Reading homework help - punditwritersbay.com

post 1 reply of 450–600 words Discussion post below. Be sure to speak directly

post 1 reply of 450–600 words Discussion post below. Be sure to speak directly to the classmate using “You said…” rather than “Logan said….” Also make sure to use correct Turabian footnote form. The name should be First Name Last Name, and I should see the exact page of the quote, rather than the spread of pages the journal article takes up in the journal.
A brief paragraph of your chosen ethical system.
Ethics are a set of principles that guide a person with making decisions based on whether they are morally right or wrong. It can also affect the way people make decisions while living their lives. Utilitarianism is a non-Christian ethical system that focuses on the greatest amount of benefit that can be obtained. Utilitarianism encourages individuals to consider the impact of their choices on the broader community, promoting actions that maximize positive outcomes while minimizing harm. While it promotes efficiency and practicality in decision-making, utilitarianism can sometimes overlook the rights and dignity of individuals, as it may justify sacrificing one for the benefit of many. Utilitarianism is also compared to the term consequentialism, which is a theory that judges actions as being morally right or wrong (1). (126-word count)
A brief paragraph explaining the chosen topic and why it’s controversial.
The topic I chose was abortion. Abortion is a very controversial topic that we constantly hear about today, and especially with the upcoming elections. The question of whether terminating a pregnancy at any stage is inhumane, or whether it is acceptable due to the situation. The controversy largely stems from differing beliefs about when life begins, women’s rights over their bodies, and the societal implications of abortion. There are so many questions and different situations that make abortion a topic of an uncertain set of rules. Also, another reason this topic of abortion becomes controversial is because religion gets involved. One who usually has a religious background based on Christianity tends to be against abortion, but some tend to be for abortions depending on the different circumstances, which causes moral conflicts based on their religion. This multifaceted nature of abortion makes it a deeply personal issue, often tied to individual experiences, beliefs, and values, which further fuels passionate discussions and divides communities. (162-word count)
A thorough paragraph explaining how your ethical system would discern the right decision/action pertaining to the issue.
The Utilitarian approach towards abortion would be based on the individual case. The individual would decide whether an abortion would be morally right when comparing it to the resulting outcome. When a woman seeks an abortion due to health risks, for example, an abortion would be considered the right thing to do if the mother’s life was in danger. The mother of an already established family would choose to have an abortion simply because if she continues with the pregnancy there is a high chance both her and her unborn child could possibly not survive the birth of the child. As this result, that would leave her other living children without a mother. Having an abortion would be the greatest benefit obtained in this situation based on the utilitarian ethic approach. (131-word count)
A thorough paragraph relaying how a competing ethical system (If you hold to a Christian ethical system, then this would be a non-Christian ethical system, and vice versa) would attempt to answer the ethical dilemma, but that ends with an explanation of why it is an inadequate/wrong approach compared to your chosen system’s approach.
In exploring a non-Christian ethical system, such as relativism, we see an approach that asserts that moral truths are not absolute but rather shaped by cultural, social, or personal contexts. Cultural relativism is based on the observation that different cultures seem to have different values (2). When faced with an ethical dilemma, a relativist would evaluate the situation based on the beliefs and values of the individuals involved, arguing that what is “right” can vary widely depending on one’s background or perspective. For instance, in a situation where one must decide whether to betray a friend for personal gain, a relativist might argue that if the betrayal aligns with one’s cultural norms or individual goals, it can be justified. In contrast to a Christian ethical system, which emphasizes love, compassion, and the inherent dignity of every individual as rooted in divine creation. (142-word count)
References
Mandal J, Ponnambath DK, Parija SC. Utilitarian and deontological ethics in medicine. Trop Parasitol. 2016 Jan-Jun;6(1):5-7. doi: 10.4103/2229-5070.175024. PMID: 26998430; PMCID: PMC4778182.
Doug Powell, Holman QuickSource Guide to Christian ApologeticsLinks to an external site. (Nashville, TN: Holman Reference, 2006), 73.

Books Chapters1-13 INVITATION TO Christian Ethics Moral Reasoning and Contempo

Books
Chapters1-13
INVITATION TO Christian Ethics Moral Reasoning and Contempo

Books
Chapters1-13
INVITATION TO Christian Ethics Moral Reasoning and Contemporary Issues KEN MAGNUSON https://app.logos.com/books/LLS%3ANVTTNCHRSTNETHCS/references/page.359
OVERVIEW
In preparation for the Ethical Issue , you will submit a topic and
Turabian bibliography that relates to an ethical issue that has been presented in the curriculum. It
should be an issue that you are willing to think and write critically about, free of emotionally
driven and ungrounded opinion statements.
INSTRUCTIONS
Rae’s 7-step model presented near the end of the 2nd Chapter of Magnuson will be used, in
conjunction with Magnuson’s own supplementary thoughts, to complete the assignment. You
will select a topic along with at least 2 academic sources that relate, as well as one Bible passage
that might be relevant to the subject. Click on the assignment link and provide a 75–150 word
explanation of your topic along with your scholarly sources. Sources should be cited in a
Turabian bibliographical format (Examples below).
If the instructor does not approve your topic, and reassigns the assignment, you can review the
feedback, make the necessary adjustments, and resubmit. A title page and table of contents and
footnotes will not be necessary for this assignment.
Note: Your assignment will be checked for originality via the Turnitin plagiarism tool.
Turabian Bibliographical Examples:
Jones, Michael S., Mark J. Farnham, and David L. Saxon. Talking About Ethics: A
Conversational Approach to Moral Dilemmas. Grand Rapids: Kregel Inc, 2021.
Rae, Scott B. Moral Choices: An Introduction to Ethics. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2018.

Books Chapters1-13 INVITATION TO Christian Ethics Moral Reasoning and Contempo

Books
Chapters1-13
INVITATION TO Christian Ethics Moral Reasoning and Contempo

post 1 reply of 450–600 words Discussion post below. Be sure to speak directly

A reply of 450-550 words to this discussion post. Make sure to speak directly

A reply of 450-550 words to this discussion post. Make sure to speak directly to your classmate using “You said…
As a Christian, I hold to the Christian ethical system. In the world today, it is very hard to stand firm while everything around you is wavering. Our culture contains so many different views and everyone holds to “their own” ethical system or beliefs. I look to the Bible for the standards and truth I need. It gives me a depiction of right from wrong, and also brings encouragement as the world around is broken.
A big issue in today’s society is sexual morality. “Sex before marriage” is a hot topic and very controversial among Christians and Non-Christians. According to Magnuson, sex is “the pursuit of pleasure” (Invitation to Christian Ethics, page 152). Many Christians hold to the Bible and believe that sex before marriage is wrong. However, the world seeks after pleasure in whatever capacity they can find. They believe that the pleasure found in sex should be enjoyed whenever, with whoever. So the issue is plain an obvious. Which standard will you hold too? A big thing that gets overlooked, is the fact that Christians still struggle to withstand the temptation of sex before marriage. All humans have an inherently sinful nature, whether they’re Christians or not.
The Christian ethical system would bluntly say that sex before marriage is wrong. The Bible explains that we should flee from sexual immorality, and specifically states that we were each created for one man/woman. We shouldn’t give our selves to several people, because it defeats the purpose of intimacy. It also can affect your psychological state, when you have sex with multiple partners. Although it may seem a little to rigid or old fashioned to save your purity, it will have an affect on you in the long run. The main purpose, ultimately, is to please God and obey His word; however, the other perks play an important role as well. By following this ethical system, you will be able to have an intimate relationship with one man or woman, while also being able to freely share your life with them knowing, you are the only two people who have seen this side of each other. It is a comforting fact to know this especially as a female. Trust can be hard, and having security in this aspect of life will ease the other struggles. Overall, this approach is Biblical, but also fruitful if you are looking for a relationship that will last through the hills and valleys of life.
While Christianity says no to sex before marriage, the world and the Non-Christian ethical system screams the opposite. They would explain that as long as both people are in a agreement, then there is no reason that you have to wait. Life is all about pleasure, right? Magnuson states this, “Sex before marriage is expected and accepted, for abstinence is understood to be unrealistic or even harmful”, (page 156). The word unrealistic really captures the view this system takes. They think that not having sex freely is unrealistic, therefore you should have it with whomever you want whenever you want. Although this is a free lifestyle it seems very dull. The fact that you give yourself to so many people seems so uncomfortable. Their is no security or sense of intimacy in this system. Though their is a dilemma for most people, the answer looks plain an obvious. Wouldn’t you rather enjoy security with one man/ woman? And enjoy the pleasure of sharing love with them and only them? The world might convince you other wise, but follow the way of the Lord and withstand the schemes of the devil. Not to say it won’t be difficult to abstain from sexual immorality, but it will be worth it in the long run. So let the your future lead you and give you the strength to endure the difficulties you may face in this area of life.
Ken Magnuson, Invitation to Christian Ethics: Moral Reasoning and Contemporary IssuesLinks to an external site., Invitation to Theological Studies Series (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Academic, 2020), 152, 156.

No plagiarism. Takes time to read and understand assistance needed. help me with

No plagiarism. Takes time to read and understand assistance needed. help me with questions if needed. Deliver quality tutor on time.

Regarding consequences Read the documents (PDF files) and answer the all the qu

Regarding consequences
Read the documents (PDF files) and answer the all the qu

Regarding consequences
Read the documents (PDF files) and answer the all the questions.
Explain the significance of special obligations and role-based morality for military service
Related to military service.

Regarding consequences Read the documents (PDF files) and answer the all the qu

Regarding consequences
Read the documents (PDF files) and answer the all the qu

Change the following topics into researchable questions. These are stated as g

Change the following topics into researchable questions. These are stated as general topics and it’s important that you can recognize the difference between a topic and a research question. Review Chapter 2 before completing this assignment. Make sure to put the topic and your question in your response. It’s best just to copy and paste this then write your response to each.
Class size and student achievement
Multicultural education at Thurgood Marshall Middle School
Testing anxiety
Women college professors and tenure
Alcohol consumption on New Year’s Eve and Super Bowl Sunday
Single parents and affordable childcare
Counseling style
Asian American students and positive stereotypes
The charter school movement in the 20th century
Diet and exercise

Resource Evaluation General Description You will select one translation and o

Resource Evaluation
General Description
You will select one translation and o

Resource Evaluation
General Description
You will select one translation and one commentary.. For each, you will write a 200-250 word summary and evaluation of that resource in terms of its usefulness in responsible Bible reading.
Specific Requirements
Elements of the Paper
Your paper will be 400-500 words long. The first half will cover a Bible translation, and the second half cover a commentary or online resource. You do not need to cite or footnote your sources for this paper.
Page 1: Translation
Describe the history of the translation (when it was published, whether it is a revision or update of a previous translation), the translation committee (its general makeup), and the translation philosophy.

You are welcome to use easy-to-access sources like Wikipedia and BibleGateway.com.

Explain where this translation falls on the translation philosophy spectrum (from formal equivalence [literal], to functional equivalence [dynamic], to free). See Fee & Stuart, p. 45. page link below.
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ui=2&ik=904238f460&attid=0.4&permmsgid=msg-f:1802956016865759359&th=190562f1e2efd07f&view=att&disp=safe
Give an example of where this translation’s philosophy makes a difference by giving the wording to a verse and comparing it to another translation.
Evaluate the translation by discussing a way in which it could help or hinder responsible Bible reading.
Page 2: Commentary/Online Resource (See list of criteria in Fee & Stuart, pp. 276-277, for a good list of things to include) this are the links to pages below.
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ui=2&ik=904238f460&attid=0.1&permmsgid=msg-f:1802956016865759359&th=190562f1e2efd07f&view=att&disp=safehttps://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ui=2&ik=904238f460&attid=0.2&permmsgid=msg-f:1802956016865759359&th=190562f1e2efd07f&view=att&disp=safehttps://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ui=2&ik=904238f460&attid=0.3&permmsgid=msg-f:1802956016865759359&th=190562f1e2efd07f&view=att&disp=safe
Describe the author of the commentary. What is her/background and credentials? Is it part of a series? If so, is the series all by the same author?
Describe the type of commentary this is: exegetical, homiletical, or other.
Describe, as best you can, whether the commentary makes use of Hebrew and Greek, or whether it uses an English translation as its basis.
Describe how the author handles issues where multiple interpretations or conclusions are possible.
Evaluate the commentary by discussing a way in which it could help or hinder responsible Bible reading.
Feel free to pick from one of the resources listed in Fee & Stuart, pp. 279-290. found in the two links below.
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ui=2&ik=904238f460&attid=0.5&permmsgid=msg-f:1802956016865759359&th=190562f1e2efd07f&view=att&disp=safehttps://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ui=2&ik=904238f460&attid=0.6&permmsgid=msg-f:1802956016865759359&th=190562f1e2efd07f&view=att&disp=safe
Format APA
Use all the instruction above with each link to the various pages of text you might look at. write by answering the following question above. i want it done
400-500 words total
Clear titles/headings to mark your two sections
Free of spelling/grammatical errors
this is a sample paper of how i want it done. Sample PaperJosh KingcadeBIBL-4822Resource Evaluation: TranslationIn this section, I am evaluating the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV). This version was originally published in 1989 by the National Council of Churches, an ecumenical organization that is associated primarily with mainline denominations. It is an update of the Revised Standard Version (1952), which itself was an update of the American Standard Version (1901). The NRSV’s translation committee is composed of Protestants, Roman Catholics, Greek Orthodox, and even a Jewish scholar. The translation committee has aimed for a more formal equivalence (i.e., a literal translation), and because of this and the robust academic background of the committee, scholars often favor this translation. For example, the NRSV renders Genesis 1:2 as “while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters,” whereas the NIV reads “while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters.” The NRSV avoids the conclusion that the word for “spirit” (which can also mean breath or wind) is automatically a divine being, whereas the NIV draws the conclusion for the reader.One way the NRSV helps with responsible Bible reading is its focus on gender accuracy, being careful to use gender-specific words (e.g., man, brother, son) only when scripture is clearly referring only to one gender.Resource Evaluation: Commentary/Online ResourceIn this section, I am evaluating the Ezra-Nehemiah volume in the Teach the Text commentary series, written by Douglas J.E. Nykolaishen and Andrew J. Schmutzer.Nykolaishen earned a PhD from the University of Edinburgh, is an ordained minister, and serves as professor of biblical studies at Ouachita Baptist University. Schmutzer earned a PhD from Trinity International University and is professor of Bible at Moody Bible Institute. He has also published articles in scholarly journals. Both authors are well-suited to write an Old Testament commentary.This commentary is neither fully exegetical nor fully homiletical. It is not a rich scholarly work based on the Hebrew text and aimed at fellow scholars. Neither is it aimed fully at preachers. Rather, it is aimed at teachers. Each unit gives some important information about genre and context – not too much, but enough for a teacher preparing a lesson who might need some background information. There are some interpretive and theological insights included. The authors do not list every possible option for difficult texts, opting to give teachers the best middle-ground way forward. This approach is indeed helpful for volunteers who are, say, going to teach an adult Sunday school class and don’t have hours to prepare and whose classes don’t have time to chase every possibility. But this feature is of course limiting to those who want a deep dive into all possibilities.Each section closes with some ideas for illustrating the text, including stories, anecdotes, and historical illustrations.For example, in the section covering Ezra’s instructions on intermarriage (Ezra 10), the authors list some of the reasons why foreign marriages might have been theologically troubling for God and God’s people and how modern divorce is different that ancient Near Eastern divorce. The authors acknowledge how this might have seemed heartless. They frame this exclusive relationship between God and God’s people as a theological one, and they give some practical messages from this passage that might even apply to believers today.