The Christian View of Femininity

       The foundation for the Christian view of femininity is first given in Genesis. Both men and women bear the image of God, but in different ways. God calls women to be helpers. This does not mean that He wants them to be slaves. He wants them to be able to help their husbands as well as others through hard and difficult times, as well as keeping the, on track when they stray away from what is right or what they need to be doing. Woman is also called by God to be the completer. Woman was created by God to meet man’s relational needs, which God himself could not do. That is also why women want relationships, which is a feminine quality. Another characteristic of women which is shows in Genesis is that they are life givers. This is not just giving birth to children; this also includes giving emotional life to everyone and everything that they meet. This is the view of femininity that Christians are presented with in the book of Genesis. God has called women, in their own way, to bear His image.  

Does the Bible teach us to be sexist and homophobic?

        Despite what some people may think, the Bible does not say that as Christians we are to be sexist or homophobic. God does not say that we are to hate homosexuals and feminists. However, He also does not say that homosexuals and feminists are in the right. God did not make man to live this way. When God made male and female, He made them both to bear his image, but in different ways. God wanted both the male and female to rule, fill, multiply, and subdue. Along with these general rules for the male and female, God also gave more specific roles to each gender. God wanted the man to be the more dominant ruler over the earth, to name everything on the earth, and to teach the woman what God had taught him. Man was supposed to be responsible for the earth as well as the woman. God also gave specific roles to the woman. She was to be the life giver, helper, and completer. By being the helper, this did not mean that she was to be a servant to the man. This went that she was to be the rescuer of man, and to save him from his mistakes. These characteristics and responsibilities are still apart of God people today. Neither man nor woman is more important, in God’s eyes they are of equal importance. That is why the Bible does not promote sexist beliefs. It also does not promote homophobic beliefs. While the Bible does not promote homosexuality, it also does not promote the hatred of it. However, God did not create man to be homosexual. He created both man and woman to complete one another. After all, God created man and woman to take care of the earth and to increase in number. If God had created man to be homosexual, then there would really be no way to increase in number. So, the Bible does not teach us to be homophobic or sexist. It tells us the roles God intends both man and woman to have, and how these roles are important to life.   

If the State did the parenting:

      Even if the state wants to be more involved in parenting, it would be very hard for them to control what is taught in the home. Besides, if the state were able to control what children are taught in the home, where does this stop? If they control what children are taught in the home, then most likely they would have to put cameras into people’s homes, which would in no way be providing the American people with the privacy given to them in the Constitution. Also, shouldn’t it be up to the parents, to a certain point, what their children are taught in their own home? It is one thing for the State to want to protect children from extreme harm if the parents are hurting their children, but if a parent wants to teach their children about something like their religious beliefs, I think they should have the right to do so. After all, what if a family is Catholic or Jewish (or any other religion for that matter)?  The state is not suppose to claim any religious standings, so if they said any one was better than the other, then there would be major problems with a lot of people. It should be up to the parents to raise their children in their own home. If the state had total control over what is taught in the home, then the state could force parents not to teach their children about their religious beliefs, and the state would tell all the children what to believe. For the most part, the state could be brainwashing the children. The State might have some good intentions when they say they want to be more involved in what children are taught in the home; but even if they tried to do this, there would be a lot of people who would be in extreme objection right away.

Photo Journal Walk

Today my family decided to go to Fort Casey, which we like to go to often. While the rest of the family was exploring the fort, I decided to go for a walk on the beach. However, my Mom would not let me go alone, so I had to take my dog with me. But that's okay, I know he will never judge me. So on my walk I thought about all that has happened this year. So much has happened and so much more is to come. I'm really excited to be graduating high school and move on to a different part in my life, but at the same time I am also nervous and unsure about what is to come. The beach is a place where I have grown up, I live very close to a park and I spend a fare amount of my free time there, especially when I just need to think. Whether it's sitting on the beach watching the sun set, going for a hike in the woods, or paddling around a lake in my kayak, I love the outdoors and it is something that brings great comfort to me. I just love being able to get away from the world and to just sit and think about my life and all the I have gone through and to even think about what my future may hold. This walk was a good break, seeing as how my Christmas break was not really a break. I enjoyed getting to take some time to just really relax and think about my life. This walk was just the break I needed.

Three Problems with Naturalism

          One problem with a naturalistic explanation for life is how they explain the origins of matter/living organisms. Naturalists say that the first living matter was made out of non-living matter. How could that even be possible? You cannot take a pen and turn it into a living thing. How then could non-living matter create living matter?

          Another problem is evolution. According to evolution, living organisms are slowly, over billions of years, developing by means of mutations and natural selection. However, if living organisms are slowly developing, then how did the cell ever come into being? Cells are the basic unit of life and make up living organisms. Even though the cell is extremely small, is it also very complex. The best way to think of a cell is to think of it as a machine. It needs to have all the parts in order to function. If any of the parts are missing, the cell cannot function and will die. That is why evolution cannot work. If all living matter develops over time, then the cell could not have been made. Besides, if the cell cannot function without all its working parts, then it would have been killed off by natural selection (survival of the fittest), something naturalists also believe in. If the cell was killed off, then there could be no living matter.

          A third problem is how naturalists explain the idea of some kind of designer that made all life. They say it all began by random chance and that to get to the stage of life we have today was also random chance. Naturalists also say that there is no proof of a designer that created life. But yet we have things like DNA, which are so complex and very precise. Besides, it is easier to believe that there is a designer who created the first living organism, than to believe life came into existence by some complete random chance.

          Those are just some of the problems with naturalism. Naturalists do not have any real proof to support their claims on things like the origin of life, evolution, or even that there is no intelligent designer. Hopefully naturalisms unconvincing answers within the scientific realm will cause others to question their theories as well.

Proposal

             For my "positivity project" I plan on writing notes of encouragement to the people in my neighborhood. I know how much words of encouragement help me when I am feeling sad and I hope to do the same for my neighbors. In order to do this I will need some markers, maybe some glitter, and either pieces of paper or note cards. After writing these notes I plan on putting them on the doors of the houses. I do not really ever get a chance to talk to any of my neighbors and hopefully this will open up an opportunity to speak to one of them. Hopefully by doing this I can bring something nice into their day. A plan on doing this either Sunday afternoon or Monday.

Sarah, Entry # 9:

            I do not think that the dreams people had really affected them. One reason is that we never see the dreams that people have. When people slept it was only so that the play could continue. If people had not randomly fallen asleep then the juice would not have been put into their eyes. Even when characters thought they had had a dream they did not change anything about themselves at all.

            As for which character I thought I was most like; I do not really see any similarities between any of them and myself. I admire Hermia the most out of all the characters. She does not give up until the can be with the one she loves. Also, she does not let her father or Demetrius get in her way. She fights for what she believes is right and does not let others influence her decisions. For example, when she tells her father in the first act of the play that she will not marry Demetrius, she states: “I do entreat your grace to pardon me./I know not by what power I am made bold,/Nor how it may concern my modesty/In such a presence here to plead my thoughts”(Scene 1, Lines 58-61). She knows that she is not being very respectful to her father by doing this but she feels that it is the right thing to do and that he is being unfair. That is why I like her best, and why I want to have some of her characteristics.

            Hermia’s standard of purity is however not very surprising for this period of time. Back then people had higher standards when it came to purity unlike today. There are a fare amount of people with high purity standards in this day and age, but there are also many people who simply do not really care. As for Lysander’s apologizing, I think that he probably realized what he said had upset Hermia so in order that she not get angry at him he just said that he did not mean it that way. As for relationships as a whole in that day and time; they were probably a lot less casual then by today’s standards. Back then marriages were arranged; as indicated in the first act of the play when Hermia’s father wanted her to marry Demetrius. It was probably not very common for two people to just fall in love and get married. That is why it is such a big deal when Hermia and Lysander run away together when Hermia’s father will not let her marry Lysander.  What would you say is the most important theme of A Midsummer Night’s Dream? Does this theme apply to modern times in any way? Which scene was your favorites of the play and why?