dgolvach

Actually Eric this book was bought at a Christian Book store, written by a Christian author and builds it message by using the Bible. You should read "Song of Songs" ITS IN THE BIBLE AND IT WAS WRITTEN BY GOD!. Much of the book I sited used "Song of Songs" You should also take the time to read the original post so you would even understand the context of the thread itself which was not about "cheap sex". Don't think that cutting people down and throwing condemnation around will elevate you and bring you one inch closer to God. IT WONT! You don't disgust me but your act here of being a self appointed bull horn for God coupled by your obvious complete ignorance of the subject being discussed here is irritating at best. But if you feel like your rightousness has been offended, by all means.....go to the moderators and get me banned from the board. Have a nice day! Dan p.s. read the whole thread sometimes before you start lobbing your insults (commision to Eric by God) around to cut down others who are merely talking about a subject of spiritual concerns.

Last week I read a book called "The Sacred Romance". The point of this book was to shine light on what God really wants from us. Appearently it is a very intimate love that he desires. The word "Romance" is thrown around quite abit these days. I hear it in sermons as well as books. "A romance with God". Its obvious that the romance thats this author is speaking of is not a physical romance like we express with our spouses. But the type on intimacy that occurs during a physical union of man and wife is only a small picture of the type of spiritual intercourse God seeks with his children. (us) His love has both paternal and maternal attributes. This book also depicts God as a sort of lover. This ideal is based on the "song of songs" in the Bible. Most people see it merely as a guide for earthy romance between a man and a woman. The author of "sacred romance" makes the case that this book (song of songs) has even a deeper meaning. Its a sort of snapshot of the very deep intimacy we can share with God when we turn from earhtly sorces (sin) towards God in order to get feed. Another book I am reading is by a fellow named Barry Hall. Its called "Heart Training". Again this author makes the case that all sin (lust, greed, pride, addiction...ect...) are actually evidence that we are created with desire for God. The desires themselves are not the sin but rather they way we try to fufill these desires. Its not a matter of walking around, gritting you teeth and just saying no to sin. (This attempt to stop sinning is in itself as sin because it is a work of the flesh that leads to pride and us thinking we have earned God's presence)True repentence is turning your attention and desires towards God. We actually drink from God so our souls are satisfied. We drink by enterting into his presence. He even pointed out that sexual sin is much more than a need to fulfill a biological\fleshy desire all though that is part of it. But the greater part of it is a deep desire planted in us by God himself to direct us towards him. He is more than willing to give you a very intimate love that easily overcomes the desire to get it through sex outside of marriage or sins of the mind. (sexual sin). Barry is not saying that God desires physical sex but the same type of spiritual intercourse and oneness that occurs. Only far greater than what we even experience with our spouses. He also wants to bathe us in his tender nurturing love much like a mother does with her newborn. But again, much greater than that. The Bible even uses the analogy of a mother nursing a child with her breasts. Very inimate!. So its not our effort to stop sinning but God's love we experience when we enter into his presence, that makes it possible to overcome sin. I have had a problem with lust up until about 2 1|2 months ago when I started trading my lust for God's presence. I don't walk around craving sex or having lust thought. This is not the first time I attempted to change. But this time I turned towards God and got what I needed so there hasen't been any need for sexual sin outside of my lovely beautiful wife. God gives me inimacy. Let me explain this: I love my sons. I have a very intimate relationship with my wife at times. She is a very beautiful woman and I enjoy our intimacy. As far as a family goes, I feel fortunate. Lots of intimacy. But when I am honest with myself, I know that my soul craves far more intimacy, deep love and spiritual intercourse. No human including my lovely beautiful wife could ever completely supply all that I need. Islam's 72 virgins couldn't. Solomon's hundreds of wives and concubines wouldn't be enough. My needs are way vast. I am very needy. I need a eternal, intimate lover. Not some dictator with a ZZ Top beard. I don't want high fives or just hugs when I go to heaven. I want a deep intimacy with the one who created me. I want God to wildly love me and I want to return my wild love back to God. Are these authors and myself being blasphemous by wanting so much from God? I dont want a mansion. I want him. Every second. I want extreme love from him. I want him to love me in an extreme way? Any thoughts? Am I a blasphemer? Dan

Last week I read a book called "The Sacred Romance". The point of this book was to shine light on what God really wants from us. Appearently it is a very intimate love that he desires. The word "Romance" is thrown around quite abit these days. I hear it in sermons as well as books. "A romance with God". Its obvious that the romance thats this author is speaking of is not a physical romance like we express with our spouses. But the type on intimacy that occurs during a physical union of man and wife is only a small picture of the type of spiritual intercourse God seeks with his children. (us) His love has both paternal and maternal attributes. This book also depicts God as a sort of lover. This ideal is based on the "song of songs" in the Bible. Most people see it merely as a guide for earthy romance between a man and a woman. The author of "sacred romance" makes the case that this book (song of songs) has even a deeper meaning. Its a sort of snapshot of the very deep intimacy we can share with God when we turn from earhtly sorces (sin) towards God in order to get feed. Another book I am reading is by a fellow named Barry Hall. Its called "Heart Training". Again this author makes the case that all sin (lust, greed, pride, addiction...ect...) are actually evidence that we are created with desire for God. The desires themselves are not the sin but rather they way we try to fufill these desires. Its not a matter of walking around, gritting you teeth and just saying no to sin. (This attempt to stop sinning is in itself as sin because it is a work of the flesh that leads to pride and us thinking we have earned God's presence)True repentence is turning your attention and desires towards God. We actually drink from God so our souls are satisfied. We drink by enterting into his presence. He even pointed out that sexual sin is much more than a need to fulfill a biological\fleshy desire all though that is part of it. But the greater part of it is a deep desire planted in us by God himself to direct us towards him. He is more than willing to give you a very intimate love that easily overcomes the desire to get it through sex outside of marriage or sins of the mind. (sexual sin). Barry is not saying that God desires physical sex but the same type of spiritual intercourse and oneness that occurs. Only far greater than what we even experience with our spouses. He also wants to bathe us in his tender nurturing love much like a mother does with her newborn. But again, much greater than that. The Bible even uses the analogy of a mother nursing a child with her breasts. Very inimate!. So its not our effort to stop sinning but God's love we experience when we enter into his presence, that makes it possible to overcome sin. I have had a problem with lust up until about 2 1|2 months ago when I started trading my lust for God's presence. I don't walk around craving sex or having lust thought. This is not the first time I attempted to change. But this time I turned towards God and got what I needed so there hasen't been any need for sexual sin outside of my lovely beautiful wife. God gives me inimacy. Let me explain this: I love my sons. I have a very intimate relationship with my wife at times. She is a very beautiful woman and I enjoy our intimacy. As far as a family goes, I feel fortunate. Lots of intimacy. But when I am honest with myself, I know that my soul craves far more intimacy, deep love and spiritual intercourse. No human including my lovely beautiful wife could ever completely supply all that I need. Islam's 72 virgins couldn't. Solomon's hundreds of wives and concubines wouldn't be enough. My needs are way vast. I am very needy. I need a eternal, intimate lover. Not some dictator with a ZZ Top beard. I don't want high fives or just hugs when I go to heaven. I want a deep intimacy with the one who created me. I want God to wildly love me and I want to return my wild love back to God. Are these authors and myself being blasphemous by wanting so much from God? I dont want a mansion. I want him. Every second. I want extreme love from him. I want him to love me in an extreme way? Any thoughts? Am I a blasphemer? Dan

The Intimate Bride by John Robert Lucas This is a prophecy I wrote down in 1984 . At our wedding, in 1988, I had this prophecy read aloud...to believers...to unbelievers...even to the religious. In scripture an allegory is presented concerning our relationship of Christ: He is our bridegroom and we are His bride. An allegory is something that God gives us, relating to our natural surroundings. Now, concerning intimate relationship, we are most intimate with Jesus when we are most subjected to Him. We are most like His bride when we desire Him more than anything in the earth. I tell you: in the day of the Lord I am not coming back for just a church--I am coming back for a bride--a bride that is ready. As of now I have no bride to come back to, but I am preparing one. Right now I have a church, but there is a day when I shall have a bride. (The church in this context is defined as all born again believers, whereas the bride is define as those who are mature in Christ, living beyond the veil--in the inner courts of God's tabernacle) The church is now becoming My bride as she draws closer to Me in an intimacy that she has never known. Many shall fall away for fear of this type of intimacy. Some will be repulsed by it, but many shall be added daily to her number. Today's church is much like the children of Israel as they wandered in the wilderness; for, after I revealed Myself and spoke to them, their response was fear, and they chose law and sacrifice over an intimate relationship--a relationship where they could converse with God. (Exodus 20:18-22) Today's church is the same, for when I shall reveal Myself to them in a different way--not to scare, but that they may draw close to Me--many shall run from My presence because they are unsure of Me, or they are scared of Me, or they are in religious pride. Because of this, not only will they miss out on this mighty moving of My Spirit, but some shall remain outside of My presence for eternity. However, many shall run to My presence with joy and gladness, coming as children, having put behind them human knowledge, and instead approaching me in a childlike trust. Many that say they know Me at that time, when I am revealed to them, will not recognize Me. The simple ones who do not know Me now will come and know Me then. Many that now truly know Me shall come into a fuller knowledge of Me, enjoying the fullness of My presence. My bride shall be a faithful one, for I am a jealous God and I will share her with no one. She is always on My mind and takes many of My thoughts, and she loves Me mutually with her thoughts, taking pleasure being with Me. She is now responding to My courting that I have been wooing her with, and soon her romance with Me shall be intense. For, as Enoch walked with Me in an intimate relationship, I was pleased with My bride (Enoch) and I took him up with Me. In the day of the Lord, I shall be pleased with My bride, and I will take her with Me, rapturing (Greek: caught up) her in My presence. There shall be awaiting her a feast of celebration concerning our covenant together for all eternity. Rejoice and be glad for the day approaches and draws near when I will require My church to transform into a bride. Those who resist shall not remain, for I have not only called them to be mighty soldiers with authority and faith who overcome in battle, but I have also called them to be an affectionate bride. As she worships Me with kisses, so will I respond to her. For, I am not cold, but I am a passionate lover, whose love I have reserved only for My true bride. My response to her love shall be My presence, and life will I give her. She will enjoy Me as I have also enjoyed her. Many shall miss it because they are looking for a church and have refused the bride. But, I do not weep for them, for the ones who are willing are My delight. By them My heart is moved and rejoices, and at times breaks with the pleasure that I take with their desire to be with Me. I will reveal Myself to them, and their response shall be one of acceptance and longing. For they shall yearn for those intimate moments that we share together. They will even go to extremes to what they will do to bring Me pleasure and delight. As the jester in the king's court goes to extremes to amuse and delight the king. My bride shall be a mighty church but with a love to give only found in her lover. She will also be found in reverence, in respect of her groom, standing in awe of Me, crying and weeping and kissing My feet in worship, as Mary did in all humility. But she will not stay there, for after she bows in My majesty, she will stand up and come boldly to Me, without fear, and she will express her love to me with kisses to the lips, which are as sweet as wine to me. For that is part of worship (Greek: to kiss towards). As she draws close to Me, I will draw close to her. The bride shall come into the bridal suite with Me in the last days before I take her, and she will come to me and consummate our union together. For my word says, where a man and wife, or prostitute and man are joined together on the marriage bed or bed of defilement, they shall be made one, and I shall be made one with My bride. For the honeymoon was not man's invention, but its origin was in the spirit, and it shall come to pass, thus says the Lord.

This was not my complilation but I thought I would copy it for this thread. In Deuteronomy (32:18), God is described as

I'm not labeling God as male or female. I understand our creator to be spirit not physical. I certainly understand that (he) expressed himself through a Man. (Jesus) But can we look to God for motherly needs as well as what we get from a father? Both mother and father are important in the developement of a child. Any thoughts or scriptures? I was cut off from my mother at an early age and have always felt a void because of it, Dan

The thing that is so uncomfortable is that I think what I've tried to get out of the women in my life can only come from God. God is male and I have a hard time with the concept of being intimate with a male. Its not the biological aspect of sex but its the nurturing aspect of it. Im so empty and desperate for it. I allmost feel blasphemous for asking God to meet these needs. Dan

The truth is that I at a breaking point in my life and I am really trying to surrender. Surrender comes with alot of pain because along with the willfullness I am trying to give up comes death to self. Self dying is the thing thats always kept me from trusting God. It really hurts because you feel like your being nailed to the cross along with the sins that are being crucified. I'm terrified. I have so many needs and desires that are very strong. I am trying to be honest with God on these issues. I even ask him to be intimate with me because I need it so much. Lonelyness is not doable for me. I'm going to get it somewhere. Except, this time I have asked God to supply my needs rather than other things. I am not a girlyman by any description.(Straight) I am very much a man but my deepest needs are like that of a baby. I need a parent that loves me not an old ticked off gray haired clowd dweller thats all about rules. I need God to love me so hard that I don't mind if no one else does. I need to feel it in my soul and I can't wait, It hurts to much. I also don't want to be loved only if I do stuff for him. Does this make sence? How humiliating. I want God to be my mother. Dan

There are some issues in my life that I have been trying to give to God. Its very hard to trust God with things that you have been so used to trying to control. My question; you go to God and tell him you will have faith through obedience, you do good for a while and you even sence God's presence unlike you have before but in a week moment, you fall. You try to take matters into your own hands because of the pain involved with waiting on God. You then choose an earthly means to meet your need. You blew it because you didn't wait. Do you have to start all over or can you pick right back up where you fell? Dan

Buncha treehuggin liberal hippies! Dan

Personally, I can't wait. We can make an artificial human and send them to work while we go on vacation. We should we "real" folk have to work so hard? Dan

I remember his death like it was yesterday. I was only 14 but had a good knowledge of his music from all the old records my paremts had. I really liked his 50s rochabilly greaser stuff. I was sad on that day. I hope Elvis is with God now. Actually I think I saw him at KFC the other day. Long live the King! Dan

Ed Shultz is to blame for my mother-in-law's constipation! Dan

When I think of petty investigations meant to be a public spectacle, a certain blue dress comes to mind... Amazing Bill got impeached for that, whereas Bush's lies have KILLED THOUSANDS and he's still sitting snug. Stop and think about that for a moment. Yea isn't that amazing. And isn't it also amazing that Clinton and likewise socially liberal politians (some republicans) have allowed laws that have killed millions since the early 70s. Of course these killings are very clinical and not covered by the media so its much easier to just sweep it off under the rug. But hey....Clinton never lied. As far as I know he always openly supported baby butchering when he was President. Over 40000000 dead now. WHOOPY !! YEA GO Democrats!! He and his party have incorporated this into their platform since Helen Reddy sang "I am Woman". By my count...Bush still has quite away before he catches up with Ol' Billy Boy! I wonder if Bill and Hill are happy that they themselves weren't sacraficed to the God of Convenience when they were babies? Hmmmmm....Bill really likes that free fun SEX thing. To him, responcible sex probably means "the guy pitching in to pay for the abortion". Are there any pro-life Dems. running for President? Cheers

Most of the crowd yelled "Barabas". The Anti-Christ will be popular also. Churchill was labeled a war monger. Noah was ridiculed. At least the Republicans pretend to support Judeo-Christian ethics. Their all we have. Dan

Exactly, I agree 100%, we would be far better off today if George Bush would have pursued a career in law enforcement and left the job of President to people like Al Gore and John Edwards. Yeh...let a "junk science" lawyer run things. Perhaps he can bring a class action lawsuit to Ben Laden if we get popped again. Dan

I'm sorry to tell you that you are wrong, your arguments are specious. In other words, they sound good, like they could be true but aren't. 1) we have enough oil in the USA to satisfy our petroleum needs if we switch our vehicles from petroleum based fuel to alternative fuels. This means we have enough oil to handle the manufacturing of everything else we use fossil fuels for besides gas. Carter started our energy policy in the 70's and had we stuck with it we would be energy independent by now. Reagan dismantled that policy so that oil companies could continue to prosper and rule our economy. 2) Our economy has been better than it is today. While the stock market may be up, the middle class is shrinking, the poor is increasing and the rich are indeed getting richer. The numbers don't lie, unless you are fudging them, which this administration is doing, very effectively I might add, allowing you (and others like you) who want to believe things are better than they were under Clinton, to do so. The few of us here who do not ignore the truth have shown all of these things, how the Bush admin skews the numbers etc. but you really don't care about the truth because then you might have to confront the fact that the conservative model doesn't actually work by itself, never has, in the history of the world. Moderation in all things is the only thing that works. Too much liberalism and too much conservativism fail, always. This is why the country always swings from conservative to liberal, keeping the country moderate. George Bush was an experiment in neo-conservativism and it has failed MISERABLY. There has been more corruption, abuse of power and damage to the constitutional rights of this country than ever in history and the country is giving a resounding NO MORE to all of this. GOD BLESS THE WORLD!! Balance...ethanol won't work. It would drive produce in this country through the roof. It also can't be transported that well. In my 44 years as a musician with no college degree, I've never seen it better. Clinton's economy was built on what was started in the 80s with Reagan's tax breaks. His stock market was built on overpriced futures. Todays stock market is built on companies that are actually making money. I remember quite well how horrible things were when Carter and his dem. congress controlled things. Clinton also signed alot of republican legislation after 94. Don't worry though...the Socialists you support are going to have their chance soon. 1979 all over again. Liberalism slightly to the left has miserably fail those on the other side of the birth canal for the past 35 years. Dan

After watching that CNN YOU-TUBE debate, I've suddenly warmed up to the Repuplicans again. I think the RNC should use bits from this debate for general election adds. Dan

Very true, although I'll probably cave and end up voting for one of them. Whomever seems to be the lesser of evils... Sad that's the way we have to vote, isn't it? I originally registered in a third party (Green), but switched to Democrat within a year because I realized that's the only way to be heard politically where I am, and that I wanted a say in the primaries. In Maryland, I could feel comfortable voting for a third party candidate in a presidential election most of the time since the state pretty much always goes blue because of Baltimore and the DC burbs, but most other places that's not the case. It's a big dilemma for me - vote for someone who could win, or vote for someone I like better? I like Obama personally but I could never vote for him only because I simply disagree with his views on the roll of Government. I think he is much more consistant than Hillary. I would vote for Ringo before Hillary. Dan GBGirl How are you? Do you like the LOVE album? I thought it was interesting. The remix of "Something" was quite nice. Dan

I'm all male and cute. My Momma told me so! Dan

Last year I was asked to not post You-Tube links here because of the sometimes racey material that appears with it. But if anyone wants to byt into this "Hillary was tricked by Bush to vote for the war" nonsence that shes putting out, please search it your self by typing in "Hillary Clinton's views on going to war, Saddam, and WMD". This was in 2003 when a anti-war women's (code pink)_group went to her and asked why she supported the war. Listen real close to what she says. She made it clear that she fully understood the need to remove Hussain when her "Husband" was President and that she didn't need Bush to convince her. Compare that with what she now is saying. Dan

Bush could have stayed on his ranch and lived the good life. He ran here in Texas because we asked him to. He ran in 2000 because he was asked to. He never had a Hillary style life long plan to be President. You couldn't pay me enough to take his job. Instead of sitting on his backside in Crawford, he sitting in D.C. taking more dung than anyone I have ever seen. I'm not an evengelical. Nor am I even much of a Christian but I do know that Darkness hates the Light. I'm sorry, but if Al Gore, Clinton, Edwards, Kerry, Hollywood and Dan Rather are the light, I want to be in darkness. To me Bush must be part of the light because of the Devils who hate him so much. I can't even stand the rock stars I once listened to because of the way the openly rip this man. Neil Young, Mick Jagger, Don Henley ect. I wonder how much oil based products these clowns use in one week? Dan

Mac...Michael Moore owns stock in Haliburton. Lots of it. As far as religion goes, I don't think I made this a religious post other than I used the common term, "God Bless". He could be an atheist and it wouldn't change my opinion about the decisions he's had to make. I believe History will proove that he tried to do the right thing. Even if Saddam wasn't the real reason. He could have never sold the war on the true reason but the true reason is valid none the less. Its reality. Most people don't really understand what would happen if we didn't have a heavy military presence in that region. They are too busy enjoying the good life thats built on the free flow of oil. Dan

Simple...people who hate rich oil men shouldn't use any more oil than necessary. Don't eat out. Keep your house as warm or cold as you can bear, don't take vacations where you travel, no entertainment. Don't use the AC in church on Sundays. Ect... Live like a hermit so you can keep as much money out of Bush and Cheney hands as possible. Rich oil men should be given a metal for running the price of gas up. Lower prices discourage conservation and promote global warming. No my friend..... your way off. Its not Bush's fault, it ours. Dan