both are good

Layers of meaning which interweave, cross, override, and harmonize; that cornerstone which is our faith in Christ Jesus, our declaration and confession, it is what we cling to. Christ our rock, the true vine, from which vivifying waters spring forth, nourishing us unto fruit-bearing harvest

Our task at hand is to only make sense of it in forward motion, towards our One aim, that we may be One with Him in the Life that He has laid forward for us to partake in, embody, become.

The Greek word "κύριος", "πίστις", "λόγος", and of course "θεος" are so rich, and so central, spanning generations of connotations across cultural context, that, for me the religious claim that these texts express _anything_, is in fact equivalent to saying they express _all_ of it

I think this is most apparent when grappling in the reality of translation, the inevitable sphere of culturally-bound signifiers, and the development of theology within those boundaries.

My religious self wants to recognize in this the ever-present dyadic mystery of existence, of a "lower" and "higher". But, I can't help but wish, hope, or maybe desire, that they could be one. In what form this can occur, I am not sure. It assails my sensitivities, and eludes my understanding.

But they do in practice _feel_ distinct. Whether this distinction is from the aim, the agglomeration of ideas and sense perceptions being qualitatively different, or whatever, they are two drives, two aims, two structures. They compete, even if indirectly

but in my own unique case there is not just libido in a general sense, but the intricate complex constituting my central kink, which, although I seldom deign in dissecting with any precision or due scrutiny, I do recognize within it an analogous structure to some modes of religious reasoning

I suppose it is natural to see a sort of opposition here, although it is not a dogmatic duality, but an emergent one. It is thematic and circumstantial, not self-evident or structurally determined. That they may be intermixed I think is truly possible, but, those are precarious waters indeed.

In contrast, libido to me always feels readily accessible, latent, easy. It is carnal: inextricably linked to bodily processes. Faith is too, but in a much more brittle manner, and- I assume the reader shall forgive me for saying this without demonstration-incomplete intensity.

The suspension of faith can seem random, it is assailed by all other faculties of man in some degree, it requires a sort of sustained deference which only itself can validate. God inculcates and cultivates in His children the seeds of the Kingdom only by a truly mighty work of His Will.

Faith is paradoxical. It is at once the source of inexhaustible Love and Hope, in Him who really _is_ those things; it is participatory in a sublime, transfiguring Good. But it is also fickle: God is often hidden, sometimes painfully so. Faith's irresistible force arises from frequent absconding

That Christianity, or religion, would be sex negative, I can only really understand as the recognition of the danger this reality imposes in a lot of people, if the maxim that God is the One, True aim of all is true. Which, faith validates of itself by itself.

But then, it's really hard not to put these in opposition at the level of drives, two
different attractors of volition, one with God and the other with, idk, ejaculation? sexual pleasure? as its end.

I conceptualize libido and faith as two separate drives, which intertwine themselves with my will in weirdly analogous ways. But the streams never cross, and I think they really couldn't, shouldn't, at least for me. I got some inkling of that a few weeks ago and it made me uncomfortable.

"why the jacket?" when everyone has jackets on (????????)

i can do it.....