Are legal standards to be determined by the individual?

Legal standards are not limited to the determination and interpretation of each individual. In fact, that very statement is absurd. Humans are fallen beings so their interpretations of laws are bound to be faulty, as well. For example, many people today are claiming that under the First Amendment, abortion and gay marriage should be legal. However, as Christians, these two “rights” go against God’s word and His superior laws. Further, two individuals can see the same thing and interpret it very differently. Like two people who see the very same car accident often give diverse reports. How then can any individual’s interpretation of a specific law be held the determination for legal standards?

Even our government has a checks and balance system in order to keep from one individual’s ideas to become the legal standards. Also, everyone is accountable to a higher law. For example, a man may claim the first amendment gives him right to rape children for “his religion.” Thank goodness this is not the case! There are absolute rules despite how people try to demolish this idea of “absolute.” In addition, all people universally agree on certain stand points. If a person’s child was kidnapped, he would claim this is “unfair” or “wrong.” It does not matter if the kidnapper as an individual determined it was “okay,” what he did was wrong. This leads to the conclusion that ultimately every individual is held accountable to a SUPREME law that could only be created by a Supreme Being.

Are Government's the ultimate authority for creating laws??

Government's are made up of humans--fallen beings. How can they be held responsible for creating the ultimate laws? From my Christian perspective, I know that God is the ultimate authority for creating law. Since man is sinful, he cannot even uphold the law, let alone be the ultimate law maker. The very fact man is sinful though makes it necessary that he is accountable for his actions here on earth. As John Locke stated, "Man is entitled to life, liberty, and property" within a true Democracy. Therefore, the government of a Democracy must make laws which enable man to keep that which he is entitled to. So while the government is accountable to its people (and God, though that part is often ignored) to make laws which preserve their rights, they are not the ultimate authority. Though Hitler declared it law to kill Jews, Nazi's after WWII were still convicted in trials despite the fact their government made it "a law." Just because a government makes a law, it does not necessarily make it correct. Further, back in early colonial American history, when African Americans could legally not vote, was that ultimately right? Obviously not! Likewise, how would laws be made if there was not a higher standard? How would our founding fathers just randomly come up with the idea of "freedom for all"? A higher being must have created ultimate laws because despite what the "government" may say, I know that killing innocent people, such as the Jews in WWII is wrong.

How should Christians respond to feminism?

Feminism is the current trend sweeping the nation of America. Unfortunately, unlike other "bigger" issues, Feminism is often ignored and not talked about in churches--in fact, women preachers is a growing trend, too. I think Christians should respond to Feminism by speaking truth against it and calling it what it really is. Feminism is essentially idoltry. It is saying to the Creator of the Universe, "I do not like the role you gave me, so I'm going to do soemthing different." Feminism is a woman making herself God--thinking she knows what it best for her.
When God created Adam and Eve, He made them both in His image and with the same big picture purpose on life. However, He made them to carry out their jobs differently so as to most utilize their unique dreams and abilities. God made man to be "little king." (Gen. 2) He created within His nature a sense of leadership and "Warrior Spirit" different from what is within women. So when a women tries to be "the leader," she is taking away from the man's role! Not only is she affecting her own life, but Feminism is hurting the men all around, too. Therefore, Feminism is extremely selfish. It's not only denying God his perfect character, but it is also stealing from men what God rightfully ordained as theirs.
Further, Feminism does NOT bring satisfaction. Christians need to declare this truth loudly. So many women pursue a "Feministic" lifestyle because either 1. They are sick of being hurt by boys (yes, hurt) or 2. They think it bring them fulfillment. For number one, though Feminist's will adamently deny this, it is true. Men have hurt them so they want to take control. It's never truly because they feel "oppressed" or they are immune to what men think--no, it is simply because at some point or another they have been HURT by men. This can be solved by simply by "where are you as a woman placing your priorities?" Hurt is often caused by placing too much value on a person. No one's opinion should rule your life but Jesus Christ. Therefore, Feminism is not freeing women from men, it is proving simply how chained they are to them and how they have allowed their opinion or harrasment to change them. For the second reason, it is much more simple. ONLY JESUS CAN BRING FULFILLMENT. This goes for everything, but especially in the case of Feminism. Christians are often to eager to ignore the Feminism movement or condemn it, but what they really need to do is respond in LOVE--pointing out the lies of Feminism by shedding the truth of the Bible on it.

Pride and Prejudice

A major theme evident within the story of Pride and Prejudice is that outward first impressions do not always accurately portray a person's true inner character. For example, when Mr. Darcy first comes to Pemberly, all the people find him disagreable and therefore write him off as arrogant and prideful. Likewise, Elizabeth hears this conceit when Darcy suggests to his friend, she is "not handsome enough to tempt [him] to dance." From this point on, Elizabeth only sees his overwhelming pride and uses it to judge every action he makes--never able to see past her first impression of him. It is obvious since Mr. Darcy in actuality hurt Elizabeth's own pride, this is why she judges him so severely. Further, when Lizzy first meets Wickham, she finds him to be "charming." Therefore, whatever he says, she instantly believes due to "truth in his face." All the words used to describe Wickham are merely physical. He is "charming" and has a "truthful face," however, this shows nothing about himself. Elizabeth allows this first "impression" to conceal the truth of his true identity to her--which is VERY different than what she initially perceives. His immediate attention to Elizabeth evidently causes her to flatter herself and fall prey to his lies. In the end, all the characters end up differently than first portrayed. Elizabeth who originally "cannot tempt Darcy" becomes the apple of his eye. Elizabeth who "detests Darcy's pride" has the opportunity to experience Darcy's charity firsthand. And Darcy who Elizabeth at first finds "charming" and a "true gentleman" ends up being a selfish rogue who nearly ruins Elizabeth's entire family by scandalously running away with her sister.

The Ideal Reader should understand this to be taken very literally--people are not always how they appear and first impressions are not always accurate. It also displays how each human has a bias which gets in the way of everything they do. Since Darcy first injures Elizabeth's pride, until his letter, she is unable to find good in what he does. Likewise, since Elizabeth takes an initial liking to Wickham, she readily believes his horrendous lies against Darcy. This signifies another theme within the story on different perspectives. Everyone sees things differently. Each character has a different angle to offer of a situation and the same is true in life. Even the reader's own opinion is a subjective view of what he thinks. The reader should see this "individual" theme throughout the story, as well as find it applicable to their own lives. Before judging a person too quickly, he research and really get to know the person-- and even then, judging people is ridiculous and immature. Universally it is apparent within Pride and Prejudice that every individual has a subjective view, but this view is limited. Like when Elizabeth is touring Pemberly, she has the epiphony that looking through the different windows she sees the same yard but with a "different perspective." That is a very literal theme within Pride and Prejudice.

I agree with the theme that first impressions are not always accurate and people are not always as they appear--I've experienced different situations of these within my own life. Because of this truth, I strive not to judge others and give people the benefit of the doubt. However, I also recognize I am very opionated person, which ironically, Austen also seems to support. Within her story, Mr Collins is who Mr. Collins appears to be. And no one is condemned for mocking him. While this seems contradictory to Austen's overall theme, it seems in the case of Mr. Collins, that no one is perfect-- no one realistically can go through life without getting annoyed or rightfully judging someone (unless you're Jane maybe...(: ). As sad as that sounds, it is true. While I definitely do not want to use this as an accuse for mocking others if they're "annoying", it's more just a relief to know that I'm not alone in WAY missing my "perfectly never judging others ideal Christina". (: While everyone reads this story and wants to be Elizabeth, I wish I was more like Jane. I wish I never had rude thoughts about others or disliked those who merely "hurt my pride." But I am not Jane, and that's the beauty of Austen emphasizing the importance of individuality, too. It's not about being perfect. It's not about expecting others to be perfect or condemning for their inadequacies. It's about everyone being themselves and accepting others for who they are. (In the case of a nonbeliever, "accepting" them in the sense of unconditionally loving them, and loving them SO much as to not leave them in the dark, but to share the light of Jesus with him.) (:

Does Bible teach "homophobia" and "sexism" ?

Every thing  and anything can be taken out of context or distorted. The Bible is often subject to this happening. The Bible no where teaches sexist behavior or homophobia. When people see this happening, it is only cause of the sinful human being misrepresenting. A recent example of this is the "Christians" boycotting soldiers funerals--that is NOT Biblical by any means. Likewise, I feel the same way about Christian homophobes and Christians' who are sexist! That is NOT Biblical by any means!
The Bible clearly teaches to do EVERYTHING with a pure heart and out of love. Putting a certain gender down or being scared of people is NOT displaying this. As for homophobia-- this Bible states marriage is to be for one man and one woman, and he even says that woman essentially "completes him." It also talks about how two men acting sexual is "abnormal and corrupted" and makes him angry like shown in Sodom and Gomorrah. However, no where in the Bible does it say to criticize them or "be scared of them" or put them down. No it talks about how when a brother is sinning-- go to them in love! Another human issue which gets in the way is the "rating" of sin. Christians will say "homosexuality" is one of the worst sins when in reality it is no different in the eyes of the Holy God than using His name in vain or occasional stealing. If anything, the Bible does NOT teach this because it clearly reveals all sins are equal. It is human fallenness which rates them and therefore builds their own prejudice.
As for the issue of sexist being taught in the Bible-- that is outrageously absord. As I said earlier, Eve literally "completes" Adam. On earth, male and females have the same general roles! They just do them differently. And both very clearly are made in God's image-- it's just differently. Who is to say that one sex is better than the other then? Or how does God's word display that? It's once again human's misunderstanding and verses taken out of context which leave people believing this lie. People associate different as one better than the other which could not be farther from the truth. While males and females clearly have different roles in a relationship, they complete each other very nicely that way. God knows our innermost hearts-- he created them! And He knows what we want most-- deep down. So wouldn't you trust the different roles He made are to bring the most happiness and satisfaction? The same applies to His view on homosexuality. God loves man so much He does not want any of them to live these corrupt lives which leave people empty. I fail to see how this love can in any way equate to hatred that so many ignorant Christians seem to teach, which in turns gives a false reputation to the Creator.