Tuesday, 15 June 2010

Another forced Asian marriage


Dr.D said...

But they tidied every thing up by drowning the cow after the wedding ceremony. How nice!! After all, what is a little bestiality among animals?

And they ask what is wrong with race mixing? This is one example of what is wrong.

Seane-Anna said...

Hmmmmm, not quite sure what to make of this, but I'll go out on a limb and link it to the gay issue.

When it comes to homosexuality, sarah, you seem to be quite enamored of the "judge not lest ye be judged" command, yet I have the feeling you expect your readers to come away from this post full of judgment against those perverted Asians. Contradiction?

And in explaining your soft stand on homosexuality you write that Jesus came to free us from the strictures of the old covenant. Well, Sarah, one of those "strictures" was a prohibition against bestiality. Are we free from that, then? And if we are, how can you condemn this human/animal "marriage" in Bali?

I'm NOT being facetious here. I really want to know.

Sarah Maid of Albion said...

Hi Seane Anna

There is a vast difference between this and the gay issue. Putting aside the fact that we are addressing different species, the cow can not consent to sex.

Paedophilia is wrong because a child can not consent to what is done to it, rape is wrong for the same reason.

Homosexuality is an act of consent between two adults, there is no equivalence.

As to this story, I think it should be clear from the picture I chose to illustrate it that I was didn't post it as a serious indictment of Asian sexuality.

I was more amused by the other villagers who made him marry the poor thing, and then drowned her as part of a "ritual" implying it is a reasonably common event.

Seane-Anna said...

Sarah, thank you for your civil response. It's not often that people can discuss the gay issue civilly. In fact, one of the reasons I have so little respect for gay rights activists (and Leftists in general) is their tendency to lapse into histrionics and hysteria in the defense of their position. So it's nice to have an intelligent debate with someone on this issue.

Let me see if I can clarify the point I was trying to make, which was a point about consistency.

I've heard many pro-gay "Christians" defend their view by claiming that, since Jesus (supposedly) repealed the Mosaic Law, homosexuality is no longer a sin. What these people universally fail to recognize is that if Jesus did in fact repeal the Mosaic Law, then EVERYTHING that Law prohibited is now alright, including bestiality, incest, prostitution, adultery, and fornication (not to mention lying, stealing, and killing).

In other words, you have to be consistent. See what I mean?

And consent isn't nearly as important as you and many others seem to think. The Bible doesn't prohibit gay sex only when it's not consensual. It prohibits gay sex, period. If your husband was cheating on you you wouldn't be ok with that so long as the affair was consensual, and neither would God.

The Bible doesn't condemn incest, prostitution, or fornication only when those acts are forced on someone. They're condemned as being intrinsically immoral.

The idea that the giving or withholding of consent is all that makes a sex act moral or immoral reflects a profoundly unBiblical worldview, imho.

The giving of consent might mean that a particular sex act shouldn't be a crime, but the presence of consent in no way mitigates the immorality of certain behaviors.

Besides, the sex libbers you want to placate don't regard consent as highly as you do. Here's a bit of proof from my side of the pond.

A few years ago a school board in the state of Maine voted to allow schools to give contraceptives to kids as young as 11. Now think about that, Sarah. Why would anyone give birth control to 11-year-old children unless they believed that kids that young could consent to sex? So consent isn't the great protector we've been lulled into thinking it is.

You're right, Sarah. Western culture is under siege from two prime evils: Marxism and Islam. We both see the threat of Islam but too many Rightists are dismissing the threat of cultural, as opposed to political, Marxism. Cultural Marxism is epitomized by the normalizing of homosexuality, which is a crucial part of the cultural Left's plan to eradicate Christian values.

If we don't firmly oppose cultural Marxism we can kiss the Christian West goodbye. If fact, it's already almost totally gone and we can't blame the Muslims for that. We can only blame ourselves. We have failed our civilization and our God, and that's a crying shame.

Sarah Maid of Albion said...


I think you are attempting to be a bit simplistic, as I said earlier, Christ brought us Christianity, the new covenant, and released us from the strictures of what went before. That does not mean that what was a sin before ceased to be a sin, but the new testament introduces new emphasis.

The old testament of Moses tells us a tooth should be claimed in return for a tooth, an eye for an eye, the new testament of Christ tells us to turn the other cheek, clearly a new emphasis and a teachings for a different time.

Furthermore, it can be argued that as Christianity is based on the teachings of Christ how can what came before Christ be Christian? After all the Old Testament is at the route of all three of the Abrahamic religions, and we certainly do not share all the same creeds and beliefs.

The arrival of Christ on the scene took those who became Christians on a different path, which doesn't mean that all else was abandoned, as Christ said render under Ceaser that which is Ceaser's. However, as Christ's teachings make no reference to the subject of homosexuality, or to sex in general, it would appear not to have been a priority, and I am cool with that.

It is in the writing of Mohammed that you will find the attacks on gays, whereas Christ addressed other issues.

I think that, deliberately or otherwise, you are seeking to twist my words, I argued that the issue of consent was one reason why homosexuality differs from bestiality, or indeed paedophilia and rape I did not cite it as a reason why homosexuality is not a sin.

All sex is sin and we are all born in sin, but that does not make all acts of physical love, or indeed mutual pleasure intrinsically evil.

I also think that your analogy about handing out condoms to 11 year olds is a bit of a red-herring, I doubt that had anything to do with promoting sex amongst children or suggesting that 11 year olds can consent to sex., but rather it was a misguided attempt to address a problem. After all you can not prevent someone from having sex merely by not giving them contraception.

It is also a little disingenuous to liberal views on homosexuality is anything to do with Marxism, Marx also had nothing to say about the subject, and, although it was briefly legalised after the Russian Revolution, it was recriminalised by Stalin and remained punishable by hard labour in Russia until the 1990's, it was illegal in Communist China and even in Cuba it remained a crime until the mid 1970's

This blog does not promote or encourage homosexuality, I merely do not condemn it. It is not an issue which I intend to spend any further time discussing, as there are far more important issues.

Please note that I am not able to respond to all comments or enter into lengthy debates about my postings. I present my views in my posting, and you can make what you wish of them, if you do not like what I post, there are many other blogs which will be more to your liking.

You are welcome to comment on my postings, and others may choose to respond.

However, I am not able to enter into further debate on this subject.

Anonymous said...

this is the benefit of multicowerism

Sarah Maid of Albion said...

@ Anonymous who wrote this morning (June 19) I regret I couldn't let your message through as a lot of readers would have been unnecessarily upset.

Anonymous said...

Sarah I could not allow your misrepresentations of Christ to go unanswered.

Jesus teaches that not one jot or titel shall pass from the law until the day of judgement. The Old Covenant ordinances that pass away are ceremonial temple sacrifices and the keeping of festival days (both prohibited in the New Covenant age). "ye observe times and days and seasons.Hath I preached to thee in vain" to the Galations.

The eye for eye principle has not passt away, we turn the other cheek by refusing requests to 'step outside'. A slap on the cheek is an invitation to sporte at a duel. It has no application to criminal acts at all, only the 'en gaurde' challenge of a knight (or a pub brawl).

The OT law is not common to Jewry or Islam, as these religions are based on Koran and Talmud. Only Christians and Keraites hold to the religion of the OT. Christ condemns the Pharisees and Saduccees for abandoning OT law for their own traditions. Traditions attacked by the Rev. Martin Luthor in his book 'The Jews and their Lies'.

Jesus condemned those who 'marry' divorced women as capital offenders "whosoever marrieth her commiteth adultery". It gets increasingly difficult for antinomianism to be defended by the Words (or supposed absence of them) of Jesus. He did not, however, condemn sexual relations per se as you seem to be doing. Original Sin and its transmission from age to age in perpetuating a fallen humanity has sin attached to it, but normal sexual relations in lawful marriage predate the fall, and are certainly not sin.

Only anti-reproductive relations which pervert these intentions constitute sin, as they tend to work against the very communty that sexual relations are designed to build. Miscegination, sodomitic acts, same sex relations, incest, prostitution, fornication, beastiality, divorce, contrception, rape, harm to genitalia, porn, billings method, needless delay of marriage, condom use, iud's, pre&post birth infanticide, and adultery are all inherently damning acts in that they promote cultural genocide against any race of people tolerating them. This is why kingdomes have a duty to suppress these practises as warrented by Romans 13. That Kings and Governoures are to be a terror to evil doers.

It was not the erroneous views of misgiuded Libralism that Seane Anna was addressing in references to cultural marxisme, but the organised KGB conspiracy to capture bothe political parties in a country and pressure public and private institutions to corrupt children prematurely for the purpose of turning them away from a reproductive future. Those who do not fall are brainwashed into commiting adultery against their own people by taking a stranger for a spowse. This is why foriegnors are brought to our countries in the first place. Such agents of influence are in control of most countries now through control of finance, and will condemn any normal expression of sexuality. (Yes Virginia, race is all about sex, and its misuse for genocidal purposes).

I am amazed that you seem to be all put out by harmless practises like cigarette smoking (promoted by our Puritan forbeares for hundreds of yeares) whilst failing to correct some of the most heineous crimes of youre kinsmen, all due to cultural brainwashing they receive in the state 'churches' ie schools.

I must respectfully urge you to reconsider youre position as a daughter of our Kinsman Redeemer who claims all His chosen tribes by the langauges at the foot of the cross (Greek, Latin and Hebrew). Only our nations have been baptized by constitutions in fulfillment of the Great Commission. If we go, Christianity will die, since only our presence in the world keeps it alive in the non-white (Japathitic and Canaanite) lands.

All the best.

Sarah Maid of Albion said...

No I will not change my views, I will answer to my maker for my views on this and on other issues, including, of course my views on race, in good time.

Until then I shall continue to do what I believe to be right.

We can all find support for our views in the bible, as you also appear to have done.

As I have said before, I am no longer prepared to debate this issue, it is totally irrelevant to the serious problems we face.