Saturday, December 5, 2009

Stop Depriving One Another, except...

  Yes, there are some exceptions.

  The exceptions of the Karzai law were:

    1.   The husband may not refrain from having sex with his wife for greater than four months.
    2.   They may refrain from having sex if they are traveling.
    3.   The husband is not to impose on her if she is ill- or if such imposition would be harmful in any way.

  Now we know from the previous post at this blog- that the first exception is hugely unbalanced.  Four months versus four days? What was Karzai thinking?
  Perhaps he was thinking that the husband may be on military duty.  Or a pilgrimage to Mecca.  While women in Afghanistan are not compelled to do those duties. 

  This would tie in with the second exception as well.  If you call military duty "traveling".  Oh, the inconveniences of traveling.  Yet, I doubt if a honeymoon-suite at Niagara Falls would qualify for this exception.

  The final exception appears to be perfectly loving.  Even appearing to grant the wife a psychological defense.  But such a granting would be inconsistent as well as specious, now wouldn't it?

  Now, what exceptions does the Holy Spirit grant?

     1.  Mutual agreement.

  What?  That's all?  That's nothing!

  Now wait a minute, you say- 1 Cor. 7:5 grants an exception for "prayer".  Yes, by mutual agreement.  And I expect a weekend religious retreat would find Holy Spirit endorsement-  with mutual agreement.

  Well, what about "fasting"?  Yes, by mutual agreement.
And if you check the NET link on this verse, you will see that this exemption (which is included in the KJV and NKJV)- is probably another "ascetic addition".

 Also note that "fasting" is written in a different hand (and ink) in one of our oldest and finest manuscripts.  And written in the margin. 
  And as Philip Comfort says in NTT and TC, "Paul [as directed by the Holy Spirit] would probably not be calling for one form of abstinence- fasting- in the same passage where he is clearly speaking against sexual abstinence".

  Comfort also discounts the manuscripts used by the  KJV and NKJV for verse 3 of this chapter.  Saying that, "some translator or scribe tried to soften Paul's command that a husband had an obligation to satisfy his wife sexually".

  Well, what if he felt an obligation to serve his country rather than his wife? 
  Same thing.  By mutual agreement.
But if his wife is unfaithful to him during that service?   He is responsible.  He is not culpable- but he is responsible.
For 'failing to provide'- 1 Tim. 5:8.

  And if he is unfaithful while she is ill? 
  He is still culpable- but she is responsible as well.
Do not think that 'sins of omission' do not apply anymore. Hebrews 9:7 still applies.
While the 'sins of commission' of Hebrews 9:10 do not.

  But what if you can't come to a mutual agreement?  What if you are having an argument?

  Douglas Wilson suggests, "Never have sexual relations when you are out of fellowship with one another" (Reforming Marriage, pg.75).  A personal agreement that he made with his wife.  An agreement with a huge incentive for mutual agreement. Unless the incentive isn't there.
  That agreement was enhanced by the further rules that- no one was to come in or leave the home until there was harmony.  Indeed, house arrest.  An even greater incentive- for some.
  To prevent turning "what God intended as a unifying and wonderful experience into an act of hypocrisy".

  Indeed, unity is the principle.  Unity is the precept.  And unity is the precedent.

  A principle of the order of creation- of one man and one woman.
  A precept commanded by God - of becoming One-flesh (Genesis 2:24).
  And a precedent established by His tri-unity- as being One-God

  And why would we not want unity?  Unity just a little lesser than 'communion with God/prayer'?
  Unity modeled after His Tri-unity?

  Indeed, "Let Us make man in Our image- according to our likeness" (Genesis 1:26).
  And bid them unified- as We are unified.



Thursday, November 19, 2009

Marital Rape?- cont'd

It is good for a man not to touch a woman- 1 Cor. 7:1

No, that is only half of the verse.  The ascetics of Paul's time were asking him if this were the case.
Paul is quoting their letter to him and goes on to refute their asceticism.  Refuting that sex was 'only intended for procreation'.
Seems their asceticism was rampant.  And remained rampant till the Reformation.  Till Rome was refuted.
When tradition was spurned.  And Scripture (like Hebrews 13:4) more regarded as Sola

Note the direct quotation marks of this verse in the ESV.  And the direct quotation marks in the above NET link.  The NIV is likely to follow those standards of punctuation as well- in the upcoming edition.

Note the punctuation of that verse here-

Note the indentation of the letter being quoted.  And the outdentation returning to Paul's response to that quote (verse 2).

But what does this have to do with marital rape?
Seems feminists also think- that it is good for a man not to touch a woman.
Not unless they want to be touched.  Which is far less than men would like to touch their wives.

Again, the umbrage of  our allegedly enlightened society appears not to be at the allow-ability of touching your wife.  Obviously you are allowed to do it--- once.  The umbrage with the proposed Karzai law- was the allow-ability to touch your wife "once every four days".  Far too often for feminists.  And far too often for married women actually desiring autonomy more than desiring their husband.

Now, would these same feminists have taken the same umbrage if President Karzai had proposed once/month?  When the woman has elevated libido and fertility?

Such a proposal might be met by these Muslim men by choosing the wrong time of the month.  Or choosing another wife or more.

Yet these Afghan women knew what was in their best interests. Their husbands best interests.  And their societies best interests.
And our alleged feminist enlightenment- is a blinding black-light.  Heading for a black hole.

Yet what frequency-of-touch does our Christian law mandate?

A sacrificial frequency.
A frequency that is in the wife's best interest. And a frequency that is in the husbands best interest.

The husband is obligated to love and honor  his wife with respect to procreation.  And the wife to love and respect her husband with respect to recreation.

"Not fair!" the feminists cry,  "He only has to honor her with sex once or twice".
"Incredibly fair!" Your Honor replies to deadbeat dads, "You still gotta honor the child support payments more than once or twice".

But how often should he or she compel each other for recreation?
The Apostle Paul says, 'For morality purposes- as often as they are compelled'.  Or more accurately, as often as they "burn with sexual desire"-1 Cor. 7:2-9.
Jesus suggests, 'For morality purposes- as often as they have more desire than a eunuch'- Matt. 19:9-12.

Seems to me that this means- that a man should touch a woman frequently.  And if Mohammad is any indication- should touch a woman much more frequently than the Karzai law permits. 

Indeed, suggests the word of the Lord, "Let her breasts satisfy you at all times"- Proverbs 5:19.  Not just when she is fertile.  And not just once every four days.

May you "be exhilarated always with her love" (same verse).  And exhilarated always with the love of God.
Who will comfort you exceedingly more- Isaiah 66:10-13.  And comfort the eunuchs as well- Isaiah 56:3-5.

Sunday, October 18, 2009

Marital Rape?

As suggested in last post- I think that this issue from that prominent blog is of greater importance. Greater than the penile circumcision issue- 1 Cor. 7:19. Because there are greater penalties. Yet it garnered fewer comments than the penile issue.

It is also my intention to publish a subsequent post on the specifics that were avoided by that blog. Because they too are fundamental. And are avoided to great detriment.

Now, it seems most everyone at that blog was in agreement with this new definition of rape. And this new definition seems to appeal to women generally. But oddly enough, does not appeal to most (98%) women where this new definition was to be made law recently (and not to some odd Ronnie V., commenting at that blog either :).

In the latter link we are told by a native lobbyist that this new definition of rape- does not appeal to those who are "uneducated and do not know their rights". In other words, does not appeal to those with 'no sense and no sense of entitlement'. Unlike our much more enlightened modern culture. Our much more entitled culture.

Well, I'm entitled to my opinion- aren't I?
Well, let's see how enlightened we moderns truly are on this issue.

Seems we only got this enlightened a couple decades ago. And seems that the U.N. has been pushing this new enlightenment for little more than a decade. That a different definition was held by English Common Law long before the new definition. A definition that was adopted by those Puritans back in the 17th century. Those alleged unenlightened ones of the Westminster Assembly. Those folks that were uber-scholastic.

Yet, it may be that those modern U.N. folks truly are standing on the shoulders of the Puritan giants. And it may be that Barack Obama really does deserve the Nobel Peace Prize :)

But is it possible that our modern media has generated more heat than light here? That we can't even handle basic definitions of marriage anymore? That we are inept at handling categorical distinctions? As even our wild and wonderful Wiki admits- us modern geeks are guilty of tremendous "conflation". Guilty of shallow definitions. Shallowness that those Puritans held in great contempt.

But let's talk about the changing definition (boundary stone) of rape.

Till recently, rape was defined as "the carnal knowledge of a woman [not wife] forcibly and against her will". A definition which would have acquitted Lot's daughters (Gen. 19:33) of the crime.
The definition now appears to be, "a physical invasion of a sexual nature committed on a person under circumstances which are coercive". A much, much wider definition indeed. A definition which would undoubtedly convict Lot's desperate daughters of rape.

As you may have read in the link, Wiki gives credit to the feminist movement of the 70's for this new definition.
Wiki suggests that this new definition also kind of 'came-in-through-the-back-door'. As an appeal by a separated woman- for the English Common Law to protect her derrière. An appeal to recognize separated women as darn-near-divorced. Indeed, a category that the Puritans never recognized when defining marriage. Because the Puritans had a clear definition of marriage. You were either married or you were not. They did not straddle the Tiber. And were not averse to granting divorce as Rome is. Because the Puritan's authority (God's Word) does not recognize a woman as a little-bit-married.

And as a result of this appeal by a separated woman back in '91- the old definition was deemed "common-law fiction" by the newly enlightened judge. And it was now possible for a separated woman to charge her darn-near-divorced husband with rape.

After prying open this back door- the front was unlocked from the inside. And since all women are equally entitled- women were soon granted the right to say "No" even if the woman was not darn-near-divorced.

As a result, there is now very little distinction between consent inside or outside of the marriage bond. To put this another way, married men are now allowed to have sex 'whenever she allows me to have sex' just as unmarried men are now allowed to have sex 'whenever she allows me to have sex'.

And that's the tricky part. You see, currently you only need her testimony that she actually said "No" within the year (currently being upgraded to 6 years in California). And that would be sufficient evidence for a man to serve a life-term (more than 6 years) for rape. Yup, as the above image suggests, they "can destroy you" if they want. And you may not see it coming.

Which is not to suggest that married women should not have recourse to other charges like... assault! It is just that allowing them the charge of marital rape is specious. It only has the appearance of truth.

Yet is claimed that this new definition should be endorsed by the modern church- because the heart of modern man has gotten so corrupt. A utilitarian and unhistorical claim. And by no less than Bishops!

But let's look at what our creator actually mandates.

When God said, "I will make him a helper suitable for him" (Gen. 2:18)- did actually God mean, "I will make her a helper suitable for her"? To suit him when it suits her?

When God said, "He shall be joined to his wife; and they shall become one-flesh" (Gen. 2:24)- did God actually mean "Man and wife may be joined as one-flesh during the moments that they are of one-mind"?
However few those moments may be?

Or did God grant the man or woman the right to say "No" to vaginal sex when she was menstruating?- Lev. 15:24
Recovering from childbirth?-Lev. 12
Or "No" to some other type of sex when he couldn't get it up?
Does true love not require this great a sacrifice?

Or did God change His one-flesh design after seeing how "corrupt" man's heart could possibly be?- Gen. 6:5
Surely He was surprised by this turn of events, wasn't He?

Or, more directly were there any explicit allusions to this type of rape in the Bible?
How about any implicit allusions to this type of rape in the Bible?

Closest parallel I can think of- is King David's fickle wife publicly berating him. -2Sam. 6:20
An effective way of saying "No" (and giving King David a limp pickle for her)- on such a joyous day.
And an effective way of giving herself no children- with which to play.

Or what about Job's fickle wife, after now having no children with which to play- suggested Job, "Curse God and die!".  An effective way of saying "No" on such a difficult day.
And I suspect an effective way of denying her more children. Indeed, I suspect that when the Lord restored Job's fortunes "two-fold", that He provided Job a more fair wife- to give him seven sons and three "fair" daughters. - Job 42:10-15

In closing, it is my contention that those who commit to this one-flesh design of God (a design where you cannot rape your own flesh)- are obligated to one-flesh responsibilities. And are subsequently entitled to His "very good" one-flesh blessings.

And those folk too fickle to commit to His design of marriage?
Those folk afraid of one-flesh obligations?
Those fickle moderns living common-law?

Well... why should they be entitled to:

Automatic beneficiary status?
Automatic citizenship status?
Automatic division of assets?
Automatic pension division?
Automatic spousal support?
Automatic child support?

When they clearly prefer to be autonomous?

How grateful I am to God- for violating my autonomy.
That He came and sought a sick soul like me- when I did not seek Him- Romans 3:11
That He came to suit a prick like me- when I did not suit Him- Zec. 3:4
That He became one-flesh with me- when my flesh was dead and rotten -Romans 6:5
And will ever be one-flesh with me- when all else is forgotten-Romans 8:38-39

I Thank God for such a glorious rape- of my sick and fickle will.
May He continue to rape my fickle heart- and make my autonomy nil.

Thursday, October 1, 2009

To Snip or Not to Snip?

This article drew an unprecedented response at a prominent Christian blog recently. So it's worthwhile discussing.
A Christian attempting to resurrect an obsolete boundary stone.  For somewhat different  reasons.
I hope to address an article from this same blog- that drew a somewhat lesser response, next month. Probably more worthwhile though.

Now, the writer of this article was a woman advocating the circumcision of all men- for health reasons. It appeared to be written from a standpoint of considerable bitterness- from contracting some sexually transmitted disease in her unholy days. When she followed the path of feminism (and had her tubes snipped). But of course she's not bitter or a feminist now (or so says her husband trying to defend her in the comments section).
And it's not that she "hates men"- she just thinks they're icky.
And it's not that she is snipping at male headship- she would just like part of his dickey snipped off.

She is wicked funny too. Thinks that most men do not know how to clean their foreskin. It has her "stupefied". So... stupid men should have their foreskin snipped. And loose men should be loosed of it. And she repeats- her "own sons" fall somewhere in that semantic range...
Let's be frank here men- is it really that tricky? Or could we possibly forget it?
Let me be frank with you women here then--- it's incredibly hard to forget your dickey. It's not all that tricky to clean. And need I tell you that cleaning it is actually enjoyable?

Need I tell the subtlety challenged- when your mother told you to "wash behind your ears"- do you think she was thinking exclusively of your ears? Ever heard the song- Do Your Ears Hang Low? Can you think of anything else hanging low?

But let's not address her funny rationale.
Let's address a serious humanitarian rationale- Hastings historical rationale for circumcision.
Then God's super-serious non-humanitarian mandate.
First, Hastings:

  1. That circumcision may have been incorporated for hygienic/health reasons (Steinmetz). I would agree with Hastings that this is "highly improbable". That this is an anachronism. Even us moderns have a hard time supporting the deposing of the foreskin- with far more extensive hygiene surveys. Just as tonsils and appendix are not considered the disposable appendages that they once were.
  2. That Muslims seem to think the foreskin is an impediment to offspring. That "only in man is an impediment like the foreskin found, and wonder how it is possible for reproduction to occur among uncircumcised Christians". As I understand it- almost all mammals have a foreskin. And Koala's seem to require it for reproduction. Seems Muslims were paying far too much attention to the platypus :)
  3. That such personal surgery makes more obvious the perilous nature of sex. Pretty obvious without such surgery one would think.
  4. That this was a test of stoicism. That real men wouldn't even peep when their penis got snipped. Really?
  5. That this was a mark of tribal pride. Hastings claims it was only a hidden source of pride for Hebrews.
  6. That this was a sacrifice to the goddess of fertility. As Hastings would chide, "only in America".
  7. That such penis reduction would appear more modest and less intimidating to women. Yet other islanders in this region would wear gourds and snail shells and leather hoodies- that would be much less modest. How regional is that?
  8. That it was a fashion statement initiated by the higher classes. But the highest chief was exempt from such a fashion statement. Exempt from the cult of cool.
  9. That it was done by some tribes to desensitize the penis for extended enjoyment for the female. Those tribes also wore glans piercings to promote female pleasure. This survey would indicate that this initiative achieved the unintended result.
  10. That they would be re-united with the foreskin of their former life in the afterlife. Not worthy of comment.
  11. That snipping was a punishment worse than death for those conquered in war. Another one too stupid to comment on.
  12. That snipping was an initiation into puberty. However, this was usually done long before puberty.
  13. That it was a pretext for radical circumcision/emasculation. So that the tribal chief could be chief sire as well.
Hastings also mentions as an aside that circumcision may have been done to discourage "onanism" (that misnomer for "masturbation" discussed in a previous post). Yet surveys tend to indicate the opposite.

Now, God's mandate:

Snipping was a sign (Gen. 17:11)- to show that Abraham and his hoping household would be 'set apart'.
Set apart as His chosen people.
Set apart for first-class dining.
Set apart for special revelation.

Later He revealed a larger hope to Gentiles.
As He said he would reveal- Psalm 2:8, Isaiah 46:6, Amos 9:12.
Revealed a larger dietary menu- Acts 10:15.
Revealed Himself as the diet for His Jews and Gentiles- John 6:54.

The new church recognized the new dinner guests- Acts 15.
The new church recognized the new sign of the Holy Spirit- Jeremiah 31:33.
And would not superimpose the old sign on top of a new sign.
Knowing that it would obscure the greater and clearer sign.

Shall us moderns obscure the greater and clearer sign?
Grant our heads the false security of being snipped?
Allow the deceiver the final comment of, "Snipe!"
When we never really were In His Grip?- 1 John 2:19

So...should we have our heads snipped over some negligible health concern?
Or be caused to wonder and anguish over a Holy Spirit concern?

Hoping in a snipping that is not seen,

Wednesday, September 16, 2009

Lot's Wet Dreams

Most images and blogs of this debauchery do not follow the text (Gen. 19:30-38). Most suggest that Lot seduced his daughters. Or that his 'girls just wanted to have fun'. This black and white suggests neither.

Hopefully my graphic portrayal that follows is more honorable to Lot and his daughters than you might imagine. If you can imagine a more honorable portrayal please let me know.

Here we have Lot looking wasted. And his daughters evaluating their options.
Lot likely pining for his wife. Them pining for lost baby-makers.

Pining for their fiancee's that were unwilling to travel
Fiancee's that had rejected their offering. Fiancee's that were less than honorable.
Indeed, not ten honorable people in all of Sodom and Gomorrah- let alone suitors.
And probably fewer suitors in the small town that they had fled to. Let alone a man that was willing "to come in to us after the manner of the earth"(natural sex).

Lot was suffering shell-shock. Would have no part with the nearby town either. The angels had suggested shelling that valley with good reason as well. Better to flee to the mountains as they had originally suggested. Lest he still be "swept away". For his own sake and the sake of his daughters.

Daughters holed up in a cave- with a shell-shocked pining old man. Daughters primed for marriage. Fertile time of their lives. Fertile time of the month. Libido is on a longer leash. Mom is pillarized and out of the way. They could have dad pillarized in a better way. They decide to offer themselves up to this honorable man. In a way without having their offering rejected. Daughters decide to make lemonade out of their lemons. That now is the time to 'shake their baby-makers'.

They plied their father with 'hard lemonade'. Commiserated (not celebrated as is often depicted) with him till he passed out. The oldest then squeezed his lemon in private. And not near as hard as the angel had squeezed her hand.
Probably lied on her side in front of him. Seen her parents cuddle that way. Seen little sister being made that way. Less intrusive that way. Gave the old man in the cave more warmth that way. And her more control.
Didn't need deep penetration. Didn't need to break her hymen (menstruation indicates some breakage). Just needed a small squeeze.

Lot may have been dreaming of his wife. Of better days. Of making daughters. Not of making out with his daughters. That would have disgusted this "righteous" man.

The older daughter then tells the younger what works the following morning. So they plied him again that night. Hoping that the old man had the stamina. Stamina that Uncle Abe certainly had (many children after the age of 86). Biological clock is ticking. Gotta be like big sister. Before big sister starts to show. The younger daughter turns the same trick the following night. And receives a similar squeeze.

Both daughters are rewarded for their efforts. The younger daughters son becomes the father of the Ammonites. The oldest daughters son, Moab, has the distinction of some hereditary link to Kind David. Not terribly honorable tribes, however.

But then some might say that Lot was not so honorable either.

It appears to me that Lot was subtle and shrewd- not near as lewd as it may appear. Making a peace offering of his daughters to the swarm of Sodomites. Knowing that the swarm was quite given over (Romans 1:24)- to an unnatural affection for his highly-esteemed "lords". And knowing that the swarm was fuzzy- on Lot's prudish peaches. A mere appearance of an offering. Not the reality of an offering. And far less of an offering than Uncle Abe was about to make.

The honorable Lot had plenty of opportunity to be salacious in Sodom. To goof off in nearby Gomorrah. Less reason to get lewd in a cave. Particularly after just seeing God's judgment on those perverse cities.

Some commentaries suggest that Lot may have been semi-aware of his incest. That he may have woken up when he climaxed. Or was blind drunk and forgetful. The more recent NET passage linked above- allows for the text to be open to such suggestion.
Psycho-babble! He would not have got fooled again.
And if he actually didn't mind the original trick... he would not have gotten so drunk again- that he couldn't enjoy the subsequent trick. Go with the ESV here.
And there is no suggestion of Lot seducing his daughters.
No reprisals from the swarm about Lot acting "wickedly" himself.
No rebuke from the swarm about Lot being a hypocrite.
No sex deals offered to Lot for his cooperation.
And God's own testimony that Lot was a righteous man!

But is Lot still responsible for his wet dreams?

Are we responsible for our wet dreams?

Are they the overflow of our hearts?

Don't think so. Just as I don't think nightmares are the overflow of the heart either. Do we truly wish our nightmares?

Leviticus 15 does not tell us to repent of our wet dreams either. Not a sin of commission. Not a sin of emission.

Even if it did- we are now under a different dispensation. The tabernacle that would have been defiled (Lev. 15:31) by a fresh wet dream- is no longer.
Therefore the mandatory washing and waiting prior to entering the tabernacle (the old boundary stone)... is no longer (Hebrews 9:8-10).
The symbolic tabernacle that has passed away- has given way to a real tabernacle. 

A tabernacle that can not be entered into by His people. Rather a tabernacle that enters into His people. Indeed, the Holy Spirit which convicts us of the sinful emission of our hearts.

And if our heart is convicted?
Repent! And flee the Sodom and Gomorrah of your heart. And rest in the bosom of Jesus. Rest in what is honorable. Rest in who is honorable. And He will give you rest (Matthew 11:28).

A rest and relief- far greater than a wet dream. A rest and relief from our sordid hearts. An eternal rest in the mercy and grace of Christ.

Come, Lord Jesus. We pine for you...

Friday, September 11, 2009

The Sin of Onan

Graphic enough? You want more graphic... go to Wikipedia. But I won't provide the link.

Ok, here we have in this graphic what appears to be the sin of Onan- Genesis 38:8-10. But it's not.
Refusing to fertilize your sister-in-law is not necessarily a sin.
Onan was not required to fertilize her.
There was no commandment.

Yet Onan made a commitment.
A commitment to his sister-in-law. A commitment to his father.
A tacit commitment to his heavenly Father.
Yet what he gave his sister-in-law was mere incest. The progeny that he promised his father was a mere lie.
And his contemptuous spew was held in contempt by his heavenly Father.
Onan's contempt consumed him. Onan's procreation was pro-rouged. Onan's own creation was recused.

Now some may think that Onan's sin was that of masturbation.  That getting his rocks off violated a boundary stone.
Yet, as the passage suggests- it was his intent, not his contents that were at issue here.
It was his heart, not his hand that was at issue here.
It was not his hand that was not right. It was his heart that was not right.

The Bible does not speak of masturbation as being sinful. It speaks of the heart as being sinful.
It does not speak of orgasm as being sinful. It speaks of orgies as being sinful.

However, as regards masturbation...

Here I find Mark Driscoll reasonably accurate and helpful (though I find him much too casual). Though he is often vilified as the "cussing pastor"- few vilify his gospel or theology. I would not dispute his statistic that the average husband masturbates a few times ("3 to 4") a week either. It would be consistent with National Health Services of Britain's recent recommendation of "an orgasm a day". Something Mark was criticized- for encouraging his married sheep to try for "one week".
Mark Driscoll- is also vilified for endorsing a website called Christian Nymphomaniacs, as well. I will not provide that link either. Suffice to say it is intended for women. And even non-Christian women will likely benefit of their counsel.

Here I find the less-casual and less-cussing John Piper (who even made a huge repentance of saying "ass") as being slightly less accurate and slightly less helpful. I would challenge his contention that "vivid and exciting thoughts and images are necessary for masturbation". I would also challenge his opinion- that "wet dreams cannot occur without those images". Though my challenges would only be from personal experience as well.

I find the less-casual John Piper much more accurate and much more helpful here.

As I prepared this blog, the sometimes-helpful-tool Zemanta automatically provided close-up images of a man masturbating. I was not offended or excited. But it was a distraction on the right side of my monitor- so I disabled it.

In closing, may I encourage you- to grow less distracted in your Christian walk. Keeping your eyes on the prize (Php. 3:14)- even if it means disabling Zemanta. Sure beats plucking out your eye (Matt. 5:29).

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Monday, September 7, 2009

Adult Content

Hi Folks,

Sorry about the adult content warning. But I suspect that if you have read much more than a paragraph of my other blog- you are already an adult. Likely a Christian and likely mature.

Consider it an additional gate for the flakes. Consider it a warning for those of feeble minds.

As the blog title suggests- this blog will appeal to scriptural authority. Whether it is a valid appeal, remains to be determined.

This blog is intended to appeal to sanctificational issues rather than salvational issues. This blog is intended to explore where the boundary markers are- and not intended to explode "the ancient boundary stones".

Strong language may be used. Language that appears to offend some sensibilities (like Grace To You's most recent snail-mail appeal for support).

Strong content will be used. Content that is hoped will offend the more prurient to greater holiness. And content that will offend those of the Pharisees (Luke 11:39). Those that seem to suggest that sexual issues are not sanctificational issues (that MacArthur letter again).

Content like- the sinfulness of Onan jerking off into the dirt (Genesis 38:9). Content like- the sinfulness of Lot's wet dreams with his daughters.

We will be talking "boundary stones". May you encourage me to stay within biblical boundaries. And forgive me when I trespass.


Reblog this post [with Zemanta]