DrWearWord

Spiritual healing is not reserved only for saints. Thanks for the resource. :)

Is death more "freindly" than life sometimes? This next line got stuck in my head... Because I could not stop for Death- He kindly stopped for me- The Carriage held but just Ourselves- And Immortality.We slowly drove-He knew no haste And I had put away My labor and my leisure too, For His Civility-We passed the School, where Children strove At Recess-in the Ring- We passed the Fields of Gazing Grain- We passed the Setting Sun-Or rather-He passed Us- The Dews drew quivering and chill- For only Gossamer, my Gown- My Tippet-only Tulle-We paused before a House that seemed A Swelling of the Ground- The Roof was scarcely visible- The Cornice-in the Ground-Since then-'tis Centuries-and yet Feels shorter than the Day I first surmised the Horses' Heads Were toward Eternity- Emily Dickinson

I am just stating that I find it more than "irksome"... I find it blasphemes the law of liberty. I don't come off as friendly sometimes but I am really friendly and do not mean to misunderstand.

I find the hatred and persecution of homosexuals and the denigration of making women "submit" to their husbands, as if God ordained it, to be a bit more than, "irksome"... The Salem witch trials were very "irksome" to women too. Romans 1:22. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools , 23. And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds [Lilith/doves/owl], and fourfooted beasts [lambs/rams/calf], and creeping things [locusts/scarabs/serpents]. Comment: ...and holy old cow! :)

Then nature of a singed mind is that it no longer reacts to reason. Who does God have his arm around in this picture? Give Christians an inch and they take a foot. Here Michelangelo has taken the liberty to portray God figuratively. To carry broken logic to its own absurdity. Notice how big God is in relation to the tiny portrait of a woman beside him. Does God have a wife? And what of all the naked babies? And you are still comfortable with your scientific accuracy, hand in a glove and stoic idea of God? Some of the greatest minds of the renaissance have considered the same reservations I have. The renaissance age was an age of reason and science that dominated religion rather than as dominated by it. Religion caused the dark ages where history was burnt out of the fear of “SIN”… Were sin was used to scare the masses. Libraries of antiquities were burnt by Christians… The only societies that thrived were the ones that could stave off the suffocating influence of the church by power. Even today radical Islam and Christianity threatens to bring society back into the dark ages where they can dictate how far we are allowed to carry our OWN thought concerning the individual and the path to sacred spirituality “written in our hearts“. Where women are denigrated because, “the Bible tells me so“?

We are told that God KNOWS the secret intents of our hearts but then we are told that God is sexless. Which one is it folks? "You can't be both inside the tent and outside the tent at the same time..." The Gnostics show the ridiculous nature of this biblical doctrine when they state that Jesus will turn all the women into men so God won't hate them anymore and allow them into heaven... It is painful to see how Christians have twisted and contorted logic to try and make the biblical doctrine fit with itself. I have come to realize that it was my mind that was singed with a hot iron, that I would blindly accept a "God" for so long without concern for this God's concept of sexuality, compassion and liberty. Blinded by the light. That same ambiguous light that is neither a wave nor a particle.

Yes hitching your horse on a Sunday/Saturday was also considered unholy and a sin. But today holy days don't matter... and... God has not changed? My Question is which "God" does not change? I am already going to hell because I am "happily" uncircumcised. (TMI, oh well) But God seems to not anymore mind the gentiles and their schmucks… Adultery was handled by the same "punishment" as homosexuals. Was it to deter sexual freedom or disease? Cured pork has nothing to do with sex but has all to do with disease. So, were these laws instituted for health reasons and not sexual reasons? You would think heterosexuals would at least score a few points with their bisexual God because they understand "the birds and the bees". Adam and Eve understood the birds and the bees and without corrupting the Bible with all this Lilith stuff the original sin stands as heterosexual sex... And leave it to the heterosexuals to invent Lilith and use the story to flip the "original sin" around to hate homosexuals. If the lesbians and gays really knew what "the Christians" have thunk up and used Lilith for they would drop her like a limp wrist. Effeminates and dykes are going to hell too? Because their sexual preference is too murky, like God's or God-like. Explain how two sexes can represent the image of one God? Then we get this picture of and androgynous man and woman suck to each other's backs with two genitalia... Remind you a bit of this ambiguous God that... "Is not a man that she should lie..."

Isaiah 53:2 KJV For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him. Comment: How can a God with no form cast a self image? Colossians 1:15 KJV Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

Endeavoring to KEEP the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace... There is one faith... Not a separate faith for husband and wife. Not a separate faith for homosexuals and heterosexuals. Not a separate faith for racial diversity. But one size fits all. One faith, in one God, for all.

I seem to always strive to go to the source of things to develop an understanding. (first usage) Let’s consider yin and yang It takes a linear approach to logic. First we start with black and white well they seem to be a fair couple. In tempera black is a combination of all colors where in light, white is a combination of all colors. Yet even in darkness there is light that cannot be perceived by the human eye. Yet it seems the God of the Bible has a preference and likes light over darkness... This seemingly breaks the yin and yang model. So even the most rudimentary logic, where white and black work logically but darkness and light do not. Who wants to stumble around in the dark and who would rather be blinded by the light? Then we have earth and sky, the logic could be made that the sky is nothing but air. But then we realize that the air is made of electrons too. Then we get to the part where God is light and we cannot determine whether physical “light” is a particle or a wave. Is light energy or matter, heaven or earth? And I need to know all of this to know the nature of God? I need to know all of this to know better than to club my neighbor over the head with a big stick? Perhaps the biblical model is that things are not as black and white. There is ambiguity and incongruity of thought. There are mathematical models like Fibonacci, fractal geometry and we witness these models all throughout life and realize that it seems that God does not always calculate life in a linear fashion but has also built within life “other ways” of reasoning. Then to say that yin and yang also represent good and evil, pleasure and purity, male and female, the sun and the moon etc. Can these sweeping correlations be made without violating another logical code of reason? Can male and female really be compared to good and evil? For which sex would be considered darkness, evil or vanity? Is the devil equal to God does God have a little darkness in him/her? Thus our tendency to amalgamate zero as one, good as evil, right as wrong… leads to what may be considered erroneous reason. God is trying to teach us how to count… In the beginning zero created one… So we can reason that zero created one, but one was actually two and two made four, then eight, then sixteen, then thirty-two, sixty-four etc..

I keep coming back to this idea of tupos. Perhaps tupos' purpose is "the words" cipher. I use the word "cipher" because I just recently learned it is Arabic for the word "zero"... I define to deCIPHER as: finding meaning within ambiguity. Let's lay a foundation of logic then go further with this ideal. A + B = C Then C - B = A If A = B and C = A then C = B Now this all seems logical right? 0 + 1 = 1 A + B = C A and B are two digits… Two “things” how can two things added together return an answer of 1? 1 + 1 = 2 Yet since zero has no intrinsic value does A even exist? Then we get to this kind of math. XX + XY = XX and/or XY Suddenly linear versus exponential logic, they both have two answers and both are correct? How can one equation have two answers and both be correct? Because zero may not be a value but it is still a digit. So zero can be both zero or one depending on perspective. There are two beginnings in the word of God. God in the beginning and in the beginning God One beginning is when God began time and the other beginning is when humanity became aware of time. So there are two ways to reason. One leads to death and one leads to life. Linear logic seems infinite where exponential logic reaches infinity faster.

We would all be in a mess if God wasn't holy. :)

VPW said God tried (was it three times?) to discourage Moses from perusing the law. Though I have looked and cannot recall the actual scriptures he based this assumption on. Then, If Moses and "God’s" law is so right on then why did God suddenly decide later according to the prophets that he never needed the sacrifices and detested the blood of goats and lambs? Why did God also punish Moses? For having to rewrite ten short commandments? Isn’t that a bit harsh? Or was it Moses treatment of those of strange “faith” who opposed his strict interpretation of God being merely law? Does that not cast doubt on the "authority" of Moses' God, and Moses' own prophetic character and motives. Moses said “God told me this and God told me that…” It is quite possible Hammurabi gave Moses his laws and not “God“. It seems odd also that Abraham also found the monotheistic ambiguously sexual God from out of Mesopotamia too. And then we end up with a legal system the Bible calls broken and weak then Paul the Apostle comes on the scene and says “God told me this and God told me that”. I consider the Bible is at this point “crying wolf.” Is this not an insult to our intelligence? Since the prophets of old passed off truth for so long it seems the school master did not know his subjects. And now we are supposed to take the contradictory word and “law” of Paul another “prophet of God” simply on face value? Paul seems in need of Prozac and after all that Christian killing he suddenly has a change of heart and mind? Homosexuals are often portrayed as weak but the Bible says it was actually the law that was weak. I know my synopsis I left yesterday of the last verses in Romans 9 is weak itself. I wanted to clarify my remarks yesterday but my head was too tired. It seems that both faith and law were inadequate and the new testament is actually where the spirit of faith and the law are preserved into a new torah. One might ask why a NEW torah if the old one is just fine? Didn’t the prophets make enough “laws”? Jesus says a new torah I give you. Not a new law on top of all of the other laws but a new LAW that would prove the other laws and faiths inferior. For this new law is new birth and an incorruptible seed where the law alone became corrupted and did not remain true. But through faith and spirit a new law that is more perfect emerges and is possible from the heart. For with spirit alone there is no knowledge and with knowledge alone there is no spirit. The spirit has no mind of its own but teaches what God says. It seems we are then left again with our own ambiguity and with an ambiguous deity. So either system was weak (faith and law) and only in the realization of the equally ambiguous Christ Jesus is a new Torah of unity born. I am reminded of liberals and conservatives today. It seems that this faith and law are again separated. And to be independent or centrists is not actually the same as living the law of liberty. When one realizes that both law and liberty are an oxymoron and then see the brilliance of “the law of liberty” then we have liberty though the perfect incorruptible (sinless) spirit and we have law, the revelation and knowledge of God through Christ Jesus. Thus, to walk solely by faith OR law is, walking by the flesh. Even though God and Jesus are still ambiguous it would seen the new testament takes from God his jealous nature and restores an image of love. Leaves one to wonder then, who was Moses’ God really? Was Moses God partially Lucifer exercising his dominion over the earth that Genesis states he stole from Adam, walking to and fro and “chums” with God (as in Job)? Or was the creation, flood story and law of Moses possibly stolen/borrowed from the Sumerians? This love is also an oxymoron... when compared to many of the laws and also an oxymoron to faith without boundaries. So how can the Word of God be the will of God when faith and law are partially derived from the spirit? Even more ambiguity… So is the written word or the word in the flesh the will of God? Again then we continue the logic that says they are both oxymorons. Thus born out of same idea that the word and the spirit are like law and faith then they are united likewise in the law of liberty, otherwise they are diametrically opposed powers. Through the word and the spirit, the old laws are bent to conform to love’s moderate demands and faith is tamed to honor the true God in charity. It is interesting to note that neither the spirit or the written word alone are sufficient for salvation. The written word alone cannot compare to the spirit's presence, but the spirit’s presence is illuminated and energized by yes, the ambiguity of the written word of God.

This seems to be saying (to me) that the people of Sodom and Gomorra were actually closer to the true God because their religious system was based upon faith… Noah instituted a system based upon faith... Moses changed it to law, Moses was also forbidden to enter the promised land, and he "denied the rock". It seems to say that faith is superior to law. That faith produces a society where homosexuality is accepted, "though not in excess", yet it was still closer to what "God" sees as "truth" in comparison to a society that has within it this "seed of law”. A society grown from law is too rigid and is not living and dynamic. Thus a society born solely of law cannot accurately represent the TRUE sexually enigmatic nature of God..

We have all been hurt... and if there is a God of love, may we all (without exception) be blessed by this love. Love is opening up a window so others can see inside and understand, learn. One must not confuse walking by the flesh with listening to their heart. To walk by the flesh is to have no heart.

Christians Angry Over Newsweek Gay Claim Thursday, December 11, 2008 4:00 PM By: Jim Meyers (Newsmax) Christians are speaking out angrily about Newsweek magazine’s current cover story, which maintains that the Bible does not provide justification for prohibiting gay marriage. In “The Religious Case for Gay Marriage,” Lisa Miller writes that in the Old Testament “Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon and the kings of Judah and Israel — all these fathers and heroes were polygamists. “The New Testament model of marriage is hardly better. Jesus himself was single and preached an indifference to earthly attachments — especially family. The apostle Paul (also single) regarded marriage as an act of last resort for those unable to contain their animal lust. 'It is better to marry than to burn with passion,' says the apostle, in one of the most lukewarm endorsements of a treasured institution ever uttered.” Miller claims that gay-marriage opponents “use Scripture as the foundation for their objections,” and asserts that “scripture gives us no good reason why gays and lesbians should not be (civilly and religiously) married — and a number of excellent reasons why they should.” The American Family Association called Miller's article “one of the most biased and distorted pieces concerning homosexual marriage ever published by any major news organization,” and urged its members and like-minded readers to e-mail Newsweek’s CEO. Thousands of responses have poured in. Richard Long, who heads the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, declared that the article “doesn’t surprise me. Newsweek has been so far in the tank on the homosexual issue, for so long, they need scuba gear and breathing apparatus.” Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, called the article “yet another attack on orthodox Christianity” and said it was "just full of holes." Land argued that the Bible lays out a very clear prescription for opposite-sex marriage, Politico.com reports. He cited the passage in Genesis where God pairs Adam and Eve, and the New Testament passage when apostle Paul compares the relationship between husband and wife to the relationship between Jesus and the Church. Ralph Reed, former executive director of the Christian Coalition, took issue with Miller’s premise that conservative opposition to same-sex marriage is based on specific Biblical instructions. "There’s more of a practical, sociological foundation for why we seek to affirm marriage as an institution than I think is generally understood by those who want to legalize same-sex marriage,” he said, adding that the Newsweek story was based on a “false assumption." On the National Review’s blog, Mark Hemingway said Miller “can’t even get through the first paragraph of her story without evincing an understanding of Christianity and its basic texts that is grossly oversimplified and distorted, filtered through an almost exclusively liberal political lens.” Albert Mohler, president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, wrote on his blog that the "notion of marriage, deeply rooted in its procreative purpose, is unambiguously heterosexual." Christianity Today magazine observed: "Where, oh where is this supposed New Testament indifference to marriage?" Comment: Does the ONE God like guys more than girls, or is God "ambiguously" bisexual?

When the ministry lost its heart, it lost its way...

DrWearWord's comments are in the color red

Here is a story I received this morning through the spirit of wisdom. There were two homosexual males sleeping together in a bed. They were passionate life long lovers and lived each moment of their lives defined by their love for each other. Suddenly the door to their bedchambers is kicked open and God walks in with a shotgun. He throws an unfamiliar young woman to the floor and forces her to kneel at his feet. The two startled lovers stand up and face God… Then God points the shotgun at one of the male lovers and then moves the shotgun between him and the unfamiliar young woman and says to the other man, CHOOSE! I will not supply an ending to this dilemma for you. You have to supply that ending yourself... My dilemma is, do I choose… or try to disarm God?

WOW! GREAT artwork! GREAT response! We might also add to the list "here and there"... For if we are there we are no longer here and if we are here we are no longer there. :) Is vanity in the egotistical infinity of the numbers or in the emptiness of zero?

If Solomon had wisdom he certainly wrote it within the song of songs. This is how I interpret the song of songs. I see that there are three songs in the song of songs. One song is from the perspective of a female lover, another song is from the perspective of a male lover. The third song is the song of the world who seek after this “love”. God is not mentioned in the song of songs. Jesus, according to orthodoxy, never had sex so why sexual language will be used to describe future heavenly events when angels don’t marry is also a peculiarity. So the wisdom of the song of songs is that Eros is used in the same poem. You have to be bisexual to enjoy the poem… Some guy is talking about his rod and the woman is talking about her orchard… Then one wonders why is God not present when Eros is present between sacred lovers? Again, the songs of songs does not mention God once. One would think that God would be knit in the center of marriage and even sexual love. Thus is this emphasis by omission? Is Solomon’s wisdom not what is written but what is not written? What is not written is God’s reaction to such lustful male on female eros. How many Christian’s read their bibles when they have intercourse? This is hard to explain… other than maybe being blunt and saying what Solomon neglected to say… That God must be bisexual. How can God be in the middle of two heterosexual Christians while they make love and not desire them physically the same? If God created both the male and female genitalia does that not present a dilemma, conflict of interest, internal conflict involving God’s own sexual identity? So to question which sex God prefers is a taboo??? But I must be questioned and scrutinized? For if you are a heterosexual male the song of songs will be half like reading female literature describing how sexy and virile men are, and if you are reading it and a heterosexual female then a large portion of the poem dwells on male sexual worship of the female. If you are homosexual you just flip half of it around... So while the world is watching these lovers prepare to fornicate, God is watching them too... and what kind of kick is God getting out of it all? I will say, the answer simply leads to more ambiguity. Perhaps they can just cut the baby in half?

Pslams 85:10.Mercy and truth are met together; righteousness and peace have kissed each other. Luke 22:47 And while he yet spake, behold a multitude, and he that was called Judas, one of the twelve, went before them, and drew near unto Jesus to kiss him.

I don't now if truth is a person, a thing, an ideal, or dream than can never be realized. Perhaps "truth" is my curse... What of the ambiguity of biblical justice? The first part of this story involves my neighbors. Everyday sometime in the afternoon they start to go at it, “if you know what I mean.” They are both a bit too old to be siring children so I know they are not "doing it" to procreate. But every afternoon my whole living room begins to shake and I just sit there, even if I have guests over, I just scoff it off and say, oh well… and ignore it. When I pass these neighbors in the hall, I do not look at them, funny, I am cordial and polite. They do not know that as a homosexual man to me them having sex is tantamount to forcing a heterosexual to listen to gay people having sex. Yet still, I tolerate and accept it, as I withhold judgment. Here is my second story… My sister told me that her husband is lonely… She says he only gets to see her at night when she gets home from work and they hardly get to spend three or four days a week together… Now here is my third story… I lived on and off with a man for seven years (not one year) and after seven years we realized we cared enough for each other to mutually enter into a moderately sexual relationship. But it turned out he was not at all ready for "the relationship". So he began to weep and torment himself… He told me I was his only LOVER and he left me... with a promise of fidelity… Seven more years went by… in that seven years we were intimate about seven times, each time it ended in tears, self torment and him running out on me. We would both go back to celibacy and, a wanting, that could drive a “normal“ person to wrath. I knew where he went to live when he was not with me and I knew he lived alone without any other lover. There were no wedding bells and no family support. I have a big family and none of my siblings have ever met him, let alone, they don’t even probably really know or recall me saying his name, though I have many times. Eventually the mental guilt this man had to bear became too great and we do not see each other anymore. To be touched affectionately only seven times in seven years is due to the stigma, the fear and shame that is imposed on homosexuals by what many call, “the truth”… So while my neighbors fornicate everyday and my sister’s husband is so lonely because she is gone a few hours, I do really still try to find compassion, concern, acceptance and tolerance. I have lived in moderation, I have placed monogamy and even near celibacy (that "burns" like hell) at the top of my list of virtues for so long, yet, it was still, not enough… And where is the justice in that? Song of Solomon 2:10 KJV My beloved spake, and said unto me, Rise up, my love, my fair one, and come away.

Romans 7:1KJV Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth? 2.For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. 3.So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man. 4.Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God. 5.For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death. 6.But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter. Comment: If brethren are to marry Jesus and God and bring forth fruit... then, are God/Jesus feminine? Do women have to become sons or be disinherited? More ambiguity... Song of Solomon 2:8 KJV The voice of my beloved! behold, he cometh leaping upon the mountains, skipping upon the hills. Comment: Eros and Agape as lovers… And science says men have both an X and a Y chromosome. Science says the X chromosome is much older than the Y chromosome which means God created a helpmate for Eve… God took the X chromosome from Eve's rib and fashioned (mutated) a small part of the X chromosome into the Y chromosome and men were born knowing both good and evil. Not only has the X chromosome remained stable for millions of years but the Y chromosome is deteriorating and mutating much more rapidly than the X chromosome which might indicate that the so called “original sin” may also not have been the woman’s doing. Again the orthodoxy leaves us in spiritual ambiguity.

I am surprised I am capable of reasoning beyond my own ambiguity to say, THANK YOU. :) Your words are a blessing, I don't know if I believe my own words... my words must be ok because, "the devil has never written a book..." Job 31:35 Oh that one would hear me! behold, my desire is, that the Almighty would answer me, and that mine adversary had written a book. Job 33:10 Behold, he findeth occasions against me, he counteth me for his enemy,