LadyRaven

I agree with all the wise advice given so far as to accountability, total ceasation...etc...There is alot available to people in the Christian world who want to get rid of porno addiction. But I want to add something I feel I need to say... While you are struggling with this, I do believe you need to not be married. My exhusband had a porno addiction and it wounded me deeply. Whenever I found out that he'd fallen again, he lashed out at me in defense and it made it worse. You love your girlfriend, you should not put her in the position to be hurt by your behaviour. While she is not married to you she has the ability and freedom in many different ways to have other options besides trying to make things work with you. However, once she is married, other things become an issue. Like children, finances, feelings of failure if the marriage doesn't work, that sort of thing. She is not as free to leave if she is hurt beyond her tolerance. I also believe that you should be honest with her. Most likely if you tell her that you love her and are trying to get a handle on this, that you have sought spiritual accountability and that sort of thing she will stay by your side and wait to marry you. However, if she doesn't, that is her right. She should have the right to decide to be with a person who has sins x y and z in his life, just as you have the right to decide if you should be with a girl who has sins a b and c in hers. If one of you is hiding a sin, the other is being cheated out of the freedom to make a wise choice. I respect you for coming into a public forum and sharing yourself like this. This is probably ne of those foothold times in your life where you start to make a turnabout because you took a chance. No it won't be easy, if fact it might get harder for a while, but I will be praying for you.

The statement you made is about as stereotypical as saying "Baptists believe it's a sin for women to wear pants." Just as there are a wide variety of baptist theological systems, there are a wide variety of Theonomic/Reconstructionist systems. The two biggest are what we within the system refer to as big T and little t theonomy and Big R and little r reconstructionism. There are people who believe that we are to force Romans 13 and the OT system on the current system (Big T and R) and those who are not as legalistic (some variation of little t, r or maybe bTlittler or big R little t). Practically it comes down to those who don't think we need to force the issue at this moment have to figure out what we do with the ideal...There are those who see it as an ideal but do not believe it is necessary for us to do so at this point, but maybe it will be later on. There are those who believe that the Millenial reign of Christ will have a variation of the OT legal system applied and thus don't see practical application for secular systems. Nobody, however, who is a theonomist will tell you that the OT laws are wrong. God made them, therefore they have to be righteous, whether you believe they should be applied today or anytime in the future or not. Personally I am a little t and little r theonomist/reconstructionist. I believe that any perfect system would found itself on the law(s) of God in some fashion. I don't believe that it is an obligation for a secular government. I do believe some variation of Biblical rule would be necessary for any government which called itself Christian or professed to be in covenant with God. But I don't necessary believe that until the millenium it should exist, it is more of a future ideal than anything I am supposed to be creating at the moment. I do believe the millenial reign will have at least some foundations similar to the OT laws, even if they are modified. I also hold to the view that any government is subject to its own laws and once it has violated them, it is an illegal government...and that if a government wanted the respect and obedience necessary in Romans 13, it would also behave in a manner consistent with Romans 13 or it is not entitled to said submission. Hence our government now is illegal and not entitled to the submission asked for in Romans 13. All this being said, I was merely attempting to give an overview of 4 different ways of seeing that same verse. Each system has consequences which go beyond Romans 13 and beyond anything I mentioned. My application was very focused due to the question being asked. Thus what I said stands...A theonomist/recon view would interpret Romans 13 in an idealistic or philosophical manner rather than a more literal one. IE, in an ideal world where God is followed and man has reconstructed his thinking to fit into God's system, ....(insert the text for Romans 13). In that world, a theonomist would hold that it would be a sin for man or a group of men to rebel against the sitting government. If that government is not voluntarily subject to the laws of God, a theonomist/recon could a) rebel and make the government such b) work within the government to guide it into partial conformity or c)abjure...its illegal, only go along with whatever suits your conscience, the government is no longer entitled to the contents of Romans 13. I am chosing c. Thus you will never find any quotes from Rushdoony or North in anything I write.

That is extremely reasonable. No matter what, especially among Baptists, this is going to be a tough issue. Is divorce the one sin that prevents people from being a pastor, elder, or deacon? I find it ironic that a person could have been a murderer, drug addict, alcoholic, male prostitute, child abuser, before comming to Christ say ten years ago and be a pastor....but a person that possibly divorced his wife because she was cheating on him and eventually left him for another guy twenty years ago is looked on with disdain for any major leadership role. Grace covers our sins. Now, if this person continues to get divorced, or divorced his/her spouse a year ago due to his/her own infedlity, then I think there is ground to question his/her leadership ability. However, if it is something in the past and grace has taught them a lesson, I do not see the big deal. For instance, my father is divorced. His first marriage lasted a total of six months. He then married my mother. They have since been married for twenty-seven years. However, because he made a stupid mistake whilst backslidden, he has been kept out of leadership roles and church members have even become offended because he was allowed to speak one Sunday night. Is that really Christianity? I'm divorced, I was previously married to an adulterer who also denied the faith right before we divorced. He is now remarried and the woman and him went before the church and repented and lo and behold he has no consequences now at all... that sorta burns me up... ahem. My church looked at the situation, ruled that my divorce was not due to my sin and thus I was free to serve anywhere I liked (excpet eldership, we don't believe in female elders and pastors) I see a problem with people who are divorced through no fault of their own being kept out of leadership because they were the victim of someone else's sins. I do not have a problem with having a period where someone who is divorced through fault of their own (ie the adulterer or the person who has left because they weren't happy or didn't like the husband or wifes occupation, that sort of thing) has to sit and recouperate from their state (be built back up, demonstrate that their repentance is honest, etc) if they are seeking a position of leadership (elder, deacon, sunday school tteacher) Not everyone who says they are sorry have truly repented. Some merely regret that things went badly. If someone were a pedophile, and they repented, it would not be smart for me to let this person be my child's sunday school teacher...If a man was a philanderer and he was a pastor, he could repent before the church but...he should not remain the pastor until he's been faithful to his wife for a while, to prove that he's changed.

I am terrably sorry for what im going to do next.... again i am sorry.... No, its just not a town it is a way of living like dressing Emo, listening to emo music which i cannot stand for the reason i cannot understand a word there saying and it is very depressing music... Very graphic to explain a point like if you are to say she broke my heart they would scream she ripped out my heart with a knife then go on about he lost his soul; blah blah... and that is just the minor stuff it can get worse... Don't know if it is bad never really listen to it but what i have listen to LOL what i could understand it was very depressing in my view... Emos are gothic people who don't like to be called gothic and like to wear other colours,like pink or purple either with or instead of black. They like to wear strawberry shortcake stuff when they r too young to know who she was... basically, in looks and music they are "gothic lite"

Traditionally there are 4 variations of interpretation of that section of scripture. What is even more confusing is when that was written the person in power in Rome was Nero. Now if you substitute Nero for the places where it says government or authority, you have something that makes little sense....Thus you have to balance it with other scriptures which allow for disobedience to the authorities. The mixing of those scriptures have led to these four common views of how to see authority: 1. Divine Right of Kings: This verse is taken very literally, the citizen must obey all laws unless they directly contradict the laws of God, because the king or authority says so. If the Government says to wear orange, everyone must do so cause nothing in scripture says that we shouldn't wear orange. IF the government says we are all to be athiests, obviously one does not do this because it's against scripture. However, in this view, you might take a bold stand if your religion was against the law, but one would not rebel. 2. Theonomy/Reconstructionist: This is the ideal for a Christian government, and the government in the Millenium. The practical side is divided here, some believe that we are free to disobey any government who does not hold to this ideal, others hold to a practical application which says obey as long as your conscience or the laws of God do not tell you otherwise. This view would allow for uprisings, such as the American Revolution, in the right context. 3. Anabaptist?pacifist View: the state is part of the system of this world, the kingdom of satan. Submission in the context of Romans 13 is passive, though sometimes unavoidable conflicts will occur. During those times you do what is right and if you get caught you submissively allow yourself to be led to your punishment. 4. Freedom Of Conscience: Submission to the state is passive here also, the state being part of the kingdom of the world. Romans 13 is seen as a pragmatic treatise, this is what you do if you want to avoid trouble. however, there is no absolute view as to when it is proper or allowable to rebel against the government, it is left to the individual conscience. This is the second view which would allow uprisings such as the American Revolution. Theonomists who believe that at some point a authority has forfeited his right to obedience will then out of practicality abjure to the freedom of conscience view because it becomes up to the situation and personal belief when it is ok to rebel. This is where I stand right now. I personally am a theonomist, which operates currently under the freedom of conscience view. IE, I believe the current government is not at all what Romans 13 describes, thus the authorities are not ENTITLED to my allegience. Further, it is in violation of it's own legal documents and thus is an illegal government. When do I obey laws and when will I rebel? that is up to my conscience which has been taught by scripture and is in submission to the word of God. I will rebel in self defence and in defence of my family for one, and in defence of the ultimate legal authority of this nation (the constitution and founding documents) and in defense of my faith.

If hypocrisy in the common context means believing one thing and doing another, then there is a good chance we are. We believe we are supposed to be sinless and yet we still sin. It can also mean holding one person to one standard and your self to a lesser one. That may or may not be true, and I hope it isn't. However, if it means that our religion is a fake, well, we can't all be hypocrites can we? Not if we are true believers.

Before you start casting aspersions at Paul and Jan Crouch, sit down, clam up, listen good, and you just might learn what calibre of people you're slandering. Years ago, when I was one of the founders of a correspondence Bible College, we had directed that anyone incarcerated in prison could take their courses free of charge upon recommendation of their chaplain. This of course, was running us broke (us personally, not JUST the Bible College!). At our last extremity, we got an extremely high and glowing recommendation for a man to take our courses. We were all too broke to buy his required books, and I wrote to Paul and Jan and asked TBN to buy ALL this man's books (no small amount of money was required). Now Paul and Jan Crouch didn't know me from Adam, yet wthin less than two weeks, we received a check from Paul and Jan's PERSONAL ACCOUNT! My experience of life has taught me that all of us tend to judge the world around us by what we know ourselves to be. That the Crouches are trusting, indicates to me that they are also trustworthy. You, on the other hand, come to slander, and to speak of them as evil. Which makes me think this too probably comes from introspection. If there is any proof whatsoever that the crouches teach heresy, it should be known...and backed up with evidence. We aren't supposed to listen to false prophets. I know they used to be involved in the Word of Faith Heresy, (I'd be glad to dig up quotes if necessary, though it may take a while because I haven't worked on debunking WOF for years), but I can't say whether they are or are not still involved in it. However, I do believe that TBN and the emergent church are not affiliated with each other. The emergent church movement is quite different from WOF and working in different sectors of the visible professing church

The government is supposed to allow people to worship in whatever way they please. Either they will have to fund everyone and everything, or they will have to fund nothing at all. me, I prefer that they fund nothing at all, only make it legal for privately funded groups to come to the jails.

Can a sinner be a christian? Some christians spend most of their life in thrall to one sin or another. It is possible, especially if they were raised this way because they've known nothing else. However, at one point or another...the HS might work to deal with it and at one point or another they will have to make a decision to repent or keep their pet sin. And scripture says if they are a true believer, eventually they will repent. When is this? I don't know. Has the person I am talking to who is a biggot reached this place in their faith, I don't know. However, it is my place as a fellow believer to show them, in love, how scripture teaches equality in Christ and how their attitude clashes. There is a difference though between not liking something and hating it. I don't like the preppy culture, but I don't hate preps. I don't really have any great love for the main culture of society, but I don't hate the people who are in it. There are alot of people who don't really like my culture but don't hate me.

I've had dealings with people like this, one of my great Uncles went to live among them the last 30 yrs of his life. They honestly believe this and it is not an excuse. They also would defy the government if it were required anyway, due to the fact they believe the NT teaches that the secular, unsaved world is the realm of the devil. They will then abjure and take whatever consequences come because of that stance.

They in and of themselves are not evil, though they can be vehicles for such. What is a temptation for one person is not necessarily interesting to another, much less a temptation. People talk about gun violence but we have to remember that people shoot those guns. A gun in my home would not be a temptation to gang or regular gun violence, because I'm just not that kinda gal. Neither would a sword be or a knife. And I have used "Crystals" to make wind chimes. they are pretty and mean nothing to me. I'm not channeling anything or attempting to change anything with them, just making a decoration for the window. Paul talked about meat sacrificed to Idols. It was meat used to worship pagan gods, then distributed for whoever bought it to eat. Christians went to pagan homes for dinner and were wondering if they should eat it or not. Was it evil? Paul said to eat what was served and leave it at that. In another place he said to not eat meat if it would cause a brother to stumble. This teaches that the meat itself, even if it had an evil use originally, was just a peice of meat. It was the meaning given to it by the people using it that made it evil. Like the guns. Now I would not cause one child to stumble to give the other freedom, but at the same time, I think we need to remember that one person's temptation is anothers ... nothing. The whole concept behind the game YuGiOh is foreign to Christianity because it is eastern. Because of the obviously eastern/oriental themes, it may be a problem for some kids whose minds run along that line who like to find mystical meanings and what not. It might not be a problem for others. To me, its the same thing as meat sacrificed to idols. It might have come from the world, but it has no power in and of itself. If it causes sin, magical thinking or an overreaching imagination, yank the stuff. If not, worry about the post modern world view in schools, that's even more of a threat because they will GET those concepts while any religious references in Yugi will fly over the heads of most people. I agree with you about the cartoonsand alcohol and all rather being used as a vehicle for evil. Here's a story about something that happened 5 days or so ago. A 10 year old kid beated he's 7 or so months old brother to death. The kid was as cold as a cold blooded killer when they were interviewing him, they asked him,'' do you feel sorry?''he answered "no" Then they asked him " what were you watching before you killed him'' he answered" Jackie Chan Adventures((the animated cartoons) . He then said that he felt like the devil got in him or something. When I said that inanimate objects can be vehicles for evil I did not mean that they CAUSE us to sin. I meant that they can be means of temptation in a time of weakness, which is very different. That show did not cause that child to act the way he did, he chose to do it. He probably didn't think his brother would die but he still chose to be violent. We want to blame the show because we don't want to see the elements of human depravity in children so young. We like to see children as innocent and cute. Well they are sinners just like the rest of us. I can't say if he was possessed or if he just said that because wanted to get out of trouble. However using this sort of reasoning to condemn something which has no will (tv shows don't think) over a being which does (the person doing the dead) leads us to not take responsibility for our selves and the states of our own souls. It also wants to let the unregenerate "off the hook" in regards to why they sin. Nobody wants to see the state of the soul for what it is, even Christians. (My experience has been Christians are worse avoiding this than pagans, but your mileage may vary) The fact still remains that If I go out and shoot someone after watching RAMBO, it's not the movie's fault, it's mine. Even if that movie was "the last straw" or the "stumbling block" that I failed to negotiate before I fell flat on my face...it is still very much my decision to ALLOW that sort of thing to affect me and I made the decision to sin. Unfortunately, society is too quick to accept such answers from people. I remember when I was a young adult Dad telling me that someone got arrested for committing a crime, he blamed it on a fruit cake which had had an inordinate amount of alcohol in it. Supposing that the alcohol remained in the fruitcake during cooking, why didn't everyone who ate it go out and commit a crime? Because only that one person wanted to. Why didn't all kids who watched the Chan cartoons go out and beat someone? Because they didn't want to. The bible says our natures are evil. Culture's art is a reflection of that in varying degrees, even when it is attempting to show our great spirit and be positive... No art, not mater how base, is responsible for the depravity of mankind. It's our nature and every time we act on it, we are responsible because we decided to do it. "WHY" is unimportant, it's not the temptation's fault, it's the sinners each and every time a sin is committed.

Public prayer is good if it is heart felt and not seen as a show (a way to wittness) or an obligation. Jesus said to pray in our closet rather than on the street. I believe these were the attitudes he was addressing. I pray silently if I know the person will be offended. If not, I MAY ask if they mind or they'd like me or my kids to pray. Usually they are ok with it. I did have one unbeliever start eating while we were praying (what happened to good ole southern manners? I thought you had to wait for everyone to start eating....) but he did not mind. So far nobody has as long as we don't mind that they don't and as along as we don't make it a marathon prayer. But usually I just say "quaker grace" (silent) in public.

They in and of themselves are not evil, though they can be vehicles for such. What is a temptation for one person is not necessarily interesting to another, much less a temptation. People talk about gun violence but we have to remember that people shoot those guns. A gun in my home would not be a temptation to gang or regular gun violence, because I'm just not that kinda gal. Neither would a sword be or a knife. And I have used "Crystals" to make wind chimes. they are pretty and mean nothing to me. I'm not channeling anything or attempting to change anything with them, just making a decoration for the window. Paul talked about meat sacrificed to Idols. It was meat used to worship pagan gods, then distributed for whoever bought it to eat. Christians went to pagan homes for dinner and were wondering if they should eat it or not. Was it evil? Paul said to eat what was served and leave it at that. In another place he said to not eat meat if it would cause a brother to stumble. This teaches that the meat itself, even if it had an evil use originally, was just a peice of meat. It was the meaning given to it by the people using it that made it evil. Like the guns. There is no demon in a bottle of beer, but alot of people use it get drunk. Medicinal plants were put on earth for us to use for medicinal purposes and people use them instead to create an "unsober" mind or altered state of consciousness. The problem isn't the plants, the beer, the meat, it's the people USING it. I have a mind very much fascinated by the mystical. I don't believe it is wrong, per se, if used to ponder the mystery of the uncomprehensibility of God. But if not reigned in properly it becomes one and I was drawn into the occult when I was younger. Things which affected me in that way (like Isis cartoons) had no affect on my sister whatsoever. She thought the show was cheesy and didn't care about ancient egypt or their religion. For some reason I did. Had my parents been aware of what was going on, they might have forbid us to watch that stuff because it was a stumbling block to ME. If I'd been like my sister, they would have just left us alone. Isis cartoons were meat sacrificed to Idols. My older son was very much like me. I kept him sheltered from any references to the occult, outright or latent, until he was about 11 or 12. During that time I filled his head with alot of really solid theology and gradually over time I slowly started introducing things to him to see how he reacted. Like superheroes. I made sure that they were, in the beginning at least, not using eastern concepts (like chi) or getting their powers from other beings or forces...Thus XMen, batman and spiderman were all ok cause they were supposedly mutations and the power rangers were not (he was a boy so that was less of a problem anyway). When he was 12 the family we were visiting watched the Wizard of Oz. We get to the good witch. He says "there is no such thing as a good witch. They may be nice, but their magic comes from demons" I knew he understood the truth I'd been filling him with all those years. I've watched him, he's a very strong christian. He debunked the Davinci code to all his friends after we watched the whole history of the thing on tv (I never read the book so had no idea what the big deal was). I didn't have to tell him what was wrong with it, he knew right off... My younger son got exposed to some things in a christian run daycare that I had not introduced his brother to at that age. I was no longer a stay at home mom due to a divorce and had to place him somewhere, that was the best option I had. I sat down to talk to him about it, he looked at me really funny and said "MOM, thats just a dopey story." he isn't even INTERESTED in magical thinking. He could care less. His sins run along the line of sloth and having a temper. I have trouble getting him to think about the more mystical elements of scripture. He's really concrete "do this, don't do that" and I fear he will become either a legalist or a pragmatist (he's now 12, the older boy is 16). Now I would not cause one child to stumble to give the other freedom, but at the same time, I think we need to remember that one person's temptation is anothers ... nothing. The whole concept behind the game YuGiOh is foreign to Christianity because it is eastern. Because of the obviously eastern/oriental themes, it may be a problem for some kids whose minds run along that line who like to find mystical meanings and what not. It might not be a problem for others. To me, its the same thing as meat sacrificed to idols. It might have come from the world, but it has no power in and of itself. If it causes sin, magical thinking or an overreaching imagination, yank the stuff. If not, worry about the post modern world view in schools, that's even more of a threat because they will GET those concepts while any religious references in Yugi will fly over the heads of most people.

I seek God constantly, but only in a regimented form if I find myself flagging spiritually. I'm a voracious reader, and I love theological material. I listen to music with lyrics which lead me toward God either upbeat or the more reflective (like gregorian chant). However, just like when you run really fast, sooner or later you will get burnt out and slow down. I grow best allowing myself to run like mad during these periods. During the more exuberant times where I'm running like mad I have no trouble with focus and I pray and meditate spontaneously on a very frequent basis. I learn alot (it's like tilling and planting) and during the slower times I learn to apply what I've studied so diligently (like waiting and weeding). However, during that slower time, I'm also usually in some sort of turmoil (as we usually learn to apply what we've learned the hard way) so my eyes are not focused where they should be all the time. Having a regimented set aside time to pray or study keeps me where I need to be to apply the lessons I've learned.