NO! As someone who wants to potentially go into Constitutional law this topic is one that intrigues and frustrates me to no end. If a law is up to individual interpretation then what is the point of having laws?! There is no need to hold an entire society accountable to something that they can each interpret differently. For example, someone could interpret not stealing as only not stealing candy bars, but robbing a bank is okay. It just doesn't work out.
This is especially counter-productive to the whole basic purpose of government - protecting and creating order. If every person is doing their own thing then chaos and danger are soon to follow.
With this all being said, their is always a little bit of interpreting that has to be done with every legal case or criminal act. Every situation is different and thus punishments that fit the crime must be decided through interpreting the repercussions of each crime. For instance, a child who steals a candy bar and a man who robs a bank should require different punishments, and therefore do not steal would be applied more harshly to the man than the child. This sort of interpretation is only logical, and even established in punishments in the Bible.
The difference is that the individual application of the law is not up to interpretation. A person can't decide, as stated before, that robbing a bank is fine but stealing a candy bar is not. The only interpretation that is involved is in deciding appropriate punishment for each individual crime (even though with that there is still some form of absolutes).
Monday, February 21, 2011
Law with Sarah (#1)
Governments are not the ultimate authority for law for a few reasons. First and most important, God is the ultimate authority for law. He created law and order and it is a part of His perfect nature. Emphasis on PERFECT. The second reason is tied to this last point. Governments are made up of sinful men, and thus can easily fall into sin and error. However, God in His perfection cannot make an error. How much better is it then to obey a being who is not faulty and doesn't make mistakes than one who could potentially steer you a wrong direction.
The argument may be said that Christians are instructed to obey those put in authority over them, aka government. This however, does not say that government is the ULTIMATE authority. Just that it is an authority that should be obeyed. There is still a big but in this statement. Because God is the ultimate authority if the government ever makes a law that goes against what the word of God says or against His nature then we are not required to obey it. We answer to God first, then government. This only makes sense with an eternal view of life. How much more important is it to obey the authority that you will have to answer to for all of eternity than the temporary earthly government.
To tie this all back to the original topic, if we are to obey God first and not governments, then God is logically the ultimate authority for creating the laws that we obey. Governments may make laws, but the source of justice and order is God.
The argument may be said that Christians are instructed to obey those put in authority over them, aka government. This however, does not say that government is the ULTIMATE authority. Just that it is an authority that should be obeyed. There is still a big but in this statement. Because God is the ultimate authority if the government ever makes a law that goes against what the word of God says or against His nature then we are not required to obey it. We answer to God first, then government. This only makes sense with an eternal view of life. How much more important is it to obey the authority that you will have to answer to for all of eternity than the temporary earthly government.
To tie this all back to the original topic, if we are to obey God first and not governments, then God is logically the ultimate authority for creating the laws that we obey. Governments may make laws, but the source of justice and order is God.
Monday, February 14, 2011
Femininity
I think that feminism is not something that is one hundred percent evil and wrong. This is far from the truth. The issue that feminism has, as well as practically every other opinionated group, is that the radical side is incredibly, well, radical. The idea that I should never want to be a housewife because it is a waste of my brain and ability is pardon my French, a load of crap. I do want to be a wife and mother someday, and I want to be able to stay home with my children and raise them as they should grow. This also is not wasting my ability. Why is it that teachers are praised and commended for what they do and how they teach and mold the future for next to nothing, when mothers aren’t and they do it for free?! Being a housewife does in fact utilize your brain and abilities. This is one of many beliefs that radical feminism has forced upon me and my fellow females.
Furthermore, the whole concept of empowering women can get way out of hand, and can steer far away from the Bible. Empowering women through the power to choose whether their baby lives or not is completely immoral and is something Christians should reject. When women are to denounce the position of a man as head of the household, ultimately responsible for it, this goes directly against man’s God-given responsibility. Such ideas are definitely wrong and Christian’s should not follow in these trends.
On the other hand, the core beliefs of feminism are completely Biblical and thus feminism should not be completely looked down upon. The building block of feminism is that women are indeed equal to men and should be treated fairly, not subjugated. The Bible also teaches that both male and female bear God’s image, this means they are both equally a part of God. The Bible also teaches against any sort of subjugation, since the Lord is fair and just to everyone. Therefore, though there are indeed immoral and wrong beliefs in feminism, the basic desire for equality is completely backed up by Scripture.
Thursday, February 3, 2011
Sexist? Homophobic?
Well I must first agree that there are some who would be accurately described as sexist and/or homophobic in the Christian community. This is a very sad truth. The problem, however, lies in a truth that seems to apply to all different schools of thought, for lack of a better word. The problem is that the radicals or extremists in any group are the people who represent that group to the rest of the world. It is complicated to state all the exceptions to a general outline and is much more exciting to paint everything with a broad brush, and because of this groups or beliefs are generalized. Generalization under certain contexts can be simply a more efficient and expedient way to explain things, however the problem is that the (in most cases) minority of radicals tend to dictate what the majority is viewed as. This has happened to everybody, but specifically, in this regard, to Christians. The idea that all Christians are sexists and homophobic is quite the generalization.
These ideas are in fact not Biblical at all, and therefore not a sound belief for Christians. Neither females or males are described as lesser in the Bible. Any references that people would pull to support that idea is taking the verse out of context. BOTH male and female were created in God's image and therefore holy and pleasing to God. They were created to compliment each other and therefore were given different qualities and strengths. The Bible does not say that one of these strengths is better than the other, for God has all of these qualities. In regards to being called homophobic, the key is in the definition. Anyone who disagrees with homosexuality is not necessarily homophobic. They don't have to have an actual fear of homosexuals. The truth is that the Bible teaches Christians to love their neighbors, and it sure doesn't specify what sexual preference your neighbor has to be. Christians must love homosexuals, but the Bible does not support homosexuality. We can love the people and hate what they do; it does not make us a homophobe. This idea is also not Biblically based.
In conclusion, while these generalizations may be put on all Christians, they are not Biblical ideas.
These ideas are in fact not Biblical at all, and therefore not a sound belief for Christians. Neither females or males are described as lesser in the Bible. Any references that people would pull to support that idea is taking the verse out of context. BOTH male and female were created in God's image and therefore holy and pleasing to God. They were created to compliment each other and therefore were given different qualities and strengths. The Bible does not say that one of these strengths is better than the other, for God has all of these qualities. In regards to being called homophobic, the key is in the definition. Anyone who disagrees with homosexuality is not necessarily homophobic. They don't have to have an actual fear of homosexuals. The truth is that the Bible teaches Christians to love their neighbors, and it sure doesn't specify what sexual preference your neighbor has to be. Christians must love homosexuals, but the Bible does not support homosexuality. We can love the people and hate what they do; it does not make us a homophobe. This idea is also not Biblically based.
In conclusion, while these generalizations may be put on all Christians, they are not Biblical ideas.
Sunday, January 30, 2011
State Controlling Parenting
This question depends completely on the extent of the control and what world view the state holds to, or claims to hold to. For example, a state that holds to a Marxist-Leninist world view would want to control parenting to the point of controlling what is taught because in order to have a large population of innately sinful men all working together unquestioningly they would have to begin the development of these values at a very young age. In fact, I believe this already happens in many communist countries. This idea of training children from birth and on through the control of parenting is actually the very reason why this question is appalling. Young children are extremely susceptible to believing anything they are told because they have not lived long enough to develop the kind of awareness required to discern truth from lies or good from evil. This is especially true if it is told to them by their parents. They can easily be taught to be a morally good person or taught to be a serial killer. Therefore, there must be a sort of state regulation over parenting but at the same time, opportunities for parental liberties.
A state that values the welfare of children should regulate such things as abusive and extremely damaging home lives in order to protect the innocence of a child. It's sad that some parents are not motivated to have decent and wholesome homes without the state looking over their shoulder, but in this sinful world with people who have no integrity, state regulations are forced to overlook the home. This sort of regulation is in the states best interest in that the state as a whole would have a higher percentage of wholesome balanced individuals being raised in the home, thus creating better communities and so on.
However, a state regulating the home to the point of controlling exactly what is taught is too much power and control. The most plain reason why is that it's a lot of work. The state would probably lose more money than people it gained, and that is definitely not in the states best interest. Furthermore, controlling everything taught in the home would be near to impossible. That kind of widespread control is never as effective as desired. And lastly, once a state forces its authority to that extent to shape generations of people, the people aren't going to respect the state's authority. No person naturally likes to be completely submissive and do exactly what they're told when it's not something they would do on their own, thus any kind of widespread control that is not wholly agreed upon is not going to go without rebellion. Thus a state should not control the home to the extent of regulating everything taught in it.
A state that values the welfare of children should regulate such things as abusive and extremely damaging home lives in order to protect the innocence of a child. It's sad that some parents are not motivated to have decent and wholesome homes without the state looking over their shoulder, but in this sinful world with people who have no integrity, state regulations are forced to overlook the home. This sort of regulation is in the states best interest in that the state as a whole would have a higher percentage of wholesome balanced individuals being raised in the home, thus creating better communities and so on.
However, a state regulating the home to the point of controlling exactly what is taught is too much power and control. The most plain reason why is that it's a lot of work. The state would probably lose more money than people it gained, and that is definitely not in the states best interest. Furthermore, controlling everything taught in the home would be near to impossible. That kind of widespread control is never as effective as desired. And lastly, once a state forces its authority to that extent to shape generations of people, the people aren't going to respect the state's authority. No person naturally likes to be completely submissive and do exactly what they're told when it's not something they would do on their own, thus any kind of widespread control that is not wholly agreed upon is not going to go without rebellion. Thus a state should not control the home to the extent of regulating everything taught in it.
Saturday, January 1, 2011
3 Problems of a Naturalistic Biological Worldview
3 Problems of a Naturalistic Biological Worldview
One problem of the naturalistic biological worldview is that they claim that their view, evolution, is a fact. They are correct when speaking of microevolution, something that has been tested and observed in many cases of life on earth, however, when they talk about macroevolution (what most people mean when they say evolution) they are completely incorrect. They are applying the well-tested fact of microevolution to the creation of life from non-life, something that has never been observed, tested, or proven. Therefore, they claim something to be a fact that is in fact just a theory, or more specifically, an assumption. And we all know what assuming does.
A second problem of this worldview is the lack of transitional beings in the fossil record. For evolution to be true then there must be evidence of these transitional stages that Darwin talked so much about. For evolution is a series of slow and small changes that change one species to another. Yet there is no fossil proof! The one major problem they have, in fact, is what they call the Cambrian explosion. All of a sudden, a plethora of species just showed up on the earth, according to the very visible and real fossil record. If they have to call it an EXPLOSION to cover up the fact that it appears like CREATION, well, that's just really sad.
A third problem of the naturalistic biological worldview is the problem with transitional forms and the likelihood of these chance transitions occurring. The intricacies of life are abundant, even in a single-celled organism. The probability of a chance, mindless process actually causing every single one of these intricacies to occur is as close to zero as you can get. Any sound, reasoning, intellectual mind would say that such happenings are impossible. Furthermore, for something to get from say a wing to an arm, there must be a transitional phase that is congruent with "survival of the fittest". However, Walter Brown put it, "If a limb were to evolve into a wind, it would become a bad limb long before it became a good wing" (Noble 170). Therefore, these transitional phases would not fit with the "survival of the fittest" theory of Darwinian evolution.
One problem of the naturalistic biological worldview is that they claim that their view, evolution, is a fact. They are correct when speaking of microevolution, something that has been tested and observed in many cases of life on earth, however, when they talk about macroevolution (what most people mean when they say evolution) they are completely incorrect. They are applying the well-tested fact of microevolution to the creation of life from non-life, something that has never been observed, tested, or proven. Therefore, they claim something to be a fact that is in fact just a theory, or more specifically, an assumption. And we all know what assuming does.
A second problem of this worldview is the lack of transitional beings in the fossil record. For evolution to be true then there must be evidence of these transitional stages that Darwin talked so much about. For evolution is a series of slow and small changes that change one species to another. Yet there is no fossil proof! The one major problem they have, in fact, is what they call the Cambrian explosion. All of a sudden, a plethora of species just showed up on the earth, according to the very visible and real fossil record. If they have to call it an EXPLOSION to cover up the fact that it appears like CREATION, well, that's just really sad.
A third problem of the naturalistic biological worldview is the problem with transitional forms and the likelihood of these chance transitions occurring. The intricacies of life are abundant, even in a single-celled organism. The probability of a chance, mindless process actually causing every single one of these intricacies to occur is as close to zero as you can get. Any sound, reasoning, intellectual mind would say that such happenings are impossible. Furthermore, for something to get from say a wing to an arm, there must be a transitional phase that is congruent with "survival of the fittest". However, Walter Brown put it, "If a limb were to evolve into a wind, it would become a bad limb long before it became a good wing" (Noble 170). Therefore, these transitional phases would not fit with the "survival of the fittest" theory of Darwinian evolution.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)