Posts
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:
“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.
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:
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).
*
No comments:
Post a Comment
Vile concepts and profanity in comments will not be posted.