God’s strength), Eloah (God’s creative power), and El Eyon (God Most High). Also described in this section is that God is transcendent, and at the same time immanent; he is grater than and is active within the universe. Many more things are described for the nature of God, in this book that I also agree with. Some attributes of God are that he is omnipotent, sovereign, omnipresent, omniscient which is the last but not the least of the natural attributes of God as described. Then the book contuse with the moral attributes of god as being good, holy, and righteous. Finally, the Trinity is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (three distinct persons that are one). The way the author uses to tell the three apart is to define the functions of each. The creation is accredited to Father; redemption, the son; and the guarantee of our future legacy the, Spirit. These two fundamental truths I completely agree with what the author had said, they give accurate scripture reference and provide adequate evidence for them to be believed.
paper #2
Lee
Prof. Brookins
Intro. To College Comp.
11/20/05
TV Then and Now
The overall wholesomeness of TV in the past is nothing compared to what it is today. When I say in the past I mean the time area beginning around 1950. This sounds like a good time period to begin comparing. The progression of television has changed drastically over time. The shows that were watched in the past are nothing compared to what they watch today. The society of later years would not stand for what the society of today would. Not in any form, would the people of the past think some of the everyday programs of today as being good or even healthy. In our world today we have to worry about so many more issues then what there was to worry about in the past. Some of the issues we have to worry about more so today and did not have to worry about in the past are issues of violence, language, and sexual scenes.
First, violence, where is it being learned, is it from television? Wrestling, that is a big controversy when it comes to TV and violence. Today you even see children acting out the moves of wrestlers they seen on TV. This would not be seen many years ago. For one the parent would not even let the child watch wrestling, much less was there even wrestling televised as it is seen today. Richard Zoglin says in his article, that “Singer’s research has shown that prolonged viewing by children of violent programs is associated with more aggressive behavior…” Violence has been researched and proven to have an effect on people today, what about in the past? Although there is not much violence in The Cosby Show, or The Mary Tyler Moore Show, there were probably others that contained violence (Greenfield). Although, violence could be found in some TV shows of the past it is nothing lie it is today. Should children be seeing violence on television? Meyrowitz says that “Television exposes kids to behavior that adults spent centuries trying to hide from children (Zoglin). This exposure teaches kids to have such actions such as being violent. When children see grown ups hitting each other and crying this shows them that adults do not always know what there doing, and if they are not in control then who is (Zoglin).
Secondly, language could be influenced by what we consume ourselves with. Whether it is bad language or a foreign language, all language could be picked up by what language we hear. It is necessarily an issue of “monkey see monkey do,“ it is the fact that the words we use, or the words we hear are going to be on easier to come out of the mouth. As Marie Winn points out when TV becomes addicting so much so as to say that it consumes hours o four day, we could feel like we can not live without it . This time consumer could transform the way in which we think, act and even speak. If someone was studding Spanish, and he watched Spanish speaking programs all day, he would be more accustomed to using that language. The same is true for bad language, it is around us it would be more likely that we use it. Yes it is horrible to think that people today have less respect for other people, but it is sometimes the truth. If a person was to curse in the presence of another person that did not curse, they would not even give it a second thought if the people around them did not use language, or even want to hear it. Cursing is an issue of respect. If you respect the people that have to hear what you say, and they did not like cursing , you would probably be less prone to using bad language around them. Many years ago, if language was used (which was rare) the person using it would at least have enough respect to apologize to the people in earshot. Today if someone were really offended by language and even asked someone not to use it, the answer would be “I’m not changing for anyone.”
Finally, sexual scenes are for the most part regulated today, but only because of strict laws. In the past that was not even a thought in a persons mind, even if so it was not morally right to actually make a TV show of sex. “In the first place, television was the most sexually conservative of all media through the first quarter-century of its existence (Greenfield). Today TV is much more sexual than it was in the past. Take a simple yogurt commercial for example, in it a women is eating a cup of yogurt while talking to a man about the yogurt being smooth and creamy in a sexual tone. Yogurt has nothing to do with sex but in today’s world sex is used as a selling tool. People look at that commercial today like it it nothing but in the past if it was around, people would be shocked by the blatancy of the sexual tone. This shows that TV was good in this matter then became a bad in that area. Although Greenfield does not blame TV for the reality of life, it is still debatable issue. Today some actions, thoughts or feelings do come from television. This is because what we feed to our mind is what we have to work with, if we watch TV everyday all day is not that what our actions will show? TV for the most part is not all that bad, but when it comes to sex scenes it has defiantly increased drastically from the past. Yes, TV might have gotten strict in the 1960’s with all kinds of censorship, but look at it today (Greenfield). Today it is believed that the program producers have found ways of getting around the legality of issues, and they have made even worse shows that “fallow the rules.”
Prof. Brookins
Intro. To College Comp.
11/20/05
TV Then and Now
The overall wholesomeness of TV in the past is nothing compared to what it is today. When I say in the past I mean the time area beginning around 1950. This sounds like a good time period to begin comparing. The progression of television has changed drastically over time. The shows that were watched in the past are nothing compared to what they watch today. The society of later years would not stand for what the society of today would. Not in any form, would the people of the past think some of the everyday programs of today as being good or even healthy. In our world today we have to worry about so many more issues then what there was to worry about in the past. Some of the issues we have to worry about more so today and did not have to worry about in the past are issues of violence, language, and sexual scenes.
First, violence, where is it being learned, is it from television? Wrestling, that is a big controversy when it comes to TV and violence. Today you even see children acting out the moves of wrestlers they seen on TV. This would not be seen many years ago. For one the parent would not even let the child watch wrestling, much less was there even wrestling televised as it is seen today. Richard Zoglin says in his article, that “Singer’s research has shown that prolonged viewing by children of violent programs is associated with more aggressive behavior…” Violence has been researched and proven to have an effect on people today, what about in the past? Although there is not much violence in The Cosby Show, or The Mary Tyler Moore Show, there were probably others that contained violence (Greenfield). Although, violence could be found in some TV shows of the past it is nothing lie it is today. Should children be seeing violence on television? Meyrowitz says that “Television exposes kids to behavior that adults spent centuries trying to hide from children (Zoglin). This exposure teaches kids to have such actions such as being violent. When children see grown ups hitting each other and crying this shows them that adults do not always know what there doing, and if they are not in control then who is (Zoglin).
Secondly, language could be influenced by what we consume ourselves with. Whether it is bad language or a foreign language, all language could be picked up by what language we hear. It is necessarily an issue of “monkey see monkey do,“ it is the fact that the words we use, or the words we hear are going to be on easier to come out of the mouth. As Marie Winn points out when TV becomes addicting so much so as to say that it consumes hours o four day, we could feel like we can not live without it . This time consumer could transform the way in which we think, act and even speak. If someone was studding Spanish, and he watched Spanish speaking programs all day, he would be more accustomed to using that language. The same is true for bad language, it is around us it would be more likely that we use it. Yes it is horrible to think that people today have less respect for other people, but it is sometimes the truth. If a person was to curse in the presence of another person that did not curse, they would not even give it a second thought if the people around them did not use language, or even want to hear it. Cursing is an issue of respect. If you respect the people that have to hear what you say, and they did not like cursing , you would probably be less prone to using bad language around them. Many years ago, if language was used (which was rare) the person using it would at least have enough respect to apologize to the people in earshot. Today if someone were really offended by language and even asked someone not to use it, the answer would be “I’m not changing for anyone.”
Finally, sexual scenes are for the most part regulated today, but only because of strict laws. In the past that was not even a thought in a persons mind, even if so it was not morally right to actually make a TV show of sex. “In the first place, television was the most sexually conservative of all media through the first quarter-century of its existence (Greenfield). Today TV is much more sexual than it was in the past. Take a simple yogurt commercial for example, in it a women is eating a cup of yogurt while talking to a man about the yogurt being smooth and creamy in a sexual tone. Yogurt has nothing to do with sex but in today’s world sex is used as a selling tool. People look at that commercial today like it it nothing but in the past if it was around, people would be shocked by the blatancy of the sexual tone. This shows that TV was good in this matter then became a bad in that area. Although Greenfield does not blame TV for the reality of life, it is still debatable issue. Today some actions, thoughts or feelings do come from television. This is because what we feed to our mind is what we have to work with, if we watch TV everyday all day is not that what our actions will show? TV for the most part is not all that bad, but when it comes to sex scenes it has defiantly increased drastically from the past. Yes, TV might have gotten strict in the 1960’s with all kinds of censorship, but look at it today (Greenfield). Today it is believed that the program producers have found ways of getting around the legality of issues, and they have made even worse shows that “fallow the rules.”
