violence!

 I remember being an open proponent of screen violence when I was younger.  I've mostly given up expressing any kind of support for it, because people are so stuck in their views.  But I've come to realize, where people who decry it are mainly concerned with the destruction and loss that ensues when murder occurs, what I've always found stimulating was more the fantastical elements; movies that take what you normally see and combine them in ways that you don't normally see them.  For instance, in Terminator 2: Judgement Day, the main villain is this weird lump of metal that can liquify at any moment.  Its' arms can meld into swords and it can physically blend itself with certain kinds of objects.  And in a couple different scenes you see the sword/knife/stabbing weapon effect being used.  One particularly noteworthy one was when this guy was drinking milk and the machine shot its arm through the milk container and the guys' head.  I think even at the age I was at when I saw it, there was a degree of sadness that accompanied it, but it was also just not something I would expect to see.  You can go through any war zone and you're extremely unlikely to see anything of the sort.  And very few of any of the people I've ever met have been in a war zone even.  Violence in movies is a safe way to be shaken by the very real possibility of death and destruction.  Nobody is going to be gleeful and joyous 24/7.  If you're not going to be exuding bright cheer all day, why not take that boredom or possibly even anger or sadness and channel it appropriately?  As wrong as it may be, no movie is going to be make anyone happy.  Satisfied, entertained, sure, but happy?  Even comedies have a degree of tension that carries them forth.  Ghostbusters, as much fun as it was, was about a fight between humanity and an evil inter-dimensional entity.  You had a guy abusing his education and job description, getting rejected by the woman of his dreams, and he and his friends having to resort to smoking because they were under so much pressure from their job (Apparently they were so busy, they never got a chance to change their business hours of 24/7).  

Obviously there's been cases where kids watch violent movies and become violent themselves.  I personally think that's most likely a combination of things 1) Deficient parental guidance.  2) Over-saturation.  I didn't spend the entire day watching the likes of Platoon, The Terminator, Terminator 2, and A Nightmare on Elm Street.  There was not a single day I spent entirely watching movies until I got to be about 14 and even then it wasn't a regular thing.  I didn't even see A Nightmare On Elm Street until I was about 14 because people were so concerned with me being forthright about my penchant for violent movies.  Honestly, I think part of the reason movies like The Terminator resonated with me was because I was not a particularly happy child growing up.  I've always been somewhat melancholy.  I wouldn't say I was depressed, per se, although at times that melancholy has extended into depression.  I don't know exactly why that is.  My guess is it was passed through my mom being so sad as I was growing up. Osmosis, in a sense, I guess.  One of my favorite movies when I was about 7ish was The Last Unicorn.  If you really watch that movie, you'll find it's a pretty dang melancholy movie.  It's not some chirpy "hi ho, we go" or "hakuna matata" kinda thing...  

I'm not trying to say that kids across the board should be allowed to watch The Terminator, or anything else for that matter.  It should be understood by the kid that human beings do have the capacity to die (and that things like blood loss etc. can make that happen somewhat quick) but it should also be understood by the parent that the people you see in movies, even if it's based on true events, are not real.  People, men (boys), especially, have a taste for warfare.  That taste should be tempered as a boy becomes a man, as it has in my case (and I'd assume most other men, to varying degrees), but I'm not sure it should be outright discouraged.  It's a delicate balance, admittedly.  You want to teach kids to increase in their value of life, and to all the more so behold rightly in their sight what should be precious, but God did create men to be fighters.  (He didn't create men to be murderers.)

Measure

"...even though now for a little while, if necessary, you have been distressed by various trials, so that the proof of your faith, being more precious than gold which is perishable, even though tested by fire, may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ"

I noticed that ringing particular true just looking at Job's life compared to that of David.  Job's friends were not entirely wrong in saying that God doesn't inflict people unjustly.  I think their main error was thinking that they could pigeonhole sin.  They were seemingly thinking that Job did something wrong.  In reality, Job didn't do anything wrong until his friends brought him down that path of thought.  And God straightened him out on the spot and in person.  And examining Job's life overall, with the exception of that shrouded detour, lasting , what, a couple years? Maybe? his life was rather prosperous. David on the other hand was inflicted with pain almost his entire life.  And the moment life became easy for him, he committed adultery , and then murdered so he could cover it up.  God's discipline is not unjust.  

"Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword?"

This life if anything becomes more difficult when you accept Christ's invitation into His kingdom.  

"For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us."

Knees

 I think I have a relationship with God, but it's not usually an experiential relationship.  Every kind of sense that God has equipped me with would indicate that I'm simply reading His word from time to time.  Moses had no Bible to read.  He had what could unquestionably be described as a relationship.  I probably would have at least a little more sense of God's presence if my conduct weren't so astray.  It's hard to know what people are talking about a lot of the time.  There doesn't seem to be anyone on this planet who can just tell it straight.  People everywhere say dumb crap like "run to Jesus". Or "lay your burdens at the cross".  I think Jesus is in Heaven. Do I need to merely run in the direction of the sky or go the entire distance?  Obviously it's not literal but a warehouse supervisor doesn't order his employees to "ride the corporate ladder" when he specifically has in mind for the employee to Pick up that box and move it 3 feet to whichever side.  The expression "running to Jesus" is probably more profound as a relating of personal experience.  A person who isn't already seasoned at doing that, on the other hand.... 

So how serious should I expect to take use of phrases like "You need a personal relationship with God" or "You need to have a personal encounter with God".??!    Reading The Bible and understanding most of what it's saying is not a personal relationship or encounter.  If anything, it's an indication that you have different things on your todo list than you once did; worship, praise and the pursuit of peace and sanctification, primarily.  If there's anything else I should be able to testify to, I'm either lacking it or unaware that I possess it.  

Barbarism, to what end!?

The Smiths, wildly popular in Britain, somewhat obscure in the USA, had a song titled "Barbarism Begins At Home". And I truly do believe that statement.  The song itself is lampooning corporal punishment.  And there are times when corporal punishment is misused.  Certainly there's no excuse in treating children like punching bags.  But the sentiment in that song reminds me of a crucial complaint that people have against Christianity.  It's a book written in blood.  The God of all creation lived a life of heartache and gave up His life to save those who were intent on taking it from Him.  And the various people who's stories are highlighted in His word all share in that suffering.  The first few chapters of The Bible depict an earth that is fraught with pain and discontent.

Furthermore, Jesus even said in one of His teachings - "Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a person's enemies will be those of his own household.". However, "those who live by the sword will die by the sword". It often gets misconstrued like He's saying don't live by the sword but you might notice He doesn't say that.  He simply provides a statement of fact as a warning to Peter.  I think that warning could be taken in conjunction with the words Jesus spoke about judgement of other people.  "Judge not, and you will not be judged; condemn not, and you will not be condemned; forgive, and you will be forgiven; give, and it will be given to you. Good measure, pressed down, shaken together, running over, will be put into your lap. For with the measure you use it will be measured back to you.”. I think given the context of Jesus warning to Peter using his sword, it could be said that Jesus was, at least in part, reminding Peter of the importance of not judging, to put it simply.  For with the measure you use it will be measured back to you.  We are indeed to live by the sword -- the sword of The Spirit, which is The Word Of God.  The testimony of Jesus, His redeeming of humanity, the power that caused Him to rise from the grave, and His triumphant resurrection.

"But now abide faith, hope, love—these three; but the greatest of these is love."

The place of the skull crushing reality His atonement

 https://www.amazon.com/True-Discipleship-Following-Master-Calvary-ebook/dp/B0BFQC38K1/ref=rcmlt_m_sccl_3/133-2257990-2082150?pd_rd_w=oWpz8&content-id=amzn1.sym.62fd6873-4e40-4eeb-aa7d-4664171d9891&pf_rd_p=62fd6873-4e40-4eeb-aa7d-4664171d9891&pf_rd_r=20JZGZ1RSCWK2PE99ZJ9&pd_rd_wg=LUSG2&pd_rd_r=c158047e-5990-4030-96a2-b7732d2ac59c&pd_rd_i=B0BFQC38K1&psc=1

I really wish people would calling the place where Christ died "Calvary".  That word is not in any translation of The Bible I've ever read.  Calvary probably sounds prettier than "place of the skull", but that's where Christianity begins to border on nonsense, when people try to sanitize the reality of it.  Christ's death was not beautiful, it was not pleasant, it was nothing to feel nostalgic or fuzzy - tingly over.  It was a disgusting physical reality that had deeply profound spiritual ramifications that we should be forever thankful for, but looking at it with a syrupy sentiment is just bs.  But then again, there's people who think PASSION OF THE CHRIST was morally wrong for depicting the crucifixion in that manner.  Granted, PASSION OF THE CHRIST was not a particularly great movie.  But that was no doubt a flaw of the film.  Ugh.  😬