Sex or Affection

September 7, 2010

Last night at Crossroad, I taught a message called ‘Killer Sex.’  In that message I wanted to show that sexuality, outside of the committed marital state God intended for sex, is an extremely destructive force.  I talked about the new ways we are understanding the brain and neuro-pharmacology.  That sex is, literally, a drug to the brain.  Because of that, sexual contact, of any type, should be avoided at all costs except in the ways God intended.

Some people afterward had some questions that told me that a point I made was unclear.  I always want to be clear and here it looks like I failed.  We should understand the difference between touches that are sexual and touches that are affectionate.  What makes the difference?

Intent.

What is your intention?  Intent can make hand holding sexual.  Intent can make a kiss affectionate.  (Note: in America, we are socialized that kisses are for family only.  You see famous people try to imitate the European custom of the ‘cheek kiss’ but by and large America has not embraced that paradigm.  In other words, in America most people are going to interpret kisses as sexual.)

You need to know and check yourself.  If your intent in the hug is sexual, you need to avoid it.  Some people can hug and it be purely affectionate, some can’t.  This leads us to another point.  We have to labor as hard in protecting other peoples’ hearts as hard as we do our own.  If you are a ‘hugger,’ that does not mean that others have to share that.  If someone has a much higher threshold of contact intimacy than you, you must respect that.  Let me put it to you like this- you have no right to initiate sexual contact with someone who doesn’t want it.  “But it’s just a hug!!”  To you, yes.  To them?

Affection is a needed part of human interaction.  8-10 meaningful touches, right?

The Gospel- Killer Gospel

June 30, 2010

The Gospel is a ‘salvation message.’  There is little (rational) debate about that.  There is one little caveat to that.  Not as much a caveat as a ‘necessary presumption.’

The Gospel assumes you’re dead.

Read the rest of this entry »

De-Motivator Monday

June 28, 2010

A Rose By Any Other Name . . .

June 21, 2010

I have decided that I am going to be a social activist.  It’s important.  If no one stands up for the little guy, then they will be crushed.  So I am going to do it.  Yep, count me in . . .

Read the rest of this entry »

Don’t Indoctrinate Me While I’m Indoctrinating You

March 16, 2010

I posted earlier about a movie reviewer giving an overtly Christian movie a bad review based on the fact that it seemed to be evangelizing.  Now, let me say from the start- if a movie is bad, its bad.  Regardless of Christian or not, a work of any type needs to be honestly regarded.  If a movie is good, say so.  If its bad, say so.  But this specific review bases its dislike of the movie solely on the fact that it seeks to convert.

Hypocritical?   You decide. Read the rest of this entry »

More later

March 1, 2010

I’ll have more to say about this later in the week:

http://www.nationalpost.com/arts/movies/story.html?id=2613155

My first question is- did this reviewer have an equal reaction to ‘Avatar?’

Sigh . . .

February 25, 2010

Cardinal Francis George of Chicago recently spoke at BYU and said how great it was that Catholics and Mormons have a ‘connecting’ point in the person and Gospel of Jesus Christ. So Mormons, who believe that Jesus was a man that was exalted to godhood (a destiny that can be yours, BTW) and Catholics, who believe in the traditional Trinitarian idea of an uncreated Son, really believe the same thing?!?! This is getting crazy.

They do both believe that grace is not enough to save- so he’s got us there . . .

Making Yourself Bullet Proof

February 24, 2010

Brian McLaren is at it again.  With the release of his most recent book, A New Kind of Christianity (a companion to his previous New Kind of Christian books) McLaren continues the ‘everything must change’ mantra that he has been beating.  He and the other ‘emergents.’  Now it is very fair and true that the Church, in ANY place and ANY time, must constantly check itself for faithfulness.  The Church has a long history of falling off track, mostly because it is filled with sinners.  Only the Spirit of God can keep us totally faithful and alert, and sometimes He even providentially uses discord so the approved will rise.  Our part is diligence to what we know.  Discernment.  The Book of Acts praises the Bereans for their desire to ‘see for themselves.’  There is no sin in critique or questions.  They are needed and essential. Read the rest of this entry »

Been Away

February 24, 2010

For a long, long time. Going to try to start back up.

God and Means- The Universe

September 1, 2009

Why did God create this universe?  I don’t mean ‘for His glory,’ that’s a given.  I mean, why this one?  Why not one where we could fly?  Why not one where cars would run on Coke or Dr. Pepper (but not Pepsi!)?

More to the point- why did He make a universe that is ’cause and effect’?  There are seemingly inviolable rules governing us that boil down that that maxim.  Even the ‘first’ law of physics contains it- a body at rest or in motion will stay at rest or in motion until acted upon by another force. (Please- no physics corrections!  I know I’m dumb!).  The point is that the law is there- cause and effect.  It’s in our physical laws, our chemical laws, our energy laws, even our relational maxims.

Dwelling on this nature of the universe has lead some to despair.  Without a transcendent God it hope in, some philosophers see this cause and effect nature and determine that there is no reason to live.  Everything we do will be determined by the causes that preceded us and there is nothing we can do about it.  But it is precisely this lack of transcendence that traps them in hopelessness.

God created this universe. He created it for His glory and it will accomplish that purpose.  Cause and effect are for our good.  How?  Next time . . .


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.