Not too long ago I posted a blog entitled "The Other Side of Feminism" in which I argued that we shouldn't blame just women for feminism. Feminism often comes from men failing to be men. You would have to read my blog to understand my full points, but I think that the blog did well to show others at fault for the dangerous movement as modern feminism.
But that doesn't mean I justify all women feminist leaders either. There is a great amount of hypocricy in their ideology. So often women fight for the "right to chose" to have an abortion, and fight for equal pay in the workplace (something that should be handled by the free market), but so often utterly ignore the disrespect that many men, or boys, give them.
I have been reading "How To Ruin the United States of America" by Ben Stein and Phil DeMuth. In it they make a good point. The writers argue, "It amazes us that the women's-rights lobby is too busy fighting for abotion and for allowing multimillionare females into country clubs to notice that the most popular form of music among youth today routinely refers to all women as 'hos' and 'b*t*hes.' Don Imus can't get away with this - why is it tolerated in the rest of the radio dial?"
Not to defend the comments made by Don Imus, but if the media would have left it alone then they would be much more harmless than the songs "Low" or "Stronger." If Don Imus should have been mandatorily fired, then perhaps half the rap songs should be banned from the radio.
This is kind of an inverse of my previous blog on feminism. The other one showed the fault men had to play in feminism. This one, you could argue, shows women's fault in not just feminism itself, but for the lack of respect they get. If they want respect then actually attack real disrespect, and don't become so disrespectful as to fight for the "right," or so it is called, to abort a baby or fight for money you did not earn. Stand up for yourself where it matters, practice what you preach, and if you want to dominate the workfield, then all the more power to you to do so on your own initiative without the government's help. If you want respect, then make yourself respectable. Don't tolerate being treated as a sex object, and don't place yourself in a position where you probably would be treated as one.
If your going to be a feminist, then do so without being a hypocrite about it.
What do you think?
God bless America
Pray for our Troops
June 30, 2008
Ryan Hampton
Showing posts with label books. Show all posts
Showing posts with label books. Show all posts
Monday, June 30, 2008
Thursday, November 8, 2007
Interpreting Scripture
Once a conversation got brought up at a family gathering that I could not help but listen in on. It was brought up with a simple statement about a show that talked about the end-times, and all the different views, Chrstian and non-Christian, about how the world will some day end. Of course, like most conversations, we got a little off of the original point or question.
But something that my cousin-in-law, Brandon, who is a local Youth Pastor, kept coming back to, was about holding Scripture in its proper context. "Proof-texting" is done all too often today. We have our own bias when we begin to read Scripture, which determines our conclusions. We search for Scripture to support our conclusions, instead of reading Scripture to reach a conclusion. Often we should simply sit down with an open mind and study the Scripture texts in their proper contexts.
Granted, we do have presuppositions- or perhaps better put, one presupposition. Everyone has one. It is simply a worldview- the way one views the world. Essentially, it is religion. An atheist may claim neutrality to religion, but that is only their own presupositional bias. Neutrality rejects inneutrality, and is thus not neutral. When we as Christians read Scripture, we should read them in regards to our faith. We do not read them with the mindset that they may possibly be flawed. It is a key feature to the Christian faith that we read them in light of the fact of Jesus' ressurrection. Paul tells us that if the ressurrection is not true, then our whole faith loses its ground. The ressurrection is a fact, not just a mere idea.
So there is a sense in which we have a presupposition. Every word written in the Bible is 100% true. But it is only 100% true in its proper context. Some portions of the Bible may be history (such as Genises and all the Torah). Others may be poetry (i.e. Psalms and Proverbs). The Gospels are accounts from a certain period of time, centered largely on One Man- Jesus. The chronology in the Gospels may not be as exact as it would be in the Torah. Of course, this itself defends Scripture to many arguments against it about the inconsistencies in the Gospels. There is also the Epistles. We read Epistle's differently than we read the Gospels, poetry, or the history books of the Torah. They would be generally one man's writing to a local church. Moreover, we must put ourselves in the shoes, so to speek, of the writer and receiver of the letter.
It is hard to use one Scripture verse to prove a whole theological case, or to prove what the right moral approach should be in a given situation. But Scripture and God's Law is not always black and white- at least not to sinners. For example, we seem to think that any lie is wrong. We condemn the midwives in Exodus 1 for lying to save the male children from the Egyptians. We condemn Abram for being deceptive when claiming that Sarai was his sister. But in both of these cases, Scripture defends the "liar." According to Exodus 1, the midwives feared the Lord.
If we were perfect in mind and body, we may be able to make clearer distinctions. We would understand the Bible much more clearly. But now, we do not understand about taking God's Word in its proper context. We look for our conclusions, not reach them. I notice this when reading from different theologians. A theologian may say in a book something along the lines of "This verse is misinterpreated and mistranslated." In the same book they may say, "Many theologians think that this verse is misinterpreted or mistranslated...but we know that God will preserve His Word, so we must take Scripture for what it is." This is done by many theologians of many different denominations simply to support their theological affiliations with a particular church or denomination. I do think that God's Word is perfect. I do also think that the translation of God's Word is largely up to man, so in theory, we could see a mistranslation. But at the same time, God does always providentially preserve His Word, so that we can see our mistranslations and correct them.
Once we have our presuppositional faith, we should interpret Scripture much more open-mindedly, taking what is said in its proper context. This, I believe, will promote unity in the church, both in Spirit and in theology, and will enable us to think more and more like Christ. Questions such as the End Times could be answered in better terms. Today there are some nomical Christians who predict a date for Christ's return, while others dismiss the second coming as a joke. If we read each passage about the end times in its proper context, we could probably reach a satisfying conclusion. Whatever you read from Scripture, take heed that you interpret it in its proper context.
What Do You Think?
God bless America
God bless our Troops
God bless His Church
November 8, 20007
Ryan Hampton
But something that my cousin-in-law, Brandon, who is a local Youth Pastor, kept coming back to, was about holding Scripture in its proper context. "Proof-texting" is done all too often today. We have our own bias when we begin to read Scripture, which determines our conclusions. We search for Scripture to support our conclusions, instead of reading Scripture to reach a conclusion. Often we should simply sit down with an open mind and study the Scripture texts in their proper contexts.
Granted, we do have presuppositions- or perhaps better put, one presupposition. Everyone has one. It is simply a worldview- the way one views the world. Essentially, it is religion. An atheist may claim neutrality to religion, but that is only their own presupositional bias. Neutrality rejects inneutrality, and is thus not neutral. When we as Christians read Scripture, we should read them in regards to our faith. We do not read them with the mindset that they may possibly be flawed. It is a key feature to the Christian faith that we read them in light of the fact of Jesus' ressurrection. Paul tells us that if the ressurrection is not true, then our whole faith loses its ground. The ressurrection is a fact, not just a mere idea.
So there is a sense in which we have a presupposition. Every word written in the Bible is 100% true. But it is only 100% true in its proper context. Some portions of the Bible may be history (such as Genises and all the Torah). Others may be poetry (i.e. Psalms and Proverbs). The Gospels are accounts from a certain period of time, centered largely on One Man- Jesus. The chronology in the Gospels may not be as exact as it would be in the Torah. Of course, this itself defends Scripture to many arguments against it about the inconsistencies in the Gospels. There is also the Epistles. We read Epistle's differently than we read the Gospels, poetry, or the history books of the Torah. They would be generally one man's writing to a local church. Moreover, we must put ourselves in the shoes, so to speek, of the writer and receiver of the letter.
It is hard to use one Scripture verse to prove a whole theological case, or to prove what the right moral approach should be in a given situation. But Scripture and God's Law is not always black and white- at least not to sinners. For example, we seem to think that any lie is wrong. We condemn the midwives in Exodus 1 for lying to save the male children from the Egyptians. We condemn Abram for being deceptive when claiming that Sarai was his sister. But in both of these cases, Scripture defends the "liar." According to Exodus 1, the midwives feared the Lord.
If we were perfect in mind and body, we may be able to make clearer distinctions. We would understand the Bible much more clearly. But now, we do not understand about taking God's Word in its proper context. We look for our conclusions, not reach them. I notice this when reading from different theologians. A theologian may say in a book something along the lines of "This verse is misinterpreated and mistranslated." In the same book they may say, "Many theologians think that this verse is misinterpreted or mistranslated...but we know that God will preserve His Word, so we must take Scripture for what it is." This is done by many theologians of many different denominations simply to support their theological affiliations with a particular church or denomination. I do think that God's Word is perfect. I do also think that the translation of God's Word is largely up to man, so in theory, we could see a mistranslation. But at the same time, God does always providentially preserve His Word, so that we can see our mistranslations and correct them.
Once we have our presuppositional faith, we should interpret Scripture much more open-mindedly, taking what is said in its proper context. This, I believe, will promote unity in the church, both in Spirit and in theology, and will enable us to think more and more like Christ. Questions such as the End Times could be answered in better terms. Today there are some nomical Christians who predict a date for Christ's return, while others dismiss the second coming as a joke. If we read each passage about the end times in its proper context, we could probably reach a satisfying conclusion. Whatever you read from Scripture, take heed that you interpret it in its proper context.
What Do You Think?
God bless America
God bless our Troops
God bless His Church
November 8, 20007
Ryan Hampton
Monday, September 24, 2007
Harry Potter
Harry Potter
A while back I went and say one of the Harry Potter movies. It was the first time I had seen any of them. Some people probably think I’m strange for not being a Harry Potter fanatic, while others would call it a sin that I would see such a movie with all of the "witchcraft and magic."
Many conservative Christians are against Harry Potter because of what it brings forth, and because of the scenes of witchcraft presented. However those in favor of Harry Potter come back with counter-arguments themselves as to why it is okay.
Essentially, the argument against it seems to be "Well it’s bad because it has things in it that could never happen- it is all about make believe, fairy tail, and magic- all of things which contradict the Bible." But the argument for reading Harry Potter or at least for not being against it, is, "It’s just a book- what harm can a book do?"
These are very basic arguments, and I do not presume anyone holds absolutely and completely to one of these views, disregarding the other with all of their heart and mind. But these are essentially the basic and common arguments for whichever side arguing. I do believe that we should take a deeper look at the issue than these two mere arguments, because I believe that each one is fatal in and of itself.
First, let us consider the fallacies against the argument against reading Harry Potter. We should not simply reject anything that uses scenes and schemes that seem out of this world. These are used in the Bible plenty of times. Isn’t there a story of a horse talking recorded in the Bible? Wow! That sounds like something we’d hear on Toy Story, Spirit, or Harry Potter. Why is Harry Potter the only rejected story of these? Why do we reject Harry Potter and not The Chronicles of Narnia et al? In fact, the author of Harry Potter intended for many of the themes to be Christian themes.
However there is also great problem with the argument "It’s just a book." What if I said "Pornography is just a magazine- it’s fine." My argument would not hold up next to the Bible. If the book does show us something that is anti-Christian, then we should, moderately stay away from it. Even yet, though, it may not hurt to see and read it so that our ignorance would not show forth the one who supports the sinful book. However we should only read it if we can handle it and not have our faith shaken, and if it is not something sinful to read in and of itself.
So where does my opinion lie. It is hard for me to say for sure, but I honestly did not feel as if Harry Potter is really bad. The themes that seem to be of witchcraft can be explained by either a different universe, advanced technology, or by symbolism. If we present a story within a different universe, understanding that this different universe does not really exist, then we really lose nothing- we gain a nice story. If the scenes are explained by a highly advanced version of this universe (as many but not all in this case are), then we lose nothing, but rather gain the imagination of what the universe could be. If the scenes are symbolism’s, then we lose nothing, but rather gain knowing what the symbols could be about- often these symbolism’s may be Christian themes. It is possible to have a bad theme, but I don’t see that conclusively here. I believe that most of the Harry Potter movie I saw could be explained by one of those. I could not really understand the symbolism’s, but I had not read any of the books, or seen any of the other movies.
Still, guard what you hear and see with the Word of God. Do not look at these books and movies in the wrong light, but if possible, a better way to see the grace of God and the truth of Scripture.
What Do You Think?
God Bless America
Pray For Our Troops
September 24, 2007
Ryan Hampton
A while back I went and say one of the Harry Potter movies. It was the first time I had seen any of them. Some people probably think I’m strange for not being a Harry Potter fanatic, while others would call it a sin that I would see such a movie with all of the "witchcraft and magic."
Many conservative Christians are against Harry Potter because of what it brings forth, and because of the scenes of witchcraft presented. However those in favor of Harry Potter come back with counter-arguments themselves as to why it is okay.
Essentially, the argument against it seems to be "Well it’s bad because it has things in it that could never happen- it is all about make believe, fairy tail, and magic- all of things which contradict the Bible." But the argument for reading Harry Potter or at least for not being against it, is, "It’s just a book- what harm can a book do?"
These are very basic arguments, and I do not presume anyone holds absolutely and completely to one of these views, disregarding the other with all of their heart and mind. But these are essentially the basic and common arguments for whichever side arguing. I do believe that we should take a deeper look at the issue than these two mere arguments, because I believe that each one is fatal in and of itself.
First, let us consider the fallacies against the argument against reading Harry Potter. We should not simply reject anything that uses scenes and schemes that seem out of this world. These are used in the Bible plenty of times. Isn’t there a story of a horse talking recorded in the Bible? Wow! That sounds like something we’d hear on Toy Story, Spirit, or Harry Potter. Why is Harry Potter the only rejected story of these? Why do we reject Harry Potter and not The Chronicles of Narnia et al? In fact, the author of Harry Potter intended for many of the themes to be Christian themes.
However there is also great problem with the argument "It’s just a book." What if I said "Pornography is just a magazine- it’s fine." My argument would not hold up next to the Bible. If the book does show us something that is anti-Christian, then we should, moderately stay away from it. Even yet, though, it may not hurt to see and read it so that our ignorance would not show forth the one who supports the sinful book. However we should only read it if we can handle it and not have our faith shaken, and if it is not something sinful to read in and of itself.
So where does my opinion lie. It is hard for me to say for sure, but I honestly did not feel as if Harry Potter is really bad. The themes that seem to be of witchcraft can be explained by either a different universe, advanced technology, or by symbolism. If we present a story within a different universe, understanding that this different universe does not really exist, then we really lose nothing- we gain a nice story. If the scenes are explained by a highly advanced version of this universe (as many but not all in this case are), then we lose nothing, but rather gain the imagination of what the universe could be. If the scenes are symbolism’s, then we lose nothing, but rather gain knowing what the symbols could be about- often these symbolism’s may be Christian themes. It is possible to have a bad theme, but I don’t see that conclusively here. I believe that most of the Harry Potter movie I saw could be explained by one of those. I could not really understand the symbolism’s, but I had not read any of the books, or seen any of the other movies.
Still, guard what you hear and see with the Word of God. Do not look at these books and movies in the wrong light, but if possible, a better way to see the grace of God and the truth of Scripture.
What Do You Think?
God Bless America
Pray For Our Troops
September 24, 2007
Ryan Hampton
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
