I'm at a conference at Hillsdale College, Hillsdale, Michigan. It is sponsored by a Hillsdale institution called "The Center for Constructive Alternatives." I ran into interesting people here last night with the very similar concerns to me on the issues. There will be a campus tour today. My husband attended Hillsdale College for his freshman year of college and then transferred later to Wayne State University (one of my own alma mater's). The focus of this conference which is directed towards both writers and readers is "The Art of Biography."
I have several friends -- some close -- with Hillsdale College backgrounds. Harry Veryser, a noted economics professor and author himself, was Assistant to the President here many years ago. My stepson, David, graduated from Hillsdale College before I discovered the existence of the New Age Movement.
Hillsdale was not without its own New Age infiltration. I had been informed that one of the professors back in the 1980s was a Rosicrucian and for several years all the "Excellence in Religion" awards had gone to members of his Rosicrucian study group. Among those invited for presentations were Barbara Marx Hubbard, John Naisbitt, Willis Harman, and Marilyn Ferguson. Ipsa res loquitor, legal speak for "the facts speak for themselves."
I'm told the Shavano Institute still exists but has been renamed. I asked about it in the orientation session for visitors this morning. My educated guess for at least the period of the 1980s when they spoke was that the purpose of inviting them was not just to study "comparative ideologies." I rather suspect there were true believers even at conservative Hillsdale College, just as just about everywhere else.
Well, a lecture is now scheduled and it would be rude for me not to attend, so I'm off. I would love to know if anybody else out there ever followed the Shavano Institute situation. Shavano is now renamed as "National Leadership Seminars."
I'll be back soon and stay tuned!
CONSTANCE
359 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 359 of 3592:06 AM I heard you try not to say: this video is from an original source and provides truth and could be the basis for exposing the gradual and more modern editing by an aware group using Jesuitism (deception) in a way that confuses the newer researchers looking into HP Blavatsky's writings by providing (in the same way they do with Bibles) an updated via linguistic or semantic deception version of the books. (yawn, this stuff doesn't work on me anymore.
Again:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPiT8oZZrEo
At about 30:00 what did H. P. Blavatsky say about the counterfeit Bibles? What were her own words? Which denomination did she mention by name?
Ahhh to know THEN what I SEE Now from Isis and Horace comes the I AM mindset in every Cathollywood production from the news, to entertainment to wars, and even blogs.
Da Jesuit Mindset
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kougQB-ASS8
Oh...yes hollywood...and what is it about? Why Satan of course! At about 3:03.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9caxuXbPhg
Creepy smiles in all the right places, UGH!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqqegXcKDQ0
http://variety.com/2016/biz/news/john-kerry-hollywood-studio-chiefs-isis-1201707652/
(eyes rolling ..moan..)
"why? what possible relevance does such a thing have to religion of any kind especially Christianity? it is just one more thing God made.
Of course, the masses and the educated are phenomenally stupid. NEw Agers will probably point to this in their typical nonsequitur way as proving their point."
In my view and in that of others, any 'disclosure' or even worse, such as an open manifestation of an extra terrestrial presence, would certainly unbalance the great faiths of the world. All bets would be off, so to speak. Look for example at those mega-churches and preachers who don't forewarn of this deception. They would implode.
This Jesuit Pope Francis surely knows something about the goings-on at Mt. Graham and NASA. I would ask if he is calling all Christian denominations 'home' to prepare for that arrival.
Anonymous,
In some Jewish writings, it is said that God made many other worlds and then destroyed them. I too believe that it would not make sense if he created other physical beings with intelligence and morals (or without morals), for then he would have to die and resurrect on an infinite number of worlds. Besides the Bible says nothing about it, only the spirit world and the beings within it exists apart from us. The Scripture says that the rebel angels and their leader will return one last time, and they will be restricted in their movements to the Earth. There is simply too much to just discard this idea as nonsense. With the 'elite' technology or without, it will be such a monumental deception, and they will fool even us.
There actually are arguments from Kabbalah and the Talmudic rabbis that make E.T. compatible with modern Judaism! If we can agree that the UFO subject will be included in end time events, then it really becomes more scary.
"The powers of the heavens will be shaken"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theatre_for_development
Look fast when you go to this link above in your browser bar, the wiki changed this from theater for social change to theater for development, sounds like the UN development program (Agenda 21). Yes, I was wondering about all the university theaters which have adopted this new name and added it to their theaters, "for social change". Then there is Harvard and their "arts" projects, one being the Satanic Temple, web site and essentially a platform for policy change in the Bible belt. Yes, they (Harvard wizards and high priests, like Tim Leary) love statistics, they size up their strength, .. what does it take to memorize the public, and youth. --I remember that political local "fallen away" Catholic minder, she did love K-pop, yes she did, and she hated me, since her linguistics degree did little to impress me and I doubt she had fallen very far from the RCC come to think of it.
http://ealc.fas.harvard.edu/people/alexander-zahlten
at 8:39--they so want to know the mysteries of witchcraft and pop music, do tell, do tell us your opinions so we can make note and offer social changes via theater. You know, not a dang thing has changed since Kabbalahist Frances Bacon (pretending to be William) made the rounds with his group of change makers and language experts.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJKjsb_A8M4
and further in the video Psy does boast of the greatness of google translate, Oh Satan was ever so angry about that Babylonian incident, when the ONE TRUE GOD did break up the people and change the languages. Note how Psy did his "art" by focusing on common global 'linguistics' and fun (darn Christians always trying to take the fun away from the youth). --fascinating-- and depressing.
Bacon
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTWlzBlMU1g
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5e-IrNIddVc
Faaaaaaaacinating. What theater! Who dun it? It's a mystery, but we do know the shots are worthless all together, completely worthless. And yet they keep giving the shots despite the evidence of birth control in them. So is this the 'eliminate the poor' er eh..eliminate poverty, (yes that's the way they say it)...section of UN A21 in action?
Humphries work reminds me of common core and the same tactics against people who eventually disagree with the findings of 'the committee' and are usually discredited when they resign or ridiculed out of business. It's the same trend as Dr. Humphries discovered when she researched each individual case of vaccine development. An interesting point is that the vitamin c which she recommends tastes not at all 'acidic' instead having the flavor of maybe light baking soda, this is at least an argument that the sour stuff they sell us over the counter is a different compound altogether.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIcz4wpVUzI
eww
http://www.vaccineriskawareness.com/Vaccination-And-Abortion-
Oh my,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CE5pvrJzhKQ
http://hotair.com/archives/2016/01/20/trump-lets-face-it-ted-cruz-trying-to-hide-his-goldman-sachs-loan-is-worse-than-hillary/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_St._Gregory_the_Great
"Peter Sutherland, 2008, former Irish Attorney-General, EU Commissioner, Director-General of WTO, Chairman Goldman Sachs"
"Rupert Murdoch, 1998[16]"
Booooo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2ZVihACwQ0
Ah.. Ted Cruse, big banker's husband (Goldman Sachs), son of a Castro sympathizer, a Zionist (Zion really means the New World Order) and probably not even eligible as a Canadian. The SJ wins with every candidate this year and I suspect they have been winning for years now, since Lincoln was shot, I suppose. Things we wish we knew before the age of irrelevance.
The End Of Economic Liberty
"A War On Cash Won't End Well"
www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-02-18/end-economic-liberty-war-cash-wont-end-well
the big money scene or crony capitalist conspiracy is back of most other conspiracies and lots of these people were occultist somewhat. Earlier in the last century they tried a coup, different companies but same idea.
A glance at the past: Smedley Butler was asked to lead a fascist
takeover against FDR, but blew the whistle on them. FDR was unwilling to
push for prosecution of people who, in modern terms, were too big to fail.
""It was four years," continues Higham, "before the committee dared to publish its report in a white paper that was marked for 'restricted circulation.' They were forced to admit that 'certain persons made an attempt to establish a fascist organization in this country . . . (The) committee was able to verify all the pertinent statements made by General Butler.' This admission that the entire plan was deadly in intent was not accompanied by the imprisonment of anybody. Further investigations disclosed that over a million people had been guaranteed to join the scheme and that the arms and munitions necessary would have been supplied by Remington, a Du Pont subsidiary." (8)
The names of important individuals and groups involved in the conspiracy were suppressed by the committee, but later revealed by Seldes, Philadelphia Record reporter Paul French, and Jules Archer, author of the book, "The Plot to Seize the White House." Included were John W. Davis (attorney for the J.P. Morgan banking group), Robert Sterling Clark (Wall Street broker and heir to the Singer sewing machine fortune), William Doyle (American Legion official), and the American Liberty League (backed by executives from J.P. Morgan and Co., Rockefeller interests, E.F. Hutton, and Du Pont-controlled General Motors). (9)"
http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/randy/swas1.htm
http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/randy/swas2.htm
http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/randy/swas3.htm
http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/randy/swas4.htm
http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/randy/swas5.htm
http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/randy/swas5a.htm
The Secret Origins of the Patriot Movement (some think they are fighting occultism but
some of its roots are occultic).
http://visupview.blogspot.com/2013/10/a-vast-right-wing-conspiracy-secret.html
http://visupview.blogspot.com/2013/10/a-vast-right-wing-conspiracy-secret_26.html
http://visupview.blogspot.com/2013/10/a-vast-right-wing-conspiracy-secret_8539.html
http://visupview.blogspot.com/2013/11/a-vast-right-wing-conspiracy-secret.html
These articles are HEAVILY documented. They combine in one place information
I already know and add more. I don't recommend a lot that is on that site.
Paranormal research predates the classical MKULTRA and spin
off operations, and there seems to be an odd prevalence of the Office of
Naval Intelligence and/or Office of Naval Research in this, which office(s)
also lurk in the background of the Kennedy Assassination.
http://www.liverostrum.com/raul-castro-thanks-pope-francis-for-brokering-cuba-us-deal/20018.html
Both Mr Castro and his brother, revolutionary leader Fidel Castro, were baptised as Roman Catholics, but most Church activities were suppressed after the revolution.
{(#lies and theater)}
Francis will be the third Pope to travel to Cuba, following visits there by John Paul II in 1998 and Benedict XVI in 2012.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/02/18/pope-prays-for-migrants-at-mexican-border/
#tired of Babylon #sick of pretending #isms are a creation of the SJ #see someone online who gets it #call DHS see something say something #Just like Hitler #Back to the Holy Roman Empire #Zombie Apocalypse coming soon
"...some think they are fighting occultism but
some of its roots are occultic)."
And you claim you are fighting the New Ag but your various procamations are as New Age as they Come MCE!
She has sown many new age tares right here among the wheat. Jesus said in that parable about the wheat and the tares: "an enemy has done this".
Constance helps us know the difference. MCE adds confusion, thread to thread.
anon 11:00
that swtatement shows you know very little about the New Age. do I promote altered states of consciousness? no.
do I promote ancient aliens invented all religions and created us? no.
do I promote opening of chakras and meddling with one's electrical system to enhance "spiritual growth" and contact with "guides"? no.
do I promote channeling (mediumship possession lite)? no.
do I promote aiding some superior groups of discarnate entities? no.
do I promote all religions lead to the same goal? no.
do I promote promiscuity and/or repeated partner changes and/or perversion and/or sex as a sacred mystical rite in or out of marriage that in some way engages the forces of the universe and/or unites the male and female sides of God and/or adds up to two "deities" male and female (or same sex?) having sex through the partners who represent them to each other? no.
do I promote "aliens" who send channeled messages? no.
do I promote "aliens" who are going to save us and give us great technology if the mean old government will get out of the way (ignoring that the aliens are part of the coverup they could go public whenever they want to) and supposedly they are peaceful and non interventive? no.
do I promote evolution? no.
do I promote one world government, "new world order"? no.
do I deny the Trinity? no.
Do I deny the divinity of JEsus Christ? no;
Do I deny the physical and permanent resurrection of Jesus Christ or the validity of His sacrifice on the Cross? no.
do I claim that God is identical to whatever ether/plasma/etc. underlies the material universe? no.
do I claim that spirit is superior and matter evil? no.
do I claim that there was some radical change by Constantine and later councils and before that Christianity taught reincarnation, divinity by nature not grace of mankind, Jesus as mere prophet or teacher? no
do I advocate meditation? no.
do I advocate routine astral projection? no.
do I claim that our existence as individual beings is an illusion? no.
do I advocate use of "entheogens"? no.
do I advocate contacting spirits? no.
do I advocate breeding the next level human species? no.
do I advocate racial purity? no.
do I have a racial theory at all? no.
do I claim Jesus never existed? no.
do I claim Jesus existed but only swooned and eventually died elsewhere? no.
do I claim Jesus learned from Indian and/or Tibetan masters and/or Egyptian magicians during His "missing years" (which were spent getting well known as the carpenter's son locally)? no.
do I claim Jesus is an "ascended master"? no.
do I promote reincarnation? no.
do I promote abortion? no.
do I promote eugenics? no.
do I promote identification of the core self atman with God and God being impersonal? no.
do I promote the idea all religion is an invention to control people? no.
do I promote atheism? no.
do I promote pantheism? no.
do I promote the kind of panentheism that has a monist element to it making it pantheism lite? no.
do I promote the idea of God as female? no. (technically God has no gender not being part of a sexually reproducing species, but "female" has all kinds of connotations and "it" indicates impersonality or at best something like Hal of 2001 some kind of superbrain)? no.
do I promote the idea that the physical universe is the result of a fall from a more ethereal spiritual condition? no.
do I promote the idea that the physical universe is an illusion? no.
do I promote the idea that the physical universe is itself God, the stars being cells in a cosmic brain? no.
do I promote the idea that humans are a skin disease of the earth's surface or something like that? no. do I promote cultivation of telepathy as a good idea? no.
do I promote trying to discern the future by means of either astrology, or manipulation of objects like cards, dice, coin toss and construct I Ching figures from the results, crystal ball scrying or other prognostication? no.
do I promote playing with pagan "gods"? no.
do I promote anarchism or totalitarianism? no.
do I promote a mystique of the blood of some lineage, royal, noble, economic empire high society garbage or whatever? no.
do I promote joining secret societies, masonic or otherwise? no.
do I promote conjuring up spirits of the dead or of some other sort? no.
do I promote letting your mind go slack and letting something one hopes is The Holy spirit speak through you, the charismatic practice identical to shamanism and so forth? no. SOME OF YOU HERE DO.
do I deny original/ancestral sin? no.
do I deny Jesus' vicarious atonement for us? no.
do I post wordy dreamy stuff that drones on and on and claim this is a word I got from God? no.
do I deny that certain things such as energy manipulation and "superstitious" practices are merely delusion and not real thus denying their danger and undermining resistance to them? no. YOU DO.
do I deny that life could exist elsewhere and base biblical credibility on this thus setting up everyone for a loss of faith should life be found elsewhere, despite the fact the Bible does not say one way or another clearly? no. YOU DO.
do I advocate hanging out in graveyards and drinking in the atmosphere there? no.
do I advocate ritual magick, charging talismans, casting spells with folk magic? no.
"do I deny that certain things such as energy manipulation and "superstitious" practices are merely delusion and not real thus denying their danger and undermining resistance to them? no. YOU DO. " should read "do I claim" etc.
Pope suggests Trump isn't a Christian...
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/19/world/americas/pope-francis-donald-trump-christian.html
...because Trump wants to make the border with Mexico impermeable.
Um, isn't whether someone is Christian or not something to do with the gospel?
Should we be surprised?
This amazing fraud ... "pope" Francis ... makes the bogus claim that building a wall in order to protect national sovereignty is consistent with NOT being a "Christian." Have you ever seen the WALL built around Vatican City? When will the Vatican throw open its doors and allow immigrants to dwell in within its palatial surroundings? Don't hold your breath.
This "pope" is one of the chief proponents of the One World Government of the anti-Christ. In order for the One World Government to succeed, national sovereignty and borders MUST be eliminated, along with the current economic system of the world. One World Government cannot come into being without a One World economic system ... which John Paul II, Benedict and this current fraud have all proposed.
We are living in very dangerous ... but interesting times!
See for yourself ... photos of the walls surrounding Vatican City:
http://www.theamericanmirror.com/photos-pope-calls-for-us-to-embrace-illegals-while-maintaining-massive-wall-around-vatican/
How do you spell H Y P O C R I T E ??
"How do you spell H Y P O C R I T E ??"
Well, Ray B, there are two ways out of many, as you've rightly noted here:
1. Mary Christine Erikson (aka Justina)
2. Pope Francis (aka Bergoglio)!
Blah,blah, rotten blah as they say 12:05 PM.
And add to that what else we hear coming from your corner of the world wide web is the particularly loud and obnoxious clang, clang, clang.
Thread to thread you've deposited mostly rubbish so we know your very comprehensive list of bad beliefs all to well.
You're most unpleasant, to re-quote Rich of Medford, and very proud of it to post even more of same, just a different day.............
The "new gospel" according to el papo Francis:
"Believe in no walls or borders and thou shalt be saved."
Gauging by past performance, usually about this time we'll hear from "Susanna" for the purpose to explain what the "pope" actually said. Kind of a strange coincidence that since Constance's computer went down, "Susanna" just disappeared into thin air.
Find this very bizarre that the Pope is getting involved in a US political campaign. Whatever one's thoughts or feelings are about Trump, it seems inappropriate for the Pope to get this deeply involved in American elections. As someone pointed out the Vatican has one of the strictest immigration policy in the world.
http://abcnews.go.com/International/pope-francis-donald-trump-christian/story?id=37024966
Why did the Pope not question Obama's Christianity? The Pope and Obama are globalists and Trump is not. I'm not sure if Trump was thrown in to screw up the campaign . If he runs as an independent I will become very suspicious, but he is bringing up subjects near and dear to the hearts of Americans, obviously by the poll numbers.
The Vatican:
http://www.theamericanmirror.com/photos-pope-calls-for-us-to-embrace-illegals-while-maintaining-massive-wall-around-vatican/
Tear down those walls Mr. Pope, oh, excuse me that was. Mr Gorbachev.
The one really good thing about ego maniacs is that they don't talk about other people.
Do I promote...
Do I ever...
Do I...
Do I ever...
Do I ...
Do I...
Do I...
Do I...
Do I...
Don't care for and question Trumps recent come to Jesus.
… But if the Globalist do not like him? This Is Great!
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/pope-francis-joins-a-chorus-of-world-leaders-in-condemning-donald-trump/2016/02/18/560063b4-d665-11e5-9823-02b905009f99_story.html
When all the international politicians getting nervous, I would say this Trump is providing some good derision?
Yea though I walk in the shadows of walls, I shall fear no evil? For the Pontifix is with me?
I Google-Earth-ed the Vatican State grounds and observed the walls.
What was missing, is there is no bridge to be found!
Re: MCE
Does she promote chakras here?
Yes.
Does she spread New Age Gnostic nonsense about Aliens Aka ETs?
Yes.
Does she claim there are cities on Mars?
Yes.
Is she as gnostic as they come?
Yes.
Does she twist Holy Scripture by claiming they allude to chakras and aliens from other planets?
Yes.
Does she assert contact with vampires (even psychic ones)?
Yes.
Does she have an (ex?) Satanist clairvoyant/scryer, Mike, who she upholds as her "Resident Seer" living with her?
Yes.
Has she claimed they live as man and wife together despite not being married?
Yes.
Does she assert the existence of orange ether blobs (conjured up by?) and seen by Mike?
Yes.
Does she hold strange ideas about 'green nutrient gel ' (whatever that is: another of Mike's apparitions?)?
Yes.
Does she disrespect her very own mother and the memory of her publicly here?
Yes.
Has she falsely accused members of this blog, such as Paul?
Yes.
Has she offended, insulted and driven many decent posters away from this blog?
Yes.
Does she use profanities at will and crude language here?
Yes.
Has she advertised her gnostic and occult knowledge (and Mike's?) wares here?
Yes.
Does she hog and clog the blog here with her endless not so intelligent afterall ramblings here?
Yes.
Does she disrespect and ignore the wishes of the blog's owner here?
Yes.
Is she deceptive to the max?
Yes.
Is she dangerous to those young in the Lord?
Yes.
Could this list rightly go on exposing her with examples?
Yes.
Should she be banned from here?
Yes, absolutely!
RayB,
Your comment at 7:36 PM puts you in the same league as the other detractors here, insinuating that Susanna and Constance are the same person. What rubbish. I think you should apologize to them both.
Or is your pride too great to allow that?
Pride. It's what is wrong here when things go wrong. And it's what's wrong everywhere else too when things go wrong.
It's the root of the New Age. It's the source of delusion - what causes us to believe a lie, because we are too prideful to think we could be wrong about something.
It's what makes men think they can make a better world than the one God created.
It's what makes the "99%" think they are better than the "1%".
&c...
Some of those walls round the Vatican went up in the 9th century the year after a Muslim raid on the city, for protection against that same foe. Keep them in place!
2:25 PM,
Perhaps what Ray B may be suggesting, tongue in cheek albeit, is that there is something jesuitical about the coincidence of Susanna's disappearance and Constance's computer problems?
It may seem in bad taste to some but I doubt he means any harm!
Just a thought.
Great observation, anon. 2:58. Knowledge about history can help us arrive at better conclusions about current events.
One thing we must remember is that the MEDIA loves to misinterpret people's comments, pulling them out of context (as they did with the pope's comments about walls), so as to create divisiveness and hatred between different people, or groups of people. Divide and conquer. They are the enemy, more than Trump or the pope.
Donald Trump (and everyone here so far, except anon 2:58, unless I missed something in my skimming through) took the press's story at face value, without looking any further into it. Today, both the pope and the don have walked back their criticisms of each other, which is good, but will the media get away with what they did? Of course they will. They are beholden to no one. It really stinks. Talk about a fifth column!
Feb. 19
Unnecessary roughness is what I call it, RayB, because critiquing institutions is one thing, but making it personal is another..
"Unnecessary roughness is what I call it, RayB, because critiquing institutions is one thing, but making it personal is another.."
Anon 5:21 PM, how's about this? Take a look in the mirror and remove that log then you'll be able to help Ray B get the speck out of his!
While I totally agree with RayB about many many things, it is still not necessary to make it personal and naming someone did that.
That is my opinion, so what? We all have opinions.
They are allowed here.
Well by that measure, Anon 5:55 PM, so is Ray B's voice allowed here too!
Hi Anon 2.33pm,
Christine has filled the blog again with ego centric comments (no surprise) and has gone on record denying personal involvement with or endorsement of a hefty list of new age practises.
Christine you need to turn from your sin, repent and renounce the practise and teaching of co habitation with a man you are not married to rather than acting like a heathen, promoteing and trying to justify the practise on this public blog.
Your abstaining from sex argument doesn't do away with the appearance of evil to those outside the faith who witness your behaviour as adulterous, fornicative and unbecoming a Christian.
Lets be absolutely clear..... " being anti marriage as expressed in the Bible is sinful, demonic and against God."
1 Timothy 4:1-3 1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
Doctrines of demons is the whole foundation of the New Age.
Anti biblical marriage is New Age
If you teach in public then expect to be rebuked in public.
Heard the old "no sex" argument before.... a President got caught out on that one.
I didn't say his opinion wasn't, 6:18 PM. I said what I thought of it.
Don't say what I didn't.
The only person that Christine seems to really worry about offending is Constance.
Thats because Constance can kick her off the blogg.
With the amount of New Agey and gnostic confused comments that have been made on this blog by Christine she should be banned because its only getting worse and driving people away
Anon 2:58
Yes, I think he'll need them.
It's unprecedented for a Pope to get directly involved in a US political campaign or in US politics. If he wanted to make a general remark about immigrants that's one thing. From what I have heard, Vatican City is not accepting any of the Syrian refugees. It would be nice to see him practice what he preaches.
Christine,
I'm again disappointed at the abundance of your posts and tone of same.
Constance
Perhaps Susanna is simply on vacation or unwell? Let us not build on speculation.
Christine, you say that living with your man unmarried in the State's eyes is OK in the church's eyes (and, I guess you presume, Christ's) because you don't have sex. But you also said here once that your abstinence was because such activity might be fatal to his heart condition. What if, happily, he got better?
Yes, "his heart condition" and that of yours, Christine, are in grave peril.
I suggest you both repent and cry unto the Living God the words spoken by King David in Psalm 51:10 :
Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me!
Hi Anon 8:38,
Are we hearing the silence of conviction?.
Hope so.
anon 6:34 etc.
out of respect for Constance I am ignoring you lot.
it is not a matter of okay with the "church" it is a matter of is it okay with God.
review of things like a fiancée being called a man's wife (word is really a man's
woman) puts me in the right situation. If you were married in a civil ceremony, some people would consider you were living in sin not valid without a church ceremony. look to your own self.
Over and over and over again, the truth has been told. Hosea 4:17 tells us Ephrahim is joined to idols; let him (her) alone 8:38 AM.
It's her story and she's sticking to it.
"out of respect for Constance I am ignoring you lot."
Or because you haven't an answer to the question put at 0548?
Christine,
You claim ignoring "you lot" out of respect for Constance.
What you are really ignoreing is God Word to justify living with a man who is not your husband.
What a disgracefull testimony to the unsaved.
To show respect for Constance, one could do what she has repeatedly asked regarding one's comments here!
anon 8:41
"Have you not heard of Project Bluebeam, Haarp or Tesla technology, for example?... "
I know all that stuff. Which doesn't explain events many decades before that technology began. you in your pride stumble and miss the obvious: that the best antidote to a fake (or real) alien invasion is to argue they came from here (as some slipped up at different times and admitted) and no different than people on another continent, their views and theology are wrong if in conflict with the Bible. Turn them into a ho hum issue.
The great deception more likely has to do with the charismatic movement and the pretrib rapture idea, that could cause loss of faith when "what the Bible says" (that it does NOT say) doesn't happen like they've been told it will.
Postmodern Prophecy Paradigm is what herescope.com calls the nephilim concerns. The idea the great deception is aliens or something sci-fi.(Something like this might be attempted by some people, but most people are too tech savvy to buy it.) fleshly sensationalism Tom Horn, Lynn Marzulli, Chris Putnam and Chuck Missler (with a military industrial background) et. al. are promoting a view that could lead to extermination of any political/theological opponent identified (likely fraudulently) as alien hybrid who isn't "really" human just looks human, and who therefore
"doesn't have a soul" (an idiotic notion in itself resulting from gnostic baggage in church interpretation).
"[if] he created other physical beings with intelligence and morals (or without morals), for then he would have to die and resurrect on an infinite number of worlds."
no. This really defames and belittles Christ.
Christ's Sacrifice and Resurrection is for all creation rom. 8:19-22, especially mankind but not exclusively. the groundwork is laid for the restoration of all creation. the new heavens and new earth that John saw in Revelation. Rev. 5:13 shows all kinds of creatures even critters in the sea praising God. There are other hints of a relationship between God and
animals and the rest of creation in Psalms. Therefore, if even sea slugs are included physical aliens would be also, especially if in fact HUMANS who were GMO, and therefore from Adam. Christ bought all of creation back from the wrath of God, with all things accomplished in order.
We don't know just how "advanced" pre Flood earth was. But we do know two things: war is the big driver in technological advancement, always. and "the earth was full of violence." It may also have been God's intention that excess population would go offworld, and therefore we could have with godly angel help or direct from God or God guiding our curiosity and invention done this if we hadn't fallen, but since we fell it was
done by less than godly means and for less than godly reasons.
"Besides the Bible says nothing about it," The Bible says nothing about a lot of things. including the western hemisphere. these things are not essential. But it does drop two hints Deut. 30:4 and Matt. 24:31.
Most interpeters dismiss this as hyperbole or poetic, but might be more than this.
On and on the nutter goes. She is out to space!
Christine says...
"Christ's Sacrifice and Resurrection is for all creation rom. 8:19-22, especially mankind but not exclusively. the groundwork is laid for the restoration of all creation. the new heavens and new earth that John saw in Revelation. Rev. 5:13 shows all kinds of creatures even critters in the sea praising God. There are other hints of a relationship between God and animals and the rest of creation in Psalms. Therefore, if even sea slugs are included physical aliens would be also, ".
Well Christine your new age tainted theology falls flat again.
Fallen angels/demons (which are the aliens being spoken of) do not and cannot recieve restoration (salvation) forgiveness because it is not availiable to them because of their rebellion.
You need to seriously stop reading New Age books and listening to the many voices out there that are not the Lords, you do not seem to rightly divide the Truth.
You do not seem to relate properly to Gods forgiveness and its conditions as expressed in the Bible.
False (teaching) theology manifests itself when people are chooseing their own way rather than Gods.
Your strange statements put up over time on this blog re salvation and forgiveness indicate a very serious problem and is in all probability why you refuse to recognise certain actions and thoughts as sinful inspite of the council of the Godly.
Please seek help
Concentrate on
9
.... concentrate on Gods word and stop reading New age garbage all the time
Obviously a typo at 5:12pm.. should be obvious that I am not asking anyone to concentrate on the number 9 but have to state that because things can get wacky on this blog.
I see I should have specified the obvious, that fallen angels are not included in salvation. I was talking about flesh life forms.
Aliens however include PHYSICAL beings. otherwise no forensic evidence and no crash retrieval bodies (lots of them worldwide, not just disputed Roswell).
"What you are really ignoreing is God Word to justify living with a man who is not your husband."
According to this assessment, he IS my husband. http://www.biblestudylessons.net/faqs/Joseph-Maryfaq.htm
when did I ever oppose marriage? eh? or forbid it? you accusers of the brethren imply I oppose marriage. "biblical marriage" = a hodge podge of possible setups sharing permanence and difficulty in exiting on a mere whim but all heterosexual, forbidding consanguinity and partner ping pong and promiscuity and adultery (the latter concept sometimes diluted by allowing polygamy but casual sneak around or open cheating never tolerated), purity as ideal and monogamy the model from the beginning all variants a tolerated product of sin.
Hi Christine,
Your excuses for sinning by living with a man and being unmarried whilst claiming to be a christian is a disgrace.
Having a man does not make him your husband but then you are just to straight out dishonest or decieved to admit that an go on living a lie before others in claiming he is your husband.
Common law in the country I live maintains that after living with a "partner"(not spouse) for over two years any property becomes mutually owned and subject to claim should the (defacto) relationship disolve.
If similar law exists in the United States then with your public statement on this blog that your partner is "your husband" as proof of relationship should the relationship end you would loose half your assetts and mothers inheritance money if contested on the basis of matrimonial/common property.
Obviously its to late to retract and wind back the clock...Its what is called "the unintended consequences" .
Anyway turn to the word below... its shows the husband that isnt a husband.
John 4:15–19
15 The woman said to Him, “Sir, give me this water, that I may not thirst, nor come here to draw.”
16 Jesus said to her, “Go, call your husband, and come here.”
17 The woman answered and said, “I have no husband.”
Jesus said to her, “You have well said, ‘I have no husband,’
18 for you have had five husbands, and the one whom you now have is not your husband; in that you spoke truly.”
19 The woman said to Him, “Sir, kI perceive that You are a prophet.
Jewish law did not allow a woman to have more than four husbands at that time.
her relationship was illegal and it is possible, given despair at men she had
settled for some flybynight situation that had no commitment to qualify as
concubinage. that does not relate to the issue in that article.
A betrothed woman is the wife of her fiancé, her fiancé is her husband, if we are
talking God's laws.
I have no inheritance from my biological so called mother. I have inheritance from
my father's mother and from my aunt.
If I were to legally marry him in California the same situation would apply because it is one of several community property states. This community property thing was invented to stop the rash of divorcing going on in freewheeling western states in the late 1800s.
California recognizes common law marriage as do all states but does not allow it to contract in CA same with most states. DC does allow which made the SSI at risk.
If I were to break up with him without biblical basis for doing so, and take up with another legally or illegally, if I were to marry another legally, I would be
guilty of adultery.
did you read the link?
@ 6:46 PM
Jewish women didn't do more than one husband like the men used to do long ago. You are making this up on the fly. You have no biblical mandate for such behavior so you are full of yourself taking such liberties with their laws to make them fit you and your sinful unbiblical stance on marriage and relationship. You would not be guilty of adultery if you left him for another, because you are already in an immoral situation that includes not wanting to compromise the filthy lucre angle of it. You exemplify a life not obedient and dependent upon God, so you are in this heathen mess for all the wrong reasons and generally unchrist-like over all. And your spin on it only makes you appear more so. You don't even have the talk down, much less the walk............
So it sure can't be love that moves you in this relationship. Marital love is biblical and does what honors and obeys Christ. You are doing your own bible rewrite, that adds to and takes away from what GOD said.
You and your "honey" are the classic example and relational equivalent of 2 ticks and no dog.
I didn't say they did more than one at a time, and I don't make things up. There
was a rabbinic decision reflected in the Talmud (which contains BC materials)
that a woman could not marry more than four times. This woman was a Samaritan,
but if this decision reflected an earlier tradition then it would be the case
with Samaritans (who may also have sneaked looks to the Jews for direction at times).
http://www.biblestudylessons.net/faqs/Joseph-Maryfaq.htm
asking an apparent contradiction in Gospel accounts about Mary and Joseph, Luke 2:5 calls her betrothed and wife, Mt. 1:18 also calls Joseph her husband.
"The root ("to betroth"), from which the Talmudic abstract ("betrothal") is derived, must be taken in this sense; I.e., to contract an actual though incomplete marriage. In two of the passages in which it occurs the betrothed woman is directly designated as "wife" (II Sam. Iii. 14, "my wife whom I have betrothed" ("erasti"), and Deut. xxii. 24, where the betrothed is designated as "the wife of his neighbor"). In strict accordance with this sense the rabbinical law declares that the betrothal is equivalent to an actual marriage and only to be dissolved by a formal divorce.
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=995&letter=B"
You don't know the first thing about jewish marriage in the times when the bible was written so don't try to pass that off here using Joseph and Mary. There were 3 stages to marriage for them. Engagement (often when children), betrothal, and then the actual public ceremony that led to their time to consummate what they established in previous vows. Jesus' word to the samaritan woman is applicable to us as it is his teaching about the subject and should be final for you, but then again..when have you ever let God have the last word in any of your posts???
You still miss the biblical point that was clearly made and you don't answer back from a true bible perspective. You attempt to talk bible when you aren't really believing it enough to obey it, anyway. That is hypocritical to say the least.
You make this up as you go just like many of your other facts about "stuff". You believe your own versions to everything....facts need not apply.
..still just 2 ticks and no dog.
I do know about this, but these complicated things had more to do with the
wealthy and middle class than the poor and semi poor. vows probably developed
later, if a couple were lovers the man had to pay her father the bride price
and take her in public acknowledgement as his wife. "playing the harlot"
referred to promiscuous stuff.
If a girl was complained of by her husband as not a virgin at the wedding night,
his complaint was rejected if he had spent a night under her father's roof,
because he might have had sex with her himself before the wedding. The issue
was not did she come to the WEDDING a virgin as advertised but did she come TO HIM
as a virgin.
I don't make up ANYTHING. I am so far over your head you can't face it.
The fact is, that marriage really adds up to public acknowledgement of each other
as belonging to each other, or public handing off to a man by her father and mother,
the bride price buying the produce of her womb for the new patrilineage. The matrilineal concept of Jewish identity developed off the rule that if a man was a slave and given a wife by his owner, when he left the woman and her child remained the property of the slave owner. This is the natural core reality, matriliny,
which the bride price undoes but also tends to create a superiority or "headship"
of the man over the woman which is unnatural.
This artificial construct being of use in eventually identifying the messiah, was continued but is now of no importance in reality.
Tell me, do you have a "history"? did you abandon a boyfriend who loved you and would not have interfered in your Christian walk and go marry someone else after having sex and living with that boyfriend?
Guess what, you're living in sin, its called adultery of divorce and remarriage.
THE SEX ACT MAKES THE TWO ONE FLESH I CORINTHIANS 6:16 but your first de facto husband has had sex willingly with someone else since, you you're in the clear now.
Frankly given the internet to help you research many libraries worth of work at home, you have no excuse.
ADAM AND EVE WERE NOT MARRIED. and the word "wife" is usually just woman, his woman, her man. some version of husband imply ownership.
thanks to sin, public statements, written documents (and that "public ceremony and vows" would have added up to an announcement that the girl was now going to be with this man, he'd paid her bride price which in Europe morphed into a dowry but that wasn't the usual thing and totally different function in all cultures) and exchanging paperwork and a party and they'd go indoors, have sex, and wave the sheet with her blood on it. this is pretty standard fare in most of the middle east.
without some written statement, someone could claim a man had done something he hadn't or claim a woman ditto, or could be a false hearted lover who seduced one then dumped her for another or dumped him for another, and to prevent such lies and force punishment on such of the latter behavior, you need some records. or public presentation over time together.
So sex has been part of his
yours and Mike's relationship of fornication then Christine!
You are co-habiting out of wedlock and yoked to a non-believer.
God officiated for Adam and Eve. He put them together, but then that isn't good enough for you is it?
I tired of your response very quickly and frankly can't get through any post of yours in entirety because it is so bizarre what you want to pass off as biblical. You don't honor and do God justice and since you don't, you have no place to stand in the Word of God. it is what I expect of your posts...they are vast amounts of nothing.
You are out on a limb in stupidity trying to justify yourself and sawing it off while you are out there. Get over yourself and face the music.
2 TICKS NO DOG.
that was a long time ago, part of a publicly connected relationship,
with belonging and fidelity assumed as part of the situation. And he's
been referring to me as his wife most of the many years we've been
together.
Meanwhile, what about YOUR marriage? did you go into that still a virgin with
a virgin or both of your prior sex partners having willingly had sex with others
or else dead or had abandoned you? Absent that, your marriage was in reality
a kind of adultery because of I Cor. 6:16.
even if it was a definite fornication you did before, you being one flesh with
the prior person puts a cloud on your marriage, never mind the law of the land
that doesn't matter except for pragmatic issues.
"What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he shall be one flesh." I Cor. 6:16
what about the people who get married with the understanding that they will divorce
and remarry if they get bored? that is pretty close to fornication isn't it?
God didn't OFFICIATE anything. you are adding to Scripture, writing stuff in.
He brought her to the man who rejoiced at finding someone like himself, and
she felt the same, and things developed over time from there. And they
became one flesh when the relationship ripened into enough intimacy they
shared their bodies with each other. and before sin warped us, the monogamous
pair bond effect guaranteed the permanence.
Typically marriages later might get some clerical blessing.
Living together a year and a day in Roman law no ceremony no nothing, made you
married legally. the upper classes with money and property at issue would go
for more complicated ceremonies designed to work magic to keep them together
for more economic stability. Paul didn't say one word against this usus
marriage when he attacked pagan cultural baggage of other sorts.
now, sure, the law of the land is being flouted, but it doesn't provide any
punishments for such a relationship in California. merely definitions and
with no fault divorce on the one hand, and "palimony" for the unmarried on the
other, we're not that far off. a prenuptual agreement would void all the
community property issues I think.
that was a long time ago, part of a publicly connected relationship,
with belonging and fidelity assumed as part of the situation. And he's
been referring to me as his wife most of the many years we've been
together.
Meanwhile, what about YOUR marriage? did you go into that still a virgin with
a virgin or both of your prior sex partners having willingly had sex with others
or else dead or had abandoned you? Absent that, your marriage was in reality
a kind of adultery because of I Cor. 6:16.
even if it was a definite fornication you did before, you being one flesh with
the prior person puts a cloud on your marriage, never mind the law of the land
that doesn't matter except for pragmatic issues.
"What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he shall be one flesh." I Cor. 6:16
what about the people who get married with the understanding that they will divorce
and remarry if they get bored? that is pretty close to fornication isn't it?
Not only is this rebellious non-believer, an "ex" Satanist according to you, Christine but also he is still dabbling with occult "gifts", which are in fact curses!
You should have been more careful with whom you chose to physically become one flesh. Goodness knows what you have picked up! It's obvious the pair of you need deliverance.
2 TICKS & NO DOG is all you've got Mary C Erikson.
It isn't easy living there inside your loveless heart and loveless home is it, Christine?
What's stopping you marrying him now, please, Christine?
This nonsense of Christine's about having sex with someone means you are married to them needs exposing as false doctrine. It is a misuse of Paul's passage at 1 Corinthians 6:16.
In ancient Israel's law a man had to marry a virgin with whom he had had sex (Exodus 22:16). The legislation is specific about her having been a virgin. So he did not have to marry a non-virgin with whom he had sex. So "having sex with" and "being married to" are not synonymous. Nonmarital sex is still a sin, of course, but it does not automatically induce marriage in God's eyes as Christine claims. The Old Testament states that marriage is a covenant (Proverbs 2:17), and covenants contain specifics.
Proverbs 2:17 does not say that.
"which forsaketh the guide of her youth and the covenant of her God." This is the previous verse strange woman who flattereth. So she has dumped her man to roam about experimenting and maybe gaining money, that would be the guide of her youth, the man she once followed, and in doing this unfaithfulness and being seductive and unchaste is out of the way of the covenant of Israel with God. "her house" is referred to, this is a woman who is not just roaming about but more like a prostitute of the courtesan class. the whole lifestyle is at odds with God, and the man who goes to her is in the path of death.
the issue of her being a virgin centered on the bride price. If she was not a virgin, then the bride price would not be an issue, unless perhaps she was still living under her father's roof. No cheating her father and no allowing her father to be able later to claim the resulting children as his own, because from a womb his patrilineage owned. "endow her to be his wife" mahar a purchase price. Clarity not confusion is the concern here. The bride price had to be paid regardless of whether she stayed with the man or not. And her father's refusal could not prevent the bride price being paid.
the sex act put a responsibility of claiming and fidelity which should have preceded it.
the core of the marriage ceremony is a public acknowledgement of them as a couple, either announcement by them acknowledging each other or handing off by her father.
Sex without permanent intent is a perversion a whoredom. Malachi refers to the cast off woman as "the COMPANION of your youth."
recognizing this, Lutheranism considered that the marriage ceremony was not a sacrament administered by the minister, but administered by the couple to each other and the minister merely blesses the existing relationship created by betrothal.
What's keeping me from making it legal now? two things. one, the subtle threat of a non wife being able to testify in case he backsides into doing serious bad stuff
(increasingly unlikely), and his debts which under California's version of the Equal Rights Amendment I would be liable for. about $80,000 old child support back due and student loan his daughter he taught too well in the old days had used forgery to hook him on beyond the $3k or $5k he agreed to cosign.
So fear and attempting to fly under the radar is the tie that binds for you two because it sure isn't love and faith in the Lord.
Unbiblical to say the least...probably criminal also.
Ms Erikson would rather disobey God (and his standard that he gave to men to hold us accountable) and keep "explaining" how righteous she is in this way of doing "life".
Some life!
GONG!
Let me rephrase more tightly...
In ancient Israel's law a man had to marry a virgin with whom he had had sex (Exodus 22:16). The legislation is specific about her having been a virgin. So he did not have to marry a non-virgin with whom he had sex, such as a prostitute. So "having sex with" and "being married to" are not synonymous. Nonmarital sex is still a sin but it does not automatically induce marriage in God's eyes (as Christine claims). It means that a man who seduces a virgin has to marry her, ie become part of a binding covenant.
Her virginity (or not) may or may not relate to the brideprice. There is plenty that could be said about that from a reading of the Old Testament. Also I don't agree that Israel's covenant rather than the woman's wedding covenant is referred to in Proverbs 2:17. Also I am not interested here in whether marriage is a sacrament as well as a covenant. I do not intend to be diverted. These issues have no bearing on the commands summarised in the preceding paragraph.
To see how absurd this notion is, suppose an ancient Israelite spent a night with a prostitute. If he is married to her as a result of that deed, then so are several hundred other men. And the man who first took her virginity might be dead - there is no resolution down that path.
Stop peddling heresy.
What's keeping me from making it legal now? two things. one, the subtle threat of a non wife being able to testify in case he backsides into doing serious bad stuff
(increasingly unlikely), and his debts...
So your first reason why you do not marry the man you live intimately with is that you don't trust him enough to marry him. Are you not condemning yourself out of your own mouth?
no. it is serving God better to keep a leash on a potential bad situation than to make oneself and others vulnerable. the debt reasons are more of an issue now.
anon 10:39
precisely the problem you describe is what creates the confusion and contamination that is a major part of fornication aside from the hypocrisy of an intimate act without meaning. This is why 23,000 men were killed by God to make an example of them for partying with Moabite women.
fornication by the flesh link can make a soul link which is dangerous in terms of the paranormal, but it also stains the man and makes a future marriage or whatever clouded by his lack of actual purity.
problems exist when non virgins are involved. yet Paul said to avoid fornication, EVERYONE should have their own spouse which would include divorced people and ex sex addicts. there is a counsel of perfection and a counsel of make do.
the bride price IS the focus. marriage is public claiming for yourself and limiting to yourself. a non virgin under no authority would be a matter of claim her or get some punishment for uncleanness, compensate for breaking the covenant of his word to her, flog them if just screwing around. Casual sex was not an option. "adultery" includes fornication because of Genesis and the WHOLE Torah not just the Mosaic rules were to be read to the public every few years (three? I forget).
no uncleanness was to occur in the military camp and David said his men were kept from women, and even sex with one's own woman (aka wife) rendered one ritually unclean. any semen loss. Israel was warned not to prostitute their daughters lest the land and people (the men) fall into wickedness.
the equation of idolatry with fornication also sent a clear message against irregular sex as somehow in itself inherently evil. They are to be a couple not ships passing in the night or "friends with benefits."
Mr Seer apparently can't and won't make an honest woman of you, then.
And you being the excessively strong-willed amazon hewoman won't let him even if he wanted to.
Your rebelliousness (and his) is evident everywhere here at this poor weary of you blog.
And you tout this as a righteous arrangement?
Nothing you "explain" even remotely resembles Ephesians 5:21-33, the biblical mandate set by the LORD. Quit trying to find a loop-hole in the old testament for your excuse to sin-the new testament is the last word on the subject anyway. (but you don't even believe that)
This is only a sick co-dependency and because you are biblically not well you settle for it.
You are both parasitical and hypocritical.
Don't think for one minute the bible agrees with your "arrangement".
How do you spell s h a m e f u l ?
YOU ARE STILL PLAYING BOTH ENDS AGAINST THE MIDDLE, YOUR SPECIALTY, TO TAKE OVER THIS TOPIC ALSO.
Eph 5:21 Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.
Eph 5:22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
Eph 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
Eph 5:24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
Eph 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
Eph 5:26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
Eph 5:27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.
Eph 5:28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.
Eph 5:29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:
Eph 5:30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.
Eph 5:31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.
Eph 5:32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.
Eph 5:33 Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.
This is what marriage is.
You have my pity that you believe otherwise, Ms Erikson.
Christine, that is a response but not a reply. Mosaic legislation says that only in some circumstances must a man marry a woman he has slept with; the implied distinction between the situations in which he must and in which he needn't show that marriage is not induced by sleeping with someone. If you think otherwise, tell me which client a prostitute should seek to marry, and why?
It doesn't say ONLY it says that he MUST PAY THE BRIDE PRICE even if her father is against them staying together.
the distinctions have to do with intent and public claiming by a formality or by just being together and referring to her as my woman and her of him as my man, vs. lack thereof.
the prostitute (or promiscuous type with friends with benefits for that matter) should see if any of those she is comfortable with staying with and are fond of and have some preference for her over others already, and are not spoken for legally or by having a girlfriend he has been cheating on, would like to make this permanent or not, absent that or getting a "no" opt for celibacy for quite a while then see what will settle with her despite her past.
The situation is one of existing chaos of multiple unions that must be terminated.
Ideally, one has only one sex partner one's whole life. obviously that doesn't always happen.
Absent such a situation, and surrounded by people like you, a couple should regularize the relationship to keep it from attack by seducers and others who would break them up. Or, not consummate without such a guard against people like you and seducers who feel free to homewreck because of a lack of paperwork. Unless they are strong personalities and don't care what others think.
Christine wants to hide tries to use the old covenant to defend adultary and fornication?.
Doesnt she realise they would take her out and stone her.
Jesus said "go and sin no more" .
no they wouldn't there is no adultery involved here, and I would qualify as his lawful concubine. no stoning at all.
No bride price for you blog Nazi!
"Absent such a situation, and surrounded by people like you, a couple should regularize the relationship to keep it from attack by seducers and others who would break them up. Or, not consummate without such a guard against people like you and seducers who feel free to homewreck because of a lack of paperwork."
I am strongly supportive of marriage and have never said (or done) anything to the contrary. It feels rather strange to be chastised for that by someone who cohabits.
..."the subtle threat of a non wife being able to testify"
So here you admit you're not his wife, you're a "non wife" aka fornicator with him.
It gets worse :" in case he backsides into doing serious bad stuff"
I point to Romans 1:25-26 as a warning to the both of you.
supportive of marriage meaning what? that you wouldn't try to break up such a couple but encourage marriage and absent that fidelity?
I don't "admit" anything. I am talking about man's laws here, not morality or anything like that. Frankly I think its an immoral law.
Actually, all of Romans 1:25 through to Romans 1 :32!
Actually, all of Romans 1:25 through to Romans 1 :32!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xU6eTVZUWJg
Christine, I understand you, I really do.
More false theology from pseudo rabbinical old covenant expert and now self professed "Concubine" Christine.
Followers of Jesus Christ live in the New Covenant ... so where are you getting these Jezebellic "anti" christ carnal teachings Christine because there totally alien (pun intended) to the New Testiment.
Constance when are you going to ban her for teaching, preaching and advocating outright sin its disgusting... shes stepped way over the mark.
when are you going to stop demanding answers from me if you don't want to hear it?
the new covenant we live under is about not doing mosaic RITUAL law about circumcision, permanent food restrictions, new moon observing, Sabbath keeping and mosaic holy days observing. The moral code is reiterated and ongoing. within it are absolutes and non absolutes. tolerated stuff and limiters.
divorce and remarriage is adultery no matter how legal by law of the land, Jesus pointed this out to the Pharisees and pointed back to Eden. the only exception is fornication, ranging from standard adultery against the spouse to various perversions as a catchall phrase. Paul adds abandonment. Paul was taught by JEsus in the desert according to Galatians.
Paul addresses people of all kinds of sexual backgrounds including the divorced when speaking to the Corinthians, people from a city like worst case Tijuana and
Marseille. and he said to avoid fornication let EVERYONE have his and her own spouse, and while advocating permanence and not remarriage after separation, still admits the same reason for marriage exists whether you are free to marry or not.
JEsus didn't retract the Mosaic permission, merely warned it did not leave you
absolutely pure.
you blither bible points yet exalt the law of the land. Do you consider the divorced and remarried okay then, regardless of cause of divorce, pure and clean and holy without blemish as long as legal? you harp on legal issues and ignore moral ones. you label something rabbinic without concern for whether it fits Scripture or not. you are a hypocrite.
Who is the lawless one?
"supportive of marriage meaning what? that you wouldn't try to break up such a couple but encourage marriage and absent that fidelity?"
When you say "such a couple", please explain the circumstances of the couple you have in mind as the discussion had meandered and I'm not clear what you mean.
anon 5:46
such a couple obviously refers to a couple, either living together or not, who are having sex are not bound by legal or social claim to others than each other, and who are faithful to each other and usually known as "going steady" or "with" each other or whatever the term.
Dear Christine,
A couple who are having sex but are not married in the eyes of the authorities are sinning and should either get married or draw back their relationship. Don't you agree?
Anon@5.46am
as I said on the next thread, I have discussed this already, go see what I said. you don't seem to get it, sin is about God not about man's laws, though there is some relevance of the latter about being a good citizen and obeying human created laws for God's sake where they don't conflict.
your priorities seem to be human laws.
no, that couple is not sinning, if neither one abandoned another partner to be with that person, in other words is not cheating on a legal or non legal marriage, and do not cheat on each other, and consider their relationship binding and that they have a claim on each other and publicly acknowledge each other. that is the essence of marriage.
the change of partners is subject to the same issues as legal divorce and remarriage.
I assume you consider that a person who divorced without biblical grounds (adultery or abandonment or severe abuse forcing flight which is equivalent to abandonment) and legally married someone without waiting for the prior partner to marry first, is not sinning?
what about divorce and remarriage = adultery?
but its okay because its all legal.
Christine at 11.26am, you put words in my mouth (that do not follow form what I wrote) and then condemn me for them. IO happen to agree with you that divorce + remarriage (during the lifetime of the 'ex') is adulterous, but I'm not going to go through the fruitless labyrinth of discussing that subject with you.
Christine were the laws of the land dont contradict Gods laws and morality you are to follow them.
A true lover of the one true God will do that willingly in order to please Him because we are in a covenant relationship with God... and likewise marriage is a covenant relationship.
One of the many signs of the comeing satanic "lawless one" is lawlessness.
Your need to constantly rebel and act in a unregenerate manner is only to obvious to even a casual reader of this blog.
The Bible clearly states "by their fruits you shall know them" your continual rejection of sound counsell from brothers and sisters in the faith concerning sin would warrant being disfellowshiped from the Church until genuine change takes place.
Unfortunately this blog provides the ideal enviroment for you to flaunt your sin.
Constance has extended you grace well beyond the biblical mandate to do so.
Freedom of speech on a Christian blog does not mean freedom to openly promote sin.
I hope Constace takes stock of what is being said because to continually allowing you to behave in the manner that you do is only making matters worse.
You have rejected sound counsel time for removal is long over due.
"Christine at 11.26am, you put words in my mouth (that do not follow form what I wrote) and then condemn me for them. IO happen to agree with you that divorce + remarriage (during the lifetime of the 'ex') is adulterous, but I'm not going to go through the fruitless labyrinth of discussing that subject with you."
and why is that so? because one is one flesh with the ex because of sex with the ex before the divorce.
likewise, if someone is having sex without permanent intent, it is whoredom, if one is in a state of mind of can't imagine life without this person it is more like marriage.
and when someone has had sex with someone they are one flesh with that person and they have first dibs on each other for making legal what already exists in reality.
its like driving a car. you can drive with a license and its legal. but if you don't have a license, you are still driving the car. there is no difference. your intent to joy ride and abandon the car somewhere, perhaps after the fun and excitement of crashing it into a few things first, is a different issue.
because of the one flesh situation, if someone does not make the situation legal but goes on to marry someone else, that marriage even though a first marriage, IS ADULTERY ALSO.
"because of the one flesh situation, if someone does not make the situation legal but goes on to marry someone else, that marriage even though a first marriage, IS ADULTERY ALSO."
Nonsense. The Mosaic wording saying that a man who seduces a virgin must marry her shows that they are not married in God's eyes in the interval between the seduction and the wedding.
You are supposing that "one flesh" in Genesis 2 means only the act of sex. That is part of it, as St Paul understood, but it has a far deeper meaning than that - have you heard the phrase "my other half"? It is nothing less than a reunification of Adam and his lost rib.
Suppose a man lives a promiscuous life, then repents. How can he be one flesh with multiple women?
Anon 5:59
Christines now jumped from this thread to the latest blog topic thread and still trying to justify her defacto lifestyle.
"Nonsense. The Mosaic wording saying that a man who seduces a virgin must marry her shows that they are not married in God's eyes in the interval between the seduction and the wedding."
must marry is my paraphrase. the words are, "And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife." endow is mahar, purchase price, the translators were used to the idea of dowry given to bride, originating from her parents, in some cultures including later Jewish culture from the husband to be or his parents, which might then become her dowry, but it is PURCHASE PRICE.
wife is ishshah, woman. so it reads "he shall surely buy her to be his woman."
"If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins." again, incorrect translation, it is mohar, purchase price.
now, if a woman was a widow or divorced there was no one to pay mohar to except perhaps herself, or no payment at all, just public claiming.
there was probably a lower price for non virgins, since the mohar of virgins was stated which is I think 50 silver shekels. A lot is left unspecified giving rise
to the conflicts hashed out among later rabbis and recorded in the Talmud which includes material from BC to AD 400. The decisions regarding women were inclined to include pagan baggage of course, and included some real stupid ideas like allowing
private idolatry under duress but nothing however slight done in public that was against Judaism. This of course meant the entire population could be corrupt as long as it was in public.
"You are supposing that "one flesh" in Genesis 2 means only the act of sex. That is part of it, as St Paul understood, but it has a far deeper meaning than that - have you heard the phrase "my other half"? It is nothing less than a reunification of Adam and his lost rib."
No, it doesn't. apparently you people don't read referenced passages.
"What? know ye not that he which is joned to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh." I Cor. 6:16
"my other half" and reunification of lost rib as a psychological thing are what should precede sex that should be an expression of this, or one side of this. But the idea that one flesh involves growing together over years after marriage is nonsense. That is more like one spirit or one soul.
The legal situation of women before feminism in the early 1800s was deplorable and justified on the basis of them being one flesh, which was confused with PERSON, so that they were one person and that person the husband. One woman who fled a dangerous husband and raised her son in safety was technically guilty of theft from her husband, because her earnings belonged to him, not to her, and she spent them on herself and her child.
"Suppose a man lives a promiscuous life, then repents. How can he be one flesh with multiple women?"
because it has nothing to do with love, attitude or relationship. It is a mechanistic result of a linking action.
one flesh has been sold to you as a sentimental notion and fuelled a legal notion of property (indeed, "to have and to hold" is not about cuddling, it is a term about real estate property ownership and figures in deed transfers.) but it is none
of these things.
it is why fornication qualifies as adultery. "thou shalt not commit adultery" to anyone with this mind set covers more than just cheating on your husband or wife. It covers the range of possible sexual activities which are outside of the heterosexual pair (or polygamous) bond. the term implies some kind of breaking, dilution, whatever, applicable to marriage, but note the use of the term "adultery" in translation, ever hear of "adulterating the wine" watering it down and selling as undiluted, "watering the drinks" the presence of another lover a third party in a relationship dilutes it. adulterates it.
Christine, you have given your own interpretation of 1 Corinthians 6:16, taking it in isolation, and then sticking to your view blindly and brushing away all alternative suggestions without thinking through their implications properly. OK the brideprice is probably different in the case of a seduced virgin, but the verse you quote still implies that he man must marry the woman rather than that they are married. So they are not married between the seduction and the wedding ceremony. So your contention that sex = marriage is wrong.
A wife who committed adultery in the OT was to be executed. No mention of that for a prostitute, is there? Therefore fornication is not adultery. Yet another verse that is inexplicable on your view.
I Cor. 6:16 taken out of isolation is part of a lecture against male unchastity.
it is a standalone statement however. As for the OT law, it was a lot of concessions, and if monogamy had been the rule instead of dealing with people already entrenched in polygamy, then the man who cheated on his wife would be killed also.
sex = one flesh. if this is done without considering you have a claim on each other it is whoredom. if this is done with the attitude you now belong to each other, you have marriage or marriage equivalent.
THERE WAS NO CEREMONY. Ceremonial stuff developed much later. The basic pattern is, he pays for her, he takes possession of her and if it is an upper class or well heeled family then there are preparations for a party and all that. they both get drunk, she gets laid, the blood stained cloth is waved to the public to show she was a virgin. That is the way the Middle East does things. Ceremonial procedures
developed later.
A formality of handing her off to her new owner is what the "ceremony" consisted of. complicated formalities involving a priest were developed much much later under all kinds of influences. the parental blessing not the priestly blessing is what gave legitimization.
that she is a virgin mandates the bride price be paid even if her father won't tolerate the young man to have her. If she's not a virgin, not under someone's authority, then you got a loose situation mandating flogging (many things did not have specific punishments left that up to decision of judges) or you got concubinage which was legal. An Israelite woman might be killed especially if a priest's daughter for prostitution, but do you think for a minute the tribal elders and the righteous enforcers would tolerate ANY prostitution going on?
After TWENTY THREE THOUSAND MEN WERE PUT TO DEATH BY GOD FOR THIS SORT OF THING AND IT WASN'T EVEN FOR PAY JUST PARTYING?
think again.
of course, a generation or two passes, people stop fearing God, start screwing around, things get bad. Judges begins and I think ends with the statement that every man did as was right in his sight, and this was NOT a good thing, it led to all manner of evil, and even to rewriting the Law in practice, so that Boaz was held to have a claim on Ruth because of the levirate, when he was not brother, half brother or first cousin to her husband, neither had he lived with her husband at the time of his death. It worked out okay, God can put all kinds of things to work for His purposes. But the point is, the claim was nonexistent.
with that kind of slipshod handling (relating marriage to much to property and family and not love as the cultural baggage), I would not be surprised if eventually the attitudes you express did happen.
But they would not be consistent with the Torah itself.
you get laid recently and having second thoughts? forget it. you want to be right with God, you better see if she will make it legal with you or abandon you and set you free. Because she has a claim on you. unless you were cheating on someone else. or she was.
that is a higher moral standard than your legality focused and anything outside that however reprehensible is non binding.
ah for the good old days when people were flogged for this sort of thing in this country and Europe in some places. But now even adultery in a legal marriage is without ANY criminal statute against it. no flogging. no fines. no jail, no nothing. its all okay.
The ceremony might have private between the families but it involved binding vows, otherwise neither side could demand the brideprice or the dowry back in the case of misbehaviour by one party - and you can bet that that was a condition. Also the authorities had to be informed who was married to whom because they had to legislate such things as inheritance if that was disputed.
"do you think for a minute the tribal elders and the righteous enforcers would tolerate ANY prostitution going on?"
Have you ever been to a Middle Eastern tribal culture today, Christine? The law is just as tight as Mosaic if not more so and finding a whore is, sadly, entirely possible. You just need to know who to ask.
middle eastern countries are Islamic now. but as for vows, that is a Latin influenced European phenomenon. The idea of vows came because marriage was considered a business deal and terminatable in pagan society and to some extent Jewish society with its pre mosaic and Canaanite and Egyptian background baggage.
There are no vows in an Eastern ORthodox Wedding. Marriage is not viewed as a covenant but a sacrament. It is not a deal. We do it without vows. There is no common law marriage tradition, anymore since mid first millennium, but there are no vows. I repeat THERE ARE NO VOWS.
I doubt they existed originally in Judaism, though by now with the influence of the culture they lived in for centuries and especially modern assimilation, there would be most likely. But the fact they are absent in Eastern ORthodoxy, which retains many customs of the Jews including the crowns on bride and groom in a first marriage, and even the correct pronunciation of the Name God's first two letters,
tells me that there weren't vows in the Second Temple period of Judaism either.
Bride price isn't paid back because somebody misbehaves in those tribal cultures. whether vows are used in islam or not I don't know.
So if you are looking for VOWS as making a marriage, you are barking up the wrong tree. This isn't Christian. This is Roman pagan law.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtS46Wfsxnw
love and marriage, love and marriage, go together like a horse and carriage...
Poor, pitiful, rebellious, and deceived Chritine has neither.
Just 2 ticks and no dog.
Hi all,
Christine posted the following as the reason(s) why she won't get legally married...
"What's keeping me from making it legal now? two things. one, the subtle threat of a non wife being able to testify in case he backsides into doing serious bad stuff (increasingly unlikely), and his debts which under California's version of the Equal Rights Amendment I would be liable for. about $80,000 old child support back due and student loan his daughter he taught too well in the old days had used forgery to hook him on beyond the $3k or $5k he agreed to cosign.
9:25 AM"
So her first reason is ... having the threat and legal right to bear witness against her (non) husband which is the opposite to spousal testimonial privilege as covered in US law (however Federal common law differs).
Second reason is monetary... incuring no liability.
WHOW! Two ticks for showing love based reasons... I think not.
So we are to understand that holding on to threats, mistrust and love of money.... is the total sum of why you won't get married.
Repent of the unforgiveness that rules your life and thoughts.
In reading Christines post have people considered the following...
So if he "Christines defacto" has a daughter that means he had sex with another woman so according to Christine is one in the flesh with someone else making him married so according to what Christine has said then he is a husband to someone else and therefore would make Christine an adulterous woman.
But wait I think she advocates "no" to adulterous because she shows fedality in that she is only for him as a "concubine" and therefore wouldnt have been be stoned for adultary in biblical times because shes a concubine and not a prostitute.
Multiple wifes, concubines where will it end.
Now none of this makes sense for good reason... because its unbilical, non christian, sin justifying nonsense.
Christine, what you say about there being no formal vows back then is about as far from the truth as you can get. If you read the book "Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible" by David Instone-Brewer you will find a wealth of references to formal wedding vows from the Ancient Near East, in Israel and its neighbours, both before (sometimes long before) and after Christ's time. A good deal of this book is analysis of these vows. I do not agree with the author's biblical exegesis but he has done his homework about what actually went on in the ancient world. You might read also the books "Marriage as a Covenant" by GP Hugenberger and "Babylonian Marriage Agreements" by MT Roth, both of which cite a wealth of surviving ancient documents containing wedding vows.
You need to retract that statement or you will look silly.
As I said, given the adoption of Jewish patterns by Eastern Orthodoxy from its Jewish roots, I doubt there were VOWS. Business contracts between families are another matter, and marriage was a business arrangement. Recognition of responsibilities like detailed in Exodus is not the same as vows to each other as part of the ceremony.
I don't know about it, but like I already said, given the lack with us there is likely a lack with them. I haven't read the book. I only know what goes on with
us, and our origins including use of the crowns in weddings.
I said, "I doubt they existed originally in Judaism, " note the word DOUBT and the issue is vows as part of a ceremony, a necessary part.
Maybe these two ticks deserve what they've got then, since this is what they settled for.
Less than love, less than marriage, a whole lotta nuthin' goin on.....
Not one little bit God in the mix.
http://www.gotquestions.org/Jezebel-spirit.html
"Perhaps the best way to define the Jezebel spirit is to say it characterizes anyone who acts in the same manner as Jezebel did, engaging in immorality, idolatry, false teaching and unrepentant sin."
Posted from the other blogtopic page....
I have heard Christine make false accusations against people.
Regardless of her victoriolic and selfrighteous accusative manner many have taken measures to correct any percieved wrong and do away with any potential appearance of evil whether it be real or imaginary for the Gospels sake.
Unfortunately whilst we all would consider any revileing accusation bought against us by Christine in the light of scripture (should there posibably be any merit in her accusations) inreality no one is afforded the same consideration by her when trying to bring correction to her .
I firmly believe her unrighteous behaviours are rooted in unforgiveness towards her deceased Mother whom she has referred to as a "b ( she dog) on this blog.
Christine needs to experience the forgiveness of God in its fullness and I really dont know whether she can if harbouring unforgiveness as she seems to.
Further proof (refer Anon 05.04pm blog post above) of her unforgiveing, mistrusting rejection outlook seems evident in her reasonings for not being married to the man she now lives with.
Christine read every scripture on forgiveness and seek Godly counsel, repent and confess yor sins so that you may be forgiven, healed and delivered.
It was Anon 0502pm not 0504pm
"Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible" by David Instone-Brewer
basically you make yourself look silly. I can't get all the book without paying for it but it looks like you can't tell the difference between a legal DOCUMENT and VOWS IN A CEREMONY.
glancing at segment from amazon kindle, these are NOT marriage VOWS these are issues in the business contract accompanying it. supposedly God is witness to a
covenant citing Malachi 2:14 like some formal ceremony with oaths in it (and why
is this more binding than someone's word? well with writing it gives proof of the existence of the contract, with witnesses at the party it gives public knowledge.)
But Malachi says regarding God not regarding the men's offerings and prayers,
"Yet ye say Wherefore? Because YHWH hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou has dealt treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant."
per Strong's "the woman of thy youth,...thy consort, the woman of thy contract."
the witness here is a word meaning admonish, and is about God is witness against the men, He has judged between the men and their abandoned women, found for the women and against the men.
thy consort, companion, like a childhood friend long time loyal who you have turned against for no reason, and in addition there is a contract you signed, which is NOT
marriage vows during a ceremony.
you see, the picture you get from English and that from Greek and Hebrew is a bit different. The reason to be loyal to their wives first appealed to is the same reason to be loyal to a lover and not abandon her or him for another. The loyalty
to a friend that is closer than a brother as Proverbs speaks of. this abandonment of their wives is betrayal of their best friends, betrayal of trust betrayal even if they were given a severance payoff so to speak, it is an action comparable to what would bring disgust and contempt if done in a (non sexual of course) situation of friendship, trust and business and companionship to another man.
Exek. 16:8 "I pledged myself to you and entered into a covenant with you" is not a marriage ceremony, depicted is someone whose relationship with the other person is strictly individual between them, he found her a mess, took care of her and when older entered into this relationship with her, their word to each other and also gave her a writing securing her situation and those of any children. The covering with his robe hem is likely something done as a claiming in a ritual way.
More old testament quotes that are out of contextual relationship when considering the new testament teachings of Christ and the Apostles.
Christine, I gave you three books detailing marriage contracts and vows in the ancient Middle East and you respond on the basis of an Amazon peek at one of them. It's not my fault you can't read them without asking your local library to get them or paying money. Any genuine scholar rather than shoot-from-the-hip poseur would want to take the opportunity to learn from them and would shut up until she had done.
Do you claim these books record the CONTENT OF A CEREMONY and that content includes vows, other than just accepting the marriage,
AS DISTINCT FROM
CONTENT OF CONTRACTS IN WRITING? if so please type example here. BEAR IN MIND THIS IS TO BE THE DESCRIPTION OF A CEREMONY, not the contents of a written contract, and the formal signing if done during the ceremony does not count. spoken vows made by the couple to each other, not the families to each other not the husband to her father, not an oath to God to keep terms of the contract, but to EACH OTHER. (including invoking God as witness of oath content but the vows being essential to the marriage ceremony. not a reading of contract and its clauses, but a standardized set of vows on which hang at least some of the legitimacy.)
The wedding vows we are used to as traditional in the USA evolved over centuries.
I am not filthy rich and I am having to save up money in anticipation of major expenditure in the next few years to go to Mike's mother's funeral when she dies. (I hate funerals.) I will be paying air fare and local transportation and motel for both of us and him paying me back for his share over a few months after that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_wedding as you can see from this, there are no vows mentioned as part of a Jewish wedding ceremony now.
https://www.theknot.com/content/jewish-wedding-vows you can call these "vows" if you want but they are more like announcements. The modernized reform and conservative are more vow-ish.
"There is no actual exchange of vows in a traditional Jewish ceremony; the covenant is said to be implicit in the ritual. Ceremony structure varies within the Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform synagogues, and also among individual rabbis. The marriage vow is customarily sealed when the groom places a ring on his bride's finger and says:
"Behold, you are consecrated to me with this ring according to the laws of Moses and Israel."
what resembles "vows" is recitation of/reference to Scripture, not terms of contract.
I don't have Hugenberger or Roth's books to hand, Christine, and will look them up in the library of my university when I get time; I recall looking up Hugenberger there very clearly. My copy of Instone-Brewer (I repeat that I do not agree with his analysis of the biblical texts) has separate entries in the index for "marriage covenants and contracts" and "vows" (subdivided into Christian and Jewish vows and then subdivided further), so a clear distinction is made between these notions. Dozens of pages are referenced for Christian vows and dozens more for Jewish vows. This book is principally about the situation in Christ's time, moreover. So your claim that there were no vows cannot stand, and you need to educate yourself in the literature more deeply before continuing. If you can read p11-14 of this book in Amazon preview then you will find some explicit vows. Here's a tip if these pages don't appear spontaneously in preview: use the Amazon "search this book" facility for words appearing on these pages but not in many other places, such as "Eshnunna" on p11, "Friedman" on p12, "Marduk" on p13 and "Geller" on p14. If Amazon.com reckons you've seen enough, try Amazon.ca and Amazon.co.uk
Conclusion: I'm sorry, but you are incorrect and there were vows.
Well, I am very tired of this saga that seems more like an old vinyl record skipping, to tell us the weird and offbeat story of the blog's "Junie Moon" and gang.
No victories in your "story" Mary Erikson, just "victims" who relish being victims, rebellious people who like their status as mavericks, using the system to keep it going.
You are more boring than ever.
Hi,
Hebrews 13:4-9
4 Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral.
5 Keep your lives free from the love of money and be content with what you have, because God has said, “Never will I leave you; never will I forsake you.”
6 So we say with confidence, “The Lord is my helper; I will not be afraid. What can mere mortals do to me?”
7Remember your leaders, who spoke the word of God to you. Consider the outcome of their way of life and imitate their faith.
8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.
9 Do not be carried away by all kinds of strange teachings. It is good for our hearts to be strengthened by grace, not by eating ceremonial foods, which is of no benefit to those who do so.
In simple application of the scriptures above to todays situation
1) Honor marriage by getting married.
2) Defilement of marriage is judged by God.
3) Money or debt liability is no excuse not to marry.
4) We are not to fear man but trust in God.
5) Genuine disciples of Christ and the Word should be our example (not ungodly worldly sinners or heretics)
6) God,Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit and therefore His Word are unchangeing.
7) Dont indulge in strange teaching it will lead you astray.
Hi,
Ephesians 5:21-33
21 Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.
22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord.
23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior.
24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her
26 to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word,
27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless.
28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.
29 After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church—
30 for we are members of his body.
31 “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.”
32This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church.
33 However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.
Its all to obvious as to the application of these scriptures.
Right relationship to Jesus Christ is totally foundational to the willing and loveing submission, respect and relationship to eachother found in genuine marriage.
"So your claim that there were no vows cannot stand,"
I guess the Jewish site claim there are no vows traditionally cannot stand either.
I think what he is calling vows are not promises but statements recited out of or derived from Scripture.
https://www.theknot.com/content/jewish-wedding-vows you can call these "vows" if you want but they are more like announcements. The modernized reform and conservative are more vow-ish.
"There is no actual exchange of vows in a traditional Jewish ceremony; the covenant is said to be implicit in the ritual. Ceremony structure varies within the Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform synagogues, and also among individual rabbis. The marriage vow is customarily sealed when the groom places a ring on his bride's finger and says:
"Behold, you are consecrated to me with this ring according to the laws of Moses and Israel."
That is probably the sort of thing he is calling a vow.
anon 5:25
That pulled the teeth of a male dominated system, or tried to. it is addressed to various married people including those married by living together without ceremony for a year and a day. Paul however also addresses Priscilla and Aquila as often as he addresses Aquila and Priscilla and refers to the church in THEIR house, obviously this couple was equal and the woman of the so called "manly minded" sort.
Read the book Christine, and have the grace not to guess here what it says. Until you do, your comments have no force. There are too many references to vows in it to list here. But on pp.11-14 you will find "Be my wife" and assent of the woman, for a start.
"obviously this couple was equal and the woman of the so called "manly minded" sort."
Nothing is said whatsoever of her except that they are believers and husband and wife.
You'll twist anything to make it say something to make yourself feel better about yourself.
You're whole problem is with submission. First to God above all, and any authority that He has put in place, including the husband as head of the home because he represents Christ and the woman represents the Spirit in holy matrimony, things you no absolutely nothing about..
Your androgyny gives you away.
The first thing one knows and understands about being saved and belonging to Christ Jesus is submission.
You've provided the proof that you do not know Him.
androgyny is false because it presupposes inherent radical sex differences then proposes to meld them, usually with the male "feminized" or both of them "feminized."
what you are used to and read into Scripture as an absolute instead of an accommodation is a CURSE NOT ORIGINAL CREATED ORDER. Eve was told her
pain and conception (fertility) would increase, she would become dependent on
the man (your desire or recourse will be to him)and as a result he will rule
over you.
the man ruling over the woman is a curse according to the Bible. deal with it.
Proverbs 31 woman is Amazonian envirgorates her arms girdeth up her loins and acts totally independently economically and aggressive businesswoman, her man is at least partly supported by her freeing him from temptability to corruption.
I prefer the Bible to your man made tradition twisting.
Sure nothing is said of Priscilla and Aquila except they both risked their lives for Paul and the Gospel they both labored in the Gospel they both taught Apollos when he had the Gospel message a little wrong or incomplete
AND INSTEAD OF ADDRESSING AQUILA FIRST, PRICILLA SECOND, PAUL ADDRESSES PRISCILLA FIRST HALF THE TIME.
This would be like sending a letter to "mrs and mr anon 7:02"
instead of the more usual "mr and mrs anon 7:02."
do you get the implication of that form of address? or too dense?
anon 7:13
before I ever learned to hate her, reading the Prince Valiant comic strip set in Arthurian England, and having read a few stories, I was reading at age 2, I decided I wanted to be a female knight, kill my own dragons and have a male knight as my companion. Actually, this did happen sometimes in various places. I instinctively later on disliked the toy catalogs disposition of the good stuff as being for boys and the boring stuff as girl stuff. I like a lego set and a train set and science toys. It wasn't until I met serious resistance that I started formulating a theory about it all.
you just can't handle anything that isn't like you are used to and want to put it in some category of either perversion, rebellion against God or result of dysfunctional family and my reaction to that.
"before I ever learned to hate her"
STOP RIGHT THERE.
It makes no difference at all what you wrote and say about yourself thereafter.
Who cares if you were a tomboy. So was I. Big deal. The point was and is, when I learned Christ (as Paul put it in Eph 4:20) I learned submission to HIM because my sinful hell damned self needed forgiveness-to see my need for it--and----------my need to give it. You have missed the boat right here.
There is your rub. This is what hangs in the balance for you, Chrisitne. You snubbed God and his call for you to repent and be forgiven, which also very importantly translates into learning to forgive. Forgiven and forgiving are two sides of the same coin as inseparable doctrine and utter unchangeable truth. And what you have walked away from.........why you went on in your pride even from a young age to the miserable rebellious soul walking in the vanity of your own mind as you are today. This very day.
So if you have the courage to look at this closely and receive it from the LORD GOD then you will learn true submission -- God's brand of it -- not the world's version which is the slavery of sin because we all are under it's authority until made free in Jesus.
Eph 4:17 This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind,
Eph 4:18 Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart:
Eph 4:19 Who being past feeling have given themselves over unto lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness.
Eph 4:20 But ye have not so learned Christ;
Eph 4:21 If so be that ye have heard him, and have been taught by him, as the truth is in Jesus:
Eph 4:22 That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts;
Eph 4:23 And be renewed in the spirit of your mind;
Eph 4:24 And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.
Eph 4:25 Wherefore putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbour: for we are members one of another.
Eph 4:26 Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath:
Eph 4:27 Neither give place to the devil.
Eph 4:28 Let him that stole steal no more: but rather let him labour, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needeth.
Eph 4:29 Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers.
Eph 4:30 And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.
Eph 4:31 Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil speaking, be put away from you, with all malice:
Eph 4:32 And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you.
If you don't submit and learn Christ in this way then you have endangered yourself to be past feeling as in verse 19 above. Do you get that? We can already see much of how unfeeling a person you are in what you write about yourself and others.
Not a good sign.
If you remain stuck in your childhood drivel, and the pride of your mind, you are spiritually killing yourself.
anon 12:41
"Eph 4:25 Wherefore putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbour:"
you oughtta think about that one if you are one of those who has falsely claimed I posted an ad for psychic services then deleted it. "thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor."
"Who cares if you were a tomboy. So was I. Big deal. The point was and is, when I learned Christ (as Paul put it in Eph 4:20) I learned submission to HIM because my sinful hell damned self needed forgiveness-to see my need for it--and----------my need to give it. You have missed the boat right here."
on some matters you learned submission to Jesus Christ, but a lot of it was really submission to humans who taught you and most of the time they were correct. But every so often there is a problem, where they do NOT teach Scripture accurately. and if you trust men then you will be clinging to a curse (and ironically making yourself less healthy in terms of easy childbirth). not to mention getting caught up in dangerous delusions like double predestination of everyone and the pre tribulation rapture.
@12:50 Pm you are deflecting.
(and that wasn't me)
You won't go toe to toe with this matter very directly presented in those verses from Ephesians 4.
See how you are?
@12:55 PM you did it, again.
You bring up 'stuff" not even hinted at to deflect and whizzed right past the point about being forgiven, and in turn, forgiving.
Are you under conviction by these verses or just hard-hearted (past feeling?) (I warned you about verse 19).
Your answers and non-answers tell us much.
"Proverbs 31 woman is Amazonian envirgorates her arms girdeth up her loins"
Really?
That statement's implication by you is ignorant to say the least.
So how much sag is going on with your arms (and buttocks, etc) who stays seated at the computer morning, noon, and night (everyday) to post incessantly here and other blogspots?
why should I tell you anything? I have already made it clear that Jesus said one thing about the repentant another about the unrepentant. you are not my spiritual advisor. I don't need to tell you anything about what I have been repenting of or changes in my life over the years in Christ.
Read you loud and clear @ 1:32 PM.
Being forgiven and being forgiving in the Lord is totally foreign to you.
"I have already made it clear that Jesus said one thing about the repentant another about the unrepentant."
...and forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors....
Yes, ma'am, Jesus was clear about that.
Most definitely, he is the spiritual advisor.
You should resolve the issue of forgiveness as a taker, and as a giver, as he prescribed.
This is your stumbling stone every time - for a long time.
Claiming you can remember things from two years old Christine that is really odd.
Unless its a over active imagination.
Have you been subjected to occultic repressed memory practises like theophostic counselling ,sozo or hypnotism?.
wow, you are really into dishonesty or you are really disabled.
I didn't say I can remember things from two years old, though in fact at least one thing I remember is from about then.
I said I WAS READING FROM TWO YEARS OLD, taught myself by watching over my biological so called mother's shoulder while she read Disney's "Lady and the Tramp" (which probably didn't help my choice in men later) and one day took the book and read it to her. I remember watching over her shoulder, I don't remember taking the book and reading it to her, but she told me that I did without anything to gain by lying about it. I managed to pick up Bible information here and there.
And by the way, I read Augustine's City of God and Confessions in the Great Books Series when I was 15 or 16. I always wondered why "the great books" included garbage like The Communist Manifesto and Chaucer and Baudelaire's raunchy stuff (was that the one with pantagruel?) later I figured they were "great" because read a lot and influential.
I also read some of Aquinas from that series, but he is impossibly boring and dense to wade through.
"impossibly boring and dense to wade through"
I'd say you have been deeply influenced by him then, because that it your writing and communication style.
so now it is your mother's fault about you and men? Does this crap from you ever end???????????
Would you please get over yourself? Because this blog is not about every tiny detail of your life, you flaming out of control narcissist.
When we are children, and even in our teens, we can perhaps lay some blame on parental mistakes and errors for some of our personal troubles. But by the time we are adults, and you are an adult for decades now, you have no reason to blame a parent as you have been living your own choices very deliberately for a long while.
The Bible says in Proverbs that even a child is known by his doing.
Your choice to play the blame game of these many years is so entrenched that is become a disease of your heart and mind.
Constance,
Can you spare us all the trouble and start a totally new blog that pople have to register to comment or at least go via a submission process for comments to be vetted.
No need, 3.06am, just bar Christine.
https://watch.org/How%20Trump%20Stays%20on%20Top%20By%20Dominating%20the%20Conversation
Chritine has and follows The Donald's playbook.
nice article
"jordans"
"ghd hair straighteners"
"oakley outlet"
"toms outlet"
"jordan 3 infrared"
"toms shoes outlet online"
"replica watches"
"celine bags"
"vans outlet"
"michael kors outlet"
"michael kors outlet"
"timberland boots"
"michael kors handbags"
"kate spade outlet"
"adidas nmd"
"michael kors outlet"
"true religion outlet"
"lebron james shoes 13"
"coach outlet online"
"coach factory outlet"
"north face outlet"
"vans shoes"
"louis vuitton outlet"
"adidas uk"
"coach outlet online"
"cheap oakleys"
"cheap oakley sunglasses"
"adidas yeezy"
"kate spade"
"ralph lauren polo"
"louis vuitton outlet"
"fitflops sale clearance"
"cartier watches"
"ralph lauren outlet"
"louis vuitton outlet"
"oakley sunglasses"
"michael kors outlet"
"nike roshe flyknit"
"hollister clothing"
"oakley outlet"
20167.6chenjinyan
cleveland browns jersey
atlanta falcons jerseys
jordan 13
houston texans jerseys
tennessee titans jerseys
new york giants jerseys
celine outlet online
marc jacobs
lacoste pas cher
air jordan 11
cleveland browns jerseys
arizona cardinals jerseys
kansas city chiefs jerseys
miami heat
oakland raiders jerseys
arizona cardinals jersey
bears jerseys
san francisco 49ers jersey
nike mercurial
green bay packers jersey
chicago blackhawks
philadelphia eagles jerseys
giuseppe zanotti shoes
abercrombie and fitch
nike outlet store
nike trainers
carolina panthers jerseys
saints jerseys
jets jersey
tennessee titans jersey
new york knicks
minnesota vikings jersey
boston celtics jersey
bills jerseys
golden state warriors jersey
czq20160711
I definitely love this site
http://www.kuwait.prokr.net/
http://www.emirates.prokr.net/
I definitely love this site
http://www.kuwait.prokr.net/
http://www.emirates.prokr.net/
pandora jewelry
adidas outlet online
longchamp
yeezy sneakers
cheap jordans
goyard tote
kyrie 4
nike air force 1
vanvan cleef and arpels
hogan outlet online
Post a Comment