The Early Bic-Test

in a world that screams “FIRE!”
Post 309

(I Corinthians 3)

So after all the meaty information compiled through this entire work under the title: When Did Reason Die?-- precept upon precept, precept upon precept, line upon line, line upon line, here a little and there a little, to this point-- including the 1st generation Hebrews that failed to cross the Jordan (Post 238 “Nine Times Forgiven” The Uncommon Christian Walk p.88), and at the very least, since Post 303 “A Woman’s World Now”, let’s finally risk an early evaluation to see if we have learned anything functionally useful beyond the milk of salvation through the regenerating Power of the Holy Ghost (I Corinthians 2:4-6+3:2+3:10a+Titus 3:5):

We asked the question: Are all, some, or any, of these five young women actually Christian?

If you had assumed I would finally provide a short, direct, “Yes” or “No” answer, even one by one, then you haven’t been learning much that will do you any good. And if you have fallen back onto your familiar doctrine of Calvinism to confidently answer the question “Yes,” then you too have not learned anything useful, but if you cling to your comfortably solid Armenian doctrine to boldly declare “NO,” then you are no better.
Calvin and Arminius (*1) were but men, and the Apostle Paul, in the inspired scriptures (I Peter 1:21), has already made clear that to set up the isolated teachings of a single man (including himself), as the sum knowledge and doctrine of the Faith, is to make a serious mistake:

“Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment (1106; resolve). For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them of the house of Chloe (*2,3), that there are contentions among you.
Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?”… I Corinthians 1:10-13.

…“For ye are carnal: for whereas there is among you envying (*4), and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men (444; in the likeness of humanity as opposed to children of God)? For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal? Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos (Acts 19:1), but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man?...” I Corinthians 3:3-5, (see v.21).

Clearly these carnal-minded Corinthian Christians, that had been prematurely attempting to digest spiritual meat, had found intellectual distinctions between the teachings of Paul and that of Apollos or there couldn’t have been any divisions by following “different doctrines" ascribed to their emotionally favorite teachers. But notice the cause that Paul himself references as the source of the distinctions:

“I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase. So then neither is he that planteth anything, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.”… I Corinthians 3:6.

Paul is identifying that at different stages of the multi-member Corinthian church development, there were different perspectives to address along the process of maturity-- like milk before meat and meat after milk (I Corinthians 3:2)-- and not different approaches to the same end or even “one way” better than “the other.” But does this mean that we change or morph our original doctrines as we develop, like some religions do with secrets that only come with “degrees”? Let’s hear Paul out:

…“Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labor. For we are labourers together with God: ye are God’s husbandry, ye are God’s building.
According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon…” I Corinthians 3:7-10a.

Paul is making clear that all the “various” works of God’s ministers in the power of His Holy Spirit is for the purpose of creating a single structure called elsewhere the collective Body of Christ (I Corinthians 12:27, 10:16-18, 12:12-14, Romans 12:4-5). This collective structure is built one stone upon another, precept upon precept, line upon line, taken from here and taken from there, each stone prepared and polished (Psalm 144:12, Revelation 21:11) to be placed upon the foundation (Ephesians 2:20-21, Revelation 21:14) resulting in a gloriously unified city where each stone is built almost as it’s own city of the same construction process, much like the trillions of complexly-constructed cells make up the many complexly-constructed parts of a single-unified human body of complexity. Precepts and lines, though importantly made of the same stuff (stem-cells if you will) are all different, or one could not be built upon another, which is why Isaiah 28:10 repeats precepts, and repeats lines, and indicates they are a Holy composite like the scriptures themselves having 40 authors over thousands of years by a single-Spirit to a single-end of perfect unification without error or schism (example: Matthew 5:17). [IF there is a schism then something of that structure is not of the Holy Spirit, whether the builder, the material, or the motive (I John 4:1[-3]), and like with the plague of leprosy it is ours to first cast it out, then work on figuring out the cause]. The temples of human-life in Christ always begin with the only foundation possible; Jesus Christ (I Corinthians 3:11), such as was built by Paul’s “milk-teachings” to them, and then always gets a structure built upon that foundation; such as by Apollos’ and/or Cephas’ “meat-teachings.” Their teachings, though somewhat different, are not in conflict in any way; the building must fit the constraints of the design (foundation); like measured aspirated-liquid gasoline in a solid engine cylinder for the intended purpose of useful power when pressure and ignition-source are applied:

“…But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon”… I Corinthians 3:10b.

From explaining that he (the Apostle Paul), and Apollos (the non-apostle-- Cephas by absence is compatriot with Apollos in this relational context of foundation and structure), were both laborers of the same construction project, Paul immediately goes on to warn that the structure on the foundation he laid, while being creatively unique, must fit the foundation and should be built only from worthy materials according the master-plan of God, or it is doomed to destruction because it will not successfully serve its intended purpose for which the foundation was laid; he didn’t lay the foundation for a dance hall but a temple:

“Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; Every man’s work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man’s work of what sort it is”… I Corinthians 3:12-13, continuing until resulting in;

“Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are” I Corinthians 3:16-17.

We see that the value of the structure, that we build on the temple’s foundation, is a composite result of the materials we chose to use in its construction-- all material choices are made by the project manager (you) and the builder (you-- and anybody you let on the job)-- and that done, without condemnation or rebuke from God for those choices. “Go for it; make it as pretty, as strong, as useful, or ugly, or useless, or flamboyant as you want.” In the effort to allow the builder “full control” to come up with a creation that represents the passions of his-or-her heart, the structure is not rejected for any reason between now and the test; Rather, Paul’s early-warning Apostolic- informative advice- as a master-builder and scriptural foundation layer, is that the structure must withstand the evaluating trial by fire that is guaranteed to come in the appointed day and for an appointed reason of testing the structures purpose, much like a factory pre-testing an engine before it ships out. Until that “test day” before the grand opening of its actual use, the building under construction seems to have no apparent flaws; in that the builder rightly builds as he wishes according to the desires of his own heart; “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder” as they say… until the day of fire, when many structures will be reduced to piles of ash beside the street. Then the beholder has a new perspective regarding beauty. But by then it’s too late for anything but templeless existence as they dwell in the open sky of poverty, happily camping on their remaining foundations that grant them their place in the kingdom’s realm as Down’s Syndrome Christians. (Don’t bother; we will cover this in future Posts!).

Today, in specific application to our Gender Typology study, we might rightly suggest switching the example-materials of cosmetics, fabrics, and silicone, in place of wood, hay, and stubble, and not damage the actual meaning for our specific use. And we might likewise substitute godliness, character, and grace, for the materials of gold, silver, and precious stones (Proverbs 11:22), but in such a specific gender application we would diminish the reach of the far larger multi-layered application that the scriptures intend by the metaphoric materials exampled.

But staying on topic; Shouldn’t you have the right to determine what your own building/body should be used for, and therefore what building materials would be appropriate? No, not after the foundation has been laid:

“What? Know ye not that…ye are not your own? For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s” I Corinthians 6:19-20.

“Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are” I Corinthians 3:16-17.

“For which of you, intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it? Lest haply, after he hath laid the foundation, and is not able to finish it, all that behold it begin to mock him, Saying, This man began to build, and was not able to finish” Luke 14:28-30. (See Haggai 1:6 regarding the funds to finish).

Again, here in I Corinthians, Paul is not addressing foundationless Pagans but Christians. Carnal Christians. God the Creator has already told us that once this foundation is laid by our “Yes” to Christ’s proposal that guarantees our Salvation as we saw above, and the Holy Spirit moves in to make ready for that great day (i.e. advising our construction), the building is the temple of God, therefore, contrary to the popular idea of “a woman’s rights over her own body,” our only “rights” is in choosing the construction materials that make up God’s temple’s structure (I Corinthians 7:4).
Even created-beautiful Silicone “gargoyles,” while perhaps visually appealing from the outside, have little but a detracting/distracting/defiling value to the holiness purpose of the temple, but nobody said the temple was doomed to burn because they were added. The potential to burn is found in the motive focus of adding such things onto a structure that is weakened by such glorious but burnable stubble being installed instead of structurally necessary silver girders of virtue and such (I Peter 3:3-4, I Peter chapter 1).

So now, back to the question regarding these young women:
We know that faith in Jesus Christ is the only way to salvation, and that comes uncomplicatedly by a simple belief, as is made clear by several passages along that line:

“That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved” Romans 10:9 (see also Galatians 2:16, Acts 16:31, etc.).

So IF the foundation is laid in Christ Jesus by an uncomplicated belief and verbal confession-- as these young women have most apparently made in their youth-- what happens when the entire building burns to ashes because of foolish construction? The short answer is found clearly enough in our same study passage:

“If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire” I Corinthians 3:15.

So that’s it then. The wicked girls are Christians.

This verse indeed seems to confirm that these young foolish Christian women are “good to go”-- perhaps with a bit of spiritual smoke damage, but still “OK for eternal heaven.” But what does it really mean, beyond milk, in a functionally practical way as they arrive in that eternal kingdom looking for their place of habitation? Especially, in light of the verses that follow the above “one-line theology,” regarding God himself destroying the builder-and-defiler of that temple as if the builder and the temple were somehow different but declared to be one in the same:

“Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? (present tense.) If any man (*5) defile (5351) the temple of God, him shall God destroy (5351); for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are” I Corinthians 3:16-17. (See also II Corinthians 6:16-17).

defile/destroy 5351 phtheiro; probably strengthened from phthio (to pine or waste); probably, to shrivel or wither, i.e. to spoil (by any process) or (generally) to ruin (especially figuratively, by moral influences, to deprave):-- corrupt (self), defile, destroy.

By understanding the words of the very accurately articulate Greek language that has been translated into our less accurate English, we discover that by being our own destroyer via a wasting defilement, God himself, in a “light or particle?” kind of way (*6), brings that destruction because our body is his house. You are in fact one-in-the-same; body and spirit, builder and building, “You are what you eat.” Since the Church is Christ’s body: If you defile your body from a lack of self-respect, God likewise destroys his body from the same lack (*7).

So how then can the whole; “saved by grace alone, without works,” (an undeniable principle of scripture), actually apply if our conduct is accountable?

In essence, what we are asking is; How do the 1st generation Hebrews fail to get into the Promised Land but not find themselves in Hell? (Post 247 “Are They In Hell?”). I strongly recommend re-familiarizing yourself with that keystone cipher Post as we are now beginning to address what I said would not come until a much later study (Preparing The Way Of The Lord p.33).
* * *

The Lepers:
…“And the leper in whom the plague is, his clothes shall be rent, and his head bare, and he shall put a covering upon his upper lip, and shall cry, Unclean, unclean. All the days wherein the plague shall be in him he shall be defiled; he is unclean: he shall dwell alone; without the camp shall his habitation be” Leviticus 13:45-46.

Why do you suppose that God the Creator-- who apparently could have made our temporal reality any way he wanted-- designed it so that the nation of His people, even in the holy Promised Land… should have lepers?
It’s because it answers our question!
Were these unfortunate Hebrews that had contracted leprosy, somehow no longer Jews? Were they somehow not God’s Promised people anymore? Of course they still were. But by their pitiful and exclusionary existence you could hardly prove it. So how is it that a Jew; a member of God’s promised people, a possessor of the land promised, should then be thrust out of the kingdom and forbidden reentry? (in Type for 70 years!) It’s because their disease is contagious, and especially by what comes out of their mouth, which is why they covered their upper lip like we do when we cough (*8). Their cry of “Unclean, unclean” was not for their own good but for the good of those not leprous (I Corinthians 15:33).
It is curious that although the scriptures lay out the care of cleansing and eradicating the disease from the camp, as well as periodically checking the diseased for possible recovery, it leaves the discovery of what causes the disease to our scientifically intellectual maturity. And although leprosy is a very real disease, the general principle of handling contagious diseases can be applied to many various layers in type... If we so choose to do:

“Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall here thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it to unto the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican (*9)” Matthew 18:15-17.

It is a rabbit trail from our topic but Leviticus 13:1-43 resulting in v.44 is a simile to this progression of discovering the degree of uncleanness, and looking for the evidence of cure or need for thrusting out as incurable, from a perspective of public health.
The leper represents, in yet another Type, the 1st generation Hebrews that failed to cross the Jordan because of their “disease” of fear (Numbers 13:28-14:10), which I Corinthians 11:6 independent-"uncovered head"-failure, is the topic of warning in the Posts of The Uncommon Christian Walk. The scriptures are surprisingly full of numerous Types of this unacceptable condition among God’s people:

The Unclean Priest:
“Now Joshua was clothed with filthy garments, and stood before the angel. And he answered and spake unto those that stood before him, saying, Take away the filthy garments from him. And unto him he said, Behold, I have caused thine iniquity to pass from thee, and I will clothe thee with change of raiment” Zechariah 3:3-4. (Don’t forget v.7 as the job and purpose after he is made clean, but beyond our present point).

The Unclean People:
“Then said Haggai, if one that is unclean by a dead body touch any of these, shall it be unclean? And the priests answered and said, It shall be unclean. Then answered Haggai, and said, So is this people, and so is every work of their hands; and that which they offer there is unclean. And now, I pray you, consider from this day and upward…” Haggai 2:13-15a, (and Haggai goes on to discuss a cleansing).

The Unclean City:
“And the LORD said unto Satan, The LORD rebuke thee, O Satan; even the LORD that hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee: is not this a (scorched) brand plucked out of the (testing) fire?” Zechariah 3:2.

The Five Foolish Virgins are the leprous, who, for the protection of the clean, go away into outer darkness without lighted lamps... Not into Hell, but not into the kingdom of heaven either. So WHERE ARE THEY?!

The answer is so intriguing, and so complex, and apparently not included in any of our expositions of scriptural doctrine, that I have brought you here one principle and one line at a time in the attempt to wean you from a pure diet of milk so that you can properly digest the protein of meat. We are about to break open these doors wide, but have patience even a little longer; there are some loose ends yet to draw in because of the plethora of confusion that has nearly successfully destroyed our numerous ciphers: such as motivated by emotional compassion that won’t thrust out those diseased by AIDS or whorish conduct (I Corinthians 11:29-30) in fear of offending the emotionally sensitive who cry, “Discrimination!”
So instead of thrusting them out, our society has set them up, as not just role models but actual idols. We even apply the labels idol and Stars to make sure our kids get the idea: “Worship these! Pattern your life after them! These are our gods!” Just as Rome did with their game champions.
* * *

Screaming, “FIRE!”
The “Bic-Test” is the use of a socially-recognized pocket lighter (*10), to hold a tiny familiar flame to the corner of an element and see how flammable it is without trying to do damage. This is not “the day of test” that we are warned is still coming, but a pre-test test among ourselves to discover anything we might need to fix before that day comes. The Bic-Test is not intended to do harm but to be a beneficial discovery if any harm is done. It is an early shaking awake of the Ten Virgins to check their lamps, much as Jesus did to the disciples:

“And he cometh unto the disciples, and findeth them asleep, and saith unto Peter, What, could ye not watch with me one hour? Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak” Matthew 26:40-41. (Spirit and flesh, foundation and structure, one in the same temple, but not the same: I Corinthians 6:19-20).

It is only a foolish virgin that will complain they were “cruelly” awakened and “embarrassingly” shown that their lamp had gone out, or is about to. Yet today, that is the most common reaction from anyone who is shown a Bic-Test flaw in their doctrine of faith, be it Christian, Catholic, Mormon, or Muslim, etc. The common instant “scriptural” ½ verse theology reaction is, “DON’T JUDGE!” (Matthew 7:1a). But contrary to popular belief; Jesus actually counsels otherwise. The distinction is in the kind and motive of the test/judgment performed (Matthew 7:1b-2=Psalm 139:23-24).

“…judge (2919; decide, try, condemn) nothing before the time…” (I Corinthians 4:3-5),
but that does not suggest there is no present time for any judgment whatsoever:

“…If then ye have judgments (2922; tribunals) of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church. I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? No, not one that shall be able to judge (1252; separate thoroughly, discriminate) between his brethren?” I Corinthians 6:1-5. (See also Matthew 7:5b, often lost behind v.5a as with the Matthew 7:1a half-verse theology).

“For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. But when we are judged (of others from our lack) we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world (on test day)” I Corinthians 11:31-32.

“I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators: Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world. But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat. For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within? But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person” I Corinthians 9-13.

Clearly, in spite of milk-sucking foolish adult Christians screaming “FIRE!” at our simple Bic-Test among family members, it is scripturally confirmed that it is indeed ours to judge those among ourselves, for the purpose of bringing correcting chastisement of the Lord in the effort to fix dangerously burnable issues before the Day of Judgment.
So, are these foolish “Christian” girls actually Christians at all, in spite of any confession of faith that might claim they are? A simple Bic-Test as we have done, confirms that their temple, as built, will burn quite successfully. And because of the dangers of a San Francisco kind of fire in the kingdom, without prematurely casting them into the fire of condemning judgment by declaring “No,” we simply thrust them out of the church to dwell by themselves as leprous “Christians” in hopes that it will motivate a desire to become clean and rejoin the community, which we would gladly allow; (II Corinthians 2:5-9).
By the act of thrusting them out, we have accepted their claim to be Christian; it is their conduct that has been found leprous. Not long ago, America, as a Christian nation (family), had such standards of law that reflected this kind of non-hateful wisdom in internal judgment while we left the world to rule their own families.
* * *

Try it:
Can you rightly apply this passage?

“Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honour the person of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbor”… Leviticus 19:15+, (see in relation; Job 34:17-19).

Clearly judgment is a part of our righteous duty, here-and-now, but only when we are mature enough to metabolize the meat of useful wisdom. Just Google “Disabled Models” to find a long-list of a growing industry that glamorizes the “person of the poor” in a twisted respect that defiles our perceptions of what's naturally “right and wrong.”
Does this passage say don’t respect the poor? No, it doesn’t!

Respect 5375 nasa’; or nacah; (Psalm 4:6[7]); a primitive root; to lift, in a great variety of applications, literal and figurative, absolutely and relatively (as follows):-- accept, advance, arise, (able to, (armor), suffer to) bear(-er), up) bring (forth), burn, carry (away), cast, contain, desire, ease, exact, exalt (self), extol, fetch, forgive, furnish, further, give, go on, help, high, hold up, honorable (+man), lade, lay, lift (self) up, lofty, marry, magnify, X needs, obtain, pardon, raise (up), receive, regard, respect, set (up), spare, stir up, + swear, take (away, up), X utterly, wear, yield.

Person 6440 paniym; plural (but always as singular) of an unused noun (paneah; from 6437); the face (as the part that turns); used in a great variety of applications (literally and figuratively); also (with prepositional prefix) as a preposition (before, etc.):-- + accept, a-(be-)fore(-time), against, anger, X as (long as), at, + battle, + because (of), + beseech, countenance… [See Ezekiel 1:6&9-10 for the alternative of consistent and predictable variation of perspective].

Poor 1800 dal; from 1809; properly, dangling, i.e. (by implication) weak or thin:-- lean, needy, poor (man), weaker. [See Psalm 106:15].

In otherwords: Do not raise up by respect the condition that makes a person weaker than what God designed humanity to be naturally. This is my judgment regarding such social confusion as these industries and organizations, which compassionately but inappropriately, promote the less fortunate condition as a cause for rejoicing and praise-worthy (*11).

“And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you” I Corinthians 5:2.

Such a mindframe of wrong focused honor does not raise up the less fortunate, but only brings us all down by re-determining what is “normal, and good” and in so doing eliminates our ability see when God removes his blessing on our nation (Exodus 23:25-26). It is the physical representation of making Sodomy socially acceptable as an “alternate lifestyle” with equal respect, or more accurately; electing them to office because they are Sodomites.
To cry “foul!’ at this judgment is not to refrain from judging, but to do unrighteousness in judgment, because it is God who determined what is normal and what is not, for a reason:

“Neither shalt thou countenance (1921) a poor man in his cause” Exodus 23:3.

Countenance 1921 hadar; a primitive root; to swell up (literally or figuratively, active or passive); by implication, to favor or honour, be high or proud:-- countenance, crooked place, glorious, honour, put forth.

So why would the word "countenance" mean; to swell up? Isn’t "countenance" the word we use that reveals a persons demeanor?

Countenance: 1. Bearing or conduct. 2. The expression of the face, especially as indicative of mental composure. 3. The face; visage. 4. Approving bearing or facial aspect; hence, favor; aid. - Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 5th Edition 1948.

Do not approve the mental composure that causes a person to diminish, [see I Corinthians 4:6,18-19, 13:4, Colossians 2:18, as opposed to James 1:17 as they relate to our definition discoveries].

Applying this concept to the second example in the study verse regarding "the person of the mighty," we see that it is unrighteous judgment to honor a person because of their station. This is what we do when we praise and approve the unsavory conduct of someone just because they are rich, powerful or famous, such as our five girls in question. To honor the station may be righteous, to honor the person may be righteous (Romans 13:7), but to honor the person of the station is not, such as honoring a corrupt politician because he’s a politician… or a Christian (Acts 10:34, I Corinthians 11:29-30 in effect principally to our context).
* * *

So let’s just cut to the chase:
While we don’t argue that these foolish virgins might or might not be Christians, we can sure examine their health and declare them conclusively, “leprous.” (See Post 256 “On The Olympics” note: *1 http://when-did-reason-die.blogspot.com/2012/08/on-olympics.html). Thrust them out, and do it decisively! Let them be “Christians” somewhere else where they cannot damage the healthy body of Christ; let them dwell alone, much as we used to socially shun fallen women while giving them compassionate aid in their difficult plight; We have young daughters to protect!
But since we don’t care to cast them from us, if they had any shame or regard for the living, they themselves would self-reproachingly confess publicly and loudly that they are unclean (while covering the “upper-lip” details of their shame), in the effort to keep others from contracting what they have. In otherwords; they would give all their wickedly acquired goods to the poor and commit to speaking engagements to discourage young girls from following their fallen ways.

But somewhere along the path of continued acceptance of what was once abominable, eventually, like Lot, it may be the healthy that might have to go around crying, “Clean, clean!” among a community of lepers living in palaces of honor:

“And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues” Revelation 18:4.

With the high volume of sexualized teen-idol-worshipers, Gay-Rights activists and Cause worship, it's not looking like that day is too far off (*12).
* * * * * * *

(*1) “John Calvin (French: Jean Calvin, born Jehan Cauvin: 10 July 1509 – 27 May 1564) was an influential French theologian and pastor during the Protestant Reformation. He was a principal figure in the development of the system of Christian theology later called Calvinism. Originally trained as a humanist lawyer, he broke from the Roman Catholic Church around 1530. After religious tensions provoked a violent uprising against Protestants in France, Calvin fled to Basel, Switzerland, where he published the first edition of his seminal work Institutes of the Christian Religion in 1536” - (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Calvin).

“Jacobus Arminius (October 10, 1560 – October 19, 1609), the Latinized name of the Dutch theologian Jakob Hermanszoon from the Protestant Reformation period, served from 1603 as professor in theology at the University of Leiden. He wrote many books and treatises on theology, and his views became the basis of Arminianism and the Dutch Remonstrant movement. Following his death, his challenge to the Reformed standard, the Belgic Confession, provoked ample discussion at the Synod of Dort, which crafted the five points of Calvinism in response to Arminius's teaching” - (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobus_Arminius).

(*2) House of (no actual word) idium; therapeia; noun; household.
“In I Cor. 1:11, “they which are of the household (A.V., house) of Chloe” is, literally, ‘the…of Chloe,’ the English translation being necessary to express the idiom - (Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, W.E. Vines, 17th impression 1966, p.237).

Idiom: noun [French and Latin; French idiome, from Latin idioma, from Greek idioma, from idioun to make a person’s own, from idios one’s own proper.] 1. The language peculiar to a people, (a tongue) or to district, community, or class (a dialect). 2. The structural form peculiar to any language. 3. An expression in the usage of a language, that is peculiar to itself either in grammatical construction or in having a meaning which cannot be derived as a whole from the conjoined meanings of its elements. 4. A form of expression characteristic of an author.

(*3) Chloe 5514 Chloe; feminine of apparently a primary word; “green”; Chloe, a Christian female:-- Chloe.

Green is the notorious color of feminine envy, akin to jealousy (see *4). It is also the color of the 4th destroying horse of Revelation 6:8 interpreted as:

Pale (5515) chloros; from the same as 5514; greenish, i.e. verdant, dun-colored:-- green, pale.

Chloros is the foundation of our word Chlorine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorine) to describe chemical element no. 17 on the periodic table, which is, oddly enough, a yellow-green color like the pale of death. It is among the strongest of all the reactive elements and therefore is a strong oxidizing agent for both good and bad uses, which means the Pale Horse of Revelation does its deadly work by corrosively affecting what it touches via chemical reaction. All this is very significant to the Prophecy of scripture but will have to wait for a collection of works I hope to publish under the title Beyond Alchemy.
But lest you think chlorine has no good purpose, I offer you this tiny morsel as we contemplate the house of Chloe as referenced by Paul for a reason:
• 85% of medicines are made using chlorine chemistry.
• 96% of crop protection used by farmers are based on chlorine chemistry.
• 98% of Western Europe’s drinking water is made safe with the help of chlorine.

God himself claims to be a jealous (7065) God (Deuteronomy 6:14-15), but not envious as we know it (Ezekiel 35:11). The difference may be found in rightful possession of what is desired; jealousy wants to retain, while envy wants to obtain. Why then was Paul informed by the House of Chloe? (Philippians 1:15+ James 4:5).

(*4) Envy 2205 zelos; from 2204; properly, heat, i.e. (figuratively) “Zeal” (in a favorable sense, ardor; in an unfavorable one, jealously, as of a husband [figuratively, of God], or an enemy, malice):-- emulation, envy(-ing), fervent mind, indignation, jealousy, zeal.
2204 zeo; a primary verb; to be hot (boil, of liquids; or glow, of solids), i.e. (figuratively) be fervid (earnest):-- be fervent.

Jealous 7065 qana’; a primitive root; to be (causatively, make) zealous, i.e. (in a bad sense) jealous or envious:-- (be) envy(-ious), be (move to, provoke to) jealous(-y), X very, (be) zeal(-ous).

God, through the Apostle Paul, would not have included this house-but-not-house "of Chloe” tidbit into the scriptures if it didn’t have significance to our understanding. Therefore, the house of Chloe is apparently referencing a spirit of caustic zeal typed by the spirit of Green who came running to Paul perhaps for the zealous purpose of “straightening out” the others regarding the beloved faith. We know the Corinthian Church was divided according to well-intended envious doctrines of contention for the faith. This is what I believe Paul was addressing, but more will have to wait.

(*5) “if any man” 1536 ei tis; from 1487 and 5100; if any:-- he that, if a(-ny) man(‘s thing, from any, ought), whether any, whosoever.
1487 ei; a primary particle of conditionality; if, whether, that, etc.:-- foreasmuch as, if, that…
5100 tis; an enclitic indefinite pronoun; some or any person or object:-- a (kind of), any (man, thing, thing at all)…

This phrase would be more easily understood in our vernacular as “if anyone.” I bring this up for two reasons:
1. Because of the potential to read this as meaning only a man attacking a woman to defile her.
2. To show that while it clearly identifies the person defiling their own body as the primary intent, it also allows any other who would defile that body as well.

(*6) Light or Particle?: see Post 277 “The Young Double-Slit Experiment” (http://when-did-reason-die.blogspot.com/2012/11/particle-or-wave.html).

(*7) If you defile your body from a lack of self-respect, God also destroys his body from the same lack (Matthew 10:32-33, Luke 12:8-9), much like cutting out cancer.

“For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones” Ephesians 5:30 (+31).

But God’s purposes are not as “destroying” as one might think; mirrored much like our example’s confused actions as they “cry out” for help by destroying themselves (as expressed in Ephesians 5:29), yet God is not likewise confused:

“Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed (2673), that henceforth we should not serve sin” Romans 6:6.

Destroyed 2673 katargeo; from 2596 and 691; to be (rendered) entirely idle (useless), literally or figuratively:-- abolish, cease, cumber, deliver, destroy, do away, become (make) of no (none, without) effect, fail, loose, bring (come) to nought, put away (down), vanish away, make void.

“For the Son of man is not come to destroy (622) men’s lives, but to save them…” Luke 9:56.

Destroy 622 apollumi; from 575 and the base of 3639; to destroy fully (reflexively, to perish, or lose), literally or figuratively:-- destroy, die, lose, mar, perish.

“Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin; that he no longer should live the rest of his time in the flesh to the lust of men (444 humanity), but to the will of God” I Peter 4:1-2.

Ephesians 5:25-27 concludes with: “So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself” Ephesians 5:28 (as Christ loved the Church; Ephesians 5:32). But love is not to be construed as blanketly permissive, as the scriptures make abundantly clear.

Regarding the “light or particle?” question of “Who destroys your temple; You or God?” The answer is, “Yes.”

(*8) “and especially by what comes out of their mouth” has a double-meaning application as God’s people can speak unwisely, and even blasphemously, thereby infecting others (Matthew 12:34+Hebrews 12:15, Job 21:5, 29:9-10, Proverbs 30:32, Ecclesiastes 5:6, James 3:8, Romans 3:13, Exodus 20:7=Deuteronomy 5:11).

(*9) Publican:
5057 telones; from 5056 and 5608; a tax-farmer, i.e. collector of public revenue:-- publican.
5056 telos; from a primary tello (to set out for a definite point or goal); properly, the point aimed at as a limit, i.e. (by implication) the conclusion of an act or state (termination [literally, figuratively, or indefinite], result…
5608 oneomai; middle voice from an apparently primary onos (a sum or price); to purchase…

What we might miss, being distanced from the reality of life for those Jesus was addressing, is that a State empowered Publican was able to seriously trouble your life if you didn’t pay what they figured you could. Publicans were notoriously corrupt extortioners. Luke 19:2+8 gives us a hint into the past life of a converted Publican, and gives greater understanding to II Samuel 12:6 centering on a lack of pity toward the poor man legally but immorally robbed by the man with power; i.e. the king.

(*10) “Société Bic (commonly referred to as just Bic) is a company based in Clichy, France. It was founded in 1945 by Baron Marcel Bich and has become known for making disposable consumer products... The brand's lighters have changed little since 1972. They, as well as the Bic Cristal ballpoint pen, are easily recognizable as a result of their importance in pop culture. As such, they are represented in the design collection of the Museum Of Modern Art in New York” - (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soci%C3%A9t%C3%A9_Bic).

(*11) Am I suggesting that a black man cannot be President, or a handicap girl be a model? I am not. This passage is instructing us not to make the man President because he is black, or make her a model because she is handicapped. As long as they can do the job what do I care?… until an issue is made of it. (Acts 15:29+I Corinthians 8:4-9+I Corinthians 10:27= I Corinthians 10:28), something like Clinton’s miss-applied “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” military policy in a Christian nation (*11a). We rejoiced with Olympian Oscar Pistorius (*11b) not because he was crippled but because of his amazing triumph to rise above his handicap. When he fell morally we cast him off, not as a handicap but as an immoral man. We did not respect the Handicapped man, we respected the man, that was handicapped. This is the same issue brought up some time ago regarding the difference between a Mexican American and an American of Mexican descent (*11c).

(*11a) "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT), byname for the former official U.S. policy (1993–2011) regarding the service of homosexuals in the military. The term was coined after Pres. Bill Clinton in 1993 signed a law (consisting of statute, regulations, and policy memoranda) directing that military personnel “don’t ask, don’t tell, don’t pursue, and don’t harass.” When it went into effect on October 1, 1993, the policy theoretically lifted a ban on homosexual service that had been instituted during World War II [the law], though in effect it continued a statutory ban [the grace]. In December 2010 both the House of Representatives and the Senate voted to repeal the policy [the issue made], and Pres. Barack Obama signed the legislation on December 22. The policy officially ended on September 20, 2011” - (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1553878/Dont-Ask-Dont-Tell-DADT).
A very crafty two-step means of sidestepping the WWII law entirely but making it look like an honorable thing to do, much as “Christians” wrongly apply grace to completely undermine the law’s original intent of eliminating uncleanness in the camp for the sake of public health. Don’t let this subversive misapplication of a good principle derail our concept.

(*11b) See Post 260 “The Nephil Consideration” Note: *2 (http://when-did-reason-die.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-nephil-consideration.html).

(*11c) “If they want to be here; come lawfully, with the mind to be Americans of Mexican decent. Not Mexican Americans.” - (Post 070 “The Bloodthirsty Moose” http://when-did-reason-die.blogspot.com/2010/06/blood-thirsty-moose.html).
See also Post 078 “ Parable of Illegal Mexicans” (http://when-did-reason-die.blogspot.com/2010/07/parable-of-illegal-mexicans.html).
This really is not as “off topic” as you might think.

(*12)
“They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate” Titus 1:16. (See also vv.12-16).
*

Five Foolish Virgins - Part 5

Post 308e

Mindy McCready, Britney Spears, Miley Cyrus, Jessica Simpson, Selena Gomez

“For there they that carried us away captive required of us a song; and they that wasted us required of us mirth…” Psalm 137:3.
* * *

Finally we have arrived at the last of our five examples,
Selena Gomez:

Gomez was born in Grand Prairie, Texas. She is the daughter of former stage actress Amanda Dawn "Mandy" Teefey (née Cornett) and Ricardo Joel Gomez….Regarding her Hispanic heritage, Gomez has stated, "My family does have Quinceaneras, and we go to the communion church. We do everything that's Catholic, but we don't really have anything traditional except [that we] go to the park and have barbecues on Sundays after church." Her birth parents divorced when she was five years old, and she was raised as an only child by her working mother, who had her when she was 16. This led to the family having financial troubles, with her mother struggling to provide for them. On the situation, Gomez stated "I remember my mom would run out of gas all of the time and we’d sit there and have to go through the car and get quarters and help her get gas because she never liked to ask my grandparents for money. I remember having a lot of macaroni and cheese but my mom never made it seem like it was a big deal. She was really strong around me. Having me at 16 had to have been a big responsibility. My mom gave up everything for me, had three jobs, supported me, sacrificed her life for me." Gomez later elaborated on the topic, stating "I definitely didn't appreciate it when I was little. I was frustrated that my parents weren't together, and never saw the light at the end of the tunnel where my mom was working hard to provide a better life for me. I'm terrified of what I would have become if I'd stayed [in Texas]" - (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selena_Gomez).

Remember this young virgin? We discussed her “Rock God” conflict with her self-declared “LORD AND SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST” quite a few Posts back (*1). We speculated that the cost of her success in this park would necessarily be in the loss of her faith as an equitable trade. Let’s have a fresh look and see how she is doing at hanging on to her Homing compass while playing with Parrots in their park.
* * *

“Selena Gomez in Spring Breakers [movie]: It Was My Mom's Idea, the Former Disney Star Says - By Marc Malkin, Sun., Mar. 17, 2013 10:23 AM PDT
Selena Gomez’s role in Spring Breakers is nothing like anything else she's ever done. She plays a church-going coed who joins three other friends (Vanessa Hudgens, Ashley Benson and Rachel Korine) for a booze-filled and druggie spring break vacation in Florida. And Gomez's mom was all for it…” (*2).

This “just like my real life” pattern of her mom being “all for her Wizard role,” is now a common theme for young stars. The question we need to ask is; Does the pattern steer the life or does the life steer the pattern? If Selena Gomez spent her church-going youth pretending to be a wizard with her Godless friends rather than acting like a child of God, is this illusion the real life that is patterned as a theme in the new movie about a Church-going youth doing questionable things with her wicked friends but all in good innocent pretend fun so it doesn’t matter?

“Selena Gomez’s Mom Pushed Her Into Edgy Spring Breakers Role! Posted 3/18/2013 2:02 PM ET
Selena Gomez puts a LOT of herself on screen in Spring Breakers! Don't believe us? Check out the unrated European trailer!” (*2).

The link is not a risky European trailer as claimed, but an E! Red Carpet interview and article that is “safe” to review and quite informative enough, if you feel the need (*3).

“So what did the former Disney star's mom have to say about the jump to edgy indie? [Selena tells us:]
‘She loves this kind of vibe. She's super into Indie movies and Indie directors… I think it was more of her pushing me and being like ‘you should go for it.’
Wow! We wonder if she had seen writer/director Harmony Korine’s 90s classic Kids before getting enthusiastic! Well, she's been a Hollywood mom long enough to know that it's all fake and totally safe. Well, except for the nudity. Who could body double Selena??" (*4).

Not only are we disappointed in Selena for being the latest in a long line of “Christians” to cave in to Hollywood’s push toward prostituting herself, but that last paragraph of surprise reaction and revelation speaks volumes… especially for a church-going approving mother to hear from a secular Pagan reporter about just what is alarming in an industry that invented alarming. But, as the man said tongue-in-cheek; “she's been a Hollywood mom long enough to know that it's all fake and totally safe…" except it’s not all safe. Just like her daughter’s Christian experience pretending to be wizard.
It isn’t looking like a stellar track-record but let’s give her the benefit of the doubt, maybe the bikini clad bodies we see in the promotionals is all they meant by “a LOT” and “nude.” So let’s check in a safe manner before we go off half-cocked:

“MPAA Rating: Rated R for strong sexual content, language, nudity, drug use and violence throughout” - Amazon.com

No, I’m pretty sure nude means nude, and I don’t need to see the movie.
But who knows if Selena is actually one of the nudes? Not me, I didn’t watch it. But what if it is actually her, in the raw, before every man in the world? It’s Hollywood, why wouldn’t she be? And who should care? I mean except for the secular Pagan interviewer of many such actresses that was surprised her mother would encourage her to do such a thing. Apparently he thinks she should care. Well, it’s a good thing that Pagan is not her father; he might be a bad influence on her good Catholic Christianity!

OK Stop.
This is the intended course that we are supposed to take by the leading of the various movie promotionals, including the interview. I could go on with the discussion in coffeeshops across the country but you get the idea.
It actually took some diligent digging through private reviews of the film, but it turns out once again we see the now expected trend: Selena played her “real life role,” and in her case it was as a good moral Church-going youth edging into where she didn’t belong, but then got uncomfortable and went home early as good girls should. No nude Selena, we can breath easy for her. The entire E!-publicity Red Carpet interview was a crafted scam of illusion to get people to watch the dirty movie.
By dropping her name, Selena implied that even her Mom was in on the gag in the effort to validate the illusion, and Selena played her part in the gag letting us think by her interview that she got all naked and stuff, and Hollywood makes money off her virtuous Christian name and fame in viewer’s hopes of seeing some Christian Selena virgin flesh. The audience may be disappointed but nobody got hurt; it was all a spoof in fun. Well, except for all the money they made by defrauding the lusty public. Get over it; you’ve been ‘Punked’, What’s the harm?

“Punked”: This term has recently become popular by a TV show filming people being elaborately and harshly tricked as entertainment. A short etymology search of this slang reveals that the vile nature of this word remains consistent through its various usages. Only a generation ago this word was slag for young men sodomised in prison, and the root word “Punk” describes rotten wood used for tinder; torchwood. So now, What’s wrong with being Punked? They were just having fun… at your expense.

Here’s the problem. Selena actually damaged her own name and the name of Christianity as if she actually did all those evil things, even if she didn’t actually do any-- or many-- of those evil things. How?
While thinking she was Punking others, the real Punk was on her, (much like the self-defiling freakish appearance and conduct of a Punk-Rocker presenting his humanity to the world). She created a fabricated environment of “hidden” illusion, regarding a work of “expected” illusion about a fabricated adventure on film, which leads people to logically imagine a degree of immoral conduct by the actress to get the picture (i.e. nudity), which she confirmed herself as true, without actually lying. And without watching the filthy film that she was actually in, there is no reason to expect that what she said about herself is not true. Therefore, it simply doesn’t matter to what degree Selena actually participated, the film is branded with hedonism and yet our virtuous Christian sweetheart is in it for everybody who doesn’t watch such trash to be convinced of her involvement which she intentionally confirms as true, as a part of her elaborate illusion for what she thinks is a harmless Punk.

What she is apparently not considering is that by the elaborate gag pretending to have been nude in the film, she has created a false new low for herself, and anything above that illusion is now acceptable conduct as “safe” (*5). Thus no problem with sporting her flesh in a bikini for lust-- and not even at the beach for innocent fun but on a film lot for the very purpose of focusing on her half-naked body-- and conducting herself in an undignified manner with wild party girls of safe illusion. Hollywood is the master at teasing the lion without the risk, through fantasy.
But by her conduct and lies she has given herself and Christians a bad name, and what she did or didn’t do is now irrelevant. It’s just one more “pretend wizard” step in the wrong direction from home, and with her new “bad name” for things she didn’t actually do, she does not yet know that she even took that step. But she did. And she’s taking her maiden followers with her to play with Leviathon that she thinks is safely chained (Job 41:1-5).

But it’s even worse.
Now when Christian leaders, trying to keep Christian virgins from conducting themselves as their apparently recent fallen Christian example, these ministers will simply reference what Selena herself said, and in ignorance of the truth will make themselves and their argument foolish, because the maidens who watched the movie know the argument is not true, and will therefore confuse the entire argument with the error.
Why would Selena be a part of that?
Because in her innocent youth of following her whore-grooming promoter’s direction, she sees the Punk-gag as an “I’m still innocent” lark, but they see it as an induced perspective of focus that allowed her to take the next step of wickedness that they wanted her to take. While getting her to focus on the known “wall of abomination” that she pretended to cross but didn’t, she didn’t see that she actually crossed her own virtuous “wall of abomination” far short of where she was focused. To her it was a lark, and to them it was a step. They are not grooming her to play a wizard all her life. Like with Miley, they are just paying their dues until it gets “interesting.” Well, it’s starting to get just a little more interesting, and like Christian girls following her “safe” example, sneaking out for harmless fun at Spring Break; somebody is going to get hurt, and it won’t be the good-natured gun-packing drug dealer “watching out for them” as is routinely promised by the pimp drawing her in to his inescapable web. Selena has just flavored the bait-hook and claimed innocence by not knowing what the hook would be used for.

I’m pretty sure Britney Spears was never actually a violent madam of prostitutes either; “it’s all pretend, it doesn’t hurt anyone.” But Britney did not end up in her world-class trainwreck because there was no toy in her Happy Meal one afternoon. Something happens to these young women because while they work hard at pretending to be evil they have to do questionable things to create the illusion, and that something may really surprise you, because it’s the same something that happens to you when you watch their “Television” illusions of evil while thinking it doesn’t affect you because it’s an illusion: That something is your soul that is being sucked right out of your eyes while you are looking for absent signs that it’s affecting your mind.

“I will set no wicked thing before mine eyes: I hate the work of them that turn aside; it shall not cleave to me” Psalm 101:3.

So why do you watch it?
It’s because by familiarity it begins to cleave to you, and by not hating the work of them that turn aside, you yourself are turned aside while you pretend to hate what you watch. The safety is the illusion!

…“Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them” Romans 1:32.

So Selena is so good and moral that her next step toward evil is not to be nude but only to run around in a bikini pushing her limits with “safe” Hollywood friends for half a film pretending to be a Christian youth so good and moral that her next step toward evil is to go on spring break with her hedonist friends running around in a bikini pushing her limits pleased that she didn’t actually get nude.
But because of Miley’s new recently shocking “low,” we have re-calibrated our perspectives to accept the notion that bikini clad Christians going on hedonistic Spring Break is perfectly acceptable if they don’t actually get nude. “Anything short of nude is just good clean Jessica Simpson kind of fun for youth to explore hedonistic pleasures in life, as long as you got a Britney Spears style talisman-Cross of ‘Christianity’ hung around your neck, it can’t hurt you.”

I went to a lot of extra careful work to discover that she is not yet as wicked as she lets on (but more wicked than she knows), but most people won’t… unless they watch the film. To Godly people not “in on the gag,” her half-naked body in the movie promo is proof of the other wickedness she wants us to think she has done, by letting us… no, by leading us, to think the worst. She has created a wicked reputation among honorable people, that she must now wear. The excitement of her new “edginess” will be fun for a while, but it will wear her down, until, like Britney Spears, she herself won’t know the difference between real and pretend when it comes to her reputation, so “why not just do what everybody thinks I have already done because I already told them I did. Besides, they’re offering me a lot of money, and the next small step towards edgy sounds like unexplored fun.” But beware:

“Bread of deceit is sweet to a man (or woman); but afterwards his mouth shall be filled with gravel” Proverbs 20:17.

The reason why I know with reasonable certainty that this will eventually take place, is because she was already willing to be in the film at all: It’s a wicked film. She has already stepped. And she will step again. Small as they are at first, they are steps… in the wrong direction. And the lie that she has already bought by trying to sell it to us, is that it is all harmlessly pretend.
The art of acting is dangerous enough, but the art of “reality TV acting” is an entirely different level of dangerous because it’s that much harder for the actress to distinguish real from pretend while they’re pretending that it’s not real. Congratulations darlin’ your virtue is apparently a lot stronger than most; your destruction is going to take 49 small steps instead of the average giant 6. But you will take them, and in the lengthy “safe” adventure short of the 49th, you will miss the bridegroom’s gate-opening. So what difference does your Christianity make in the end? Along the way you misplaced your Homing device and never even realized it was gone. The focused “49th step of your destruction” is the illusion of being safe until you reach it, but your sure destruction happened back about step number 3 when your spirit told you this was the wrong direction but you continued to step.
Somewhere along the game of pretending to be a generic pigeon in order to get along with Parrots so you can play in their park, the pretend becomes reality by the fact you failed to stay on course toward home. Remember, the only difference between a Homing Pigeon and a generic pigeon is the active homing device that eventually gets them on the other side of the gate when it is opened, because their chosen adventure lead them there one day, one step, at a time.

No wonder the Godless world gets confused at what they see when all they see are these famous “American Christians.” But these young women are more probably just Identity Thieves, like the Catholic Church, making Christians pay the bills that they charge in our name!

“They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest (known) that they were not all of us” I John 2:19.

They can’t be made manifest if we keep quiet about the fact that this is NOT Christian conduct and anybody who partakes in their I Thessalonians 4:6 “beyond fornication” wickedness is likewise not approved of our Lord Jesus Christ:

“In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, to deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus” I Corinthians 5:4-5 (read from v.1 in relation to Ephesians 5:3-8).

Can you not see the gradual change in this girl’s perceptions? And yet you think that her minor, near nude, good-girl part in the recent filthy movie had no effect. That is the same thinking that allows Christian children who watch her illusionary work to imagine that they too can go with friends on a Spring Break party of debauchery and quit any time they figure it’s getting too rough. But real life just doesn’t work like that, because leaving your pink bedroom for Hollywood is a simple first step… down hill. Climbing back up is not as easy as Hollywood makes it out to be. Example: watch Hollywood characters out-run on foot a pyroclastic flow (*6), or out ride on a motor cycle a title wave of unnatural proportions, or dodge the bullets of 15 fully auto machine guns, or go home when things get too rough.
* * *

The Five-Post Wrap Up:
So in light of this five-part Post, how applicable are the scriptures that accuse us of selling our daughters? By the many who “buy her” at the theater and elsewhere, I don’t get the impression that it’s metaphorical anymore. The result is evidenced in her current, familiar “actress style” pride in public, that reveals she now has the illusionary mindframe that she is finally a star and not just a meal. What better business can a pimp run than to have happy whores who love their profession? Don’t get me wrong, she’s not your common whore; she’s a very expensive and dignified whore… and that somehow makes honorable her whoredom~.
Remember the expensive whore in the movie Serenity that was society elevated by being legally called “companion” and trained to have unusual class of sophistication and grace added to created beauty. In her elevated social dignity she could not be offended by anything or anyone… except by the one she loved, calling her what she is. In his powerless “not your husband” male role of trying to help her see that this is not who she should want to be, all it did was offend her that he didn’t accept her as she was. She couldn’t hear his broken heart for her, begging her to stop for her own good, and offering her another way if she would but reject what she now clings to as valuable.
And guys are called insensitive?
He was powerless to say anything constructive because what he knew would be better for her, would take away what she now saw was the desirable reason for her involvement; wealth and respect. And if he first offered her his love before she rejected what brought the wealth and respect, he would either be stuck with her current wicked conduct or be accused of making her choose. So he offered her hope: The unspoken promise that if she would chose him over it on her own, he would gladly fulfill the “promise” of giving her his love. And by this necessary order she is freed from the bitter illusion that her rejection of wealth and respect was coercion by him to get what he wanted: her. This changes “being summoned” into “picking her man.” The power is hers in this Woman’s World… but neither has he been made her slave, because he refused to accept what was offensive to his masculinity.

“Give not thy strength unto woman, nor thy ways to that which destroyeth kings” Proverbs 31:3.

With God’s declared “hands off” reactions to their wicked ways, these Christian girls are free to implode by their own means without resistance from Him. And the lack of rebuke from God-- like the expected but never seen lightning bolt from heaven-- seems to confirm to them, and the world, that God is just fine with the wickedness of his children now days (Zephaniah 1:12 translated into our short-term New Testament Age of grace). It’s simply an offered choice that leaves the power in their hands in order to avoid feelings of oppression if they choose Him.

These five girls represent the virgin Christian;-- the sweepstakes winners-- that the world is shown in glory, and uses to evaluate the unseen masses: beautiful, powerful, seductive, manipulative, self-serving, self-glorifying, and walking in self regulated degrees of wickedness, without shame, but still presented as the approved church of Jesus Christ by “grace alone,” as is apparently proved true by the liberating New Testament itself.

But still worse than that; beyond the confusion of the spiritually ignorant world, this is also how every-day Christians see Christianity today: “Saved sinners” “Not perfect, just forgiven,” “Living by grace alone,” “Eternally secure,” etc.
And this confusion is only just now becoming fully established as the standard; the new Zero; the baseline from which all variations of authorized Christianity must hereafter branch. It’s the Catholic Church all over again… but now it’s on estrogen injections!

But while it is true that God is no longer the one to punish our wickedness for the time being-- since our own wickedness of emotional independence will do that job just fine-- we can still find His protective love and care if we will simply turn to God in humility under his benevolent guidance at the rejection of the wickedness that brings us pretty bangles (*7). The word we use to describe this is: REPENTANCE.

“Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him; Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins” James 5:19-20.

My prayer for these four remaining foolish virgins, and the many unknown others by influence, is to just STOP. Walk away. No, run. Run as fast as you can (II Timothy 2:22) and buy a replenishment of oil for your extinguished lamp before it’s too late (Matthew 25:9). I am just another virgin with my own lamp burning, but my words are the words of the Redeemer and are the currency, as given freely to me, I give them to you without cost, to buy from the Redeemer the Holy Spirit (Exodus 33:16) without money… not to return to where you were before with a new “extra-strength talisman” to protect you, but to head in the other direction; to the Bridegroom’s gate.
* * *

For a cleansing shower from the filth explored in these five Posts, I strongly encourage you to read all three chapters of II Peter in the light of this Post, and read the second chapter twice.

“…According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue: Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust”… II Peter 1:3-4.

…“For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the later end is worse with them than the beginning. For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them”… II Peter 2:20-21. A forensic recipe for a predictable trainwreck.

“Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own steadfastness” II Peter 3:17.

These five Posts are not an end to themselves, if they were, I would not have risked the photos and details. And although I believe the information it contains is important to a practical application for our self-governing daughters today, it has a much bigger-picture purpose that will soon become clear.
* * * * * * *

(*1) Post 116 “Selena Gomez’ God” http://when-did-reason-die.blogspot.com/2010/11/selena-gomezs-god.html), The Uncommon Christian Walk p.187 (https://www.createspace.com/3832282).

(*2) (http://www.eonline.com/news/398444/selena-gomez-in-spring-breakers-it-was-my-mom-s-idea-the-former-disney-star-says?cmpid=rss-000000-rssfeed-365-topstories&utm_source=eonline&utm_medium=rssfeeds&utm_campaign=rss_topstories).

(*3) (http://www.eonline.com/news/398444/selena-gomez-in-spring-breakers-it-was-my-mom-s-idea-the-former-disney-star-says?cmpid=rss-000000-rssfeed-365-topstories&utm_source=eonline&utm_medium=rssfeeds&utm_campaign=rss_topstories).

(*4) (http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://i.perezhilton.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/selena-gomez-spring-breakers-movie-bikini-mom__oPt.jpg&imgrefurl=http://perezhilton.com/perezitos/2013-03-18-selena-gomez-spring-breakers-movie-bikini-mom/&usg=__1wyiz3djlZZd_6dPfhYAhFEaDYc=&h=591&w=450&sz=39&hl=en&start=20&zoom=1&tbnid=IupuvVoa_8rohM:&tbnh=135&tbnw=103&ei=dxd5Uq2vKImdiQKq9IHoBA&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dselena%2Bgomez%2Bspring%2Bbreak%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26sa%3DX%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26hl%3Den%26tbm%3Disch&itbs=1&sa=X&ved=0CFIQrQMwEw).

(*5) Safe?
"She said: ‘There was too much attention - photographers, hundreds of fans, and all of us in bikinis in the pool. I had a mini breakdown on set. I got overwhelmed doing some of the things we were doing and having such an active audience at all times, even though I knew at heart we were super safe.’
Fortunately for movie-goers, Selena felt able to continue filming after an emotional heart-to-heart with the director's wife, Rachel Korine who starred alongside the actress in the flick about four tearaway teens who gets on the wrong side of the law during a riotous break away from college." - (http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2013/04/05/selena-gomez-had-mini-breakdown-filming-racy-spring-breakers/).

Super Safe from what?
“For former teen queen Selena Gomez, the opening officially marks her departure from the squeaky-clean Disney scene and is her first project that is decidedly inappropriate for her legions of young “Selenators” (or fans).
“There’s gonna be the intrigued preteens that are gonna want to sneak in and see the movie, and that’s obviously something I can’t control,” Gomez tells The Hollywood Reporter. ‘[I can] definitely warn them as best I can, but the movie is rated R, and it’s kind of a given when you see the trailer that you should be old enough to see the movie.’
Try telling that to her 14.5 million Twitter followers, who are dedicated to proclaiming their love for Gomez on the microblogging site and have supported her acting and music career since she was 15, when she broke out as a teen wizard on Disney Channel’s Wizards of Waverly Place.” - (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/risky-business/selena-gomez-spring-breakers-star-430332).

The non-Christian correspondent and interviewer is asking the teen Christian; Safe for who?

“THR: You’ve advised your younger fans not to see the movie. Do you think they’ll listen?
Gomez: There’s gonna be the intrigued preteens that are gonna want to sneak in and see the movie, and that’s obviously something I can’t control. [I can] definitely warn them as best as I can, but the movie is rated R, and it’s kind of a given when you see the trailer that you should be old enough to see the movie.

THR: Do you worry about the reaction the younger ones might have if they do sneak in?
Gomez: I don’t know. It’s interesting. I’ve gotten a little bit of mixed everything. At the end of the day, this is a film, this is a journey, this is an experience -- and it’s a hell of an experience, ’cause you’re going through a crazy whirlwind, and Harmony’s vision and imagination is crazy and you can see it in this film. And in a way, I like that I can make people feel that. So whether you hate it or whether you love it or whether you laugh, or you think it’s creepy, we made you feel something, and I think that’s really cool. So as far as how I’m gonna see how they react, hopefully it will just be settling and they can think about it.” -(http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/risky-business/selena-gomez-spring-breakers-star-430332).

Sort of sounding like Miley’s philosophy don’t you think? What is this persistent Hollywood brainwashing that preaches to these young women that everything is morally OK because actors are just supposed to make you feel “something,” i.e. ANYTHING? What is with this lawless emotionalism that these young girls are buying, even in the face of an emotional breakdown because your soul tells you it’s WRONG?

“Blessed is the man (or young woman) that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly (like the director's wife, Rachel Korine), nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful” Psalm 1:1.

“THR: Do you feel as if you’re getting desensitized to it because you have seen the movie so many times?
Gomez: Yeah, definitely. It doesn’t faze me anymore. It really doesn’t. I’m just like, ‘Woo, awesome!’ But yeah, the first couple of times it was kind of hard for me to swallow a little bit, to be honest.” - (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/risky-business/selena-gomez-spring-breakers-star-430332).

Once you start exploring this trash there is just nowhere to stop, so let’s just stop here. Selena is already being well indoctrinated into growing numb to the wickedness that actresses need to experience to do their jobs today. The writing is all over this wall too! And unlike Belshazzar of Daniel 5:1-9, even the Godless interviewer can read it:

“She obeyed not the voice; she received not correction; she trusted not in the LORD; she drew not near to her God” Zephaniah 3:2.

(*6) “A pyroclastic flow (also known scientifically as a pyroclastic density current) is a fast-moving current of hot gas and rock (collectively known as tephra), which reaches speeds moving away from a volcano of up to 700 km/h (450 mph)” - (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyroclastic_flow).

(*7) “O LORD, I know that the way of man is not in himself: it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps. O LORD, correct me, but with (lawful) judgment; not in thine (emotional) anger, lest thou bring me to nothing” Jeremiah 10:23-24.

Meaning: I understand that I’m supposed to do the walking while you direct where I walk. It’s a beautiful relationship of personal liberty within a safe boundary of protection. It’s my friend’s tropical bird choosing to see the house as its entire world and being fully contented to take pleasure in all that that home-life can provide. It wouldn’t desire to leave the house if the door were left open all day; it’s perfectly happy to remain right here where it is loved. And because of that worldview discovery of just who is whom, the door IS now left open all day, and the bird is free to swoop out any ol’ time it finds a need or desire to do so. It’s not in danger because it knows where home is. It’s a Homing Pigeon; it wants to be home.
This is the entire point of the New Testament liberation by making it “a Woman’s World” now. Will you honor and obey your husband’s (God’s) authority because you love him, or are you full of self-management? Do whatever you want to do, the door is open: Is your Mindy McReady heart conflicted? Feel free to swoop out the door, there is no judgment to be found in the swooping. If you find yourself wanting to come back soon it is because your Homing Heart wants to come back. If not, enjoy the park. You are liberated.

The reason why, in the above verse, that we want to be judged by the stable judgment of the law rather than the variable judgment of emotion is because the law is predictable, it is static, it is solid, it is knowable. It has no variables to explode unexpectedly in fits of anger or jealousy or fear. It has very specific unchanging boundaries of crime-and-punishment that can’t come as a surprise. And although we are absolutely guilty under the law, and under that law the irrevocable penalty is death for the guilt, Jesus Christ sacrificed himself to legally pay the static judgment of death for us! Of course we want to be judged by the law, Jesus has paid the judgment in full for anyone who will accept it! (Matthew 6:28, John 19:30). That payment is applicable because he paid it for all those who choose to accept it by marriage to the Son of God (John 1:12-13) and thereby become daughters-in-law to him who raised us to that end (Song of Solomon 4:10). The Holy Spirit homing device is your notarized guarantee of the marriage that has not yet taken place because it is not yet time for the gate to be opened, because not all who will, have yet responded to the offer. So don’t squander that notarization while we wait (Ephesians 4:30). No Holy Spirit= no confirmation, and, no entry through the gate:

“But he shall say…depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity (93)” Luke 13:27.

iniquity 93 adikia; from 94; (legal) injustice (properly, the quality, by implication, the act); morally, wrongfulness (of character, life or act):-- iniquity, unjust, unrighteousness, wrong.
[interpreted: lawlessness].

So here is the million-dollar test question to help you discern if you comprehend the point of these Posts, it’s time to make an early evaluation while we wait for the next Post:

Are all, or any, or none, of these five young women Christians? In effect, that’s what the world wants to know.

*

Five Foolish Virgins - Part 4

Post 308d

Mindy McCready, Britney Spears, Miley Cyrus, Jessica Simpson, Selena Gomez

“For there they that carried us away captive required of us a song; and they that wasted us required of us mirth…” Psalm 137:3.

It is easy for the well adjusted Christian to sit smugly comfortable in perceived righteousness while reviewing the troubled lives of the last three mournful virgins from a safe distance, because only the most seriously disturbed spend their lives mired in such depravity while thinking it is acceptable conduct to their Savior, and you don’t personally know anything about that depth of depravity… What a blessing that is in truth!
But have you forgotten Post 245 “Rewarder", as we so quickly dissolved a smug view of confident standing with God, and that, even before we got to the meat of the Post? Each of these five young women, something like five of the seven churches in Revelation chapters 2 and 3, represent not only distinctly different members of the Christ (Romans 12:4-5), but also different stages of the singular Church through time, as Miley followed Britney and Britney followed Madonna. One view is distinguishing the various natures of the Virgin entities (v.6+) of which only a few will succeed in actually marrying the prince to live “happily ever after,” and the other view is discussing a streaming timeline of conditions in which the singular entity in different forms finds itself as the narration of history’s tapestry progresses to completion. Are you so confident that you are the irreproachable church of Philadelphia of Revelation 3:7-13 just hanging on until our Lord comes? Then what do you do with Romans 3:10-18 or Isaiah 64:6-7? With each example that we examine we can always find reason to puff out our chest in confident pride and say; “That’s not me!” but in so doing we blind our eyes to the parts that indeed “are me” and need to be addressed in our perfecting (James 1:4, I Corinthians 1:10, II Corinthians 13:11, Ephesians 4:11-13, Colossians 1:25-28).

Have you ever wondered why there are Ten Virgins but only Seven Churches? What happened to the other three? (*1). And of the seven that remain, how many do you suppose enter through the gate when it is opened, to live “happily ever after,” five? Are you sure? (*2). And which two, of the remaining seven, falls with the other three to make the Five Foolish, as Lot’s wife, who came so close to success but fell short at the last minute? Are you still smug as you review the lives of these last three virgins, in thinking your confidently among the “other” five?
Is it the trainwreck that makes the previous girls obviously wrong in their actions? What if there is no trainwreck, are they OK then? Is that what determines right and wrong? (See Psalm 73). Let’s have a look at the next Virgin in our short-list:
* * *

Jessica Simpson:

“And thy renown went forth among the heathen for thy beauty: for it was perfect through my comeliness, which I had put upon thee, saith the Lord GOD”… Ezekiel 16:14.

“Jessica Simpson was born in Abilene, Texas, the daughter of Tina Ann (née Drew), a homemaker, and Joseph Truett "Joe" Simpson, a minister and psychologist…. Simpson's father gave her a purity ring at the age of 12, and Simpson has often stated she remained a virgin until marriage. Her parents were married in 1978 and filed for divorce in 2012. Their divorce was finalized in 2013… Simpson began singing at a local Baptist church, where her father also worked as the congregation's youth minister. At age twelve, she unsuccessfully auditioned for The Mickey Mouse Club…The following year, Simpson attended a church camp, where she sang Whitney Houston’s “I Will Always Love You” and an arrangement of “Amazing Grace”. At camp, she was introduced to the founder of Proclaim Records, a minor Gospel music record label…
Jessica's father and manager, Joe Simpson, contacted MTV about producing a show starring his daughter and her new husband. Newlyweds quickly became a pop culture phenomenon and is credited with making her a household name. "I never knew that just doing the show would give me that pedestal to step on," Simpson told Blender magazine. …” - (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessica_Simpson).

Another non-surprise by the forensic evidence of the crime scene: She too was raised a “Christian” of sorts, but the siren song of fame drew her in another direction at an early age. This time it was her double-faced two-masters father who guided her early youth and career pursuits, and apparently stayed with it for the distance-- which forces a very serious question regarding his own Christianity under which she was guided. But her willingness to follow his God-authorized fatherly guidance at least gave her a protecting stability that the previous girls lacked, odd as that guidance was:

“Preaching About Jessica:
In a candid interview with GQ, Simpson's dad Joe says, ‘Jessica never tries to be sexy. She just is sexy. If you put her in a T-shirt or you put her in a bustier, she's sexy in both. She's got double D's! You can't cover those suckers up!’” - (http://www.people.com/people/jessica_simpson/biography).

But that useless Christianity of lust apparently didn’t even have the strength of influence to guide a planting of the Homing compass in her heart, and so while she has illusions of Christianity being overtly permissible she has no war in her soul over her questionable conduct, so you can expect no great trainwreck of a conflicted soul; her Jesus and her immoral conduct are in agreement. Her generally contented presentation of good nature and honest, guiltless, carefree lifestyle of fame and success is actually far more dangerous to the young virgins of God who follow her, because it shows no signs of “correcting consequences” to warn them and therefore is presumed to be approved by God. This in itself establishes her “discipline free” view as correct, and therefore the view of Christian-opposition to be wrong, as she states in the following report.
Seaming to parallel her personal life to a notable degree, much like the songs of the previous stars, the movie The Dukes of Hazzard, in which Jessica played, is quite revealing in more ways than one:

“In the summer of 2005, Simpson made her first appearance in a motion picture as Daisy Duke in the movie version of the television series The Dukes of Hazzard. ... Simpson appeared on The Dukes of Hazard soundtrack, releasing ‘These Boots Are Made for Walkin’”… The song's video featured Simpson as Daisy Duke. It contains scenes of her flirting and singing in a bar and then later washing the General Lee car, wearing a skin-tight, revealing pink bikini. In some countries the video was banned for its overtly sexual content. Simpson received criticism from a Christian group calling itself ‘The Resistance’, for the sexualized image she used in the music video for ‘These Boots Are Made for Walkin'’. In response, Simpson stated, ‘It didn't really surprise me because I grew up with a lot of that backlash. That's why I didn't end up going into the Christian music industry. I think that if they're really good Christians the judgment wouldn't be there.’” -(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessica_Simpson).

The open mockery of God, church, youth-virginity, modestly, law and government, and everything holy, is excessive and unapologetic in the movie The Dukes of Hazard. It’s as if it was tailored specifically to parallel how Jessica started off in her life and career a bit backward but then “grew up” to blossom into a powerful sexual dynamo under the feigned innocent air of “I can’t help being little ol’ beautiful me,” just like her character in the film. The movie Types, in the kid’s guiding Uncle, the kind of permissive father that her father and manager spent his life raising her to emulate: A mocker of the moral “law” that thinks she’s OK with God because “we’re all just innocent ‘good ol’ boys’ having some harmless fun in our youth selling illicit products and exploring our God-given sexuality, and it’s those religious hypocrites that want to shut us down.”

Unlike Britney and Miley, who professionalized their sexuality into a dirty business suggesting Prostitution, it’s the “innocence” of natural sexuality that this girl uses in her act, and that “innocence” is perceived confirmed by her complete lack of guilt as expressed in her carefree charm.

…“But thou didst trust in thine own beauty, and playedst the harlot because of thy renown, and pouredst out thy fornications on every one that passed by; his it was” Ezekiel 16:15.

Alluring as it is in this innocent presentation, over time, when left to themselves, tares, covertly planted in the field with the wheat, just naturally progress according to their nature until the distinction is obvious:

Well she certainly isn’t trying to look sexy here is she? But at least she has a Cross hung around her neck so “We’re all good here.”~

But in all reality and honesty-- and the reason why I went ahead and posted these photos; What is the difference between the previous picture and this one? The message in this one says; she can’t wait another 30 seconds to be ravished aggressively. But clearly we can conclude that the cameraman did not just catch Jessica in such an aroused state; it is a staged “pretend” presentation of such a state she wants to project for effect.
So what does the previous photo say?
It says; “I want you to want to be likewise so desperate for my beautiful body, but not being similarly aroused, I have the control to deny your induced Rut in my authorized liberated sexual power of protection.” Said in another way; she is free to tease the lion without rebuke or consequence.
And because she is not the one out of control, (and because in our natural desire to Rut when provoked, we really, really like what she offers), we see no reason to tell her she is being immoral in the face of her “pure hearted” claims of liberation and freedom from feminine oppression as she innocently plays at the beach. But wait, that’s not the beach… is that…
a wheat field? It may as well be.

In fact that brings up an important distinction that seems to indicate that motive has a lot more to modesty than one would think. Swimwear at the beach is natural attire for the guiltless innocent occasion of fun in the sun, and even unwise, indiscreet bikinis, that cover less than her normal undergarments would, though very pleasingly moving to see, do not usually provoke a man to Rut in the way he would if she actually wore her undergarments to the beach instead. Why is that?
Contrary to the Old Testament law of God, or the Islamic Sharia Law of oppression, liberty provides an extremely wide scope of variables that the black-and-white law cannot address properly. I don’t wish to overwork a metaphor, but the liberated Homing Pigeon has far more guiltless freedom than the Pigeon kept in a sealed house with the cage door open to show that it’s not oppressed:

“There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit” Romans 8:1-4. (I was only going to Post the first verse but it’s important meaning just keeps going even beyond this!).

The environment is only a significant issue in relation to the kind of bird that is introduced into it. This is why it was perfectly fine for Eve to run around in the garden innocently naked (Genesis 2:25), but why afterwords she is called immodest without clothes. She obtained knowledge, and that comes with responsibility of discretion (Proverbs 5:2-3 +19:11).
Because swimwear is appropriate at the beach, liberty in innocence grants a strange grace that does not exist in another environment, which is why women used to wear modesty enhancing wraps to and from the beach, illusionary as they were, it worked. But as there are now too many perfect bodies in indiscreet bikinis on the beach, and elsewhere, these days, we see young women show up in a thong to win in the lightly-hidden motive of being more arousing than the next girl. But to her simple “It’s all about me” mentality of seeking attention from men, she just calls it getting noticed, and the environment of safety in already-dangerous-attire seems to approve her abominable step. And the inappropriate Rut begins again in a once relatively “safe” environment; innocence is lost like makeup on a child. The motive has changed regarding the purpose for the attire, and as we showed previously; the Rut responds to the careful preparation intent. The cow is in heat as the line of social abomination continues to shift with the introduction of each new line crossed.

So getting back to the first still-photo describing a carefully prepared setting we are supposed to interpret by the nature of photography; we see a happy-go-lucky girl that is well aware of her desirable beauty, perhaps pretending to be on a mission in a field with the deployed military guys who can’t actually be there with her, and suddenly she gets a hankering to take off all her cammo clothes to show them her beautiful body, in a bikini that stands in for underwear, and drive them insane by quasi-clean desire that cannot be fulfilled. How Dukes of Hazzard of her.
In case you didn’t catch that; this is an inappropriate motive for the condition in which the camera “caught her.” In fact by the story-telling nature and careful crafting requirement of photography, all photos of provocative women are simply variations on this same motive: to trigger a mass Rut of raging hormones, and are therefore inappropriate… unless you’re an arsonist intent on burning down a nation with the raging fire of other’s unspent passions at your “innocent” virginal hands. Remember Genesis 6-8? (*3).

But in the face of Jessica’s protests against Christian protests against her national “arsony,” what does God say? You know, the God she, and her preacher-father, claim to serve by her coached self-righteous “liberated Christian” judgment of others, suggesting that she might have gone their way if it wasn’t for all those judgmental Christians urging her not to drag Jesus into the whorehouse with her? What does that God say?

“Thou knowest the commandments,…Defraud (650) not…” Mark 10:19.

“For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication: That every one of you should know how to possess his vessel (body) in sanctification and honour; Not in the lust of concupiscence (1939), even as the Gentiles which know not God: That no man go beyond and defraud (4122) his brother in any matter: because that the Lord is the avenger of all such, as we also have forwarned you and testified. For God hath not called us unto uncleanness, but unto holiness” I Thessalonians 4:3-7.

Beyond fornication and the lust of concupiscence by defraud? Think about it.

Defraud 650 apostereo; from 575 and stereo (to deprive); to despoil:-- defraud, destitute, kept back by fraud.

Defraud 4122 pleonketeo; from 4123; to be covetous, i.e. (by implication) to over-reach:-- get an advantage, defraud, make a gain.
[i.e. receive sexual attention by promising sex but failing to provide.]

Concupiscence 1939 epithumia; a longing (especially for what is forbidden):-- concupiscence, desire, lust (after).

While lusty images such as the last one may not be seen in every park and on every beach when the sun is shining, the previous defrauding image is so common in America-- and universally desirable to our socially approved lust-- that it is AGGRESSIVELY defended as “MORE than OK,” much as her preacher-father’s lusty comment approving the flaunting of his own daughter by saying it’s just something you can’t hide.
I am betting there are many Islamic nations that will beg to differ. But while we don’t concern ourselves with the rules governing the obedience to other gods, how is it that Christians are now so vial minded as to offend even Satan’s sense of morality and at the same time figure God is all about near nudity in public through the liberation we call grace?! (*4).

“I will behave myself wisely in a perfect way. O when (my beloved Lord) wilt thou come unto me? I will walk within my house with a perfect heart. I will set no wicked thing before mine eyes: I hate the work of them that turn aside; it shall not cleave to me” Psalm 101:2-3 (*5). (See also: Isaiah 5:20-21 and Jeremiah 13:10-11 considering the restraining/covering function of a girdle as a metaphor for a constraining morality of beautification).

If while the conduct suggested in the last photo is agreed to be publicly immoral, but the conduct in the previous image is so appealing to your lust that you aggressively defend it as acceptable beach attire, it may be that you need a Muslim finger to poke out your eye and thereby save your soul from hell according to Jesus himself:

“And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire” Matthew 18:9.

Of course I am being a bit sarcastic here but it’s honestly not a concept in error (*6). How is it that God’s people hunger to defraud and be defrauded while Satan’s people go to ridiculous extremes to attempt avoidance? Is it because they have no appreciation for beauty? Hardly! It’s because Satan’s people are obediently submissive to the untimely, outdated, season of Old Testament-style oppressions of their tyrannical Father, while God’s New Testament liberated people have flung off His loving commands of protection as tyrannical. Remember Post 233 “Legalism or Anarchy?” - (http://when-did-reason-die.blogspot.com/2012/02/legalism-or-anarchy.html).
How can we, as a nation of self-declared “good moral Christian people,” be so completely missing God’s point as to make Satan’s people drop their jaw in shocked disbelief of our public and shameless depravity? It’s because we as a nation of individuals have ignored the Homing in our national Pigeon in order to play with the toys in the pretty park of the UN, until, becoming a useless burden at play, we pawned off our Homing Beacon to buy up the park’s morality as our own, but apply that new homingless morality in a uniquely perverted way that better fits our now familiar circular rut of two-faced insanity getting us nowhere closer to home in the diligent going (Revelation 2:20 vs. Psalm 51:13). --That’s “running around in circles” in case you didn’t pick that up.

I did not post these provocative photos for your titillation, and if you are so affected as to threaten the stability of your faith, it is a weak faith that needs immediate internal shoring. BUT, if you are so un-affected by the photos I have posted as to chide my alarm as insignificant and naive, I question your faith on the other end by the familiarity with greater wickedness. This personal test is one reason why I have gone ahead and posted these photos when I would have rather not.
Nobody is arguing that Gasoline shouldn’t be explosive, and no one said Capitalism wasn’t also similarly dangerous. Likewise, God never said that his special creation of the feminine gender was not intentionally and perfectly beautiful to the point of moving your soul to extremes; What he said is, that because of it’s dangerous nature, it is our job to use divinely guided (v.10) discretion as we play with it (Proverbs 2:11-22).
But this young woman’s “Christian” father raised her to lack that discretion as a virtue, so she fits in the park comfortably well, and far less offensively-vile than Britney or Miley, so everything is grand… well, except for Revelation 3:15-16. But if you’re contentedly happy, who needs it, Right?~

“Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, and saying, Where is the promise of his coming?...” II Peter 3:3, meaning the wrath to come for wickedness.
* * * * * * *

(*1) Have you ever wondered why there are Ten Virgins but only Seven Churches? What happened to the other Three?

“…and it was diverse from all the beasts that were before it; and it had ten horns. I considered the horns, and, behold, there came up among them another little horn, before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by their roots…” Daniel 7:7-8.

I am not suggesting the Churches are these horns, but only showing a very curious scriptural trend that needs to be considered in looking for the answer.

(*2) How many actually get married?
“And while they (the foolish virgins) went to buy (oil), the bridegroom came; and they that were ready went in with him to the marriage: and the door was shut.” Matthew 25:10

This verse tends to imply that all five virgins went in when the gate was opened… but it doesn’t actually make that an indisputable fact. Are there other reasons why some of these five wise virgins with plenty of oil might not be ready to go in? As we continue in Matthew 25 to understand what the kingdom of heaven is like, why do you suppose the next parable, that begins in v.14, only identifies Three servants? What happened to the other Two? And of those final Three, One is cast out in v.30. That leaves just Two.
Then in the next parable, which begins in v.31, we see just Two parties; the Sheep and the Goats. The goats don’t get ejected from the kingdom; they just go away (like the five foolish)… into everlasting punishment, while the sheep go into everlasting life (v.46).
And now we are back to the Jordan River, where the First generation (Jude 1:6) refuses to go in while the Last generation is happy to go in (Matthew 19:30, 20:8,16, Mark 10:31, Luke 13:30, Mark 9:35, I Corinthians 15:45-46). In the end, there is only One husband and one bride (Revelation 1:11=22:13).
So it seems that Deuteronomy 9:14, 29:18-29 and Revelation 3:5 really does mean that although a name may in fact be entered into the book of life, it can be blotted out!, contrary to the common misapplication of the Eternal Security doctrine.

(*3) Remember Genesis 6-8?
In Post 262 “About Giants” note *6 (http://when-did-reason-die.blogspot.com/2012/08/about-giants.html), I indicated this present section of work would be designed to show how we arrive again as in the days of Noah. While that material is still fresh in my memory by intimacy, you may need to go back and refresh that section of Posts beginning with Post 259 “As The Days Of Noah” (http://when-did-reason-die.blogspot.com/2012/08/as-days-of-noah.html) through Post 269 “The Spirits of Clay” (http://when-did-reason-die.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-spirits-of-clay.html).
The “raging fire of unspent passion” that I mention here, is reminiscent of the resulting Flood described in Post 268 “The Waters of Clay” (http://when-did-reason-die.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-water-of-clay.html), as it’s destroying passion was finally asswaged after all was destroyed (Genesis 8:1), (Preparing The Way of The Lord pp. 310-312 https://www.createspace.com/3876928).
This is literally the fury of destruction (this time by fire) that today’s young women are again instigating by their Rut-inducing conduct with no intention of paying the promise: Defrauding men and angels. And this is but a typology of humanity as we promise God our love but then don’t give it to him:

“When thou shalt vow a vow unto the LORD thy God, thou shalt not slack to pay it: for the LORD thy God will surely require it of thee; and it would be a sin in thee” Deuteronomy 23:21.

“Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him”
Psalm 2:12.

“Suffer not thy mouth to cause thy flesh to sin; neither say thou before the angel, that it was an error: wherefore should God be angry at thy voice, and destroy the work of thine hands?”
Ecclesiastes 5:6.
That is a pretty big lion to be teasing, don’t you think?

(*4) While conservative Americans rightly cry foul because conservative Muslims won’t stand up and decry Radical Islam’s actions, we never hear them likewise rebuking their own Christian daughters for their immoral conduct and attire... or confessing their own secret approving lust. Is this not the same thing? This must not be! Such conduct is neither conservative nor Christian and we must decry it lest the Muslims have standing to rightly accuse us as we accuse them. I beg Americans to make a public stand, or stop pretending that you’re not a progressive Pagan in sheep’s clothes.
But who will listen; it’s a Woman’s world now. So now we have to appeal to their sensibilities if we are to get through. We have to reach their hearts, and as powerful and unstable as that is, already sold on what it loves, it’s a near impossible task. Just ask Lot's wife.

(*5) The Cinderella Verse:
This verse describes a long patient waiting for her Prince, and in the waiting is a promise to remain ever pure for him while she waits. This is what makes her Cinderella.

(*6) Matthew 18:9
The significant variant from my sarcasm is that in this passage the right and duty is in the hands of the self-offender and not in the hands of someone trying to force their morality on others. This verse is not a recommendation, but a deterrent from continuing to look at what destroys you: Why would you have the self-mastery to poke out your own eye but not the self-control to regulate what you put before it?
Said differently: Control your Rut, it has been unseasonably induced by the Babylonian Whore who would have power over you. Don’t be the “runner up” bride ejected from the final round, the Homing Pigeon is nearly home but this storm now rising is like no storm you have ever seen, you have got to make sure your compass is secured tightly (Ephesians 4:30).
*