Well if we're looking at it from a secular perspective then yes. We should be feminists with biblical agendas.
The obvious example being the absolutely ridiculous abortion arguments that strips women of their superpower (I can give life! That is literally the best superpower ever!), moral conscience and strength.
I can't believe we have to repeat ourselves with disgusting topics like this. That it is called 'Feminism' to argue that women should be able to terminate (often female) fetuses in a mass infant genocide? I know the bible doesn't say abortion but it does say thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Now tell me, do you wish to be aborted? If not, then why is it ok? Why should I support it. I love people. I'm pro people and I really think you should be too.
Sorry I sidetracked. I do that a lot.
But I think its obvious. When Christian morals are included, we must definitely be feminist. We can not assume that all of femisn is about the basic patriarchal society and overthrowing it. Its about more than that. Its about the sexual harassment, the female genocide all over the world, the sexual slavery of young girls and so forth. And yes this is seen in both genders and we are to tackle the issue of both cases. But not supporting the modern secular patriarchal ideology of a pornographic culture is a big step forward. And if my opposition to this culture makes me a feminist then get me a badge, I want to wear this title proudly. And if you dont think this double standard exists, you really need to see American Apparel. I will continue this a bit further down.
Can we be feminists in Christianity?
Well no.
Why?
Because we dont need to.
Women are not oppressed in the church. Men do not own us even in marriage (its mutual- 1 Corinthians 7:3-4). We do not have to do what a man tells us. Men are not to lust after us, abuse us or force us to commit acts against our will and vice versa. Women can vote in elections or even run for leadership. Women can work and gain a living.
We can be leaders (Judges 4) and choose to remain unmarried (1 Corinthians 7:8).
Only one person has authority over us. And thats that awesome dude up in heaven.
He tells us how to be great Christian women. None of that includes being a oppressed by men.
Thus we are equal. There is no need for feminism in a truth-seeking church.
But isn't there a double standard in the church
I see what you're thinking about so: Why yes. Yes there is. There's one for both men and women. And that makes it equal. Men (if they chose) serve as leaders in the church (married men as elders etc); women (if they choose) lead the children and have children (which as we know, men can not physically do).
And that's as far as that double standard goes. Both can work (Proverbs 31, Genesis 2), both can study the bible to ones own desire (Joshua 1:8) and both can correct those who misunderstand the gospel (Acts 18:26).
And they don't have to marry! You don't have to be a child bearing marathoner to be right it God's eyes-just look at Mary Magdelene. Or you don't have to be an elder preaching marital wisdom if you're a man because remember: we have different gifts!
Let's not forget that we genders need each other in our most natural, undisturbed God-given forms. What God gives, let no man take away. I know I totally took this verse out of context, but I guess I don't need a verse to back this statement up. We have no right to play God and change what God has given and made us.
But the secular, perverted Christian denominations, world religions and non-religions have created serious inequalities that contradict our doctrine, morality, beliefs and our God. As mentioned before, they subject, objectify and leave women (and men) discriminated all because they were born with the sex and gender God personally chose for them.
And there's only one way to fight it. Christians must be 'feminist' of some sort. We can not let our daughters, sisters and mothers be objectified, treated as unintelligent, be prevented from achieving greatness and given worse treatment for the same situations men occur.
So please. Galatians 3:28
Oh yeah, please remember I'm a hypocritical non-feminist
P.s:
Amy Buckleys notes on this are a great read-specifically on first wave feminism.
This is quite blunt but it also illustrates what gender equality is in the Bible
Wednesday 8 July 2015
Sunday 8 February 2015
22 Messages From Creationists To People Who Believe In Evolution
It's seems like the biggest issue in this buzzfeed post from evolutionists is the grammar of these creationists i.e no. 5 who has used the wrong 'there' in her question.
a) simple mistake. Thank you to the one person who commented with a bit of compassion and understands people make typos whether creationist or not. Maybe she was in a hurry and had to quickly write her thoughts down for the photographer without proof reading.
and b) maybe English isn't her first language. Not everyone in the world speaks English including a vast majority of Christians. There are Christians in Asia and Africa and Europe and South/North America and Australasia....and these countries don't all speak English and yeah. (I know she's white but that doesn't mean English has to be her first language. Thinking that way is not very progressive and a lil' bit racist)
But instead of commenting: (Sorry, censored language ahead)
'ARE YOU F***ING SERIOUS. YES. YES WE CAN IN FACT EXPLAIN A SUNSET.
Maybe actually explain the sunset so she can understand (which does not happen after this comment).
Though someone did mention that all the creationists in this post were white. I don't know if that was meant to be an insult (I'm joking, it obviously was)
'Has everyone noticed - they’re all white. I mean, so what, but each of these people appears to be from a similar socioeconomic and racial background. In other words, a very narrow [perhaps inbred] segment of society.'
Funny that when I googled famous evolutionists, they happened to meet the description of the above comment.
(I tried googling famous creationists but it just showed up with memes made by evolutionists like this one below)
And all the evolutionists that did the message thing too were all white also.
And their questions can just as easily be rebutted without use of abuse.
For example: (Sorry, I can't help being sarcastic!)
In conclusion: Online abuse is never ok, No matter what the topic. A 'progressive' society should be compassionate and open to people having the freedom to believe what they believe in and contest opinions without receiving hurtful comments from those who object. I'm not saying the creationists are perfect, but this is online bullying just because some people don't believe in evolution.
Peace.
(and love and compassion and understanding)
a) simple mistake. Thank you to the one person who commented with a bit of compassion and understands people make typos whether creationist or not. Maybe she was in a hurry and had to quickly write her thoughts down for the photographer without proof reading.
and b) maybe English isn't her first language. Not everyone in the world speaks English including a vast majority of Christians. There are Christians in Asia and Africa and Europe and South/North America and Australasia....and these countries don't all speak English and yeah. (I know she's white but that doesn't mean English has to be her first language. Thinking that way is not very progressive and a lil' bit racist)
But instead of commenting: (Sorry, censored language ahead)
'ARE YOU F***ING SERIOUS. YES. YES WE CAN IN FACT EXPLAIN A SUNSET.
Maybe actually explain the sunset so she can understand (which does not happen after this comment).
Though someone did mention that all the creationists in this post were white. I don't know if that was meant to be an insult (I'm joking, it obviously was)
'Has everyone noticed - they’re all white. I mean, so what, but each of these people appears to be from a similar socioeconomic and racial background. In other words, a very narrow [perhaps inbred] segment of society.'
Funny that when I googled famous evolutionists, they happened to meet the description of the above comment.
(I tried googling famous creationists but it just showed up with memes made by evolutionists like this one below)
And all the evolutionists that did the message thing too were all white also.
And their questions can just as easily be rebutted without use of abuse.
For example: (Sorry, I can't help being sarcastic!)
- God didn't rape anyone? Humans did. They still do today. Even if evolution was correct, there still is rape. (Had to double check I spelt that 'there' right) (no. 25)
- I loved the Noah's ark one though. Those 2 termites sure had a good time. (no. 36)
- The bible as a whole is less than 4000 years old (only the old testament is older). When did Jesus die again? Apparently it's actually the year 4000AD not 2015AD. (no. 32)
- There are entire disciplines dedicated to religious thinking and proof. So does that not make it logical for you to believe in? (no. 28)
- Science rules? Keep religion out of my science class? Woah dude. I'm out. You've won. That was all I needed to hear. You've convinced me and made me question everything I believe in. Congrats. (no. 33 and 41)
- We do support your right to have your religion preached at school! Against our will we support your religion. That's why evolution is preached in every school pretty much! (no. 42) It was shoved down my throat at school! You can't pass Bio without learning it even though I didn't understand anything and the questions I had were never answered!
In conclusion: Online abuse is never ok, No matter what the topic. A 'progressive' society should be compassionate and open to people having the freedom to believe what they believe in and contest opinions without receiving hurtful comments from those who object. I'm not saying the creationists are perfect, but this is online bullying just because some people don't believe in evolution.
Peace.
(and love and compassion and understanding)
Thursday 8 January 2015
Take Me To Church
Well hello Hozier
Ok first of all, I'd just like to say I love the Amen bit. Like top notch dude.
And I am peeing myself with laughter as everytime I google this song, it gives me names of churches nearby so I can literally take myself to church.
And I do like the song as a whole, it tells a very emotional story about lust (I wouldn't say love because lover seems like 'no strings attached' these days rather than 'wife' but how am I to know what kind of woman you are talking about)
And it's catchy. I've heard it heaps of times.
But would I buy it? Well not anymore.
At first I respected the song. Yeah it seemed anti-religious but so is my music teacher making us sing Hallelujah for the school's Easter Assembly (what?) while whispering how much he hates religious assemblies under his breath as he plays accompaniment on piano
Wait I haven't proved anything.
Well the honest truth is that I didn't find it anti-religious at first.
He's singing about how he's left church to worship a woman. It's a story, not a worship song and as many stories are, it's not in line with worshipping God and not every song has to be a worship song. No crime done.
It's a story just like any story I'd pick up off the shelf. And no one has ever had a problem with novels similar to this story a.k.a romance novels. That's what a story is. Man's struggle, man's temptation and what not. Just a tale. A lyrically beautiful one.
And there's nothing wrong with 'paying respect' to a women's body. Sex is all good in the hood with the church. The bible proclaims it repeatedly and how else would you have a child. Would every child be a product of sin? Then God should've never told us to 'be fruitful and multiply.'
So initially, I never opposed Hozier's song.
But then I wiki'd it like 'yo, I wonder what his intentions are because I feel something just don't feel right about dis song.' Why is blogger not underlining 'dis' with the red squiggly line? This is not a real word. You know that right blogger?....blogger stop underlining the word blogger, it's the name of your own site.
And unfortunately I got the answer I wanted.
"Sexuality, and sexual orientation - regardless of orientation - is just natural. An act of sex is one of the most human things. But an organization like the church, say, through its doctrine, would undermine humanity by successfully teaching shame about sexual orientation - that it is sinful, or that it offends God. The song is about asserting yourself and reclaiming your humanity through an act of love." -Hozier
So let's clear up a few things.
"Sexuality, and sexual orientation - regardless of orientation - is just natural. An act of sex is one of the most human things."
I wouldn't disagree with that. I don't think there is anything in the Bible that says it's not natural...
"But an organization like the church, say, through its doctrine, would undermine humanity by successfully teaching shame about sexual orientation - that it is sinful, or that it offends God."
Your song has no mention of homosexuality at all, which I assume is the sexual orientation you are talking about. What's this got to do with anything? You are a man singing about a woman. That's heterosexual. If it wasn't for the music video, there'd be no homosexuality. This isn't a gay anthem at all.
"The song is about asserting yourself and reclaiming your humanity through an act of love."
Yeah, it's natural yo. Not opposing this.
But then this song worships sex. It places wayyy too much importance on a culture that is not as accepting as you think. The idea that you're not mature or human til you indulge in sex is ridiculous. Sex is seen as one of the biggest goals in life. So if a person doesn't sleep with someone, there is a stigma that they are immature, unattractive and it's something they should be ashamed of (don't tell me you've never heard ''really? you're still a virgin'' or ''really? You guys didn't sleep together?'').
How is that a good thing to be emphasising in song?
Seriously Hozier. Do you want to be shoved into a category with people like this?
So I know this was meant to be a really protest-y song but to be honest, I find no offense and I actually like the tune.
But because it seems you want to create an argument and offense to religion specifically Christianity (because we'd be talking about Saturday not Sunday if it was for the Jews and so forth) I will not purchase your song or support it.
I feel this is the reaction you want. Well all reactions would be beneficial to you.
C'mon Hozier. Why it gotta be like this?
I say this out of love. As you know, I am a fellow church goer just like you oh wait no that's not what this song is about.
Ok first of all, I'd just like to say I love the Amen bit. Like top notch dude.
And I am peeing myself with laughter as everytime I google this song, it gives me names of churches nearby so I can literally take myself to church.
And I do like the song as a whole, it tells a very emotional story about lust (I wouldn't say love because lover seems like 'no strings attached' these days rather than 'wife' but how am I to know what kind of woman you are talking about)
And it's catchy. I've heard it heaps of times.
But would I buy it? Well not anymore.
At first I respected the song. Yeah it seemed anti-religious but so is my music teacher making us sing Hallelujah for the school's Easter Assembly (what?) while whispering how much he hates religious assemblies under his breath as he plays accompaniment on piano
Wait I haven't proved anything.
Well the honest truth is that I didn't find it anti-religious at first.
He's singing about how he's left church to worship a woman. It's a story, not a worship song and as many stories are, it's not in line with worshipping God and not every song has to be a worship song. No crime done.
It's a story just like any story I'd pick up off the shelf. And no one has ever had a problem with novels similar to this story a.k.a romance novels. That's what a story is. Man's struggle, man's temptation and what not. Just a tale. A lyrically beautiful one.
And there's nothing wrong with 'paying respect' to a women's body. Sex is all good in the hood with the church. The bible proclaims it repeatedly and how else would you have a child. Would every child be a product of sin? Then God should've never told us to 'be fruitful and multiply.'
So initially, I never opposed Hozier's song.
But then I wiki'd it like 'yo, I wonder what his intentions are because I feel something just don't feel right about dis song.' Why is blogger not underlining 'dis' with the red squiggly line? This is not a real word. You know that right blogger?....blogger stop underlining the word blogger, it's the name of your own site.
And unfortunately I got the answer I wanted.
"Sexuality, and sexual orientation - regardless of orientation - is just natural. An act of sex is one of the most human things. But an organization like the church, say, through its doctrine, would undermine humanity by successfully teaching shame about sexual orientation - that it is sinful, or that it offends God. The song is about asserting yourself and reclaiming your humanity through an act of love." -Hozier
So let's clear up a few things.
"Sexuality, and sexual orientation - regardless of orientation - is just natural. An act of sex is one of the most human things."
I wouldn't disagree with that. I don't think there is anything in the Bible that says it's not natural...
"But an organization like the church, say, through its doctrine, would undermine humanity by successfully teaching shame about sexual orientation - that it is sinful, or that it offends God."
Your song has no mention of homosexuality at all, which I assume is the sexual orientation you are talking about. What's this got to do with anything? You are a man singing about a woman. That's heterosexual. If it wasn't for the music video, there'd be no homosexuality. This isn't a gay anthem at all.
"The song is about asserting yourself and reclaiming your humanity through an act of love."
Yeah, it's natural yo. Not opposing this.
But then this song worships sex. It places wayyy too much importance on a culture that is not as accepting as you think. The idea that you're not mature or human til you indulge in sex is ridiculous. Sex is seen as one of the biggest goals in life. So if a person doesn't sleep with someone, there is a stigma that they are immature, unattractive and it's something they should be ashamed of (don't tell me you've never heard ''really? you're still a virgin'' or ''really? You guys didn't sleep together?'').
How is that a good thing to be emphasising in song?
Seriously Hozier. Do you want to be shoved into a category with people like this?
Why is this even a question? Don't tell them?
Is this real life? How superficial.
Lolo Jones, you are queen bee my love.
Ignore the shallow haters.
So I know this was meant to be a really protest-y song but to be honest, I find no offense and I actually like the tune.
But because it seems you want to create an argument and offense to religion specifically Christianity (because we'd be talking about Saturday not Sunday if it was for the Jews and so forth) I will not purchase your song or support it.
I feel this is the reaction you want. Well all reactions would be beneficial to you.
C'mon Hozier. Why it gotta be like this?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)