Fornication

[Kentucky]

i was saying that making it a necessity rather than a good-but-optional thing is wrong.

Not necessarily a necessity, but a standard option that is good.

Mark

[wmfinck]

Christ went to Cana to partake in a marriage feast, no doubt. But there is no mention of an associated ceremony officiating any marriage.

Likewise, Jacob and Laban had a feast. Jacob thought he was marrying Rachel. That night in a darkened room, he married Leah! I don't think any ceremony officiated any of that.

Mark's point about societal constructs is good, but different Adamic societies have had different constructs, none of which necessarily have anything to do with God's law. The problem with making such societal constructs official, or "legal", is that the constructs of man then replace the laws of God in the minds of the people. THAT is the basis of sacramentalism, it is a slippery slope, and it is exactly why I object so strongly!

A rich man can announce his marriage, have a feast, make a party of it, and everybody knows he is "married". But the act of marriage is still not the feast or the celebration, or any ceremony.

A poor man cannot always do those things. But if he vows a vow before his wife, and acknowledges that vow before her family, once they cohabit is that not a marriage? It sure as hell is! And if one thinks otherwise, then his god is a small-g god.

If one needs a government certificate to "marry", then the government is his god. If one needs a ceremony before an agency official (agency here can refer to any organization, "church" or otherwise), then the agency becomes his god.

My God is Yahweh. My wife and I decide that we are married, making a vow to each other before Him. If we ever did decide to make it "legal", it would only be for worldly reasons, because the tyranny imposes itself upon us, and that has no bearing whatsoever on our vows to each other.

Men should take their vows before God with the utmost gravity. How many men and women today make vows before other men, disregard God, and a short time later the vows are meaningless? Yeah, I have been there too.

[Kentucky]

Christ went to Cana to partake in a marriage feast, no doubt. But there is no mention of an associated ceremony officiating any marriage.

Likewise, Jacob and Laban had a feast. Jacob thought he was marrying Rachel. That night in a darkened room, he married Leah! I don't think any ceremony officiated any of that.

The word 'ceremony' is somewhat of a red herring. The words 'marriage' and 'married' have also become misleading somewhat as a synonym for sexual intercourse. Please excuse my crude use of terms, but are we to believe that these two words mean penetration and ejaculation? I could be wrong, but I think for thousands of years our race has understood marriage to be a matter of witnessing to obligate the man and woman covenantally and any ceremony (if there is to be one) is a punctuation of that covenant. It is rather odd that even sodomites are clammering for same sex marriage, although their filthy practice precedes a legality.

Mark's point about societal constructs is good, but different Adamic societies have had different constructs, none of which necessarily have anything to do with God's law. The problem with making such societal constructs official, or "legal", is that the constructs of man then replace the laws of God in the minds of the people. THAT is the basis of sacramentalism, it is a slippery slope, and it is exactly why I object so strongly!

There is certainly a difference between something lawful and something legal. When something becomes legal, it is something that was a right but has become a privilege. The question here is: do our people have the inalienable right to marry (regardless of how it is defined) without governmental interference. Throughout our history, governments have, at opportune moments, seized the institution of marriage with the help of a priestcraft obscuring the Christian family as God intended. Every God-given right can be corrupted by the traditions of man, but that is not to say that all traditions are a slippery slope on its way to idolatry. Any Christian community worth its salt will reject those things that are contrary to the Word. Which is why I am so adamant about the Law of two witnesses. I would think the same principle applies to something like... Christmas lol.

A rich man can announce his marriage, have a feast, make a party of it, and everybody knows he is "married". But the act of marriage is still not the feast or the celebration, or any ceremony.

A poor man cannot always do those things. But if he vows a vow before his wife, and acknowledges that vow before her family, once they cohabit is that not a marriage? It sure as hell is! And if one thinks otherwise, then his god is a small-g god.

Yes, even a poor lad and lassie can afford to have family or friends to witness their vows and then they can consummate the marriage physically. God's order of things should always be spiritual before flesh. I think the original thought in this thread was based on the circumstantial situation in which a man and woman suddenly have an impetuous moment of lust without really even knowing each other. The Law prescribed a permanent obligation as a preventative against wanton promiscuity. This was an exception to the Law, not the standard. It was lumped into the same chapter with other hypotheticals.

If one needs a government certificate to "marry", then the government is his god. If one needs a ceremony before an agency official (agency here can refer to any organization, "church" or otherwise), then the agency becomes his god.

A lot of our folks in Christian Identity are up to speed on this issue and understand that if they get a "marriage license" they are contracting with the government and making it a third party, which will probably screw you eventually (if you'll pardon my french).

Men should take their vows before God with the utmost gravity. How many men and women today make vows before other men, disregard God, and a short time later the vows are meaningless? Yeah, I have been there too.

Without God, the bond is godless and worthless. "What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."

Mark

[Filidh]

mark, is it not possible that marriage has come to mean a witness-ceremony while it originally meant sexual-intercourse? if not, why not?

also, could it not be that it isn't a moment of lust, but rather the intent of the man to marry the woman without regarding tradition, but declaring their marriage between the couple with christ as their only witness out of love, which is the antithesis to lust?

and isn't sex for the purpose of childbearing the only legitimate purpose for sex, and beyond that is fornication?

and if so, wouldn't marriage as a sexual act not be lustful, but loveful, as it would be the joining-together of two israelites to produce a child and not an act of lust?

and from this, would it not be concludable that marriage itself is the bedding-together and not the ceremony, and that while the ceremony is indeed able to be good, it isn't marriage itself and the ceremony should always be regarded as a community-enriching event, but not a necessity? if not, why not?

[wmfinck]

mchawe: Maybe this discussion of Jacob & Esau, comparing Paul's words concerning Esau from Hebrews chapter 12, will help you understand fornication as the word is used to describe race-mixing:

http://saxonmessenger.christogenea.org/jacob-and-esau-revisited-obadiah-116

[Kentucky]

mark, is it not possible that marriage has come to mean a witness-ceremony while it originally meant sexual-intercourse? if not, why not?

Let me try and explain it again then. I cited the Law of two witnesses, which in my opinion is the contract or vows, which is followed by the consummation. I have yet to hear any biblical citation of marriage being equal to sex. Scripture please. I have also cited the moral Law of Deut. 22:28-29, which appears to be without any premeditation, but they were found out . So if they were not found out, they could go about their merry way? This is not marriage. The previous verses have a similar situation, but the woman is not consenting and therefore it is considered rape and punishable by death. You're assuming the woman is going to tell the truth, after they have been busted, that all of the sudden they love each other and live happily ever after. If I'm missing some other Scripture that makes more sense, please advise.

also, could it not be that it isn't a moment of lust, but rather the intent of the man to marry the woman without regarding tradition, but declaring their marriage between the couple with christ as their only witness out of love, which is the antithesis to lust?

Per the Deut. 22:28-29 Law only, which sure sounds like lust to me, as they were out in the country where nobody would find them; but the Law states if they were found. This doesn't sound like honorable intentions to me. Why not just "get married" under their own roof, rather than outside?

and isn't sex for the purpose of childbearing the only legitimate purpose for sex, and beyond that is fornication?

and if so, wouldn't marriage as a sexual act not be lustful, but loveful, as it would be the joining-together of two israelites to produce a child and not an act of lust?

and from this, would it not be concludable that marriage itself is the bedding-together and not the ceremony, and that while the ceremony is indeed able to be good, it isn't marriage itself and the ceremony should always be regarded as a community-enriching event, but not a necessity? if not, why not?

I defer to my previous comments.

Mark

[Lang]

also, could it not be that it isn't a moment of lust, but rather the intent of the man to marry the woman without regarding tradition, but declaring their marriage between the couple with christ as their only witness out of love, which is the antithesis to lust?

and if so, wouldn't marriage as a sexual act not be lustful, but loveful, as it would be the joining-together of two israelites to produce a child and not an act of lust?

I'm with you on this one Filidh. Thats what I believe too.

and isn't sex for the purpose of childbearing the only legitimate purpose for sex, and beyond that is fornication?

On this one I have to disagree with you. I have a theory that we should not bother with what a couple is doing in the bedroom, as long as they are married, building a family and are not inviting another person into it. We are earthly, bodily beings, and as so flesh pleasures are part of our nature. What we need to teach people is to canalize their sexual urges on their husband/wife. Because, even if theres love involved like you said above, and even if its a very romantic thing and they are making vows and swearing eternal love, one can't deny the carnal appeal of the act. This "appeal" is nothing more than a natural stimulus of your brain to naturally make you reproduce. The same logic is applied to food, for example. Its tasteful because we need to eat it. It is directly related to the "reward" and "route" systems of our brain. In this regard, what makes the adamic man different from colored humans is the way we deal with this natural stimulus.

Colored people build sex-centered societies, in which the young people's minds are always focused and spending energy on when he is going to have sex again and whos gonna be the next mate. They only work as a mean to don't perish so they can keep pursuing sex to "satisfy" their urges. However, the more they pursue it, the more they want it. Its the exactly opposed of "satisfaction". If you are eating and only getting more hungry, you are not being satisfied, but if you eat and kill your hunger, then you get satisfied. And thats what the adamic man does. We marry and build monogamic families, which sends a message to our brain that those urges are already "answered", because you have a wife that will always be there for you as you are in a commited relationship. By this way, you have a feeling of "I got it" and you allow your brain to focus in other things... When you stop being sex-obsessed like the african societies are, your brain needs to get occupied with another thing, so you get obsessed in building the perfect machine, building a big bridge, healing a certian disease, etc, and then inventions and the civilization start being produced.

By the way, one of the worst aspects of the jewish mind control is that they are spreading this sex-centered african culture among us, making our youth think like them... as a result, society becomes unproductive and decadent, the culture sinks, all the forms of art get degenerate, religions become abominations, and so on...

[Lang]

I have yet to hear any biblical citation of marriage being equal to sex. Scripture please.

Rebeca and Leah case is a good example.

This is another good one and I can't see why you dismissed it:

15 Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid.

16 What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.

17 But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.

18 Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.

And also we have this:

“And Isaac brought her into his mother Sarah’s tent, and took Rebekah, and she became his wife; and he loved her". Here it looks like Rebeca got married after she engaged in sexual relations.

[wmfinck]

25 And it came to pass, that in the morning, behold, it was Leah: and he said to Laban, What is this thou hast done unto me? did not I serve with thee for Rachel? wherefore then hast thou beguiled me? 26 And Laban said, It must not be so done in our country, to give the younger before the firstborn. 27 Fulfil her week, and we will give thee this also for the service which thou shalt serve with me yet seven other years. 28 And Jacob did so, and fulfilled her week: and he gave him Rachel his daughter to wife also. 29 And Laban gave to Rachel his daughter Bilhah his handmaid to be her maid. 30 And he went in also unto Rachel, and he loved also Rachel more than Leah, and served with him yet seven other years.
31 And when the LORD saw that Leah was hated, he opened her womb: but Rachel was barren.
32 And Leah conceived, and bare a son, and she called his name Reuben: for she said, Surely the LORD hath looked upon my affliction; now therefore my husband will love me.

Jacob "took Rachel ... to wife also" (verse 28). But Leah was his wife FIRST. So then, WHEN did Jacob marry Leah???

I will talk about this tonight, if the opportunity arises. LOL

Furthermore, in the world of Jacob, Rachel and Leah, it did not matter what the women wanted. The only commitment was between Laban and Jacob. The women were, basically, property of the father until he gave them to wife. All of that is clear from the context of Genesis alone. Today our societal constructs are totally different than they were before the "liberation" of women.

[wmfinck]

No ceremony here, just an agreement between Sarah, Abraham, and evidently Hagar was compliant also:

2 And Sarai said unto Abram, Behold now, the LORD hath restrained me from bearing: I pray thee, go in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain children by her. And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai. 3 And Sarai Abram's wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife.

Wow, we could talk about this topic a long time.

We view marriage as a societal construct. It is nice to make commitments and keep them. I would not balk at Mark's idea of how a marriage should be conducted, at a proper method of treating a woman in general circumstances. But I would not allow myself to be bound to a ritual, substituting the ritual for the fact.

I can be reduced to a debate over form vs. substance. I really do not care for the form: it is the substance that really matters.