Man, oh man! This Warren Jeffs thing is getting more intriguing by the moment!
Now a man who arranged a religious marriage with the parent's consent for a fourteen to eighteen year old postpubsecent woman(of the age of legal consent in Utah) is now charged(by the government) as a man who never had sex with her but is still guilty of rape.
The man who did have sex with her and married her(in the church) is not being charged with rape. Because the pastor Warren Jeffs inferred that marrying within the church would mean salvation, this man marrying her, by following what he thought was the will of God, thought he could insure the salvation of the young lady. Therefore, according to the government's demented thinking the one doing the marriage is guilty of rape!! The one having the sex is not guilty of rape!
Now our government knows more about salvation and how it comes about than the church. Magically, all of a sudden, if someone uses intimidation to do something, it is psychological and physical rape if the marriage doeesn't fit into the mold of the status quo.
If they can nail Jeffs in this issue and convict him of rape, this sets a precedent for the prosecution of any other pastor performing both predetermined and unpredetermined marriages within that religion and the tenets thereof. After that, all of the husbands will be under the hand of the federal government and possibly prosecuted for physical rape while the ones setting the marriages up will also be guilty of psychological rape, simply because the tenets of a religion teach that postpubescent young women are actually prey for pedophiles.
Wouldn't postpubescent young women be prey for ephebophiles instead of pedophiles? Wouldn't Joseph, the husband of the mother of Jesus, be prosecuted in Utah today since Mary was only thirteen and Joseph was ninety one?
How things have changed since the biblical times? Now someone can rape a postpubescent young woman and not even have sex with her if the religious tenets use salvation as a issue.
In other words, where intimidation is used, or the threat of hell, that specific religion is now raping and forcing others into action against their own will, even though under state law, that person is quite capable of making their own decisions and is of the age of consent to do so.
Now the government can sanctify marriages with a license for its agenda and unsanctify church marriages that take place without a license. When did the federal government or the state government for that matter become the sanctifier of marriage anyway? How does a government sanctify a marriage? Could someone please tell me?
I thought only God and the church ministry had the power to sanctify marriages. Using the concept of the state becoming the church and licenses making marriages legitimate, wouldn't that make homosexual marriages sanctified if the government approved of them? Wouldn't homosexual marriages then be accepted by God because the state said so?
Who has the final say? Jesus or Caesar? Since when did ephebophilia become pedophilia? Since when did gay become homosexual instead of happy? Since when did adultery cease being "woman that breaketh wedlock" under the law of God become "woman that can breaketh wedlock because she wants a no-fault divorce"?
In other words, Jesus must now accept no fault divorce if a woman files and breaks her contract or covenant, even though Jesus makes no such stipulation for divorcement in the bible under his laws.
So intimidation in religion to get someone to obey is psychological rape. Holding hell over someone's head to make them marry is rape now, both psychologically and physically, for the victim.
Since baptism is now forced marriage to Christ(Romans 7:4) to keep one out of hell through intimidation(as the state would see it), wouldn't a pastor holding hell over a new convert to force marriage to Christ be committing rape psychologically since hell is quite intimidating?
Maybe the government should make a law that all intimidation to make people do things is wrong. Maybe we should love the Iraqis into submission to our democratic society? Why have wars or police badges? Don't these things intimidate the public?
Even Alcoholics Anonymous, in dealing with resentment, reminds us that when something happens to us in the present which makes us very uncomfortable, that specific thing can often be traced back to something that we, ourselves, have done to someone else who was weaker or more gullible in the past.
Now the seed which we have sown has come home to roost!
The scripture tells us that those that deceive and entrap, they themselves will be deceived. It is a spiritual principle.
But evil men and pretenders will go forward to the worse, leading astray and being led astray. II Timothy 3:13
By nosing into someone else's personal business they themselves will be watched closely by the other side through technology.
When the negative circumstances come to politicians and thugs in the FBI, the CIA and other government officials, they will want sympathy then....sympathy they never had for other children they claim to protect with tanks against other American citizens of non politically correct religious beliefs!
Remember, in the view of those attacking the World Trade Centers, they also believed they were doing the world a favor and making their God happy as they flew planes through those buildings.
I am sure Truman thought he was making God happy when he dropped that bomb on Hiroshima and the women and children that beautiful morning also. Remember when the United States does something in war, it is because they think God is on their side and loves American children much more than those Japanese children who were murdered for political gain under Truman.
Free Forum Hosting
Important Announcement
First 
