Do we recognize how much we need God’s love in our life, or put a different way, how much do we desire that love that only God can fulfill? Our lives are so busy, we tend to just push away this desire or we may not even think about it at all. But even when we do contemplate God’s love, we can only express it in terms that a limited human mind can do (like below), in terms of things that are familiar, but it’s so much more than that.
I came across a familiar poem today that expressed, in worldly terms, how much one can desire the love of another, and it reminded me more of whether we desire God at least like this, or is it only this powerfully expressed for the things of this world? If we can express worldly love “like the hot needs the sun, like honey on her tongue, like oxygen, I need your love”, how much greater is the love God has for us? Without the desire for God’s love, and for His Glory, we are just about in the same shape as my widow pictured above, broken.
I have gone over the words below about twenty times now, it’s pretty powerful (even more when put to music), but how much more should we desire God’s love… probably more than we need to take our next breath.
I Need Your Love
Like a desert needs rain Like a town needs a name I need your love Like a drifter needs a room Hawkmoon I need your love Like a rhythm unbroken Like drums in the night Like sweet soul music Like sunlight I need your love Like coming home And you don't know where you've been Like black coffee Like nicotine I need your love (I need your love) When the night has no end And the day yet to begin As the room spins around I need your love Like a Phoenix rising needs a holy tree Like the sweet revenge of a bitter enemy I need your love Like the hot needs the sun Like honey on her tongue Like the muzzle of a gun Like oxygen I need your love (I need your love) When the night has no end And the day yet to begin As the room spins around I need your love Like thunder needs rain Like a preacher needs pain Like tongues of flame Like a sheet stained I need your love Like a needle needs a vein Like someone to blame Like a thought unchained Like a runaway train I need your love Like faith needs a doubt Like a freeway out I need your love Like powder needs a spark Like lies need the dark I need your love I need all the love in your heart... and I need all the love in your heart...
47 responses to “Jesus, I need Your Love, Hawkmoon”
“why should i answer your questions when i know what your response is going to be”
I don’t know what your response is going to be. For all I know you’re just ignorant. All you’ve done is provide me evidence to support that claim.
“there is zero substantial proof that it is biological in nature, that’s just an excuse.”
I’m afraid your excuse is the excuse. There has been loads of research into this providing evidence to the conclusion that sexual orientation is what I described it as up above. There have been studies on twins attempting to isolate biological factors in sexual orientation. Chromosome linkage studies of sexual orientation have indicated the presence of multiple contributing factors throughout the genome. American geneticist Dean Hamer found that homosexual men had had more homosexual uncles and cousins on the maternal side of the family than on the paternal.
“A recent study suggests linkage between a mother’s genetic make-up and homosexuality of her sons. Women have two X chromosomes, one of which is “switched off”. The inactivation of the X chromosome occurs randomly throughout the embryo, resulting in cells that are mosaic with respect to which chromosome is active. In some cases though, it appears that this switching off can occur in a non-random fashion. Bocklandt et al(2006) reported that, in mothers of homosexual men, the number of women with extreme skewing of X chromosome inactivation is significantly higher than in mothers without gay sons. Thirteen percent of mothers with one gay son, and 23% of mothers with two gay sons showed extreme skewing, compared to 4% percent of mothers without gay sons.” (copy/pasted from wiki)
There’s much more I could go in to but it has become apparent you would rather cover your ears, not listen, and spout anti-scientific vitriol as scientific. You start with a conclusion and twist evidence to find it while discarding evidence that doesn’t fit in with your preconceived suppositions. If it weren’t so pathetic it would almost be laughable the misunderstanding of science you have.
Scott, I think you doth protest TOO much. I now see at least 3 blogs wherein you hate on gays. The Prop 8, the Elane photography and this one. You know what they say about people who are virulently homophobic and speak out against gays? You have latent homosexuality tendencies. It’s okay, really. You have stated that your church will still accept you. You just won’t be able to do certain things. Let me do just explain one thing about the Elane photography case- there are laws in this country and all states that do make it illegal to discriminate based upon sex, religion, sexual orientation etc. NO, you don’t get to turn away business just because you are a small business owner if it is based upon a protected class of people. We have decided as a society that certain classes of people need special protection and yes, sexual orientation is one of those protected classes. It will be helpful to you when you come out of the closet.
Faith is not the evidence of things not seen. It’s far too arbitrary for that! Instead, faith is the arrogance of beliefs not criticized.
I don’t know enough about biology to call myself an expert, or even particularly knowledgeable in the field. However, I always wonder what people are thinking when they say things like this about sexual orientation:
“there is zero substantial proof that it is biological in nature, that’s just an excuse.”
An “excuse?” The very terminology used here exposes how deeply this prejudice is entrenched in your assumptions, Scott. Sexual orientation doesn’t need an excuse any more than handedness needs an excuse. It simply is, like eye color, height, and millions of other variations.
Besides, what other option do you suggest? Do we all just “choose” who we find ourselves drawn to? I don’t recall making any such choice. Do you?
Not only have I never heard any gay person say he or she decided to “choose to be gay;” I have never heard any straight person say he or she decided to “choose to be straight.” I don’t mean an activity; I mean the orientation itself. If one asserts sexual orientation is not biological, then this must apply to us all alike–right?
I have friends, colleagues and family members who are gay (as do you), and I find the expression of extreme religious hostility against their equal rights and equal dignity to be quite frankly obscene. The hostility is not always so in-your-face as that school board member’s disgusting outburst; it can be a quiet enabling of otherwise good people who are regrettably trained to repeat the foundational beliefs that feed, encourage and promote that kind of ignorance and, inevitably, faith-based hatred.
The only people I can fathom facing a “decision” about gay or straight feelings would be those who are bisexual, and then it would only be that they experience feelings of attraction to both sexes. I see no logical basis whatsoever for pretending that this is a choice.
Dogmatism is a poor basis for morality, and homophobia is deeply immoral.
As Benjamin Franklin wrote, the way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason. The consequences of doing so can be disastrous and destructive to congenial social relations. We need to re-discover the real basis for ethical living: not in an old book of bronze age doctrines, fables, embellished provincial history and other assorted themes–but in our capacity to learn and in our sense of compassion. There are no more rational grounds today for willful ignorance about gays than there was once upon a time for willful ignorance about race. And yes, people of faith were all over the map on that one, too, with six national Christian denominations splitting down the middle on the issue of slavery in the early 19th Century. What good is a supposedly inerrant book that is too vague on matters of basic human rights to be clearly understood?
If we are sincerely interested in the truth, and I think most people are, then we must confront squarely that much of who we are is based in the nature of our condition as human beings–as biological organisms. To embrace a ill-conceived radical skepticism founded on an alliance between faith and ignorance is just as wrongheaded as rejecting the facts altogether. Either way is to abdicate the responsibility to be fully honest with ourselves.
So these are my questions:
What good is performed by making faith an excuse to foster ignorance and promote ugly stereotypes? What kind of morality implicitly supports the more overt bigotry of those who wave signs that say “God Hates Fags” and other Bible-based gems of pseudo-morality?
I would really like to apologize. Looking back over these posts, I realize that I was arguing for argument sake. That’s not who I am and not what I believe. I hope you will forgive me. You might not agree with what I believe, but the truth is, I do believe in a God who created the universe. I do believe that God said man is good but we have a sinful nature and only through Jesus can we find redemption.
Whether you believe that or not should not impact how I live my life or share my beliefs, but my desire to win an argument overtook my desire to live as I believe Christ has taught me. I am encouraged to be light in dark places. I am instructed to love my neighbors; I don’t have to agree with them, but I do have to love them. This is a picture of redemption, the same redemption that I believe is only brought through Jesus, his death on the cross for the sins of mankind and then his resurrection, conquering death so we can be redeemed and live with God forever. My desire to be right actually caused me to overlook my desire to bring about Christ’s love and redemption.
Many comments posted here are clearly in disagreement with my beliefs and lifestyle, but I think we can all agree that we have the right to believe what we believe, even if we don’t share the same beliefs. I don’t think this argument has been valuable because neither of us are going to change our position based on this one internet argument. I hope my behavior, which is by no means perfect, does not negatively impact how you see Christians who have differing views or Christ’s Church. It does bring me back to the original idea in this post and the poem I first quoted above back in August.
Thanks Bryan for putting my head back on straight and for the above advise.
So you believe that 2000 years ago god saw fit to impregnate a human female engaged to a human man for the sheer purpose of having that child horribly and brutally tortured and killed thirty three years later so that we 2000 years later could be spared eternal torment in the afterlife by believing this arguably outrageous story happened and by inviting the spirit of this man to infiltrate our consciousnesses so that we could make better moral decisions and we could go to an eternal paradise created by this god who had this horrible thing done to his son. This sounds to me like a bit of a stretch.