All we have is time and yet I feel I have none

I have more to say but I just have had me hands full. I about half way into Intecessor. Reese Howell is intense. I mean he gives it all up (so far). I give you my full review when its done.

Sex and the Sin City

I don't think the Bible says much especially since most Kings had many wives. You're talking a modern day interpretation. Paul says be the husband of one wife but he also says if she's not considering being a Christian let her go, even if she's your wife. Does he mean you can't then find a wife who is into Jesus, I don't know and I don't think he says. But if you're already married then it's not likely you're going to become celebate just because your spouse isn't into Jesus.

I think the hangup on marriage is a carry over from the Roman Catholic church. You referenced a name earlier and I believe it was Thomas Aquinas (St.) you were referring to. He is basically the father of Roman Catholic doctrine. He wrote a tomb called Summa Theologica. I've read parts of it but certainly not the whole thing. The RC church holds to seven sacraments, marriage being one of them. The protestant church doesn't acknowledge them the same way and doesn't technically call them sacraments. Both/all churches use them as a form of power mongering. Luther (Martin) says there is no biblical support for holding marriage as a sacrament. So the weight of marriage is pretty much tradition and power thieves as support. Obvious Adam and Eve were married through "knowing" one another. And pretty much everyone else for a fairly long time. And while I think the marriage is ceremony has some merits, particularly in the public witness of intentions, I think it is intercourse the makes you "one". And not one in a way that does anything majorly to either soul. I don't know what it means and I don't think if one spouse is going to heaven then other will also, contrary to Dave's teaching. I don't see biblical support for it and I think soul preparation for heaven is necessary or you just won't want to go. (ala The Great Divorce) If one is ready and the other is not, well . . . that's tough. There's no way there's automatic bys through marriage. So in the end I don't hold much weight to marriage although I believe society would disintegrate without it. Thomas Aquinas mixed Arisotilean reason with Christianity and came up with a load of crap that the RC Church is founded on. I think there are loads of carry overs everywhere but nothing supported by the bible itself.

I think you do filter out the evil of what's coming at you. All day, everyday. If you need to watch Sin City to get a rise I suspect there's more evil than you know. There's too much evil for me and I think the pressure on my chest is simply the constant strain of seeing it everywhere. So I know it affects my body but I trust my soul is going to stay untouched by him keeping me. There is definitely a war going on and the world keeps getting blacker. There's very little I see these days that does not constitute a direct attack on Jesus and his message. Politics is just a front to destroy Christianity, as is Science. Satan truly rules the world in a very practical sense.

The people in the porn industry don't see their "job" as having sex. They rarely, if ever, kiss and as you've said it's pretty much robotic. The don't associate the activity with an intimate relation, in fact there's little relationship at all. When they're done many of them go home to real relationships where all the normal rules apply. In my mind they're not a lot different than doctors who perform abortions. (over 1 million in the U.S. per year) They think there is nothing wrong with what they do and they are highly intelligent trained professionals. They go into their job and break a hole in the babies skull and suck his brains out so the mother won't be inconvenienced. Then they go home to their wives and families and relate as though nothing's up. At least the porn industry isn't murdering infants, not that it should be defended. It's all relative and all shit.

Regarding the sermon preparation thing. I meant those who preach. Treat the passage like they do other more convenient passages. It would cost them to stand up in front of their members and preach what comes from their heart, new and unique every second. Wait on the Holy Spirit to fill your soul with a message that convicts. Come down on it means treat the words as they are meant. Don't turn, avoid, bend, twist, confute etc. He says don't think before what to say. If you don't do that when you're dragged in front of Kings you should have zero issues when you're talking to your Christian brothers and sisters.

I didn't say the girls were asking for it. I never said they wanted to get laid. I didn't even say it was a sex party. A clump of Kristen's hair was found in the parking lot where she was abducted so obviously she was fighting for her life. I don't have a personal revulsion towards rapists and torturers. Evil revolts me, in all it's forms. I find I'm more indignant about those who carry a religious mantle because they posture themselves as representatives of something better. The rest are simply Satan's minions. Those with spiritual authority will truly be judged by a different measure and that will be far more severe than those who are totally lost.

My only statement about the Bernardo thing was that the records said she called him master like 100 times. While I think it makes more sense to do this than have you're throat slit I also wonder, what psychology was going on in her head. Many have wondered why the Jews didn't just all revolt at once rather than walk, like penguins, into the gas chambers. You still make choices in those situations with what you have left in your control. Richard Wurmbrand spent 14 yrs in Communist prisons and was repeatedly tortured yet he never renounced his faith. He would not say what they painfully demanded he say because then he would truly be dead. That's the context of my discussions. For Bernardo/Halmoka a sick sex party is a certainly an apt description and Dave never specified who he was referring to nor was he asked what he meant. He was immediately verbally accosted. What Dave's complete view of that scene is I don't know, it's between him and Jesus. I do know what Dave is like and he's not the evil person this statement is twisted to imply he would have to be. It's simply not who he is. Those who would judge his life by this simply don't know him or cannot see through the fog of their own issues - in my opinion.

I too relish the opportunity to discuss many thing which have so few forums. Hopefully I can match Sin City in it's capacity to up the ante.

P.S. I can't cut and paste out of this page as I type it. I can highlight something but can't copy it because it de-selects it as soon as I click anywhere. I can cut from elsewhere and paste here. If I type the post in this blog box and want to save it in a word document I don't see how to do that. I can do the reverse though.

Questions?

It's interesting you think sex and marriage are almost the same. I like the sound of that solid answer; no doubts or confusion. It would be easier for me to just agree but I don't know where in scripture it says you can only lay with one and then you are betrothed for life. Is that an opinion formed from a collection of numerous verses?

Second, I never said I could filter out the evil of Sin City. I made the argument that I am desensitized to the sex and violence in that movie and that I should probably be more sensitive and shocked by such a movie. I don't think either of us filter out what we see. It has an effect on us. I don't think you can deny that.

(Hey, I just cut and pasted this. Probably because I have no firewalls or something like that) "great example - preparing/editing a sermon. That kind of stuff scares the crap out of me because you're making a blatant statement about the Holy Spirit's place in your life. To come down on it would cost most people. And it would cost a lot."
What do you mean by come down on it? Do mean coming down on the person writing the sermon or me coming down on someone who is telling me to edit it? Are you saying it would cost me to say, "Screw off, this is what I think and I'm sticking to it"?

Okay, so you got my gist from a few sentences about the Bernardo case and Dave's quote. Goes to show that brevity can go a long way. I'm still not completely sure what the context is? I understand the insignificance of the crime. The pope's most sacrificial and virtuistic acts are still just dirty rags; we're all sinful beyond our understanding,I just don't get "sex party". I believe you once said that the girls were asking for it, something like, "what were they doing talking with Bernardo. They wanted to get laid." Tell me if my memory doesn't serve but that's the context I remember it in. Is this to say that because we're all sinful we deserve no less then a similar death.

That got me thinking here . . .

That fucking sucks. I feel like we're better than that and that we deserve better then that. I know we don't deserve anything but to be created to experience what those girls experienced, what countless sexaully abused children experience. Isn't it better to not be created at all. I have a personal revulsion toward rapists and torturers as I am sure many do. I wish God would would just drop them dead as he did with Ananias and Sapphira

I still think calling it a party is insensitive, disgusting and perverted. But if my understanding is still out in left field please enlighten me.

I'm glad I can talk openly with you. I don't feel comfortable sharing a tenth of what I really feel about people out here. Just a tenth of what I think shuts them down.

Do not say: 'Who will ascend into heaven or who will descend into the abyss' Rom 10

I responded to your post but it wouldn't go through at work. It also wouldn't let me cut and paste it later. So I had to do some screen grabs, save as an image, then email home and retype. I'm not sure why Blogger won't let you cut/copy what you've typed. Whatever, so here we go with a retype . . . .

I don't distinguish between sex and marriage, well hardly. I think the modern day service is exactly that, modern day with little eternal significance. They still acknowledge the sex act as the consumation of the marriage. I think if you have sex with someone you become one, you "know" the person and therefore are "married". The service or registering at city hall are not what creates the union. How that fits with prostitutes who would be technically one with 1000's of Johns, I don't know. And you have to throw in Solomon's 300 wives and double that in concubines. If it was okay for Solomon then why nokay now? A good basis for polygamy if you were a Mormon and wanted to go there. Does God care much about any of this stuff? relatively speaking of course. As I said, David did something truly abhorent, but ends up with Bathsheba and then Solomon and then the lineage that goes on to Christ's birth.

As for porn, there are varying degrees. Many would consider Sin City to contain porn. Not surprising considering the title and the type of sadistic violence would constitute another form of sinful behaviour. What values does the movie promote? Nudity, callous violence, table dancing, slaughter, demonic imagery etc. Doesn't this present a "false example" of how life is supposed to be? Who's to say when and who can't filter out the evil. This "filtering" is happening daily on every front. The capability level is dependant on the faith of the beholder. So you can filter the evil out of Sin City but I cannot from a picture of a naked women? Riiiight.

Many Christian's like to categorize everything so they can feel comfortable in this life. In the process they always throw the baby out with the bathwater. When you get a chance to peak under the hood for consistency it's not there, at least not what I call consistency. The only thing that is consistent is that there's no cost to what they do. So they criticise what's easy to criticise and avoid what would cost them. And cost is different for each person. But that's where Jesus wants us to cut the ties and bind to him. So I'm very careful about who I criticise and why. I need to know the person very well before I can make a contextually accurate judgement. Not that I think it takes long to get to know someone well.

My judgement of the church is much stronger than the world, since the world is lost and clueless about what they're doing, while Christians are supposed to know what's up. And the thing we talked about is a great example - preparing/editing a sermon. That kind of stuff scares the crap out of me because you're making a blatant statement about the Holy Spirit's place in your life. To come down on it would cost most people. And it would cost a lot. But that's what it's all about, that's the scary shit that makes you stick to Christ. It's easy to go on preparing sermons, most people expect it, and go on criticising smokers and porn and abortions and whatever else is acceptable to criticise in the Christian community. But do something that's biblically solid, makes total spiritual sense and is exactly what Jesus himself did and told us to do. Fuck that, because I might look stupid. I wouldn't want to explain that when I meet him.

The Mahaffey/French thing is all about contexts. And it was mom grasping after a just world that couldn't handle a potentially kingdom perspective. Mom's Jesus is just that, mom's Jesus. It hasn't been her discipline to question her views against other information to validate who Jesus is. The real guy can look brutal (food meant for children isn't going to the dogs etc.) but it's actually love. God is love but he also walked millions of people around in the desert for 40 years until they were all dead. People simply ignore the hurtful passages and mold a Jesus into their parents likeness. Dave's comment (intended to be between me and him) was not meant to be a summary of the entire event but rather an appendage to one aspect of it. Since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God that's the bucket they were all in, regardless of their relative 10 commandment goodness which is all shit in relation to Christ. Start there and I'll listen to comments regarding his statement, but nobody starts there. They won't and/or can't. Thus the constant view that I am pessimistic about the state of mankind. I'm hopeful but not naive. Satan rules the earth through slavery, total and complete. If you die you can escape - the only way. And this perspective was an ever strengthening reality that was the living background to our conversations. So the "sex party" was an insignificant example of the world's depravity which occurs every second of every day in every corner of the earth and it was given the single sentence it deserved. The problem lies elsewhere.

Bone of my Bone, Flesh of my Flesh

Doesn't that title come across quite self centered. Adam was only happy if he got someone just like him. There are worlds of differences, I know, but there are like, many more worlds between us and animals.

There's been a number of possible discussions that have traversed through my head in the last 48 hrs that kinda made me think that they belong here. I think I should write a list so that this blog doesn't seccumb to net dust.

I've been thinking for a while, maybe months, that I don't see exactly why we have to wait for marriage before we have sex. Scripturally I don't see it either. In fact my motivation to remain chaste comes more from life experience than anything else. Scripturally the OT doesn't say much. Adultery is having sex with married or betrothed woman. Sexual immorality comes from Leviticus and that refers to people related to you, homosexuality, and beastiality. Stronger cases can be made in the NT. Jesus says that lusting in your mind is adultery. New concept but again we're dealing with adultery which isn't a problem as long as the girls not getting married anytime soon. I know the prophets expanded on the word adultry to mean a breaking of union with God, "you adulterous generation" and so forth but I still don't think that me having sex with some young maiden breaks any forged unions. Paul digs a little deeper in Cor 1. Chp. 7 (Of which I'm sure you've read a hundred times). Yet even here he says it's based on his own authority and not the Lord's. And after just rereading it I'm not sure it is concise. Some people have gifts to be celebate and some don't. He says if you can't control yourself than you should marry. Can't control what? Can't control my God given hormones and libido or can't control a perverse drive to sleep with my relatives. (I imagine if you had homosexual or beastial drives getting married wouldn't help???) Either way I think the whole can't control yourself is vague. Also, do men ever get refered to as virgins? Is that just assumed in the verse below or is the virgin requirement not required of men?

Cor 1 - 7:28 But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you. (KJV)

I know that the general concesus in Christian circles is that you shouldn't have sex before you get married. I remember you saying it once to me when I was in my teens. Maybe this verse is the corner stone for that stance. I don't know. I have a friend who's in the process of getting his masters at trinity and he said that it was a book by Aquinos? or maybe Augustus? that laid the theology for virgin marriage and chastity among Catholic clergy.

Not done yet . . . for now I'd rather error on the side of chastity. I know the diffrence between looking at a woman with curiosity, and awe and looking at one with lust. I know what you mean when you say you can watch pornography and not lust after the girls (I find most porn crude and mechanical) but I think the desire to watch porn is lust. You may not fantasize in your mind of putting yourself in a sexual situation with the pornstar but your desire is to be watching intercourse between two other people. Sex is something that should be done between two people in private. Two become one. When you watch porn you are learning a false example of how sex is supposed to be. It has no relation with what God wants our sex life to be like and I don't believe we can filter out the evil.

People at my church are surprised that I like Sin City. It's fantasy, I know that, I can discern but if i was born in 1940 I think it would sicken me (I don't know) but I'm pretty sure I can only enjoy that movie because of this generations desensitization to sex and violence. In fact I need a movie like Sin City to up the ante just a little more to get a rise out of me, to make it interesting. I think the same goes for pornography. If I watch porn I'll get bored of a normal sex life much faster than the regular progression. I'll need greater and stronger stimulus, often found quick with ease in sin rather than the narrow loving path of God.

I think the context in which pornogrphy is made is immoral. They are being paid to have sex. I see this as prostitution. I don't care if they are willing and even if they love it and get off knowing many people will watch it I still think it's wrong. I don't want to support that in anyway. I don't believe they are really happy or else they have a really low understanding of what happiness is.

Kind of went two diffrent directions here huh? I don't think they contradict each other though and they're obviously of a similar theme. Big difference is that the second opinion would be sanctioned by the church and the first would be opposed but that's how I feel.

NEXT WEEK: Why Mahaffy and French weren't involed in a big sex PARTY, why that grasping after a just world philosophy is poor theology, and why mom had every right to hate Dave Ward for saying it.