Obligations are things no one forces you to do, but which you have some moral requirement to perform. There can of course be consequences to not fulfilling obligations, but the unique thing about them is that the person who is obligated has total freedom to either perform or neglect to perform what is obligated of them.
Now that the table is set,
People experience different sorts of internal obligations that motivate them to do certain things. Some feel driven to do what they think will relieve poverty, or improve the health and safety of society. But people experience smaller obligations on a day-to-day basis that influence how they interact with other people. Chivalry, for example, drives boys to show respect to women through little acts like opening doors or letting them go first, and most people feel an obligation to say thank you when served food at a dining establishment.
One curious obligation I've imposed on myself is the motivation to go out of my way to give compliments to girls. Not profusely or in any way strangely, but simply more often than I might feel inclined to. I've simply conditioned myself to literally speak my mind, within certain limitations. And here's the reasoning why: my logic is that well-behaved guys might be less likely to be very upfront with personal comments about young women, which is all well and good until you realize that this means that the guys girls are most likely to hear compliments from are jerks, or otherwise unrespectable young men. Since it's in our nature to be grateful to people who are kind to us, my theory is that this is part of the reason that some girls end up with loser boyfriends--because these guys are the only ones she ever hears nice things from. She naturally appreciates their attention, and consequently, is far more likely to find herself in a relationship with such guys than with the guys she probably thinks are "better," but whom she feels ignored by.
My one-man crusade is to stop this. Not because I want to compete, and to get the personal attention of these young women for myself, but because I want to condition them to realize that guys like me do indeed have eyes that can see, a heart that beats red blood, and enough of a suave touch to make them feel excited by the interest and attention I can show them. In my mind, I imagine that I represent the nerdy, socially awkward guys who respect women but can't seem to get their attention. I think that many girls in my age group don't know what they want. If I can help some of them be "awakened" to the realization that a dork like me might actually treat them well then maybe they'll be immunized against the attentions of "bad boys." By simply giving a kind, heartfelt compliment at the end of our conversation, I can turn them on to the idea that inside every (well most) awkward geek(s) is a gentleman and a guy with potential to be a good lover (and I'm not using that in a sexually explicit sense here), then maybe they'll be inspired to wait, rather than settle for what seems like the best option at the time, because they're afraid that if they wait too long the good guys will let them down.
Now it's just a matter of getting the guys on board. I'm busy giving young women I meet the impression that there are other guys like me out there (not to toot my own horn), now I just hope that I haven't misled them. Step up, men! Be gentlemen but be bold! Love is not a passive engagement. You must pursue, for if you don't get her attention, someone else will. And I don't want that to be a bad boy.
I'm sure this'll upset the sexists--er, I mean "feminists." ;)
~ Rak Chazak
Monday, May 6, 2013
Don't Die Twice for A Straw Man
Who would die for one of those, anyway?
I was having an online discussion with an atheist I've had occasional back-and-forths with for a few years, and he trotted out this line:
Here was my full response:
So the understanding that the world is perishing and I have a part to play in saving it motivates me to be more aggressive in spreading the Gospel. I'd gladly take the risk of being seen as "one of those crazy Christian nutjobs," than to make people feel comfortable even as their eternity is in peril. My conscience won't let me accept quietness. I must speak.
What saddens me so much is when guys like him say that they don't think it's legitimate to be good because otherwise you'll be tortured. I TOTALLY AGREE! That IS illegitimate! And it isn't the Christian way! We don't do good because God is threatening us. We do it to repay Him with gladness for everything He has given us. We honor Him out of love, not out of mortal terror. I wish my opponent would understand this...
I think he chooses to believe that because it makes it easier to reject the Christian faith. But if you're offended by something that isn't actually Christianity, and you turn around and reject Christianity, you've made a terrible mistake.
The Straw Man Fallacy is the logical misstep of misrepresenting what you're arguing against. Then you defeat this 'straw man' and claim to have defeated what you were arguing against. But if you don't ever attack the actual position, you can't ever defeat it, and so you're never justified in rejecting it. That's the mistake my opponent made above. He's right to reject what he describes, because a belief system that makes God out to be an extortioner is clearly false. Sadly, he makes the error of asserting that this is the Christian faith, and this is not so.
I said 'don't die twice for a straw man,' because hell is referred to as the "second death." (Revelation 20:14)
It's not worth it to go to hell because you insisted on believing a lie. The character Yossarian in the novel Catch-22 was having a debate with a lady friend of his, and though they were both atheists, the woman was upset at how Yossarian characterized God--angry, mean, stupid, evil, etc. Yossarian reaches a compromise by saying, "the God you don't believe in is not the same God that I don't believe in." (That's paraphrased).
My atheist friend, the god you don't believe in is not the God I believe in. Repent and live.
~ Rak Chazak
I was having an online discussion with an atheist I've had occasional back-and-forths with for a few years, and he trotted out this line:
I don't want my philosophy to comfort me, I want it to tell me the truth at all instances.You know, I suspect he thinks this would upset me most because it supposedly reveals the hypocrisy of people of faith. Namely, that of supposedly being concerned with people's "greater good," to the point of ignoring their earthly needs. He thinks faith breeds fatalism, with regard to making the world a better place. What really upsets me is that he still has this wrong view of faith, despite months and years of telling him the truth.
When I see a dying, starving person, I don't want to see a person going to heaven. To me, that is one of the most sinister lies and I wouldn't want my children to believe this about a person in strife. Strife is a REAL thing, and for me, it is something that does not end in heaven or hell. Truly, I am only comforted by atheism to know that the REALITY of life, including a dying and sick world, is a real one. I can't do anything about this dying and sick world except be my best, but at least I know it isn't a fight of devils and angels--rather in humanity's control.
I believe life comes once, I don't want to be a good person because I will be tortured and my skin burned off if I don't. That's not morality for me.
Here was my full response:
I can tell you what, [opponent], when I see people dying it doesn't comfort me to see people going to hell. That's what motivates me to reach out to them with the Gospel lest they perish in vain.Every day, 200,000 people die. Realizing that so many people are slipping into eternity without you having even the slightest opportunity to do anything about it is distressing. It's not comforting at all. What is comforting in moments of realizing that, is that God is sovereign. Simply, He's in control. You don't have the responsibility over all those people. God will ensure that there are Christians strategically placed just where He wants them, to be salt and light for a dying world. And guess what? You are the one that He's handpicked to do just that, where you are.
[Opponent], being a good person won't get you into heaven. You're already going to hell because you're INCAPABLE of being a good person. This is what you don't get. We Christians don't behave morally because God threatens us. We do good in grateful response to the fact that He saved us from hell even though we did not deserve to go to heaven. If you think we do good to bribe God you are mistaken. That's not Christianity, that's works-righteous false religion. Don't die twice for a straw man.
So the understanding that the world is perishing and I have a part to play in saving it motivates me to be more aggressive in spreading the Gospel. I'd gladly take the risk of being seen as "one of those crazy Christian nutjobs," than to make people feel comfortable even as their eternity is in peril. My conscience won't let me accept quietness. I must speak.
What saddens me so much is when guys like him say that they don't think it's legitimate to be good because otherwise you'll be tortured. I TOTALLY AGREE! That IS illegitimate! And it isn't the Christian way! We don't do good because God is threatening us. We do it to repay Him with gladness for everything He has given us. We honor Him out of love, not out of mortal terror. I wish my opponent would understand this...
I think he chooses to believe that because it makes it easier to reject the Christian faith. But if you're offended by something that isn't actually Christianity, and you turn around and reject Christianity, you've made a terrible mistake.
The Straw Man Fallacy is the logical misstep of misrepresenting what you're arguing against. Then you defeat this 'straw man' and claim to have defeated what you were arguing against. But if you don't ever attack the actual position, you can't ever defeat it, and so you're never justified in rejecting it. That's the mistake my opponent made above. He's right to reject what he describes, because a belief system that makes God out to be an extortioner is clearly false. Sadly, he makes the error of asserting that this is the Christian faith, and this is not so.
I said 'don't die twice for a straw man,' because hell is referred to as the "second death." (Revelation 20:14)
It's not worth it to go to hell because you insisted on believing a lie. The character Yossarian in the novel Catch-22 was having a debate with a lady friend of his, and though they were both atheists, the woman was upset at how Yossarian characterized God--angry, mean, stupid, evil, etc. Yossarian reaches a compromise by saying, "the God you don't believe in is not the same God that I don't believe in." (That's paraphrased).
My atheist friend, the god you don't believe in is not the God I believe in. Repent and live.
~ Rak Chazak
Saturday, May 4, 2013
The Gospel in 60 Seconds
Self-explanatory.
This is what separates Christianity from all other beliefs. If you don't know this, you don't know anything that matters. Make sure you know this. Reject it or accept it, that is your choice. But if you don't know it, you can't freely choose it.
Therefore listen. Transcript posted below the video.
The Greatest Gospel verse in the Bible, 2 Corinthians 5:21:
"He made Him, Who knew no sin, sin for us,
that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him."
Lemme unpack those 15 Greek words.
He, God, made Jesus sin.
'Whattya mean He made Jesus sin?' Only in one sense:
He treated Him as if He had committed every sin ever committed by every person who would ever believe,
though in fact He committed none of them.
Hanging on the Cross He was holy, harmless, undefiled,
Hanging on the Cross He was a spotless lamb.
He was never for a split second a sinner.
He is Holy God on the Cross.
But God is treating Him -- I'll put it more practically -- as if He lived my life.
God punished Jesus for my sin, turns right around and treats me as if I lived His life.
That's the great Doctrine of Substitution, and on that doctrine turned the whole Reformation of the Church; that is the heart of the Gospel.
And what you get is complete forgiveness, covered by the righteousness of Jesus Christ.
When He looks at the Cross He sees you, when He looks at you He sees Christ.
~ Rak Chazak
This is what separates Christianity from all other beliefs. If you don't know this, you don't know anything that matters. Make sure you know this. Reject it or accept it, that is your choice. But if you don't know it, you can't freely choose it.
Therefore listen. Transcript posted below the video.
The Greatest Gospel verse in the Bible, 2 Corinthians 5:21:
"He made Him, Who knew no sin, sin for us,
that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him."
Lemme unpack those 15 Greek words.
He, God, made Jesus sin.
'Whattya mean He made Jesus sin?' Only in one sense:
He treated Him as if He had committed every sin ever committed by every person who would ever believe,
though in fact He committed none of them.
Hanging on the Cross He was holy, harmless, undefiled,
Hanging on the Cross He was a spotless lamb.
He was never for a split second a sinner.
He is Holy God on the Cross.
But God is treating Him -- I'll put it more practically -- as if He lived my life.
God punished Jesus for my sin, turns right around and treats me as if I lived His life.
That's the great Doctrine of Substitution, and on that doctrine turned the whole Reformation of the Church; that is the heart of the Gospel.
And what you get is complete forgiveness, covered by the righteousness of Jesus Christ.
When He looks at the Cross He sees you, when He looks at you He sees Christ.
~ Rak Chazak
Poignant Music
Lyrics
I like songs based on their lyrics. It's hard for me to like a song that has a pleasant melody if its lyrics are meaningless, or worse, profane and stupid. But that doesn't necessarily mean that every song I like is explicitly Christian. In my life, I never really encountered Christian music (outside of a capella church hymns) prior to 2009, so my experience has largely been with songs from the '80s and '90s. I had to find something to like about them or I wouldn't have been able to tolerate listening to it. Incidentally, my little brother became interested in Alternative Rock at about halfway through middle school for me, and eventually became "one of those" guys who uses screamo to channel their emotions or to drown out everything around them while they exercise. It has driven me nuts on occasion, especially after he gained his driver's license and I had to sit with him in the car. I don't NEED it to be that loud to hear it!!! Ugh.Back to the story: for as long as I remember, I've never liked a song instantaneously, but had to listen to it carefully until I understood the lyrics, before I could wholeheartedly enjoy it and sing along. Since much music is about romance, and a large chunk of that involves sex, I'm not comfortable singing the lyrics to Bon Jovi's "Never Say Goodbye" which say in one line, "remember when we lost the keys? You lost more than that in my backseat, baby!" much as I think the extended guitar solo on that ballad is nice to turn the volume up for...
I think I remember the first time I invented the concept of "poignant" music. It was on the way to a winter camping trip with the Boy Scouts, and the other cars were full, so I got to ride alone with one of the older guys in his car. I dozed in the car due to the heat (I have a habit of falling asleep on car rides; long road trips have always had a soothing effect on me), and he played a hard rock station. That was the very first time I heard "Welcome to the Jungle," by Guns 'n Roses. I suppose I was 15.
Staring into the abyss
Here's my interpretation of Welcome to the Jungle. Regardless of the intention of the writer, it's a self-satire. It shows in raw detail the dark side of cities (referenced in the term "jungle," as in, "the concrete jungle."). This is confirmed by the music video's setting. So whether the song is meant to glory in the depravity of what goes on in cities, or to point out what's wrong with it, I think it actually accomplishes the latter, either way. Here is a sampling of the lyrics:We are the people that can findIt's a microcosm of the vices you'll find in the city. You have references to drugs and sex, a very clear sense of physical threat toward the woman being addressed in the song, and most pertinent of all, the lines about "taking it day by day" and "you better not take it from me" perfectly describe, to me, the self-absorbed, self-worshiping nature of those who have nothing to live for beyond their own personal pleasures. It's all about them. They have no future, just the present ("take it day by day"), and they don't care what you do, just as long as you don't bother them ("can have anything you want but you better not take it from me"). This was written in the late eighties but still applies profoundly to a subset of young people in our society that doesn't seem to have gone away with time.
Whatever you may need
If you got the money, honey
We got your disease
....
Welcome to the jungle
We take it day by day
....
You can taste the bright lights
But you won't get them for free
....
Welcome to the jungle
It gets worse here everyday
....
You can have anything you want
But you better not take it from me
....
And when you're high you never
Ever want to come down, YEAH!
Yearning to break the chains
This is what brings me to the song that prompted my reflection on this, this evening:If Welcome to the Jungle is about what it's like in the city where it seems that everything is about sex, drugs, and rock and roll, then Good Life is about what it's like for young people in this age whose lives are empty and who can only think to find fulfillment through a loose lifestyle of partying and getting wasted drunk, to the point where your old friends don't even know who you are anymore.
Allow me to give my perspective on the lyrics:
Woke up in London yesterdayFound myself in the city near PiccadillyDon't really know how I got hereI got some pictures on my phoneNew names and numbers that I don't know
The singer got wasted the night before at a party and blacked out. He doesn't have any recollection of who he met, but apparently he exchanged phone numbers with people, and has some disconnected pictures to try to piece together the night's events with.
We're young enough to sayOh, this has gotta be the good lifeThis has gotta be the good lifeThis could really be a good life, good life
There's so much in this to analyze. First, you know that he's talking about young people, based on the first line. The implication by use of the word "enough" is that by virtue of being young, they can survive the cognitive dissonance necessary in order to convince themselves that this has to be the good life, without entering into an existential crisis.
Do you notice that? He says "this has gotta be the good life," which can be taken two ways: one, a sincere belief that it is, (how sad) or an attempt to convince oneself that it surely must be "the good life," because if it wasn't...they've wasted their life on things that don't satisfy. That's an uncomfortable thought, so an attempt is made to push it out of his mind. He finishes the chorus by saying "this could really be a good life," revealing an uncertainty, as if he's hesitant to make the assertion that it really IS a good life...because deep down, he senses that it isn't.
A further interpretation of "this could really be a good life" is that it could be in the future, but right now, it's not a very good life at all, as the singer seems to be silently expressing throughout the lyrics.
Sometimes there's airplanes I can' t jump outSometimes there's bullshit that don't work. Now,We all got our stories, but please tell meWhat there is to complain about?
Long story short, I think the singer here feels guilty over complaining about how bad things are. He walks back his initial uncertainty about whether he's living the good life, by telling himself that even despite the "airplanes he can't jump out," it really isn't anything to complain about. Implicitly, I think he's suggesting that he has it so much better than other people in different parts of the world, and so he feels guilty and ashamed over his depressed feelings, since he thinks he doesn't really have an excuse to feel that way. I think he's confused. He doesn't have anything to complain about, but the emptiness inside is very real, and he doesn't know how to deal with it. I can sense a bit of irritation in his voice as this part of the song progresses.
HopelesslyI feel like there might be something that I'll missHopelesslyI feel like the window closes oh so quick
HopelesslyI'm taking a mental picture of you now'Cause hopelesslyThe hope is we have so much to feel good about
This is another interpretive gold-mine. First, notice the fourfold repetition of the word "hopelessly," which would seem to come out of nowhere if the song really did intend to convey that the singer is singing about the good life, rather than being miserable over how very not-good it happens to be. This repetition strongly confirms my view that the singer feels a sense of emptiness and vanity over his pursuit of pleasure. It makes me think of Ecclesiastes.
He thinks that he's wasting his life and he's worried that he might be missing something important. The window closing quickly means that he's worried that he only has a short time to reach out and take hold of whatever it is that would give his life meaning, and if he waits too long, he'll miss the opportunity.
I can't help but admit that my soul is screaming, "it's Jesus! He's the One you need to take hold of before the window closes on you and you miss Him!" The emptiness of the life without Christ at the center of it is so palpable, it just oozes out of the song and penetrates me to the bone. It fills me with a great sense of sadness. Listening to this song is one way in which I hope to motivate myself to reach out to the lost young men and women around me. Not everyone "has a God-shaped hole," and that is a silly thing to say. But a great many people do indeed feel a sense of emptiness after the 100th night of debauchery as they begin to wonder if this is all there is to life. May there be a Christian near by that can reach out to them and show them that there is so much more to life than a hopeless hope, as the song puts it.
"The hope is we have so much to feel good about." The singer hopes that there's something to feel good about. Why? Because he doesn't feel good. That's why he's hoping that he's mistaken. Yet he feels his hope is hopeless. In other words, in vain.
Ecclesiastes 2:10-11
10
Whatever my eyes desired I did not keep from them.
I did not withhold my heart from any pleasure,
For my heart rejoiced in all my labor;
And this was my reward from all my labor.
11
Then I looked on all the works that my hands had done
And on the labor in which I had toiled;
And indeed all was vanity and grasping for the wind.
There was no profit under the sun.
Conclusion
I yearn to just be able to reach out and grab him by the shoulders and shake him. How I wish that he would not remain stuck, wallowing in vanity and reaping the existential bitterness that comes from "chasing after the wind," a bitterness (realism, nevertheless) that is rife throughout the book of Ecclesiastes. I wish I could tell everyone who hears this song and who is in such a lifestyle, living day by day, trying not to think about the future, wondering why they feel so lousy when there's so much they figure they should be obligated to feel happy about...I wish I could just point them each, individually to the answer to our every need, the satisfier of our every yearning -- Jesus Christ, God Almighty, our Creator and Redeemer.Have you felt empty, like the way I've described the singers in these two songs? I want you to be fully satisfied, to not have to seek the temporary sense pleasures that the lyricists are reduced to continually returning to. Eternal satisfaction. This transcends feelings. There will be airplanes you can't jump out of, metaphorically speaking, in reference to the song, but even in your darkest moments you can know that your life has meaning and purpose and that you will one day be fully freed from all these things that hold you down--you know, "being held down" is another way to say "depressed." I can't promise a life free from pain, but I can promise you a life free from the sting thereof. Not because it's in my power to give. But because what was given to me is offered to you also. Please read this if you're open to considering Christianity: http://www.gotquestions.org/way-of-salvation.html
The sad part about Good Life is that the singer seems to realize that he's missing something in his life, but he rejects the possibility that his emotions are telling him something he needs to listen to, choosing to end on the note "please tell me what there's to complain about?"
My hope is that you don't end on the same sour note.
~ Rak Chazak
Friday, May 3, 2013
ESPN Regrets Christian Speech... Full-Blown Persecution Is On Our Doorstep
We have entered an era where it is a liability to be a Christian, and a boost to your popularity and career to boast of your secret sins. Or not so secret.
Stop for a second. If coming out of the closet gets you nationwide media attention, widespread encouragement and support throughout the media and the public, and even a presidential phone call to congratulate you, what's brave about it? Even a USA Today column this week made the admission that this could only be a net benefit to his career.
Can anyone look at this particular case and honestly say that homosexuals are oppressed in this country?
ESPN hasn't immediately fired him, but it's early, yet. Supposedly, the website issued an apology for letting their tv coverage get 'nasty,' with apparent reference to the fact that someone who dared to disagree got airtime. Keep your eyes open for possible future contract termination. Persecutors of Christians in this country tend to try to be subtle...but they're getting bolder.
What's interesting is the response. While the backlash among the populace is vocal and aggressive, as is a typical product of internet anonymity, the fact that Mr. Broussard is able to clearly show that he's not hateful of homosexuals, that he's not behaving like an elitist or a hypocrite either, and his responsible and frequent bringing-up of Scripture to support his case, seems to have had the effect--if temporary--of actually stifling the animosity from the other side. He actually has gotten his critics to shut their mouths. Partially. And you know why that is? The Word of God.
http://www.wretchedradio.com/podcast.cfm?h=E6E7FF801F595092DC829C929E2981FD&page=1
Just recently, Mr. Broussard did a radio interview where he excellently exegeted Scripture and stood his ground. If you want to be encouraged that God is raising up true believers in public places to be salt and light, this second clip from today is must-hear radio:
http://www.wretchedradio.com/podcast.cfm?h=96399C6B6BB75AC77CDF8CCA9C7D5E6A&page=1
The first link is a little more cynical. I won't say pessimistic. In my view, pessimism is cynicism combined with a touch of fatalism (the feeling that there's no point because everything you do is futile). Cynicism is realism, namely the realization that things are bad, and the correct understanding of how you relate to it -- you have a purpose and things are never totally hopeless. You don't know what God's working on outside of your sphere of knowledge. Todd is cynical in his perception that persecution is on the way, but he's not a pessimist--the very fact that he has this radio show and that he goes to preach on "Witness Wednesdays," and his "Biggest Project" DVD-tracting ministry all show that he thinks his efforts -- and that of those who join ranks with him -- have the potential to be used by God to accomplish revival if it is in His sovereign will to do so. Pessimism leads to fatalism, which leads to a lack of action and motivation toward action. I don't see that in Todd, and I don't recognize it in myself, either. This blog is my personal attempt to do something about the situation in our nation today. I don't have the following of Wretched, Answers in Genesis, Way of the Master, or Grace to You, but to underestimate the impact that I as an individual can have is to ignore the implications of the Butterfly Effect -- that minor events can have huge consequences down the road due to the cascading ripple effect.
A USA Today column I read about the issue said it all. The writer, pro-gay, admitted that coming out of the closet was bound to be "a net benefit to his career," and I agree. I already questioned the notion that homosexuals are being oppressed by the greater society at large above, and I won't keep beating that dead horse. The irony here is that whereas homosexuality used to have a stigma, it really doesn't any more. Now the stigma is centered on Christianity. The news story of the week ought rather to be that Chris Broussard "came out of the closet" as a Christian on national television (not technically true, as he has been outspoken about his faith in the past).
Todd pointed out something interesting in the second clip: that Broussard, by bringing up Scripture, was able to "shut them up," them being the hosts interviewing him. The takeaway lesson is that we won't have an impact on the culture by being witty or by promoting ad campaigns or joining with unbelievers in social activism. No, the one thing that has the power to accomplish God's plan is none other than God's own Word. The Bible.
In keeping with Todd's observation, here are two typically-leftist major online news websites' articles about Chris Broussard. What strikes me is, (in contrast to the comments at HuffPo), the seeming lack of animus in the writings. It really does seem as if Chris, by rightly handling the Word of Truth (2 Timothy 2:15), has managed to stifle the anti-Christian sentiment, at least temporarily. This should encourage all of us to, when dealing with unbelievers, to not rely on our own intuition or cleverness, but to always bring the discussion back to the Gospel and to bring up Scripture. No matter how much the person we're talking to hates it.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/02/chris-broussard-jason-collins-ask-forgiveness-gays_n_3202418.html?utm_hp_ref=sports&ir=Sports
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/tv/showtracker/la-et-st-espn-chris-broussard-sparks-uproar-after-jason-collins-remarks-20130429,0,1157118.story
Homosexuality leads to the degrading of women. The logic goes, since relationships aren't about the man taking responsibility to lead and sacrificially love and serve his wife, and the wife respecting and submitting to her husband....if relationships are just about "happiness" and sexual pleasure, then as homosexuality gets mainstreamed, more people will think, since we don't need women for our sexual pleasure, what use is there for them? They're only good for one thing--making babies. Consequently, societies that have been sexually and homosexually promiscuous have not historically honored women. This is where we're going, now. Nothing is more anti-woman than the philosophy of 3rd-wave feminism that seeks to remove gender distinctions and mainstream homosexual behavior.
Another point Todd makes, in one of the three links I've given here, is that if it's really true that homosexuality isn't something people are born with--if it's a learned behavior--then you can expect that it's going to vastly increase in prevalence as it becomes accepted and mainstreamed by our society.
Scary stuff. But I'm encouraged that God is raising up Christians like Chris Broussard in public places to be salt and light and accomplish His divine purposes.
His parents named him well. "Christopher," after all, is a name that means "Christ-bearer."
~ Rak Chazak
The Homosexual Revolution
You've likely heard of the news regarding the basketball player who recently "came out" (I can't remember his name, and I frankly don't feel the need to; why give him more press?). He was greeted with congratulations and accolades from every corner. The President, who couldn't be bothered to comment on the Kermit Gosnell trial (likely because his voting record shows that he thinks the murderer's actions should be legal), nevertheless made a personal phone call to the now out-and-proud homosexual to CONGRATULATE him on his supposed "bravery."Stop for a second. If coming out of the closet gets you nationwide media attention, widespread encouragement and support throughout the media and the public, and even a presidential phone call to congratulate you, what's brave about it? Even a USA Today column this week made the admission that this could only be a net benefit to his career.
Can anyone look at this particular case and honestly say that homosexuals are oppressed in this country?
Broussard Brouhaha
Flip the issue. A Christian ESPN commentator, Chris Broussard, takes a public stand for Christ by saying that homosexuality is a sin and that unrepentant homosexuals can't be true Christians.ESPN hasn't immediately fired him, but it's early, yet. Supposedly, the website issued an apology for letting their tv coverage get 'nasty,' with apparent reference to the fact that someone who dared to disagree got airtime. Keep your eyes open for possible future contract termination. Persecutors of Christians in this country tend to try to be subtle...but they're getting bolder.
What's interesting is the response. While the backlash among the populace is vocal and aggressive, as is a typical product of internet anonymity, the fact that Mr. Broussard is able to clearly show that he's not hateful of homosexuals, that he's not behaving like an elitist or a hypocrite either, and his responsible and frequent bringing-up of Scripture to support his case, seems to have had the effect--if temporary--of actually stifling the animosity from the other side. He actually has gotten his critics to shut their mouths. Partially. And you know why that is? The Word of God.
Analysis
Todd Friel is a Georgia-based Christian radio host who comments on culture from a theologically Christian conservative point of view. Here is his analysis of the initial event:http://www.wretchedradio.com/podcast.cfm?h=E6E7FF801F595092DC829C929E2981FD&page=1
Just recently, Mr. Broussard did a radio interview where he excellently exegeted Scripture and stood his ground. If you want to be encouraged that God is raising up true believers in public places to be salt and light, this second clip from today is must-hear radio:
http://www.wretchedradio.com/podcast.cfm?h=96399C6B6BB75AC77CDF8CCA9C7D5E6A&page=1
The first link is a little more cynical. I won't say pessimistic. In my view, pessimism is cynicism combined with a touch of fatalism (the feeling that there's no point because everything you do is futile). Cynicism is realism, namely the realization that things are bad, and the correct understanding of how you relate to it -- you have a purpose and things are never totally hopeless. You don't know what God's working on outside of your sphere of knowledge. Todd is cynical in his perception that persecution is on the way, but he's not a pessimist--the very fact that he has this radio show and that he goes to preach on "Witness Wednesdays," and his "Biggest Project" DVD-tracting ministry all show that he thinks his efforts -- and that of those who join ranks with him -- have the potential to be used by God to accomplish revival if it is in His sovereign will to do so. Pessimism leads to fatalism, which leads to a lack of action and motivation toward action. I don't see that in Todd, and I don't recognize it in myself, either. This blog is my personal attempt to do something about the situation in our nation today. I don't have the following of Wretched, Answers in Genesis, Way of the Master, or Grace to You, but to underestimate the impact that I as an individual can have is to ignore the implications of the Butterfly Effect -- that minor events can have huge consequences down the road due to the cascading ripple effect.
A USA Today column I read about the issue said it all. The writer, pro-gay, admitted that coming out of the closet was bound to be "a net benefit to his career," and I agree. I already questioned the notion that homosexuals are being oppressed by the greater society at large above, and I won't keep beating that dead horse. The irony here is that whereas homosexuality used to have a stigma, it really doesn't any more. Now the stigma is centered on Christianity. The news story of the week ought rather to be that Chris Broussard "came out of the closet" as a Christian on national television (not technically true, as he has been outspoken about his faith in the past).
Todd pointed out something interesting in the second clip: that Broussard, by bringing up Scripture, was able to "shut them up," them being the hosts interviewing him. The takeaway lesson is that we won't have an impact on the culture by being witty or by promoting ad campaigns or joining with unbelievers in social activism. No, the one thing that has the power to accomplish God's plan is none other than God's own Word. The Bible.
In keeping with Todd's observation, here are two typically-leftist major online news websites' articles about Chris Broussard. What strikes me is, (in contrast to the comments at HuffPo), the seeming lack of animus in the writings. It really does seem as if Chris, by rightly handling the Word of Truth (2 Timothy 2:15), has managed to stifle the anti-Christian sentiment, at least temporarily. This should encourage all of us to, when dealing with unbelievers, to not rely on our own intuition or cleverness, but to always bring the discussion back to the Gospel and to bring up Scripture. No matter how much the person we're talking to hates it.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/02/chris-broussard-jason-collins-ask-forgiveness-gays_n_3202418.html?utm_hp_ref=sports&ir=Sports
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/tv/showtracker/la-et-st-espn-chris-broussard-sparks-uproar-after-jason-collins-remarks-20130429,0,1157118.story
Bonus:
A final tidbit, somewhat unrelated:Homosexuality leads to the degrading of women. The logic goes, since relationships aren't about the man taking responsibility to lead and sacrificially love and serve his wife, and the wife respecting and submitting to her husband....if relationships are just about "happiness" and sexual pleasure, then as homosexuality gets mainstreamed, more people will think, since we don't need women for our sexual pleasure, what use is there for them? They're only good for one thing--making babies. Consequently, societies that have been sexually and homosexually promiscuous have not historically honored women. This is where we're going, now. Nothing is more anti-woman than the philosophy of 3rd-wave feminism that seeks to remove gender distinctions and mainstream homosexual behavior.
Another point Todd makes, in one of the three links I've given here, is that if it's really true that homosexuality isn't something people are born with--if it's a learned behavior--then you can expect that it's going to vastly increase in prevalence as it becomes accepted and mainstreamed by our society.
Scary stuff. But I'm encouraged that God is raising up Christians like Chris Broussard in public places to be salt and light and accomplish His divine purposes.
His parents named him well. "Christopher," after all, is a name that means "Christ-bearer."
~ Rak Chazak
Eagle Scout Perspective on the BSA Policy Change
I figure my opinion might be worth something.
I was in the Boy Scouts of America from 2001 to 2008, becoming a "heartbreak Eagle" by turning in the completed binder for my Eagle Project just two days prior to my 18th birthday. My Eagle Board of Review was a few months later and then voila! I passed and about a year later, I had a joint Eagle Ceremony with four other guys in my age range from the same troop. The senator for our district came by and everything. Now I've been out for 5 years, but as they say, you never "were" an Eagle Scout. You are an Eagle Scout, for life.
At your Board of Review, you're asked a number of questions by the adult interviewers for the purpose of determining that you didn't fake your way through the system. They typically begin by having you recite the Scout Oath:
This is no different for homosexuals. While atheists and anybody practicing premarital sex should also be sternly rebuked and risk banishment, the fact that these sins are winked at by a tolerant leadership does not mean that homosexuality should also get a free pass. What the three have in common is that people who break the rules still want to get the benefits of being part of something without having enough integrity to abide by the established rules in order to do so. They have an entitlement mentality, where, like the doping athlete, they think they deserve to be given an award despite their unsportsmanlike behavior.
A homosexual isn't reverent to God. If a Scout must be, then he cannot be a Scout. By definition. Changing the rules to allow rulebreakers into the organization doesn't make the rulebreakers legitimate, it makes the organization increasingly illegitimate.
It's been pointed out before, but here's the fundamental logical reason, which even nonChristians can understand, why the BSA should not lift the ban on gays, whether boys or adults, lest it destroy itself:
God doesn't change. His righteous judgments endure forever (Psalm 119:160). Truth is from God, therefore truth never changes, because God never changes. Changing rules is truthless and therefore godless. If the BSA compromises its position then it might as well throw out the part of the Oath and Law that reference God and moral straightness, or honor, loyalty and bravery for that matter. In other words, the whole thing. If the BSA does this thing, it will destroy itself. Some organization may remain, but it won't be the Boy Scouts of America, any longer.
Another Scout saying which Eagle candidates may be told to recite at their Board of Review is the Motto: "Be prepared." I can hardly imagine that the national leadership was prepared to deal with the challenge posed by mob intimidation by businesses and media on behalf of a minority of society that has no part in their mission and seeks to undermine it. Being prepared means planning ahead so that you do the right thing when you come under fire, rather than scatter and rout like undisciplined cowards.
Regroup. Reorganize. Fall-in. The Boy Scouts of America needs to reaffirm its charter, which has stood for 103 years. If it does not stand the test of time and bear the burden of criticism from an increasingly godless nation, it will cease to remain a force for good in the culture.
I fear that this is the way the chips will fall. When I am old enough to put my own children through a similar program, there may no longer be an existing structure that I can tolerate committing them to. I may have to make an attempt to start my own.
Persecution isn't coming, Christian. It's here.
~ Rak Chazak
I was in the Boy Scouts of America from 2001 to 2008, becoming a "heartbreak Eagle" by turning in the completed binder for my Eagle Project just two days prior to my 18th birthday. My Eagle Board of Review was a few months later and then voila! I passed and about a year later, I had a joint Eagle Ceremony with four other guys in my age range from the same troop. The senator for our district came by and everything. Now I've been out for 5 years, but as they say, you never "were" an Eagle Scout. You are an Eagle Scout, for life.
At your Board of Review, you're asked a number of questions by the adult interviewers for the purpose of determining that you didn't fake your way through the system. They typically begin by having you recite the Scout Oath:
On my honorThe second most commonly recited memorized dogma of Scouting is the Law:
I will do my best
To do my duty
To God and my country,
To obey the Scout Law,
To keep myself physically strong
mentally awake
and morally straight.
A Scout is:"Morally straight" does not merely refer to sexual behavior, but it includes it. This moral straightness refers to one's duty to God. A Scout is Reverent--that means that he does not merely acknowledge the existence of a higher power, but that he honors and worships God through his thoughts, words, deeds and lifestyle. I am ashamed to say that I've known several guys, some who made Eagle, who were clearly not a believer in any orthodox religion, much less Christianity, and furthermore who engaged in premarital sex and illicit drug use. Many boys join Scouts because they want the opportunity to go camping or get to explore their pyrotechnic leanings, whereas others are forced to by their parents, and don't have any internal motivation to use the experience for character development.
Trustworthy
Loyal
Helpful
Friendly
Courteous
Kind
Obedient
Cheerful
Thrifty
Brave
Clean
and Reverent.
This is no different for homosexuals. While atheists and anybody practicing premarital sex should also be sternly rebuked and risk banishment, the fact that these sins are winked at by a tolerant leadership does not mean that homosexuality should also get a free pass. What the three have in common is that people who break the rules still want to get the benefits of being part of something without having enough integrity to abide by the established rules in order to do so. They have an entitlement mentality, where, like the doping athlete, they think they deserve to be given an award despite their unsportsmanlike behavior.
A homosexual isn't reverent to God. If a Scout must be, then he cannot be a Scout. By definition. Changing the rules to allow rulebreakers into the organization doesn't make the rulebreakers legitimate, it makes the organization increasingly illegitimate.
It's been pointed out before, but here's the fundamental logical reason, which even nonChristians can understand, why the BSA should not lift the ban on gays, whether boys or adults, lest it destroy itself:
If the Boy Scouts of America lifts the ban on homosexuals, then it will be saying that its rules were not based on timeless values, but on arbitrary prejudice. Arbitrary prejudice can be arbitrarily abandoned. Timeless values cannot. If the BSA is built on values, then it cannot compromise those values. If the BSA compromises on homosexuality, it will be admitting that it does not stand on values but will give in to pressure. An interesting consequence is that the BSA will open itself up to lawsuits alleging wrongful discrimination, since lifting the ban would necessarily mean that the organization discriminated against homosexuals in the past without any reason to do so.
Another Scout saying which Eagle candidates may be told to recite at their Board of Review is the Motto: "Be prepared." I can hardly imagine that the national leadership was prepared to deal with the challenge posed by mob intimidation by businesses and media on behalf of a minority of society that has no part in their mission and seeks to undermine it. Being prepared means planning ahead so that you do the right thing when you come under fire, rather than scatter and rout like undisciplined cowards.
Regroup. Reorganize. Fall-in. The Boy Scouts of America needs to reaffirm its charter, which has stood for 103 years. If it does not stand the test of time and bear the burden of criticism from an increasingly godless nation, it will cease to remain a force for good in the culture.
I fear that this is the way the chips will fall. When I am old enough to put my own children through a similar program, there may no longer be an existing structure that I can tolerate committing them to. I may have to make an attempt to start my own.
Persecution isn't coming, Christian. It's here.
~ Rak Chazak
Tuesday, April 30, 2013
All the Nice Girls I Meet Are "Older Women" in Relationships Already
Today I met Caitlin. I have a feeling I've spoken to her before, but I can't remember the conversation. That's typical of me because of the way in which I meet people--namely, spontaneously. I'll walk by somebody and decide to start talking to them. Yes, complete strangers. Because why not? It's nice to talk to people I already know, but you don't meet new people until you talk to someone you don't. I therefore make many many acquaintances as I go about my daily life in public.
Caitlin was unsuspecting, sitting outside my class as I left it this morning; amazingly, she found the hard-backed bench in the hallway comfortable. I can almost never find a comfortable public-access chair, couch or bench, and I suspect I'm just an unfortunate height. Or too picky, I suppose. At any rate, I asked if she was waiting for the class after mine, she said no, and then I commented on her "snake-bite" lip piercings. And that was the lead-in. Then the conversation was begun, and we talked about all sorts of things, like exercise and posture, introversion and shyness/outgoing-'itude?' (what's the accusative noun for "outgoing?"--to "have the quality of being" outgoing..? Oh well...), and then we talked about relationships, maturity, what body types are attractive, aging, gender roles and marriage.
Wow!, right? She wouldn't have spoken to me if I hadn't started the conversation. So the fact that I took the initiative led to an enjoyable dialogue. I ended up giving her my Facebook and hope to have more conversations like that in the future. I had to leave at some point, because I have a tendency to absorb people into multiple-hour conversations, and she had a class she was reading a paper for. Something about Gandhi, the background behind the famous statements he's made.
Now, I didn't yearn to be in a romantic relationship with Caitlin, however. Instead, since I found out early in the conversation that she was in a long-term relationship with a young man, I became interested in what I could learn from her about that. To my surprise, she told me that her boyfriend "did not believe in marriage." What?? I immediately responded, "he needs to grow up/man up." She laughed affirmatively. I can sympathize with the frustration of young women who want to get married but who can't seem to find a guy who has his act together/priorities in order who can give them that. Now, I don't believe that they're in a bad relationship. I know nothing else beyond that, which is all she mentioned before we diverted the topic. But I think the boy she's been dating has a little bit of growing he needs to do. Guys who don't want to marry, ultimately, are not being responsible. They don't want to commit, in one way or another, to loving a woman full-time and not merely enjoying the benefits of a casual relationship without having to work hard and sacrifice their fleeting desires for the benefit of someone else. That's what marriage ultimately is, a mutual self-sacrifice of your wants for their needs, and comfort. There's nothing better, in my mind, as far as human relationships go. Any guy who doesn't want to get married is just in need of getting his perspective altered.
I let the cat out of the bag at that point, and asked if she thought her boyfriend would be willing to check out a motivational video if it happened to be a Christian sermon. She herself was definitely interested; I hope they both watch it. I gave her the link to Mark Driscoll's "Marriage and Men" sermon and when I get home to Facebook, I plan to give her the link to this one (which I couldn't remember the name of when we were talking):
Title: Adolescence: Boys Who Can Shave. 23 minutes in length.
This together with the "Marriage and Men" sermon have been the single two most foundational videos I've seen, with regard to forming my own understanding of my responsibility as a man and about what marriage is.
Yeah, most of the girls my age seem to not know what they want, yet. The secret that no one ever tells you in school is that girls don't actually mature faster than guys, that's only true for middle school and until the guys catch up. I've met girls in college whose immaturity would outpace even the immaturity of the worst-behaved class clown from my public school days. I seem to be more drawn to the "older women." Ladies, lest you think otherwise: maturity is sexiest. There's nothing quite as attractive as a woman with integrity. And if I can grow to be a responsible, independent young man with integrity, then that's the sort of woman I hope to meet.
Patiently waiting,
~ Rak Chazak
The reason I'm so outgoing, despite being an introvert, is worthy to be another story in itself. But suffice it to say, I traveled out of the country at a formative period, when I had just hit puberty, and so I had the opportunity to "practice" talking to strangers -- girls, mainly, but not exclusively -- with the freedom of conscience of knowing that if I embarrassed myself, none of it would follow me home, because I'd never see those people again when I returned to the States. As a result, I figured out how to flirt with girls and I found out that starting conversations with complete strangers was not only easy but enjoyable. And that's what I've been doing ever since.
Caitlin was unsuspecting, sitting outside my class as I left it this morning; amazingly, she found the hard-backed bench in the hallway comfortable. I can almost never find a comfortable public-access chair, couch or bench, and I suspect I'm just an unfortunate height. Or too picky, I suppose. At any rate, I asked if she was waiting for the class after mine, she said no, and then I commented on her "snake-bite" lip piercings. And that was the lead-in. Then the conversation was begun, and we talked about all sorts of things, like exercise and posture, introversion and shyness/outgoing-'itude?' (what's the accusative noun for "outgoing?"--to "have the quality of being" outgoing..? Oh well...), and then we talked about relationships, maturity, what body types are attractive, aging, gender roles and marriage.
Wow!, right? She wouldn't have spoken to me if I hadn't started the conversation. So the fact that I took the initiative led to an enjoyable dialogue. I ended up giving her my Facebook and hope to have more conversations like that in the future. I had to leave at some point, because I have a tendency to absorb people into multiple-hour conversations, and she had a class she was reading a paper for. Something about Gandhi, the background behind the famous statements he's made.
One of the things I took away from the conversation was that here was yet another nice young woman whom I happen to connect with on a 'maturity-level' basis. Yet, as I've often found, though I admit it could just be my perception, I seem to be more intellectually attracted toward such women than those a year or more younger than I, and even a large chunk of those who are my age. As it happens, she was "almost 30," she told me, and her mentioning that caused me to recall the time when I was visiting the mall to see a movie in my Freshman year. I would have been 18, and as I stood in line waiting to order at Subway, I came across a lovely young lady who was not only stunningly attractive, but had a great personality. She, to my dismay, was 27. We're simply worlds apart. Different life experiences, different immediate goals, that sort of thing. It made me think, "I can't wait until I'm 27, because that's where the 27-year olds are." It might sound silly, but the main idea is this: the independence and maturity level of girls several years older than me is highly attractive to me, and, not to promote myself, I find that I have much more in common with them. So for me to be able to find a potential love interest, I essentially have to play the waiting game. This is all fine and dandy with me, since I recognize that I'm not financially stable and independent, such that I can put time, effort and money (being broke) into pursuing someone. If an opportunity were to come by at this point, I'd miss it. So for the time being, I'm content with being single, despite the occasional pangs of loneliness.
Now, I didn't yearn to be in a romantic relationship with Caitlin, however. Instead, since I found out early in the conversation that she was in a long-term relationship with a young man, I became interested in what I could learn from her about that. To my surprise, she told me that her boyfriend "did not believe in marriage." What?? I immediately responded, "he needs to grow up/man up." She laughed affirmatively. I can sympathize with the frustration of young women who want to get married but who can't seem to find a guy who has his act together/priorities in order who can give them that. Now, I don't believe that they're in a bad relationship. I know nothing else beyond that, which is all she mentioned before we diverted the topic. But I think the boy she's been dating has a little bit of growing he needs to do. Guys who don't want to marry, ultimately, are not being responsible. They don't want to commit, in one way or another, to loving a woman full-time and not merely enjoying the benefits of a casual relationship without having to work hard and sacrifice their fleeting desires for the benefit of someone else. That's what marriage ultimately is, a mutual self-sacrifice of your wants for their needs, and comfort. There's nothing better, in my mind, as far as human relationships go. Any guy who doesn't want to get married is just in need of getting his perspective altered.
I let the cat out of the bag at that point, and asked if she thought her boyfriend would be willing to check out a motivational video if it happened to be a Christian sermon. She herself was definitely interested; I hope they both watch it. I gave her the link to Mark Driscoll's "Marriage and Men" sermon and when I get home to Facebook, I plan to give her the link to this one (which I couldn't remember the name of when we were talking):
Title: Adolescence: Boys Who Can Shave. 23 minutes in length.
This together with the "Marriage and Men" sermon have been the single two most foundational videos I've seen, with regard to forming my own understanding of my responsibility as a man and about what marriage is.
Yeah, most of the girls my age seem to not know what they want, yet. The secret that no one ever tells you in school is that girls don't actually mature faster than guys, that's only true for middle school and until the guys catch up. I've met girls in college whose immaturity would outpace even the immaturity of the worst-behaved class clown from my public school days. I seem to be more drawn to the "older women." Ladies, lest you think otherwise: maturity is sexiest. There's nothing quite as attractive as a woman with integrity. And if I can grow to be a responsible, independent young man with integrity, then that's the sort of woman I hope to meet.
Patiently waiting,
~ Rak Chazak
Sunday, April 28, 2013
Journal Entry: Discovering, Then Struggling, With Masturbation and Fantasies
WARNING: Explicit Content
Notice: the original post that was here has been removed in order to protect the privacy of the author for the time being. It may yet one day return, but not until he's settled with a job and a good reputation in a community somewhere :)
In the meantime, a couple of observations have been excerpted out of the original article that may still be of interest.
* * * * *
Being an excerpt of a longer Journal entry I wrote that turned into a private confession to my future wife, this is written in the first person, and it's far too hard to edit it to change that aspect of it. Here's what I hope you get out of it, whether young or old, male or female, sexually active or not: some perspective you may not have thought of:
* how we try to justify lusts
* what's so insidiously wrong about porn
* the importance of not making the struggle for purity primarily about bettering yourself but about depending on Christ for your deliverance
* perhaps you'll get something out of this that I can't even anticipate. I hope you do.
The Chaos Theory of Impropriety
Chaos Theory encompasses the phenomenon known as the "Butterfly Effect," technically known as "sensitive dependence upon initial conditions." It's a mix of mathematical theory and philosophy that explains why it's difficult to predict the outcome of complicated systems. Weather, for instance. This is where the "Butterfly" analogy comes from. It supposes that the flapping of a butterfly's wings could alter the flow of the air molecules in its immediate vicinity, which causes a chain of events leading to large-scale alterations of events farther in the future. If the butterfly had not flapped its wings at a moment in time, the event cascade leading to a particular future condition would be very different than in the case where the butterfly would have flapped its wings.
Tonight I thought to apply this to relationships. Particularly to moments where two people put themselves in a situation where they are alone, secluded and have a lot of time to kill. We often hear people explain their choices with the phrase "one thing led to another, and...", and this is the essence of Chaos Intimacy.
As a single guy, I have been blessed to make very few mistakes of my own, and have gained a lot of wisdom by learning from other people's mistakes. That said, while my own experiences haven't been "as bad" (we have a tendency to compare ourselves to others), the sum message that I would give to young people is this: be warned. Don't put yourselves in situations where there's a possibility for "something to happen." You need not be of the opinion that you will do something. You don't need to be able to envision how it could occur. All that is necessary is for two people attracted to each other (or not even that--you only need to not be repulsed) to be alone in a place, where no one can interrupt you, and where there is no structure for your activity. If you haven't set clear boundaries, you're in trouble. There's no guarantee that you will do "something bad," but no matter how "good" you are, I'm writing to let you know, there's something mysterious about or human nature that practically guarantees that if we make ourselves vulnerable to impropriety in such a situation, that we'll have overestimated our fortitude, and we will fall. What may seem innocent at first could accidentally turn into something you didn't expect. Maybe you decide to box or wrestle and someone's privates are touched. This opens the door for further "activity." Your mind, when high on sexual hormones, has an uncanny ability to rationalize what you would "know better" than to do if you were thinking straight.
The Chaos Theory of Impropriety is simply that when something is left to chance, the outcome is unpredictable. Therefore make sure that you set boundaries when you spend time with someone you like. The best thing you can do is to avoid being completely alone together, particularly in one or the other's bedroom. But please also note, it's never too late to call it quits. Just because a line was crossed, it does NOT mean that you have to keep going, or that it doesn't matter if you do it again. You can always walk it back. Making a mistake does not doom you to remain in the place where your actions have landed you. Forgiveness is a wonderful thing. It's never too late to turn around and recommit yourself to purity.
That's my encouragement to young single people, and people in flirtatious relationships, this evening.
~ Rak Chazak
Tonight I thought to apply this to relationships. Particularly to moments where two people put themselves in a situation where they are alone, secluded and have a lot of time to kill. We often hear people explain their choices with the phrase "one thing led to another, and...", and this is the essence of Chaos Intimacy.
As a single guy, I have been blessed to make very few mistakes of my own, and have gained a lot of wisdom by learning from other people's mistakes. That said, while my own experiences haven't been "as bad" (we have a tendency to compare ourselves to others), the sum message that I would give to young people is this: be warned. Don't put yourselves in situations where there's a possibility for "something to happen." You need not be of the opinion that you will do something. You don't need to be able to envision how it could occur. All that is necessary is for two people attracted to each other (or not even that--you only need to not be repulsed) to be alone in a place, where no one can interrupt you, and where there is no structure for your activity. If you haven't set clear boundaries, you're in trouble. There's no guarantee that you will do "something bad," but no matter how "good" you are, I'm writing to let you know, there's something mysterious about or human nature that practically guarantees that if we make ourselves vulnerable to impropriety in such a situation, that we'll have overestimated our fortitude, and we will fall. What may seem innocent at first could accidentally turn into something you didn't expect. Maybe you decide to box or wrestle and someone's privates are touched. This opens the door for further "activity." Your mind, when high on sexual hormones, has an uncanny ability to rationalize what you would "know better" than to do if you were thinking straight.
The Chaos Theory of Impropriety is simply that when something is left to chance, the outcome is unpredictable. Therefore make sure that you set boundaries when you spend time with someone you like. The best thing you can do is to avoid being completely alone together, particularly in one or the other's bedroom. But please also note, it's never too late to call it quits. Just because a line was crossed, it does NOT mean that you have to keep going, or that it doesn't matter if you do it again. You can always walk it back. Making a mistake does not doom you to remain in the place where your actions have landed you. Forgiveness is a wonderful thing. It's never too late to turn around and recommit yourself to purity.
That's my encouragement to young single people, and people in flirtatious relationships, this evening.
~ Rak Chazak
Saturday, April 27, 2013
What Is Lust?
I have a remarkable tendency to produce profound statements in obscure Facebook chat conversations. I need to make a habit of copying these down more often. Here's something from a while back, in response to a question from another guy, about what I though lust was.
Matthew 5:27-28 -- 27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
Matthew 7:18 -- A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit.
1 Corinthians 6:12 -- All things are lawful for me, but not everything is beneficial. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be mastered by any thing.
~ Rak Chazak
Well, theoretically, it comes down to "desiring someone sexually." The question of course, is, what does THAT entail? Is it visualizing them naked or in a sex act? Is it in not doing that, but getting turned on when you look at them? Is it in imagining them in a relationship with you, ultimately leading to marriage, no matter how unsexual the fantasy might be in your mind at that moment? Is it solely limited to masturbating with the thought of them in your mind? Is it so broad that it encompasses even simply wanting to be with them in a relationship though you are not?Verses referenced:
Clearly you can see that I think about this all the time, as well. I tend toward thinking, if you gotta ask, God is probably stricter about it than He is lenient. It's a purity issue. You can look at it from a 'fruit' perspective, as well -- does dwelling on someone in your mind all the time result in good things for you, or does it distract you from academic pursuits and lead to emotional havoc? If the product of thinking about someone in a certain way does so, then that could mean that what you were doing was not good--and if not sinful, at least not beneficial.
Matthew 5:27-28 -- 27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
Matthew 7:18 -- A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit.
1 Corinthians 6:12 -- All things are lawful for me, but not everything is beneficial. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be mastered by any thing.
~ Rak Chazak
Friday, April 26, 2013
Too Disgusting to Merit Many Words from Me
The future of education in this country:
I'm not offering commentary; I'll simply say that beliefs have consequences, and when you marry yourself to someone, you can't ignore their history or their family, because you're going to be dealing with both. The same is true of political policies. You can't open the door to something without believing that all of its consequences are going to find their way inside also. If someone does, they're an idiot. Sorry if that causes offense, but peopleneed to think about things before they do it. Hopefully most readers of this article do. If some of you don't, your feelings are the least of our worries.
I'm deeply disturbed by what's going on in school as shown at the above links. I myself went to public school. I don't think I'll be able to send my children away to public school in 2025 in good conscience. And what worries me even more is that with the way the Romeike case (http://www.hslda.org/legal/cases/romeike/Romeike_CaseUpdates.asp) is going, home schooling may be illegal in the future, forcing me to choose between exposing my children to filth and depravity for 6 hours a day, or become a criminal by keeping them home.
Please share your thoughts. Especially if you are a parent of young children or someone who homeschooled.
~ Rak Chazak
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)