I named the blog because the "Acts of Paul and Thecla" illustrates how popular yet controversial Paul's teachings over celibacy and chastity were in the early centuries of Christianity.
Posted 7/24/13 at 9:36 AM | Kae Am
When the Rolling Stone magazine featured its Boston Bomber cover, I immediately wondered whether the magazine had featured other sociopath killers in this past. These had to be killers who enjoyed what they did, who believed their actions were justified, who considered their actions superior to the legal system, who lacked remorse and sympathy for people. Moreover, they had to be men who considered their own actions moral and just in their own eyes only, never according to what other people considered moral and just.
I considered this, and I came up with the character Dexter. Then came the search for a possible Rolling Stones cover of Dexter. Other people might already be making similar comparisons. I typed in "Rolling Stones Dexter" or similar, and I found this. The font is exactly the same in both magazine covers. Only in the Dexter issue, it is even more dedicated to the sociopath killer in that the name Rolling Stone has been replaced with the name Dexter.
What do the Boston Bomber and Dexter have in common? FULL POST
Posted 7/16/13 at 9:38 AM | Kae Am
Most of the source material which I cite was taken from Twitchy. This includes pictures. I have edited the Kirsten Powers twitter confrontation for quicker citation purposes, but you can read the whole thing here. Also, this article has references to female reproductive organs. All the feminists are obsessed with their sex organs to the point of enslavement, so it becomes subject to discussion. Some things might be offensive. Actually, all of it might be offensive, but I encourage you to read it because this is an important subject concerning women and because we need to understand what we are dealing with. Oh, and this includes one spoiler for the movie Courageous.
Edit: One commenter wanted to know if liberal women actually obsess over their body parts, so I added more pictures from Twitchy, which I have cropped for quicker citation purposes and to adhere to the Christian Post blog policy. I could post a link to an earlier article, but I do not have time before work. There had been some more Twitter comments on Twitchy, but I cannot find those anymore, so I posted pictures instead.
In the middle of June, the Texas House passed the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act also known as HR 1197. Representative Jodie Laubenberg and Senator Glenn Hegar authored the bill. “This bill will ensure that women are given the highest standard of health care in a very vulnerable time in their life,” said Jodie Laubenberg.
Representative Kevin Brady sponsored the bill. The bill bans abortions after 20 weeks when the pre-born child becomes capable of feeling pain. This naturally caused a great deal of backlash. This local Texas article sums up the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act better than I can.
The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act recognizes the improvements in medical science that have helped babies born at 24-26 weeks, weighing less than a pound, survive and thrive. It also includes protections for mothers facing life threatening situations.
“Whether you are pro-choice or strongly pro-life, as I am, Americans should be able to find common ground that abortion is no longer an option in a civilized nation like ours when babies can live outside the mother’s womb or experience excruciating pain,” said [Representative Kevin] Brady.
“The law should catch up with scientific knowledge on fetal pain and scientific breakthroughs that save the lives of babies born prematurely at younger and younger ages.”
When babies undergo surgery in their mother’s womb, anesthesia is used to prevent the baby’s pain, added Brady, who noted medical science has shown that unborn babies react to stimulus as early as two months into a pregnancy and can feel pain before the fourth month. FULL POST
Posted 7/11/13 at 7:15 AM | Kae Am
"Execute gays," said Pastor Steven Anderson on a radio show, which he also filmed for YouTube. The Christian Post has been gracious enough to provide the hour-long video within its article about Pastor Anderson. Anderson refers to Leviticus 20:13 to support that gays should be executed. I watched part of the YouTube, then I paused it to write, but then when I returned to it, the videos were inoperable. Anderson actually sounds nice, sincere, and sensible; the sensibility, however, is cut short with legalism. Jesus disdains legalism.
This should be a short blog as I provide some information. For anyone who has been reading this for a while, it might seem repetitive; for new readers, this might intrigue you. I hope Pastor Steven Anderson reads this and considers this information. If he is truly sincere, then he will consider these scripture. How Jesus behaved in the New Testament tells us how we should behave as followers of Jesus, so I will go through the OT into the NT and then explain His actions according to the OT.
Old Testament scripture: FULL POST
Posted 7/8/13 at 6:26 AM | Kae Am
At a young age, I decided to stop wearing swimsuits. It was also my first experience with a bikini, and I did not want those from the start. I was around eleven or twelve years old. Mom took me shopping for a new swimsuit because I was maturing into a young woman and because we were going to visit family. One of the family hobbies used to involve a trip to the lake.
The first thing I noticed was that all the 2-piece bikini swimsuits resembled brightly-colored bras and underwear. And each 2-piece was $80. Mom refused to pay that much money for a small scrap of fabric. The search frustrated me as well. I kept thinking "I can put a bra and underwear together to make a swimsuit for a lot cheaper than what I see here. Maybe I should just wear bra and panties to the lake." After all, the bikini swimsuit covered the exact same amount of skin anyway, so there would be no difference between wearing that or wearing bra/underwear.
Posted 7/3/13 at 8:35 AM | Kae Am
Gays and lesbians insist that the condemnation in Romans 1:26-27 refers to gay sex within idolatrous worship or an idolatrous practice; they insist that Paul is condemning the idolatry, not the sex itself. Meanwhile, some Christians love to condemn just gay sex and gloss over all the other sins. I have seen these two verses cited as an angry reaction against the Supreme Court decision, but when it is read in its context, Romans turns out to be an inclusive condemnation of all sins so that no one can boast against certain sins because all are sinners. The condemnation of sin is including but not limited to gay sex. Gays and lesbians need to keep in mind that these sins are including gay sex within its condemnation. Christians need to keep in mind that this condemnation is not limited to gay sex and thus includes them as well.
Salvation from sin and from the wrath of God comes from faith in God. People who deny God and want to sin suffer the condemnation of wrath. When people reject God, He in turn rejects them and gives them up to their lusts for sinning. To all who want to practice gay sex, these sins do include gay sex, so your actions are sins. To all the Christians who want to focus solely on that one sin, the condemnation is not limited to sex and condemns you as well. If you refuse to acknowledge your own sin nature and your own depserate need for saving grace, then you are a hypocrite.
After Paul of Tarsus lists the sex sin, he then proceeds to condemn all the sins that have nothing to do with sex - "whisperers, backbiters, disobedient to parents, undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful..." (Romans 1:29-31) The only way we can effectively dismiss the claim that Romans 1:26-27 is about an idol-worship practice is to place it within its scriptural context.
Posted 7/3/13 at 8:13 AM | Kae Am
This started out as my own personal introduction to Romans 1:8-2:11, which I will soon post in response to the Supreme Court decision on DOMA, but then I noticed some digressions connecting to to an earlier post of mine. Furthermore, this intro is now as long as the passage I will be citing.
All the letters and books were written for each to be single continuous documents. Dividing it into chapters and verses has made it easier for us to cite in discussions, articles, books, etc. Unfortunately, one thing I have noticed is that people started isolating the verses, quoting those only, and segregating them away from their context. I have noticed this regarding to Leviticus 18:22... pay attention to the intro and conclusion of Lev 18, people! but also regarding a diversity of other verses.
"Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness?" (2 Corinthians 6:14)
To understand that verse, please read chapters 5, 6 and the next verse after it. I say this to provide knowledge and information to those people who do not have this and who need to hear this. So far, only two individuals have corrected my interpretations of certain scripture in the past - blog editor Barry Bowen and Marcia Montenegro. I included Marcia Montenegro's correction as part of another blog article out of appreciation and gratitude. FULL POST
Posted 6/25/13 at 11:05 AM | Kae Am
News of Exodus International shutting down has shocked Christians and has brought many different reactions. When the ministry announced last year that it would no longer support reparative or conversion therapy, many people rejoiced including Christians who consider gay sex a sin. One problem with the therapy is that it comes from the incorrect belief in sexuality as identity or a state of being. The Bible has never defined people by their sexual desires. Reparative or conversion therapy lacks a scriptural foundation.
When I learned that Exodus was cancelling the therapy, I had hoped that the ministry would become more inclusive. By that, I mean counseling both gay and straight people and training them to avoid sexual sin. When I learned that Exodus was shutting down, I was disappointed and worried. Now, I hear that a new ministry will emerge from the old, and my hope remains. I love to be optimistic about the future.
Although some Christians consider this cancellation and closing an abandonment of biblical values, many other Christians see these people as returning to a stronger and fuller scriptural foundation. With the upcoming new ministry, we can have hope. The Christian Post cited: FULL POST
Posted 6/25/13 at 10:53 AM | Kae Am
A week or two ago, a person with the screen name elbib began commenting on one of my blog articles. I would rather send this to him personally, but the CP does not permit sharing contact info, and I noticed he has not commented on anything since his last comment to me.
The conversation started well with me replying sincerely and repeating the message of my article, but from there any sincere discussion gradually ceased and developed into a fierce quarrel. Near the end, I regret that our comments concluded as more of a forceful quarrel between us instead of a sincere discussion. Although I do not regret the facts presented, I regret that there seemed to be so much argument without any proper understanding between us. I suppose the problem behind our quarrel is that neither of us understood where each other came from in experiences, knowledge, or worldview. Because of this, we started our argument without a platform for understanding each other.
The sharing of information and ideas should always be polite, friendly, and cordial. Without the proper tone, any genuine sharing becomes impossible because both sides block their ears in anger. Within an early article last year, I was so zealous and excited at receiving a comment and at having a discussion that I info-dumped the commenter and prevented any sincere discussion from occurring. I regret that as well.
And regarding these current comments, I definitely regret that the conversation between us turned into a fierce quarrel at the end instead of a sincere discussion. Quarrels are often senseless by both sides, but a sincere discussion brings unity and understanding. I love people, and I desire to share with people what God has given me.
There is nothing specially unique about the knowledge I have. Anyone can have this knowledge. Because anyone can have this knowledge, I have no reason to boast and every reason to remain humble.
Posted 6/5/13 at 9:43 AM | Kae Am
Last week, one of my friends sent me a link to two videos, one of David Platt and the other of Matt Chandler, both encouraging men and women to marry. The David Platt video, I'm okay with. Platt acknowledges celibacy when he says "Single brothers, unless the Lord tells you to stay single, find a wife." That statement is definitely in line with what I have said before. Platt's main focus appears to be decrying a prolonged adolescence into 20s and 30s; according to Platt, one reason men and women don't marry is not from a calling to celibacy (that calling seems fine to him), but due to a prolonged adolescence.
I have no argument with David Platt. Matt Chandler, on the other hand... big problem there. 42 seconds into the video, Chandler stated that Adam needed a wife in order to be the complete creation that God wanted him to be. That is not scriptural.
In the Genesis creation narrative, the entire Trinity is speaking. One God using a plural pronouns.
Then, God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to our likeness." (Genesis 1:26) Man in this verse refers to humanity. Humanity will be in the image of God.
So God created man in His own image; in the image of God, He created him; male and female. (Genesis 1:27) This is a little bit of an expansion... let's rephrase because sometimes man or mankind refers to humanity. In gendered, patriarchal language, masculine is the default. FULL POST
Posted 6/4/13 at 10:07 AM | Kae Am
A few weeks earlier, my favorite atheist raised the question that why should we as Christians love people and help people... this is a very significant question, and as Christians, we need to answer with the fullness and complete depth of scripture. A thorough answer to why we as Christians should love people is long enough for a sermon or blog post. Love is beautiful and amazing. Love seems so simple yet is so misunderstood.
It is quite possible to understand moral behavior and to have a righteous soul without being able to explain the how or why. I had a similar experience with my question about transgender. Transgender was one of those things I knew was absolutely wrong, but I could not explain it for the life of me. So, I asked God "why is this wrong?" and the verses Genesis 1:27 and Galatians 3:28 became highlighted in my consciousness. God is never squeamish.
This degraded culture wrongly considers love and the sex the same to such an extent so that a Christian in this culture would not think to answer "we do this out of love" because the reason is spiritual and not physical. Once we separate the definitions of love and sex to understand love as spiritual, then we as Christians can free the concept of love and can answer more readily "we are compassionate and charitable out of love for people." Perhaps this is one reason why people should acknowledge celibacy as a valid lifestyle.
Love comes from the heart. Love comes from the soul. Love is never sexual attraction because love transcends the bounds of the flesh, yet love is manifested through acts of kindness, charity, and compassion that occur in the physical world. On a subconscious level, every human understands this. When a Christian replies that it is duty or obligation to help people, the atheist sneers "of course, do your duty," with the implication that the person does not actually love people. Throughout His earthly ministry, Jesus emphasized the importance and significance of the human soul; and also how our souls influence and affect our behaviors and motivations.