Re: Single, Saved and Sexin'

So, today I found a link to a very disturbing article about having sex AND being saved from one of my new favorite online magazines; So Divine Magazine. The link was actually on their Facebook site, but I'll provide the link here. The name of the article says enough, but the comments, and the article itself is what literally had me mad...and then sad.

Mad, because, once again, now I'm going to be placed in the same boat as this woman at some point, by some man who believes that evolution will eventually lead me to understand that my God of the Bible is obsolete. But more than that, because I know that I am going to get hated on by those who believe that this article actually sets women free...instead of binding her even further.

Sad, because, the Truth has once again been subverted. I can understand why, when looking at society, but the thing is, is that either a thing IS or is NOT the Truth. And even if we hate the way it is told to us or by whom it is told...the Truth is still the Truth. 



I know that this Blog is secular...so if you don't like reading about God, the Church or Christianity...then please stop reading...two paragraphs ago. I apologize for any pain already inflicted by those words written, but not enough to edit them, so stop now and be happy...LOVE~me

For the rest of y'all...well we're headed to a micro church lesson, ala VirginDoll style. I plan to use the Bible. Because my main problem with this article, is the fact that this woman believes that she is above and beyond that which she states she believes.

She says she's saved....saved by who? By her pastor, who ascribes to the Bible? Saved by her parents? Saved by Holy Water? Saved by the Church? Or is she saved by God?

Who is she saved by?

If her answer is God...then where does she get her notion of God from? Where does her idea and knowledge of God come from? How does she even know that He exists?????

And furthermore...WHO is this God that she is saved by? Is He the God of the Old Testament who wiped out Sodom and Gomorrah for their sexual immorality? Is He the same God who cleared the world of all humans during the Great Flood? Is this God the same God who gave Moses the Ten Commandments?? or is He the kinder gentler God of the New Testament who sent His only begotten Son to die on a cross for all of our sins....for our SINS? Well?????

Which one?

Or is there some other God that only she is aware of?

Is this "bigger" idea of God, a bigger idea because she has added ideas from other religions or theories, or is it because she has molded an image of God out of her own wants and presumed needs? Is this "bigger" idea of God really bigger than The Holy Bible? Does it include some verses from the Bible that suits her and exclude others, or does it take the entire work into account and simply ADD onto it? Does her idea of God exclude the Bible altogether because of whom she perceives to have written it, and its presumed purpose?

I have known many to completely disregard the Bible because they believe it was written by the "White Man" to enslave Africans.....and then I've heard of others who only believe in parts of the Bible because the other parts aren't relevant to today.

Now for this author, I am going to assume some things which I will share, because the other is unreasonable. I am going to assume that she disregards the entire Bible. My reason is that if she takes any part of the Bible as being truth, then she is skating on very illogical grounds. Why? Because that would be like getting a historical document about the Nnebuchlaabbseka and crossing out half the book based on ideas growing in my head about who Nnebuchlaabbseka must have been. Now did Nnebuchlaabbseka even ever exist, and if we answer yes, how do we know? Our only proof of there ever being a human named Nnebuchlaabbseka is this manuscript in which we are disputing over whether or not they are even wholly true....ridiculous right?

I mean part of the entire idea of God and the Holy Bible that makes the whole thing work, is Faith. But our idea of God generally comes from some loved one who says that He exists, and then we choose whether or not to believe in this being and then we yearn to learn more about Him and to strengthen our belief in Him through His Holy Word...The Bible. If we don't even believe that the Bible is wholly His, then isn't it a little shaky to believe in Him at all? I mean our first encounter through our loved ones generally have come because of things that they learned about God through the Bible or from their pastors. And their pastors learned it from the Bible or through their loved one's who learned it from their Bibles or their pastor's. But the bottom line is, is that The Bible is pretty much the only thing that stays static. So if you don't believe in the whole thing, then I wonder where you get the audacity to believe in any part of it at all!?! Further more, where does your idea of God come from? Where does this idea that He is Good and is Love come from?

To me believing in parts of the Bible is as ridiculous as believing in only parts of the owner's manual for your brand new $2000.00 camera. Really??? So you're saying that you know how to operate the camera better than the company that built the thing....alright, cool, do you boo. do you.

So, like I said, I don't believe the author includes the Bible at all in her idea of a "bigger" God. BUT, this does NOT make her stance any better. She claims to be saved...by this Christian God, and yet denies that He had or has the ability to have inspired a book to be written about Him for His followers. This thinking places all of the emphasis on the fact that because man actually wrote the words then of course the Bible must be flawed and therefore unusable. That there must be some slant on the Bible because it was written by all men. Never mind that if there was a slant, that these men did a horrible job of keeping that thing going...I mean they managed to name four women in Jesus' lineage...when none would have sufficed. They talked about the faith of the woman with "issue" and they even managed to lift up Deborah and Ruth and Esther as being chosen by God for His purpose...I mean they really sucked at leaving women the remnant. I mean they even told men to "love their wives" and for sons to honor their "fathers and their mothers". Why include women at all if their slant was to make us feel like the root of all evil and a leftover of God's creation? Why include any names of any women at all??? Why would they accidentally leave in the part about women being co-inheritors of God's kingdom and that both were created in His image? Why leave in the bit about God sending His angel to the virgin Mary?

To me, it sounds like the greatest hubris of all, to call a fallacy that which we don't fully understand.It's what guys do all the time to women when they cannot understand why she is upset about something. They say that she is being unreasonable and overemotional and illogical...when the truth is...he doesn't understand why she is upset.

This is what it seems like is happening in this article. It seems that the author cannot, does not, or refuses to understand why a God of Love would restrict her from living this life free of sex and pleasure while unmarried. And instead of going to Him with the questions, has instead come up with her own idea of God that better suits her wants and desires.

And so it is, that I caution all who ascribe to this way of thinking, that God is ok with this; that being Single, Saved, and Sexin' are ok...to make sure that they know for sure who it is that they are following. The unchanging God of Love and Life, or the fickle, changing (G)od of our fanciful making.