Law #2

Of course legal standards are NOT up to the interpretation of the individual. From a Christian perspective, we are sinful beings, so if we were to determine the law, it would be flawed since we ourselves are flawed. Also, there would be no need to have laws since each person could interpret them differently to benefit themselves. Obviously since people instinctively don't desire to be in trouble with the law, whenever somebody would break it, they would claim they interpreted it differently and would not be accused. I think the interpretation comes in when determining a punishment for breaking the law, but not what the law actually is.
Then there is also the complication of God's law versus man's law. God's laws are never up to our own interpretation because he clearly tells us what to do through scripture.On the other hand, as a Christian we do need to interpret man's law in order to see if it lines up with God's law. Without this step, we would just obey what society tells us even though it is wrong.
Depending on your worldview and for what purpose you interpret laws, it varies on if it is the right things to do. In our world today, generally it is not okay for for man to interpret and determine laws since they would be doing it for their own selfish purposes.

Law

Sarah's worldview influences her view of society's rules. Rules can be created by the individual, the culture or government, or by a divine authority. Since I am a Christian, I believe that God has the ultimate authority over anything and therefore creates all laws. Of course, the government enforces the laws of human nature, but Christians are held to a higher standard of laws that God creates. From the beginning, God created rules for Adam and Eve in order for them to do what was best, and that's idea is still evident today. He also created consequences for sin so that our world wouldn't fall into complete disorder.
But it is important to remember that God tells us to obey other authority over us, so in effect we must obey the government, but we must test what the government says to what Scripture says because God has ultimate authority over everything. So when the government's laws or society's laws collide with God's laws, we no longer have to abide by the laws that contradict with God's. Laws for society should coincide with God's laws and are meant to be good.

Feminism

 In our society today, there are so many preconceived notions of what roles males and females should adhere to, but according to God they have different roles. In Genesis, Eve is describes as Adam's "helper" or "completer" or "warrior". This is evident in the sense that women are generally more compassionate, caring, and loving not just towards everyone, but specifically their children and husband. Which varies from men who display strength and courage. Specifically in Genesis 3:16 is says a woman's desire will be for her husband, yet her husband will rule over her. This desire makes women more vulnerable to men and relationships with them because women are innately so caring.
Other worldviews deem the idea that a husband is to rule over his wife as ridiculous and unacceptable. This is why today, there are so many feminists that believe men and women should be equal in everything they do. For instance, in the workplace they should have equal opportunities and pay, yet in a woman's nature is not for her to go to the workplace, but instead use the loving nature God blessed her with to be with her children and nurture and help them grow; that is where a woman is more likely to excel. Feminists place too much value in being equal to men, rather than using their innate abilities and gifts to bless others around them.

Love...Status...Money...Marriage?

“It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife” (Austen 1). This is the first sentence within Pride and Prejudice, which was spoken by Mrs. Bennett, the supposed loving mother who wanted what was ‘best’ for her daughters. She constantly was auctioning them off to be married to the richest and most handsome man. During the 1800’s, women were expected to marry as rich as they could in order to elevate their social status. Status meant everything to most women, so therefore marriage was just another way of achieving their goal. But Elizabeth Bennett defied these standards set forth for women; she only desired to marry for love. After having a quick romance with Wickham and after rejecting Mr. Collins proposal, Elizabeth finally found true love with Mr. Darcy. She ignored the high social status and money of Mr. Collins because she did not love him. She also didn’t even consider how poor Wickham was while she was courting him. Mrs. Bennett did not approve of any of these things that Elizabeth did though. She warned Elizabeth that if she did not accept Mr. Collin’s proposal that she would never see her again; that is how strongly she felt about marrying into a higher class. She even admitted that “the marriage of a daughter” was “the first object of her wishes” (Austen 198). Since Mrs. Bennett married for lust over anything else, she regrets her decision and only desires for her daughters to have the status and money that she never did have. Yet being a part of the gentry does not mean you will be happy. Mr. Darcy and Elizabeth serve as an example of what Jane Austen thought marriage should be like. They both married for love as opposed to lust or status. Even though at first they were both prejudice, but once they began to be acquainted with each other they discovered the real personality of the other and eventually fell in love. Elizabeth even denied Mr. Darcy when he first proposed to her because she did not feel the love for him. She then admitted that “she began now to comprehend that he was exactly the man, who, in disposition and talents, would most suit her” (Austen 199). She doesn’t even consider his wealth or social status as what attracts her to him. Furthermore, Jane and Bingley are also adequate examples of a real marriage and relationship. Even though at first Mrs. Bennett set them up because he was of the gentry, Jane fell in love and when he broke her heart she was devastated. After all the adversity, they ended up together because their love endured through everything. Elizabeth even admits that they had “a general similarity of feeling and taste between [each other]” (Austen 223). Their marriage wasn’t fake or based on false pretenses how most relationships were because women only desired to be of a higher social status.

Jane Austen’s presentation of the various types of marriages reveal that the ideal marriage is one founded on love instead of wealth or lust. Mr. Darcy and Elizabeth and Jane and Mr. Bingley completely contrast with Mr. and Mrs. Bingley, Lydia and Wickham, and Charlotte and Mr. Collins. Darcy and Bingley both have happy and caring marriages based on love. But the other three marriages are based on lust or social status and wealth and none of them appear genuinely happy. Through these couples, Austen clearly portrays her vision of what marriage should be.

I agree with everything that Austen was portraying about marriage in Pride and Prejudice. Love and a common understanding of one another is what a marriage should be more focused on. Austen does not include anything about God throughout the whole entire novel, yet that is also another important aspect for me in my relationships. The point of a relationship shouldn’t be to only please yourself or others, it should be to please God. Since God made us to be with a partner, we should glorify him through our relationships. I don’t disagree with any idea that Jane Austen presents within her novel, but I do think there is more to a marriage than just love.

Sexist and Homophobic??

Many Christians can tend to seem homophobic and/or sexist sometimes. This is contradictory to what the Bible teaches us to do. God has called us be their friends and help them from their position in life, not to break them down and criticize them.
Marriage is meant to be between a man and woman. Throughout Genesis, God makes this abundantly clear. Also, in Song of Solomon, the Bible describes the relationship  between a male and a female, which clarifies the point even further. Even though as a Christian, I do believe in marriage only between male and female, that does not grant me the authority to criticize others. Since we are meant to be a light unto the world, then we shouldn't be homophobic even if we don't agree.
Furthermore, Christians can sometimes be sexist, but not as often as they can be homophobic. Within my Christian community, I haven't sensed sexism ever. God gave each gender specific roles and abilities when he created them. Men and women were created equally in order to bear the image of God. Men are meant to be the responsible leader of the household, while women are meant to give life and be a warrior (completer and helper of man). Both have different roles, yet they are vital to one another in order to function. The church is not sexist, it just recognized the equally different roles given to men and women.

Sociology

I don't think the government should have the power to say what it taught in a home. In America, the idea of this country that it is a free country and we can choose to believe whatever we wish and be a part of any religion. As much as I would like the government to enforce Christian morals and values, it wouldn't be right to do that here in America.
The state is somewhat involved in parenting as it is now. For instance, if you sexually or physically abuse your kid, they're taken away. The government makes sure that children are safe and not in danger. This is completely right to do and I think it would be better if the state became even more involved in that. But when it comes to saying how much candy a kid can have or what they're curfew is, I think that is better left to the parent's discretion because it is their own child. If the government became that involved in parenting, it would turn into more of a communist country, and if you want to be a communist then that's fine. But for me personally, I think parenting should be left for the parents to do, not for the state. It's even evident in the word itself....parenting!