Skip to main content

The Sin of Bloodlust



Lust is a major problem in the world. People want things and they often will do terrible things to get them. When we think of the word lust, sex is frequently the synonym we find. He lusts for a woman is typically the phrase. But lust can be anything, it can be desiring and coveting a car, a painting, or anything. More poignantly, lust can be longing for unnatural cravings; the desires of demons. So we come to the Collisum, the epicenter of lusting for blood. Bloodlust is a sin, the Bible says, "He who stops his ears from hearing bloodshed and his eyes from looking upon evil." (Isaiah 33:15). The immediate reaction to this verse is, "what about war?" Do warriors violate this command when they kill other warriors? What is the context? Blood lust is different than blood letting. War calls for arms and shedding of blood, but blood lust is the insatiable desire to see blood spray and to see something skewered beyond recognition.

The Collisum is the heartbeat of bloodlust. There in the circular arena men, known as Gladiators cut each other asunder for the amusement of the crowds. More starling than combat, Christians were devoured by lions, again for the enterainment of Roman citizens. But the most vivid picture of bloodlust that will not leave the mind is that of the elephant. Yes, the brilliant beast with tusks and trunk was taken into the Roman Areana. And do you know what happened? The poor creature was felayed and cut to pieces, the blood spraying into the stands and covering the soil of the circle with an ocean of blood. The point of such savagery? Entertainment. The image may be shocking and animal rights activists would undoubtly put a stop to it should there be resurgency in our day and age of such cruelty. But bloodlust is not gone, it did not die with the Coliseum or the fall of the Roman Empire, nay it lives on in our cinemas: the new coliseums.



Yes, the bloodshed continues on the big screen, for billions to see. No longer do you need to visit Rome to get a seat at a gore feast that will leave you squirming in your seat. I speak of Horror films. Yes, from SAW to Chucky to the Alien films, there is smorgishboard of sinful blood lust to devour all year and with an extra dose in October. Horror films are the future of bloodlust, the same depraved desires run in the directors and writers of those films. The carnage that beats in their gross and morose movies is the same that was in coliseums.

Do you know what the cost of bloodlust is? It is possession. Yes the possession of a soul. It is said that a Priest long ago had a novice, a monk under him who attended the Coliseum games and while watching became possessed by demons from watching the gore. Is it not the same in his century? Films like The Exorcist and other horror flicks are conduits to demonic spirits. The fear that dwells in those films is from the devil. The gruesomeness and lack of sanctity of life is a sign and seal of Satan. The devil hates man, why because we are "made in the image of God." (Genesis 1:37) Orthodox Christians take seriously this verse, they believe that we, mankind, are The Icon of God; His very image and we distort and destroy it through sin. According to the Orthodox we wound God again when we choose to sin and bloodlust is the epitome of this sin. It is the desire to see the image of God mutilated and torn to pieces. The Horror masters and the Coliseum Cesars were enemies of God! They were Iconoclasts, only the icon they chose to break was made of flesh and in the living likeness of God himself.

This is why we must avert our eyes when bloodlust calls. Do not look upon these Horror films or seek out gore. Remember Isaiah thirty three,verse fifteen, "listen not to blood shed or look upon evil."  Close the door to the evil one and choose to watch that which edifies the Soul and draws you closer to Christ. But what of films that have bloodshed as part of the story? The Passion of the Christ is very gory, but the goal is not to satisfy bloodlust, but instead to show how much Jesus sacrificed for us. It is an attempt at realism and the sight of the Savior's blood does not invoke demons, but makes our soul feel heavy with grief. Still I do not recommend watching The Passion too often. But what of other films like Braveheart and Kingdom of Heaven? Well I have qualms with both those films. With Braveheart I take issue with necormancying (talking to the dead), which is forbidden (Leviticus 19:31), and in Kingdom of Heaven there is excess gore and bloodshed; not to mention major historical inaccuracies. I have actually turned against most of these films, save the Passion. I no longer want to even see them, for what gain is there? It is still blood shed and it does not edify. I watch The Passion of the Christ once a year, because I cannot handle it more than one view annually. It is important to remember what Jesus sacrificed for our sakes, but not all of us need to see it in such gruesome detail, for many a crucifix will suffice.

In the end it is the spirit behind the bloodshed. If the film is depicting war or a conflict between good and evil, odds are there is going to be blood. Even one of my favorites, Edge of Tomorrow has war and repeated deaths. But the focus is not blood and mutilation, no, the battles and deaths are props for the story; conflict helps people identify with the characters. Frankly, I urge to error on the side of caution and perhaps come across a prudish regarding the films you see. To be honest, we do not have much time in this world and our services would better rendered in serving the Lord than filling our minds with scenes we cannot forget. So even the relatively benign R-rated films may not be a good idea. The Baby Boomers Christians once said, "Its' rated R for Repent afterwards." I think they are right. Do we really need to see a battle? Is violence of any kind, even if imitated and fiction good for our eyes? On the Great Day of Judgment it says the "Winepress will be filled with His (God's) wrath and the blood will be up to the bridle." (). This is haunting image in the Bible itself, God is destroying the wicked. But we miss an important factor, The Lord is not doing it for entertainment, He is doing it because he is just and must destroy the wicked.

It is the difference between doing your duty as Police Officer or an Soldier killing an enemy because its his job. In those cases, the reason is defense, to protect those who are free from the harm the wicked wish to inflict. Bloodlust is being entertained, it would be an Officer or Soldier wanting to kill and enjoying the slaughter of people and even breaking the Law to do it. The difference is between being a defender and bloodlust; defense or defiling yourself. It is a mindset, it is the disposition of the soul. Does a warrior kill because that is the only means of making peace and keeping innocent people safe or does the warrior like the wicked Vikings desire to the blood of man and bath in it? As a wise person once said, it is "the spirit of the artist that will bleed through." You can look at paintings and feel completely opposite things. You can see painting of Christ on the Cross and feel a sense of complete forgiveness and love, because the artist is Christian and trying to display the unconditional love of the Lord. But you can see another Crucifixion scene and there is a dark and oppressive feeling, because the artist is trying to invoke the insidious Inquisitions and criticize the Church. Test everything you plan to see with Scripture, if it is not unto edification, it is useless.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Israel’s Conquest of Canaan: The Nephilim and Giants

  Christianity Today asserts that the conquest of Canaan can be a “stumbling block” for believers. This probably is because of a foolish idea of comparing it to a modern conquest happening in our world. The truth is that God had Israel conquer Canaan because it was ruled by evil giants, “We saw the Nephilim there (the descendants of Anak come from the Nephilim). We seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and we looked the same to them.” (Numbers 13:33). These are Anakim or Nephilim, the children of angels and human women, “When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, the sons of God (angels) saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose. Then the LORD said, “My Spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh: his days shall be 120 years.” The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These w

Dispensationalism

John Nelson Darby (1800-1882) was a man who did two things, he took 70th week of the Book of Daniel and stretched out to the End Times, and he was the father of  Dispensationalism , a belief system that God dispenses different peoples with separate blessings and covenants. According to Darb'ys doctrine of Dispensationalism, God dispenses different covenants. There are total of seven dispensations that divide the history of man: I. Dispensation of Innocence (prior to the Fall, "Do not east of the Fruit of Good and Eve, Eden), II. Dispensation of Conscience ( You must assuage guilt and sin with blood sacrifices.) III. Dispensation of Human Government (Multiply and Subdue the world, example the Tower of Babel Gen 11:1-9, and Genesis 1:28). IV. Dispensation of the Promise (Dwell in Canaan, Jerusalem) V. Dispensation of the Law ("Obey the Law of Moses and the Prophets"). VI. Dispensation of Grace (The Church, Jesus Christ has come and died for our sins an

Jesus’ Name in Aramaic

There has been a trend to render Jesus’ name Hebrew, יֵשׁוּעַ , Yeshua. The problem is neither Christ nor his apostles, nor the Jews in 30-33 A.D. spoke Hebrew, they spoke Aramaic. A ramaic is the oldest language on earth and was the language Jesus spoke. In fact, the oldest Old Testament is the Septuagint a Greco translation around 132 B.C.E. (165 Years Before Christ)that was translated from Aramaic. The Masoretic Text, The Hebrew Old Testament most Bibles use, dates from 7th to 10th Century A.D. (Medieval Times).  This translation does not cross reference with the words of Christ in the New Testament which are Aramaic and Koine Greek.  If the Aramaic was what Jesus spoke, then by what name would have been called? Jesus’ name in Aramaic is Isho or Eesho, spelled ܝܫܘܥ . That is the name of our Lord in Aramaic! He would have heard his name in this dialect, “Hail Isho or Eesho!” as well as the Greek, Ἰ ησο ῦ ς , Iesous.  Aramaic is disappearing, only a few people are endeavo