"Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world." 1John 2:15-17

“Blinded by darkness.” What a profound thing to ponder. Stop and consider it.

Ever since I have known anything at all, we have all been blinded by the sun or a bright light. In mans world and in mans eyes, that by our nature, we shield our eyes from what is light. However, we are spiritual beings and God tells us, apart from Him who gives us sight we are blinded by darkness. So by the things of this world that capture our eyes and desires, to understand what John has wrote, we have to see it from God’s perspective. To be blinded by the lusts of the flesh and eyes are to be blinded by the darkness of worldly things. The opposite is true to the faithful, to be blinded by the light of the glory of God to the things of the world. The faithful see what is better and serve that which will give them eternal life.

So it is John that tells us in his Divine inspired word, that those who chase after the things that please the flesh can not see God as it is the world that has blinded us to Him. I see that John is telling us one more time to live by faith so that our deeds are done for the pleasure of God and not for the pleasure of men.

I was asked by a friend today to expand on the issues of lust and doing so have asked about a deep subject that all of us have mastered. In the widest definition, I see that Lust of the flesh is the ungodly desire to scratch at the forbidden itch. I do not see that we should focus on a certain lust alone but, more so, the act of disobedience characterized in the Garden of Eden by Adam and Eve. Who were blinded by a desire of the flesh, we became knowledgeable of life and death and were banished from paradise. So it is today, under a new promise of reconciliation through Christ, to open our eyes to God in obedience to His decree. It is the same covenant given to all generations in its own form which has been broken time and time again. We lust when we lean on our own understanding and prepare our own armies to do things by our own strength only to please the itching desires of man. The passions of humanism and the desires to be gods drive the lusts that destroy us and darken our eyes from God.

John has written to us to refrain from pleasing man in all forms and live to please God alone. Lust in all its forms can be defined, in the simplest form that which serves man over God. So it is obedience that is the antonym to lust whereas lust is the chasing after the dark things of this world. “Whoever claims to live in him must walk as Jesus did.”; which is obedience to the Father. “The world and its desires pass away, but the man who does the will of God lives forever.” So it is summed up in Johns writing, your search for a deeper understanding of the lusts John talks about is not much more then mans disobedience to God’s covenant of reconciliation. In His words, God said by Jesus, “I am the truth, the way and the life” and Jesus lead the way to the Father for the gentile in this generation. So it is with us who must look at God and do His will by faith.

Who can do it or how can it be done? I myself hear these words but am not able to live by them and feel sorrow that I still lack the completeness of God’s love in my heart. So I can only say in prayer, “Thank you Jesus for my life is not life at all without what you have done for us. It is by you that I live and pray that I may humble myself and open my eyes to light and stop being blinded by the lusts of this world which is best defined as disobedience to God, which is spiritual darkness that envelopes my soul when I walk my way instead of yours.” ~Amen



In His glory,

Aaron

quote:Originally posted by Interest:

"Love not the world, [...etc...]

In His glory,

Aaron

Pleasures of the flesh are wrong? Sexuality should be restricted, bottled up? Pleasure is evil, dirty? Expressing love is wrong? Instead of denying yourself things with no point, why don't you go help people? There are starving people all over the world, why don't you eat rice for a month and give the extra money to them? Blinded by darkness, meh. Blinded by faith is more like it.

[Edit: Removed most of the quote as it took up a lot of space]

[This message has been edited by IanBoyd3 (edited 03-25-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by IanBoyd3:

Blinded by darkness, meh. Blinded by faith is more like it.

quote:Originally posted by Adrenochrome:



Huh. This is slightly off topic, but you just reminded me exactly of something Mitch Hedberg said (R.I.P.):



"I did a guest spot on [random late night talk show, I can't remember] and then the next day I went to the airport to catch my plane. This guy comes up to me and says, "Hey I saw you on tv last night." But he did not say whether or not he thought I was good, he just confirmed that I was on television last night. I knew that. I was there. So then I turned around, waited for about a minute and then said, "Hey sir. I saw you at the aeroport. About a minute ago. And you were good."

It reminded me of that because you didn't say whether you agreed or not, you just repeated what I said. Or fine, maybe I'm the only one who sees the humor. Alright, be that way.

I agree with you, IanBoyd3. :-)

quote:Originally posted by IanBoyd3:

Pleasures of the flesh are wrong? Sexuality should be restricted, bottled up? Pleasure is evil, dirty? Expressing love is wrong? Instead of denying yourself things with no point, why don't you go help people? There are starving people all over the world, why don't you eat rice for a month and give the extra money to them? Blinded by darkness, meh. Blinded by faith is more like it.

[Edit: Removed most of the quote as it took up a lot of space]



Is he blinded by his faith or are you blinded by your own wants or desires?

All I got from it was:

"Stare into the sun."

Figurative language usually makes me confused when it's being used in a logical argument.

quote:Originally posted by coolwestman:

Is he blinded by his faith or are you blinded by your own wants or desires?

He is blinded by his faith.

Heh, I could leave it at that but I'll elaborate. If I want to, not to be crass, but screw a hooker, that doesn't blind me into doing it. In fact, I would be far more likely to give them a better job or house them or something. I am not blinded by my wants; I make my choices based on the only true moral principle there is: The avoidance of unnecessary harm and the promotion of help/good.

If I love my girlfriend (if I had one) and we want to get intimate, its our decision. Sure its fully possible to rush things and decide wrong, but everyone has been wrong before. 99% of the time it is a terrible idea to, I don't know, run your bike directly into a fence. However, 1% of the time (well less than that) you are the writer/actor/producer in your own sketch comedy show and you happen to have a knack for doing stunts. In yours trulys' case, it's a perfectly fine idea. We had to do about 15 takes but I walked away unscathed.

Anyway my point is, aside from the additional insight into my personal life, morality is not a set of complete solid rules, just the principle of the avoidance of harm and promotion of good. To deem actions that do not directly harm anything as sinful is a cultural thing. Oh, I forgot to mention, about that, most of christianity's laws are based on culture and tradition then direct moral principle.

I don't want to get into an argument about whether sex before marriage is harmful or not; it may be for you, but different strokes my friends. And...not those kind of strokes...but seriously, no one has the right to make straight rules regarding subjective personal decisions.

You cannot have civilisation without social stability and social stability without personnal stability."

Huxley



The only thing that is perfect is God, at which point you can make the distinction between sight and vision, vision being light.

You say,

"We lust when we lean on our own understanding and prepare our own armies to do things by our own strength only to please the itching desires of man. The passions of humanism and the desires to be gods drive the lusts that destroy us and darken our eyes from God.

Men who can see are sinners right throughout the world... is God absent?

I guess faith counts for alot

quote:Originally posted by Lou Reed:

You cannot have civilisation without social stability and social stability without personnal stability."

Huxley



The only thing that is perfect is God, at which point you can make the distinction between sight and vision, vision being light.

You say,

"We lust when we lean on our own understanding and prepare our own armies to do things by our own strength only to please the itching desires of man. The passions of humanism and the desires to be gods drive the lusts that destroy us and darken our eyes from God.

Men who can see are sinners right throughout the world... is God absent?

I guess faith counts for alot



I'm not sure what you were trying to say with that argument. You just made many self assertions based on your faith with no outside reference. I don't even know what point you were trying to make with the Huxley quote. What are you saying? Men need faith to be moral? I have an impeccably strong moral fiber, and I don't need a deity for that.

I would go so far as to say that if you are being good because you want to go to heaven, avoid hell, and be eternally rewarded then I have far more integrity, character, moral fiber, love, and self-sacrifice then you.

When I finish ROTC, I plan to join the green berets for training and then quit. After that, I plan to (quite illegally of course) acquire firearms and attempt to take down and undermine the oppressive, evil, warlord regimes around the world that the US does nothing about (because there is no oil or political gain for helping them, only the ability to sleep at night, but then again, politicians don't have very strong consciences). It's crazy, I will die trying, but based on my talents and strengths thats the best way I can help the world. (By the way, I do know what I'm talking about it is just incredibly impossible to ever explain, so don't argue with me about the career thing).

I am willing to sacrifice much more than most christians for the good of the less fortunate (most of them non-christian 'poor going to hell' souls), and I do not do it for the reward of heaven or to avoid hell.

I should also add, that if your christian God wants to send me to hell for that, then I wouldn't want to spend eternity with such a vain, brutal figure anyway.



[Edit]

Let me also add one more point that I think might get brought up.

You may say 'Moral? By what standards?' and I'll answer that. The morality is based on the avoidance of unnecessary harm and the promotion of good. And you know what? If I'm not moral by your standards- Then you're using the wrong damn standards!



[This message has been edited by IanBoyd3 (edited 03-25-2006).]

just random thoughts

Well John is thought of to be an Essenne. Which is why there are passages saying that he lived in the wilderness and was an isolationist by societal terms. that and josephus' writings about the Essennes does make a suprising comparison with Johns behavior in the Bible.

Fundamental Essennes believed that no one is born an Essenne because Essennes are suppose to take a vow of chastity. Only by sacraficing worldy material good and emotions of want and need would one be able to get into heaven, is what they preached. Kind of like prebuddhism in india where they believed having nothing at all would get you to nirvana.

ADDED: Jesus often made fun of John for this. With sayings like "The meek shall inherit the Earth." This statement was made directly at John and the Essennes becuase part of their doctrine was that if you weren't an Essenne of chastity, you were meek. They thought that they were better than anyone else considered meek and that they should be the watchers over the meek. As if they should rule the earth because they felt they were stronger spiritually and morally.

[This message has been edited by postdiluvium (edited 03-25-2006).]

Ok, now that post had a point I can respond to. I'm not claiming to be greater than anyone, or to rule the world, or to be superior. I am merely pointing out that belief in God and supernatural forces are not the sources of morality. It is within our nature, in our love and compassion.

Another point: The original thread starter, interest, made points about not loving the world- so then it is said that the meek inherit the world? That which is not to be the focus of your love? Awkward theology if you ask me.

While meekness in some situations is good, it is not all it is cracked up to be. Were we to be meek as Hitler conquered the world? There are many examples where meekness would be considered very wrong, but I'll leave it at that one. In my normal life I'm very meek, patient and giving- I let people go first, etc. and I'm very nice and polite. It is very true, however, that meekness can be weakness. (I remind you again of Hitler)

quote:Originally posted by IanBoyd3:

Ok, now that post had a point I can respond to. I'm not claiming to be greater than anyone, or to rule the world, or to be superior. I am merely pointing out that belief in God and supernatural forces are not the sources of morality. It is within our nature, in our love and compassion.

Another point: The original thread starter, interest, made points about not loving the world- so then it is said that the meek inherit the world? That which is not to be the focus of your love? Awkward theology if you ask me.

While meekness in some situations is good, it is not all it is cracked up to be. Were we to be meek as Hitler conquered the world? There are many examples where meekness would be considered very wrong, but I'll leave it at that one. In my normal life I'm very meek, patient and giving- I let people go first, etc. and I'm very nice and polite. It is very true, however, that meekness can be weakness. (I remind you again of Hitler)



((Meekness is not pacifism. It comes from a Greek word which means bridled or tamed. Such like a wild horse is tamed. It is where lawlessness once was but now is a still spirit accepting sound instruction.))

The issue surrounding the meek inheriting the earth is a bit more complex then what is presented here. There is prophetic chronology of events that leads to the inheritance of a new earth.

Meekness in this context is one who is born again and has been mastered by God over being mastered by the world. In the prophesy it says a new world will be formed and those who are His will inherit it. Hence, the meek shall inherit the earth.

I always find it interesting to read that the thing that seems to float to the top in regards to God is morality or morales. What is more interesting to see is people denying God's existence simply because they do not agree with His doctrine.

The spirit of the original post has to do with today and the condition of ones heart and their current place in the plan of God's reconciliation with mankind.

Firstly, lust has no part in love. True love is from the inside. It is a spiritual thing. Read 1 Corinthians 13 for the best definition of love I have ever read.

Lust, is self-serving which is where things begin to go wrong.

Love is found in selfless servitude to others with no conditions or expectation of returns. It is patient, it is kind, is respectful, it is mercy and is slow to anger. You see love is our response to others. It is found in the makeup of our character and is found evident in our deeds.

Sexual relations contained within the boundaries declared by God through marriage still can be devoid of love and be nothing but lust if that is what the intent of heart is.

Lust is plain and simple. To scratch an itch that will never go away as long as it is being served. The individual serves their own lust by selfish deeds. Sexual lust is the easiest to see because it is very prevalent in our culture. The lust of the flesh tears at the conscience and destroys people in time through the eventual hardening of the heart. The person who no longer feels the guilt in adultery is the one who is lost and apart from true Love.

Where we are told that God is Love lust can not be. Therefore, lust can not be a part of love as we are told that lust is a sin. True love flows out from within us and can't be hidden as it is how we are defined through our deeds. So it is for those who believe and follow the one true God and deny themselves daily. As for lust, it also flows from the inside but, it only serves the flesh and denies God.

Love = Serves God

Lust = Serves man



[This message has been edited by Interest (edited 03-26-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Interest:

Love = Serves God

Lust = Serves man

That may be your definition, but that's completely out of line with what everyone else thinks. Care to tell us what other words you've "redefined"?

quote:Originally posted by Inti:

That may be your definition, but that's completely out of line with what everyone else thinks. Care to tell us what other words you've "redefined"?

I agree with him. And how is it redifined?

[This message has been edited by coolwestman (edited 03-26-2006).]