Marriage Sanctification

Same Sex Marriage And The Betrayal Of God’s Sanctification

Sexual relations between an unmarried male and female is just as much a transgression as between same sex genders, except where male and female are brought together in marriage. In other words, all sexual relations outside of marriage are transgressions in the eyes of God, because celestially speaking, they are incestuous.
All of us together as a family of human beings, have the same parents, as being children of the one Father, God, and one mother, Earth, both Divinely and descendantly, and therefore we are essentially siblings, which makes it unlawful, even in human terms, for any of us to engage in sexual relations, full stop. However, there is an exception to this, for the enabling of the perpetuation of the human species, which is marriage, whereby a judicially certified union between a male and a female, is mutually sanctified by God, where He has given His consent to our governing authorities to license a male and female to engage in sexual intercourse, free of incestuous implication and Divine reproval. All sexual intimacy outside of this is an anathema to God, irrespective of its acceptability in the eyes of humanity.
Thankfully, God is considerably tolerant when it comes to a human being’s indiscretion, as attested by Jesus in this inference to Moses.
"Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.”
But like any discerning parent, there is only so far one’s tolerance can go before the need for intervention is all that is left to save the child from his or her self. And humanity, most especially western civilisation, has categorically crossed over that line in the eye’s of our parental Father.
As I said, God is very forgiving in His attitude to human indiscretion, but the situation today with sexuality as it applies to marriage, has gone way past His point of tolerance, because it has undermined the sanctification He accorded to human authority.
A human being is a capricious canon and needs to be supervised, and God has sanctioned the agency of governing authorities to carry out this role on His behalf, and accordingly, charged us to honour them. Consequently, He has no tolerance for the indiscretions of a ruling authority as a whole, like He has for an individual, because He has entrusted that authority to protect the individual on His behalf.
As Paul says in Rom 13:1, "Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God."
BUT, when the ruling authority steps outside the bounds of God’s mandated sanctification, this is the time when a caring parent would step in and say, “enough is enough”. Put it this way, society’s ruling authorities are like our schools, where the government is sanctioned by God and a school is sanctioned by the government. Humanity puts its faith in a government as guardian of the wellbeing of society, and a parent puts its faith in a school as guardian of the wellbeing of its children. So if a school should breach the mandate laid down by its governing authority, a caring parent is compelled to pull their children out of there. Similarly, when the governing authorities breach their mandate sanctioned by God, like any discerning parent, He is compelled to pull His children out. Those being the faithful elect.

Same Sex Legalisation
Same sex marriage, is without a doubt one, if not THE most serious transgressions humanity could commit in the eye’s of God, not least because marriage is the cornerstone for the perpetuation of human existence, where the undermining its sanctification could spell the end of humanity.
Same sex marriage seems reasonably palatable on the surface, especially in these liberal times, save for those who are deeply reverential. After all, if God is tolerant we should be also. Fair enough, but if you’ve been following this essay, you’d know that God’s tolerance does not extend to the governing authorities, because He has sanctified them with His seal of approval as trusties in maintaining the ordinance and integrity of human civilisation, which is why they are able to sanction a sexual union between “brothers and sisters” in the form of marriage, absolved of the stigma of incest and fornication. Essentialy, He has granted them a “license”, and as with any licence, it can be revoked if it is abused.
Even though heterosexual intimacy and homosexual intimacy outside marriage is an anathema to God, in His tolerance He has has allowed them to go unjudged. The thing is though, His turning a blind eye to sex outside of marriage is not the same as sanctioning it. But that’s not good enough for humanity in the case of same sex intimacy, where the homosexula community wants God’s sanctification on that as well. But instead of appealing to God, knowing full well what His reaction would be, the authorities went ahead on their own bat, and sanctified it in concert with heterosexual intimacy. Can you image in your wildest dreams God agreeing to sanctify something He considers so abhorrent, not to mention unrelated to human survival, which is the whole objective of His heterosexual sanctification?
BUT the real cruncher, is not that it’s been made legal in the eyes of humanity, it’s that humanity, by institutionalising same sex marriage, has proved completely duplicitous and unqualified to remain guardians of anything on behalf of God. How can God continue to grant sanctification for marriage between a male and female, if the same sanctification incorporates homosexual intimacy?
At the end of the day, God has no alternative but to withdraw His sanctification from marriage altogether, which means the human race can no longer be considered spiritually legitimate. What? So from hereafter, the marriage union between a male and female is no more sacred than any other sexual union, all of which are spiritually incestuous.
The dilemma now facing the Christian community, is how can the faithful have any sexual activity in good conscience when God withdraws His sanctification for marriage? But there is a bigger diemmna facing the world as a whole, in that, if the sexual union between male and female in any situation is invalidated by God, thereby making all future human beings spiritually illegitimate, how can we expect God to have anything further to do with the world itself? Well we can’t expect it, because ultimately we’ll be disappointed. Just WHEN ultimately is the question. Usually the catchcry is, “Don’t hold your breath”, but in this imminent case you’d be well advised to do the opposite.
If this was a scenario initiated by a school, whereby the school board allowed the unfettered use of heroin anywhere, in contravention of the governing authority’s mandate for schools in their jurisdiction, not to mention society’s, a caring parent would get their kids out of there tout de suite. And I suspect God is preparing to do exactly the same with His “kids”. So pack up all your crayons and exercise books, and ready yourself for an impending call, to go wait at the gate for your Father’s “car”.

God's Persona 1

To me, the biggest question of all is, “Does God have a persona?” paired with “If so, is it a rational one?”
Well the answer to the first question will supply the answer to the second, because a persona, by its very nature is a rational faculty. And here is the reason why this question is so important. If we were to believe God to have a persona, we would have to accept that there is more than one God, because a persona is only relevant in relation to another persona, in that, it constitutes an identity in order to distinguish it from other identities.

“No one has seen God at any time”

This intimates that we have no definitive way of knowing whether He has a persona or not. In lieu of that, we conceptualise His persona for our own convenience, in line with what our belief system is prepared to accept, so in this regard He does have a persona, but only a presumed one. And we have to do this because it is impossible for a rational human entity to be aware of a name or label, disassociated from any tangible form and purpose, as can only be characterised rationally. So the answer to whether God has a persona or not, depends on how necessary it is for God to be relevant to us in the context of our tangible world.
You see, most people cannot accept any concept that is not rational or tangible, as in something that is faith-based. What’s more, even those who can accept something on faith, still have to cede to conceptualising their faith, in order to contextualise it, because everything, whether tangible or ethereal, has to be contextualised because that’s the only way it can be assimilated into our awareness. In short, everything we are aware of mandatorily has a context, because it is context which initiates our becoming aware of the concept in the first place. We don’t just become aware of something and then contextualise it, but rather, it comes out of our present context as a relevancy, already in context. We just have to rationally identify that context in line with our belief system.
So just the fact that I am cognisant of the word God, implies that I have to be conscious of the context of it. And in whatever form that context takes, will be relevant to me to the degree to which my belief system leans towards faith or rationale. In other words, some people will relate God as being rational like they are, in which case they will embrace a very tangible impression of Him, while others would regard Him ethereally, but yet just as similarly, construe a rational impression of Him, albeit, one that doesn’t conform to a tangible framework. This would allow for a far more novel concept of God, being constrained only to the extent of a person’s imagination, which in turn, is dependent on their belief system.
So be it tangible or ethereal, it will inescapably be a rational assumption, which ultimately intimates, that the tangible and the supernatural are contextually equivalent, even though we consider them as antithetical. However, in our reality they are antithetical, but in our imagination and belief system, they can be conceptualised either way, depending to what extent we do or don’t accord with faith.
You see, just like everything else in our world, faith is a belief or a conviction, but so is tangibility. Both are perceptions, it‘s just that they are delineated separately to accommodate contrasting human orientations. To some people faith is just, or even more relevant than the tangible. The tangible to them is what faith is to the pragmatic. Every one of us has to have a rational disposition in order to exist in this human dimension, and similarly, we all have to have an instinctual perceptibility, and each to our own degree.
But rest assured, faith is just as real as the tangible, it’s just not as five-sensually evident. But it is very real as a perception or sixth-sense. We all live in houses, which are unequivocally tangible, but only because they are required by our physical expression, which stems anyway, from our ethereal expression in the form of a rationale overlay. In short, our tangible world is built upon an intangible foundation.
So God is as rational or ethereal as we individually think Him to be, and as far as the answer to my question goes, He does not have a persona as the question applies to me. So why I even asked this question is a bit of a mystery, because I “knew” the answer all the time, I just didn’t acknowledge it explicitly. I’ve always had a belief in God as supernatural, I’ve just never worked my way through it.
I mean, just the fact that I asked the question, indicates a need for reassurance. However, rather than reassurance, I’ve come to learn that my belief in a supernatural God, while having been substantiated, is no more relevant than believing the opposite, because both positions are based solely on wishful thinking. They have nothing to do with God whatsoever, other than putting Him to bed for our own peace of mind. So I’ve answered the question in my own mind, but opened the door to a far more daunting one.

God's Persona 2

Well believe it or not, this is a very easy one to answer, because the only way to know if God exists is to “meet” Him, which means having to enter His dimension, which in turn, means leaving our dimension by dying. In other words, there is no way a human being can ever know unequivocally that He exists, but only able to perceive He does, through intuition. But here again, our intuition has to be construed rationally, in order for it to be relevant to our belief system, because our belief system cannot classify something unless it is logical, which instinct isn’t, so it has to be first converted into rationale. But here’s the cruncher, the language this conversion is based on, is inherent in our belief system. In other words, whatever instinctual impulse we get, only has relevance in accord with what we already believe. So if we get an innate sense of something, the only way we can determine what it means, is by believing it to be one thing or another. It’s not like a tree, which you know emphatically to be a tree, because there it is right in front of you. Instinct is not conspicuous so we have to imagine what it is, in lieu of knowing what it is. Because instinct is not inherently specific, it is meaningless, therefore we have to give it meaning by conceptualising it as something specific, as in believing it to be something specific.
As instinct is not apparent, and therefore not specific, we have to make it apparent by believing it to be something specific, relative obviously, to everything else we believe. So if we believe unequivocally in God, we could have arrived at that belief instinctually or rationally. Rationally, whereby, we were convinced or indoctrinated by a trusted source. Instinctually, because we interpreted a certain instinctual insight as testimony to His existence, with “interpreted” revealing the futility of this realisation. An instinct might come to us fatefully, but it doesn’t come explicitly, at least in terms of
However, when we get an insight, it’s natural to assume that it is fateful, as in timely, because it’s pretty much consensual that we only get instinctual feelings when we are ready and able to make sense of them, to the extent that they assimilate with what we already believe. However, they don’t seem to come in any order, but mostly just out of the blue, and always part-and-parcel with a realisation of what they mean or stand for. Which is pretty natural when you think about it, because they wouldn’t be detectable if they didn’t mean something to us.
So it would seem that an instinct enters our awareness already converted into rationale as something definable, and not as an unrelated, innate sense, waiting for us to figure it out. So this suggest that our belief system functions in front of our cognition, whereby the only things which can enter our awareness have to be believable? With the exception of something someone might bring to our attention, which we consider unbelievable. This may possibly be, because we are being made aware of something which is not fateful, so our belief system hasn’t been privy to it before our cognisance has.
This makes one wonder whether our belief system is evolving autonomously, where we don’t come across something new and then determine whether we should believe it or not, but that we come across something new, essentially because we already believe it. So if our belief system is being updated incessantly and unwittingly, we should be able to come to know the context of it by way of our behaviour.

Reincarnation
When I came to the realisation that reincarnation was real, it came to me right out of the blue as a resolute belief. It wasn’t just a vague sense of something for me to figure out, but an conclusive awareness that reincarnation was real. And beforehand it was not something that was important to me or that I had even given much thought to. But I certainly have since. So why I needed to believe in it at that time in my life is not obvious, I can only assume I needed to, and to figure out the why as I went along.
I suspect our belief system’s evolve in line with the thought waves we are tuned into, so as to make sure all the “people” in our radio network maintain a uniform mindset. This prompts me to wonder if it is possible to ascertain whether someone is on the same wavelength as me by their behaviour. I suspect it is, but just wonder how feasible and reliable it would be to work out. And considering what could be involved, how worthwhile would it be? It might be incredibly worthwhile, but you’d have to take it on before you could get some indication. Oh well, more bloody food for thought.
Anyway, here is how I could imagine it working.
Because we are each tuned into our own commensurate wavelength, our thoughts and ideology are formed in concert with everyone else on that same plane. We think the same, we behave the same, we dream the same, and most crucially, we believe the same. Put it this way, everyone else on my wavelength believes to the same extent about reincarnation as I do, and I wouldn’t be surprised if we all came to that belief simultaneously, or at least, closely following one another. And I suspect the reason we don’t know what our belief system is being updated with, or why, until it “shows” us, is the same reason we don’t know what our thoughts are comprised of until they manifest. Put it this way, if everyone on my wavelength believed differently, we wouldn’t be on the same wavelength.
Being tuned into a certain wavelength is like being tuned into a radio frequency, with the broadcast emanating from a proprietary source. The broadcasting “station” is probably more akin to a Youtube channel, where similarly-aware people “tune into” or follow, similarly-orientated themes. We tune into a particular channel because they are talking our kind of talk, and that we trust their judgment in informing us, and in turn, they keep their theme relevant in line with the comments of us, their followers. The main difference being, that our belief system is “watching” the show behind the scenes, or at least, behind the veil of our cognisant awareness.
When you think about a Youtube channel, and the regulars who follow it, think about how like-minded all the followers are, which is detectable from the comments. And we all leave at the end of the “broadcast” with our belief systems commensurately updated.