<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:series="http://unfoldingneurons.com/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Podcast #46: Ben and Rich are the Kids of Summer</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.christandpopculture.com/featured/podcast-46-ben-and-rich-are-the-kids-of-summer/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.christandpopculture.com/featured/podcast-46-ben-and-rich-are-the-kids-of-summer/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=podcast-46-ben-and-rich-are-the-kids-of-summer</link>
	<description>Where The Christian Faith Meets The Common Knowledge of Our Age</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 19:38:19 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: The Dane</title>
		<link>http://www.christandpopculture.com/featured/podcast-46-ben-and-rich-are-the-kids-of-summer/#comment-40936</link>
		<dc:creator>The Dane</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 May 2009 23:47:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.christandpopculture.com/?p=3551#comment-40936</guid>
		<description>&lt;b&gt;&quot;Rewards the opposite of Christian modesty&quot;?&lt;/b&gt;

Okay, first of all, to critique the objectification of the human form through beauty pageants is a worthwhile topic to cover, but seriously: when are we going to get away from the unbiblical idea that &lt;i&gt;biblical modesty&lt;/i&gt; has to do with wearing a bikini? Propriety, maybe. Modesty, no.

Biblically, modesty is not about how much of a person&#039;s flesh is on view at any given time. Instead the idea treats whether one presents oneself with pride or an absence of the stuff. Are you presenting yourself in a manner that calls undue attention to yourself, magnifying you above your brothers and sisters?

That&#039;s what biblical modesty concerns.

Now we, as a culture, may co-opt the term modesty to refer to a conservative style of dress, but we should never indulge the fantasy that that definition is the biblical definition. Doing so makes it all too easy to misunderstand Scripture to mean &quot;No bare legs, no cleavage, no two-piece bathing suits, no tank tops!&quot; when it says things like: &lt;i&gt;women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control&lt;/i&gt;.

&lt;abbr&gt;&lt;em&gt;The Danes last blog post..&lt;a href=&quot;http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/nowheresville/~3/YmyiWLQvxLo/2009_04_01_old1.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;20090417.teaParty&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/abbr&gt;&lt;/em&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><b>&#8220;Rewards the opposite of Christian modesty&#8221;?</b></p>
<p>Okay, first of all, to critique the objectification of the human form through beauty pageants is a worthwhile topic to cover, but seriously: when are we going to get away from the unbiblical idea that <i>biblical modesty</i> has to do with wearing a bikini? Propriety, maybe. Modesty, no.</p>
<p>Biblically, modesty is not about how much of a person&#8217;s flesh is on view at any given time. Instead the idea treats whether one presents oneself with pride or an absence of the stuff. Are you presenting yourself in a manner that calls undue attention to yourself, magnifying you above your brothers and sisters?</p>
<p>That&#8217;s what biblical modesty concerns.</p>
<p>Now we, as a culture, may co-opt the term modesty to refer to a conservative style of dress, but we should never indulge the fantasy that that definition is the biblical definition. Doing so makes it all too easy to misunderstand Scripture to mean &#8220;No bare legs, no cleavage, no two-piece bathing suits, no tank tops!&#8221; when it says things like: <i>women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control</i>.</p>
<p><abbr><em>The Danes last blog post..<a href="http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/nowheresville/~3/YmyiWLQvxLo/2009_04_01_old1.php" rel="nofollow">20090417.teaParty</a></em></abbr></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: The Dane</title>
		<link>http://www.christandpopculture.com/featured/podcast-46-ben-and-rich-are-the-kids-of-summer/#comment-40932</link>
		<dc:creator>The Dane</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 May 2009 23:26:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.christandpopculture.com/?p=3551#comment-40932</guid>
		<description>Best blockbusters? Tough call. 

Though it doesn&#039;t match your &quot;Summer Movie&quot; requirements (even though being released in June and July), the two movies I most associate with summer are the director&#039;s release of &lt;i&gt;Cinema Paradiso&lt;/i&gt; and Linklater&#039;s &lt;i&gt;Before Sunset&lt;/i&gt;.

1. &lt;i&gt;Die Hard&lt;/i&gt;
2. &lt;i&gt;Aliens&lt;/i&gt;
3. &lt;i&gt;Last of the Mohicans&lt;/i&gt;
4. &lt;i&gt;Spirited Away&lt;/i&gt;
5. &lt;i&gt;Empire Strikes Back&lt;/i&gt;
6. &lt;i&gt;Unforgiven&lt;/i&gt;
7. &lt;i&gt;The Bourne Identity&lt;/i&gt;
8. &lt;i&gt;12 Monkeys&lt;/i&gt;
9. &lt;i&gt;Terminator 2&lt;/i&gt;
10. &lt;i&gt;Star Wars&lt;/i&gt;
11. &lt;i&gt;Raiders of the Lost Ark&lt;/i&gt;
12. &lt;i&gt;Predator&lt;/i&gt;
13. &lt;i&gt;Jurassic Park&lt;/i&gt;
14. &lt;i&gt;The Dark Knight&lt;/i&gt;
15. &lt;i&gt;Independence Day&lt;/i&gt;

Most Disappointing Blockbuster is easier (to make it harder, I&#039;ll strip out sequels and put them in a separate category).
1. (with a bullet or twelve) &lt;i&gt;Transformers&lt;/i&gt;
2. &lt;i&gt;Wild Wild West&lt;/i&gt;
3. &lt;i&gt;Pearl Harbor&lt;/i&gt;
4. &lt;i&gt;Dungeons and Dragons&lt;/i&gt;
5. &lt;i&gt;A Bug&#039;s Life&lt;/i&gt;

So far as disappointing sequels go, these are mine.
1. &lt;i&gt;Pirates of the Caribbean 2&lt;/i&gt;
2. &lt;i&gt;Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom&lt;/i&gt;
3. &lt;i&gt;Speed 2&lt;/i&gt;
4. &lt;i&gt;Predator 2&lt;/i&gt;
5. &lt;i&gt;Batman Forever&lt;/i&gt;

&lt;abbr&gt;&lt;em&gt;The Danes last blog post..&lt;a href=&quot;http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/nowheresville/~3/YmyiWLQvxLo/2009_04_01_old1.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;20090417.teaParty&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/abbr&gt;&lt;/em&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Best blockbusters? Tough call. </p>
<p>Though it doesn&#8217;t match your &#8220;Summer Movie&#8221; requirements (even though being released in June and July), the two movies I most associate with summer are the director&#8217;s release of <i>Cinema Paradiso</i> and Linklater&#8217;s <i>Before Sunset</i>.</p>
<p>1. <i>Die Hard</i><br />
2. <i>Aliens</i><br />
3. <i>Last of the Mohicans</i><br />
4. <i>Spirited Away</i><br />
5. <i>Empire Strikes Back</i><br />
6. <i>Unforgiven</i><br />
7. <i>The Bourne Identity</i><br />
8. <i>12 Monkeys</i><br />
9. <i>Terminator 2</i><br />
10. <i>Star Wars</i><br />
11. <i>Raiders of the Lost Ark</i><br />
12. <i>Predator</i><br />
13. <i>Jurassic Park</i><br />
14. <i>The Dark Knight</i><br />
15. <i>Independence Day</i></p>
<p>Most Disappointing Blockbuster is easier (to make it harder, I&#8217;ll strip out sequels and put them in a separate category).<br />
1. (with a bullet or twelve) <i>Transformers</i><br />
2. <i>Wild Wild West</i><br />
3. <i>Pearl Harbor</i><br />
4. <i>Dungeons and Dragons</i><br />
5. <i>A Bug&#8217;s Life</i></p>
<p>So far as disappointing sequels go, these are mine.<br />
1. <i>Pirates of the Caribbean 2</i><br />
2. <i>Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom</i><br />
3. <i>Speed 2</i><br />
4. <i>Predator 2</i><br />
5. <i>Batman Forever</i></p>
<p><abbr><em>The Danes last blog post..<a href="http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/nowheresville/~3/YmyiWLQvxLo/2009_04_01_old1.php" rel="nofollow">20090417.teaParty</a></em></abbr></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

