₦airaland Forum

701ecilana:
Brother i perceive you are taking a subtile stand for fornication. Let's talk about marriage and it really means to God.

I would do no such thing. The SPIRIT of WISDOM has a different approach from man's way of enforcing righteousness.

Remember, those people in CHRIST's days who thought they were strict and pious had their beliefs thrown on their faces when JESUS came into the picture..;

Feasting with sinners
Correct the Sabbath misconception
Preaching love, forgiveness repentance not condemnation and ostracization.
HE demonstrated this with HIS encounter with the adulteress, even with the thief who repented just at the expiration of his life. You win people over (to CHRIST) by love. Teach them to understand how GOD loves them and how to love GOD back.

Now, let me go back to the question;

If you believe the warped dogma of some churches (only GOD knows where they get the idea from) that says marrying a pregnant woman to the husband means joining three people in marriage because the woman is pregnant, then you must also forbid a husband to have sex with his pregnant wife because it means the man is joining himself to two other people.

asuustrike2009:
The question hasn't be answered. There's no Bible backing for blessing of marriage or church wedding. The alleged pastors are doing so because most Christians don't study their Bible and ask questions. Left for me once the bride price has being paid,the intending couples are joined together which is scriptural. All op is saying wouldn't change anything until we go back to what the Bible says.

You're absolutely right. Even the blessing of marriage is the parents' responsibility, not even that of a priest or pastor.

asuustrike2009:
Just one question is church wedding scriptural? Must one wed in the church?

What was supposed to be a blessing or pray over for the married christian couple after or during traditional marriage by a priest or pastor has long been hijacked by power-hungry clergymen to gain more control and influence over the people

asuustrike2009:
Suppose a man has intercourse with a young woman who is a virgin but is not engaged to be married, if they are discovered, he must pay her father fifty pieces of silver. Then he must marry her, and he may never divorce her as long as he lives". Deut 22:28-29
The above scriptures is not for white wedding but traditional wedding. Although the church is strict but the intending couple should respect their rules or back out.it's not a must that you do church wedding

Consider also Exodus 22 : 16. And since the GOD of all creation in HIS wisdom and holiness makes provision for fornicators to get married (giving the fact that pregnancy can take place within minutes after sexual intercourse) where did pastors and priests derive their self-righteous dogma to deny these sets of people church marriage? Who even ordained them to conduct marriage? Certainly not GOD.

Apina:
U have totally jumped ship. I conclusively said that wedding is not a matter of morals but a case of two people not three being joined together. Asking whether a man having sex with his pregnant wife being an aberration does not in anyway point to what I said. Having sex with his wife is different from being allowed to wed while pregnant.

You're quite in the know that answering my question HONESTLY would render your postulation dead.

Since you claim marrying a man with a pregnant woman means the joining of three people, going by that principle, why would a husband sleeping with his pregnant wife not constitute joining himself to two other people, since sex is between two married people and not three?

And you say I jumped ship. When you operate on human wisdom and build your dogma from the foundation of arrogance and self-righteousness, you end up contradicting yourself and scriptures will puncture holes in your self-inflated righteousness.

Apina:
It seems u are misinformed as to the reason why a pregnant woman isn't allowed to take the vows. Marriage is between two(2) people not three(3), the child is a separate being even though he/she is still in d womb. It's an aberration to wed a pregnant woman, if they practice it in ur church, tell them to stop. Its not a matter of morals as u are opining.

I have been waiting for someone to put forth this assertion of yours, and indeed here you are!

Now let me ask you;
Since scripture tells us that having sex joins us to the one we have sex with, does a husband having sex with his pregnant wife an abberation since he would be "joining himself to two people?

mikedimeji:
I so much love this ur analysis. Honestly speaking everything u've said is so on point and only those that have been beclouded with human doctrines will argue the above. I have always encouraged people on the need to serve God with understanding.

Thank you very much. I had no idea the thread had made front page.

JMAN05:
I don't see how the story of David support you point. It in fact goes against it. God exacted punishment to David for what he did, even killing the son. That shows that God was never in support of such atrocity. It was an abomination.

I was talking about prophet "Nathan's narrative" Not David's action, by the way which was ADULTERY AND MURDER and not fornication. You mustn't argue for the love of argument.

Prophet Nathan gave King David a narrative (story) of a poor man with just one lamb versus a rich man with many lambs. That was what inspired my own story. Understanding is key to any debate.

JMAN05:
This is about seduction.

Please don't make me question your mental strength and intellectual integrity. Exodus 22 : 16 is about SEX BETWEEN UNMARRIED PEOPLE

JMAN05:
It isn't about pregnancy, and secondly, any who committed that offence is giving a punishment of marrying that woman till his death. No room for divorce. This solemnization is important cos according to the law, no one will ever marry her. God was not endorsing the habit.

You have yet again failed to pilot your reasoning into the realms of GOD's wisdom for compelling two unmarried fornicators who aren't engaged to marry. GOD was trying to teach HIS people that you must not commit the sin of fornication. If you do, you must marry her. Not banished from the gathering of HIS people, not cut from among HIS people, as you sanctimoniously opine.

JMAN05:
Church wedding as we do it today was not available then, if it was, we know that this couple won't be allowed to be wedded in the temple.

The fact that GOD made a provision for them to be married and HE recognised their marriage, and that HE never ordained marriage, no matter how holy the couple may be to be stagged in the temple throws your fallacy out the window of common sense.

JMAN05:
For example Jewish wedding procedure includes the man coming to the home of the bride, taking her home, and sleeping with her with a white cloth under. This was to get the blood as evidence of her virginity. This white sheet is given to the father of the bride. Do you think the wedding of this couple will take this process? Again God did not provide guidelines for wedding in a church/temple.

When you run out of point, it is far more honourable to stop typing and save yourself unnecessary embarrassment. How does this fit into GOD's word in Exodus 22 : 16. How does this fit into the lives of Mary and Joseph? That tradition is expected of maidens who claimed to be virgins as they go into matrimony. And it's subject to her would-be husband's discretion whether to declare her a virgin or not.

JMAN05:
I don't see why such demand is important scripturally. And I still don't know why a couple would be tensed if a church makes such demands. Should your mate see your unclothedness before marriage? If they demand that you do such test, for the sake of peace, do it. Unless you have something you are hiding. However, the pastors shouldn't be making such demands as if they are doubting the motives of their members. Questioning them on how chaste the courtship was should be enough. God sees in secret and must judge fornicators, whether the church sees it or not. 1cor 6:9

Double speech!

Just agree that churches and pastors requiring pregnancy test before conducting marriage in their churches missed the purpose of their calling.

JMAN05:
Gods will for His servants is for them to abstain from fornication (1thes 4:3), people who does that won't inherit Gods kingdom (1cor 6:9). 1cor 5:7 says

Only the unrepentant sinner will not inherit GOD's Kingdom. For if we confess our sins to HIM , HE is faithful and just to forgive us and cleans of from all our iniquities. (1 john 1:9)

JMAN05:
"7 Clear away the old leaven so that you may be a new batch, inasmuch as you are free from ferment. For, indeed, Christ our Passover lamb has been sacrificed".

Now you are not even clearing them away, you are endorsing fornication in front of all. A minister may conclude that his conscience cannot allow him to unite those two in a church building. Since they started out in a serious sin against God.

You must no abuse scripture and qoute it to accommodate your sanctimonious stance. You're quoting 1 Cor 5 where a whole church was proud of a member who was sleeping with his father's wife. A case of incest and Adultery. The "old laven of malice and wickedness". It was a call for repentance, and not just for the immoral incestuous man but for the whole church.

JMAN05:
That you cannot get a church wedding does not mean you cannot wed. You can go to a court and have the wedding. Why bring a bad name to the church?

Indeed! You are not a sinner. Since the day you surrendered to JESUS, you have lived every day of every minute and of every second, down to this very day in complete holiness! You stink of hypocrisy, brother!

JMAN05:
If the law gives the pastor the power as an officiating minister, he has the power to join the man and the woman. If you want a legal wedding, the land in which you live in has laws on how to solemnise couples.

There's no law of GOD that gives a pastor or priest to officiate a marital bonding of a man and a woman.

JMAN05:
There is also a staturory marriage. In that regard, a pastor has no right to marry the two. He cannot even revoke it. Why will a couple insist on going to the church and not respect there procedures?

Whatever kind of marriage one chooses as his or her marital preference, a pastor has no powers to affirm or revoke. The bride price doesn't belong to him, neither nor his church.

JMAN05:
I think I ve answered this. If you go to the church for your wedding, who are you blaming? When you can go to court and be wedded

That people where deceived into thinking it is the priest/pastor who actually confirms a man and woman husband and wife doesn't mean the pastor or priest can employ extra-scriptural commands on the people because they elected to do a church wedding. The Pharisees who were priests and leaders suffered severe criticism from CHRIST when they commanded the people to observe certain seemingly pious act that had no scriptural support.



[s]

JMAN05:
I don't know the scenario you paint, are you saying an unmarried woman, who is pregnant, who wants to be married by another man who didn't impregnate her or what?

[/s]

JMAN05:
If I committed such offence and chose not to repent, I deserve to be kicked out. What's wrong with that?

You deceive yourself. You should have said "if every Christian that sins, including you and the pregnant unmarried woman refuse to repent then we should be kicked out of church.

As you granted yourself the chance of repentance, so does the unmarried pregnant woman deserves a chance of repentance. Not outright banishment or rejection as you suggest.

Now you can see how your hypocrisy stinks to the high heavens?

JMAN05:
2. Church wedding isn't compulsory for one to be married.

You mustn't continue in this shameless deceit. We all know that among many churches and Christian gatherings, once a member isn't wedded in a church, they're considered not really married by the church.

JMAN05:
That prosedure is man made often instituted to give the couple a spiritual advice as to marriage.

Spiritual advice can be given outside church wedding.

JMAN05:
Joining of two persons as husband and wife follows the custom of the land the xten finds himself.

Not quite. A Christian can object to certain cultural practices that runs against his faith. He normally dialogues with the bride's father on such conflict of interests.

JMAN05:
If the govt has a legal way you are deemed to have been married, a xten follows such laws. In Nigeria, a minister of the church can rightly act as an officiating minister to bind the two. Of course, some documents would be signed. God didn't give any procedure for xten wedding. His word keeps it open for the custom of the land to be followed in as much as it doesn't violate His laws. ROM 13. Luke 2:1-3)

How shamelessly pathetic of you! You're trying to endorse a secular government interference in church spiritual procedures.

"God didn't give any procedure for xten wedding"

GOD has made it clear in several scriptural passages that a bride price be paid and the father of the bride gives his daughter out in marriage.

Never was a priest or pastor called into the procedure.

I think you're a willful liar who subvert scriptures to suit his own self-serving, hypocritical posture.

I'm done with you.

701ecilana:
And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife.
Exodus:22:16

Bros, i can't see where it says she's pregnant. Okay fine, they marry. No one denies them marriage, but in my culture, as a girl i won't be married off because am pregnant, how then do i get to be wedded in church even if my church allows it? Traditional marriage holds more water as far as Living Faith is concerned, without the consent of the girl's parents, the Church wont consolidate any marriage. How do i get wedded since as a pregnant girl, my father won't accept my bride price?

She shd stay home, be delivered of the baby then marry.

Biko, hapu'm

And don't you know that pregnancy can take place within a day after sex or after fornication?

701ecilana
Sorry about the ban.

Why would Pastors and Priests be exempted from this when they're the ones who introduced it to the flock?

Why do most christians, baby christians most especially, fail to see the fact that the perfection of salvation is a process and not something one achieves at the point of repentance? You keep practicing obedience, you struggle with sin and the HOLY SPIRIT helps you as you remain true to you walk in faith. Hence Paul said he's not yet attain perfection but keep striving towards it (Phil 3:12)

The righteous may fall 7 times a day..(Prov 24:16)

And mercy triumphs over judgement (James 2:13b)

What's more important to GOD is spiritual growth and sincerely in our walk with HIM. Not how many times we fall.

Don't lay much hope on Deuteronomy chapters 21 and 22. The first case of a woman who married in deceit. By tricking her husband and the community that she's a virgin. The Mosaic law permits the man who deflowered her to marry her. But the law does not say that fornicators should be stoned to death. But rather if they're caught, the man should marry her. Stoning to death was for those who committed adultery or raped or had sex with an engaged woman. Not for the unmarried and unengaged. You must understand this!

You deliberately avoid Exodus 22 : 16. That's bad of you!


If a church has irrefutable proof of fornication between two members, then by all means they should sanction them. But when two people are coming for marriage and the church is saying "no" because the lady is pregnant is complete foolishness.

JMAN05:
Just thinking how that is analogous.

It's not difficult to see the link between my story and a woman denied the right to a church wedding because she's pregnant. Maybe prophet Nathan's narrative to king David may come in aid for you.

JMAN05:
Where does the holy spirit say what you wrote up there?

Asking me where the HOLY SPIRIT said what I claimed is self-deriding.

You may want to turn a blind eye to my scripture submission of Exodus 22 : 16. Where GOD said anyone caught in fornication where the lady isn't married or engaged should be married. This is pivotal to my stance that turning people away from church wedding because the Woman is pregnant is Phareesm and lacking in scriptural backing.

JMAN05:
I don't know why any church would demand a compulsory pregnancy test. What I do know is that some guys are dubious, trying to falsely get consummated.

They must not wed in a church sha.

There're plenty of churches out there that do demand pregnancy test before approval of the church wedding. And this practice is completely beyond their pastoral jurisdiction.

JMAN05:
Ya, men established the so called white wedding. However, there isn't anything wrong in it since it runs by bible principle of what is acceptable to the Lord. That being the case, it is unacceptable to the Lord for a pregnant woman to be wedded in a xten building. It is an abomination.

Meanwhile the John 8 you stated is spurious.

You speak with both sides of your mouth acknowledging church wedding is man-made and has no scriptural backing and then alluding that a pastor/priest can disqualify two single people from getting a church wedding.

There's everything wrong when a church presupposes that the pastor/priest has the power to join a man and a woman as husband and wife;

There's everything's wrong when a pastor / priest hijacks the father's role and plays the role of the parents. That's not the principle of the GOOD SHEPHERD WHO was implored by a man to compel his brother to divide their [father's ] inheritance with him. JESUS replied "Friend, who made me a judge over you to decide such things as that?" (Luke 12: 13-14)

No man was called of GOD to go ye into the world and join people in matrimony.

There's everything wrong, when a church takes a sanctimonious leap of arrogance or pastoral overreach asking people for pregnancy test. It was never GOD's intention for priests to join people in marriage, not even in the era when priests double as communal leaders. It was the GOD-given right of the bride's father to join his daughter to another man in marriage. A preist can then "BLESS" the union.

JMAN05:
Marriage is meant to be done by people who haven't known themselves prior to the wedding. If that has been wrongly done, and it is even clearly evident, why should you bring reproach to Gods name by consummating such couple? Those persons would in fact be disfellowshupped. 1cor 5:11-12

Among JWs, the one who officiates in church wedding is approved by the govt to do so. So the law of the land gave him an authority.

Oh! Wonderful! Glorious! Behold 1 cor 5: 11 -12 indeed! You forgot the same Paul wrote 2 Cor 2: 5-8

But let's re-visit your 1cor 5: 11-12 squarely! Paul proposes disassociation from those who commit sexual sin, greed, idolaters, abusiveness, cheats, and drunks. Not just a poor pregnant unmarried woman. So my dear brother, you must lead us all out of the church including that unmarried pregnant woman.
You can't tell anyone that you have no cheated or abuse someone. So you must as well, like the rest of us be kicked out of the church, stigmatised, and excommunicated. It mustn't be restricted to just the poor unmarried pregnant woman.

And your last sentence which seemed to appraise government interference in church matters is a big shame.

Analice107, you intermix adultery and fornication in your writeup.

I want you to understand the hypocrisy and double standard-ness of man. Fornication before marriage that didn't lead to pregnancy and fornication that resulted in pregnancy are the same sin of fornication. They're both guilty before GOD. Should the church penalise the woman with pregnancy while the other who probably is a more grievous fornicator escapes and go all the way wearing white gown, walking down the aisle with a hidden pile of immortality? Isn't it what CHRIST said about the Pharisees who pay much emphasis on the outside rather than the inside? Who like to wash their hands but the inside of them remains unclean?

If the church would demand pregnancy test as a condition for staging a church wedding, then it's more befitting and proper they conduct VIRGINITY TEST so they can be well assured the woman is pure and undefiled and not a fornicator.

Is there any sin grievous enough that can prevent a man or woman from approaching the Throne of Grace? Was GOD's directive in Exodus 22 : 16 not a solution aimed at remedying an ugly situation? GOD's will for man is redemption, to restore that which was broken or lost. Not to compound or destroy.

I tell you, christians are the greatest obstacle to salvation, not the unbelieving world. We have set barriers and standards against our brethren, barriers and standards we ourselves couldn't cross.

Even when there was little or no grace in the Mosaic era, GOD was mindful and made a way for fornicators to get married so that children may be born legitimately.

Again, you still fail to realise that the true marriage as ordained by GOD is the act where the father of the bride hands over his daughter to the bridegroom after he fulfills the requirements of dowry. The church wedding is only a blessing of some sort and not an act of matrimonial bonding. The bonding took place already at the traditional setting. A pastor or priest has no spiritual or physical authority to give out anyone in marriage or bond them in matrimony. That power remains the privilege of the father of the bride.

If a church wants to punish fornicators, it is within their right to do so, but denying a pregnant fornicator the right to marry in the church is foolishness. It has not solved the problem, rather it worsens it and even stigmatise the unborn baby.

Legalistic christians not only lack the HOLY SPIRIT, they also lack common sense.

analice107:
If two people who have had sex and pregnancy ensues, if they go forward to be joined in matrimony, it gets done as marriage blessing. Marriage blessing is also valid and acceptable.

Marriage blessing? What is marriage blessing? Marriage for old couples who didn't get married in the Christian way, even though they were properly married according to tradition?

Or the church denies the intending couple "marriage blessing" until the woman puts to bed?

Which ever way, this is pure pastoral arrogance. While marriage was originated by GOD, church wedding is a man-made act which was born out of man's inclination to always exert control and overstep his bounds.

Scriptural passages are replete with Shepherds and leaders who overstepped their jurisdiction and impose their own will on the people. In CHRIST' s days it was the Pharisees, in Paul's days you have the rampaging Jews who were insistent that gentiles follow all the old testament laws. Paul called them dogs and mutilators.

In the middle age these men hijacked marriage and gave the priest the power to join couples in marriage and conduct the ceremony.

In the 21st century, you find esp pastors of Africa or Africa descent exhibiting an overdose of power-drunkenness, religious imperialism and autocratic dispositions These men never took the path of the humble SHEPHERD. They don't see their services as advisory but compulsory.

And so they don't tell their church members that it's crucial they conduct medical tests for genotype, blood group and pregnancy, and leave the choice to their discretion, rather, they make it compulsory because they know their flock has been deceived into believing the traditional marriage rite hold less significance than a church marriage. So they give their flock conditions including types of hairdos, and makeup restrictions. These are self-righteous prigs who don't even understand the "S" in salvation.

A couple fulfills their traditional matrimonial rites and duly married and the next week they head to the church for church wedding and the pastor rises up in his arrogance and pontificatingly declares "I now declare you man and wife". And so negating the significance of the traditional marriage which has more weight.

If a girl is pregnant and the man responsible for the pregnancy seek to marry her in a church, the pastor does well to marry them. Only a pharisee would find a reason not to and call them sinners.

analice107:
A man who is hungry ought to ask someone for food not take what doesn't belong to him.

The Bible says, if he is caught, he shd pay 7times the worth of what he stole, if he doesn't have the money, he shd sell everything he has to pay back. Hunger is not an excuse for theft.

Proverbs 6:31 yet if he is caught, he must pay back seven times more—he must give up everything he has.

The case of I married pregnant women in church:

These cases are many in churches, and they are not refused. This gets done as marriage blessings not Church wedding.

Church Wedding should be "bed undefiled".

Am a Christian, I know what the sin of fornication does to a man, especially the one who claims to be a believer in Christ.

Formication defiles us, meaning, we can not stand to for sacrifices unto our God. The Bible says, we are kings and priests unto our God, and as priests, how do we stand to offer our sacrifices of praise to God defiled?

To be defiled means to be corrupted, reputation damaged, sanctity destroyed. It's made unclean to be used.

Can a man take fire in his bosom, and his clothes not be burned? Can one go upon hot coals, and his feet not be burned? . . . But whoso commits adultery with a woman lacks understanding: he that does it destroys his own soul (Prov. 6:27-28,32).

The sin of formication brings in the third party's (Satan's influence) into the relationship.

Formication is the same as worshiping an idol. God takes that very seriously.

You miss the whole point and the moral of my story.

The goat stolen is the woman and she belongs to her parents. The thief is the man who had sex with her without fulfilling the matrimonial requirement of dowry.

Now when he's caught and he's willing to pay for his misdeeds by marrying the girl properly, pregnancy shouldn't be an obstacle in such a case. There's no scriptural backing to this madness. Make no mistake, we're not in support of fornication, and no church can really stop fornication. But when two fornicators decide to get married and a church denies them this right because the woman is pregnant, there's no wisdom or direction from the HOLY SPIRIT in such decision.

Now in response to your earlier post, Deuteronomy 22:28-29 was not just referring to a rape case. It also addresses two consensual fornicators. Consider Exodus 22:16 "If a man seduces a virgin who is not engaged to anyone and has sex with her, he must pay the customary bride price and marry her"

I'll point you to yet another scriptural precedent:

Mary was pregnant, she wasn't married to Joseph. They were only engaged. No bride price had been paid. Yet Mary's tommy was visibly pregnant that even Joseph noticed it.

No one in the community called Mary names. They assumed Joseph was responsible since both Joseph and Mary's family have accepted their engagement. Mary was not ridiculed or shamed for being pregnant without getting married.

Fast forward to our modern day church and Mary who was so exemplary in the church as well as in the community gets pregnant without being married! She'd have suffered humiliation and human judgement which has no meaning in the sight of GOD.

Again, no one is in support of fornication, which is a sin, but denying couples the right to church marriage due to pregnancy compounds the problem. It's not scriptural and has no biblical backing.


Your claim "church wedding should be 'bed undefile'" is a confused and mixed up paradigm which addresses adultery for married couples.

Until you understand that a pastor/priest have no real ordination to bond any couple in matrimony, you'd not come to the truth about marriage.

JMAN05:
God of mercy doesn't mean one should love what is bad. (Ps 97:10)



I personally have not considered it this way before, ie, the couple A scenario. It is true that such can occur. But while that of B will receive immediate judgment, that of A will still come later in a true xten church. (1Tim 5:24)

If after some years, it later become know that they engaged in sex and covered it, among JW, they would be disfellowshiped as having played false to the spirit. (Acts 5:4-6) no need to water down Gods word and condone abomination just to play good guy.



Whatever the result of not wedding a pregnant woman in the church should not be traced to the church, but to the couples who caused their ordeal. What you sow, you reap. In the meantime, they can go for statutory marriage. For a true church, unless they are repentant, they would be disfellowshiped.



God willnjidge those outside the church, but those on the inside can rightly be judged.

1cor 5:12-13

12 For what do I have to do with judging those outside? Do you not judge those inside, 13 while God judges those outside? “Remove the wicked person from among yourselves

I'll like to give you a little illustration which follows thus:

A man once lived in a little Christian community. Most people living in that community were mostly decent and GODly people who practice their Christian faith with all sincerity as far as their understanding leads them.

One day, the man became hungry and stole his neighbour's goat and ate it. He was caught and reported to the king who doubles as the town's priest.

The man pleaded and offered to repay the stolen goat but the king refused and banished him for bringing such shame and abominable act of stealing in a GODly community. The man was denied the opportunity to right his wrong.

My point is this; a man who brings a lady he impregnated to church in order to make her his wife does well. He has taken the first step of repentance, to right his wrong and give the woman a befitting place in his life. A church denying him this opportunity of righting his wrong does not act in the wisdom of the HOLY SPIRIT, but from the legalistic yoke of a Pharisee.

That was not the principle of CHRIST and the adulterous woman in John 8. Slut-shaming a woman by denying her the opportunity to a church wedding because she's pregnant as a result of fornication has no scriptural base. It spurned from man's self-righteous act and extra-scriptural misapplication.

It is a different matter when a Christian brother and sister are caught in fornication and the church decides to discipline them.

And what gives a church the right to ask intending couples to do a compulsory pregnancy test? What sheer arrogance and pastoral overreach! Do they go over the board making sure every money donated in their offertory coffers is untainted? Bloody 21st century Pharisees!

There was never a direct or implied command from GOD to any priest or pastor to join any couple in matrimony. And none of the patriarch in scripture ever did. Not Moses, not CHRIST nor any of HIS disciples.

There's no scriptural reference from where a priest or pastor can draw his authority to declare couple husband and wife. Church marriage was man's creation.

But it's a good thing if only priests and pastors would stop hijacking the roles of parents and act humbly by blessing the union after obtaining the consent of the couple and of their parents.

analice107:
Trust me when i tell you this, your thiefing father and the entire males in your family can't come close to look at my cunt.

You have started right? just wait. Very soon you'd run to google to look for abuses to use on me. I know who to call for you.

Let it go. There're different ways among different people in displaying affection. No matter how twisted and absurd or even antagonising a character might exhibit towards the opposite sex, it might just be a way he expresses his desire to have a flash of your lustre.

Never underestimate how weird the power of attraction can be. It manifests in strange ways.

The OP is right! There's no biblical backing restricting two consenting people (man and woman) from getting married if the woman is pregnant for him.

In fact I put forward the closest scripture regarding this as follows:

"Suppose a man has intercourse with a young woman who is a virgin but is not engaged to be married, if they are discovered, he must pay her father fifty pieces of silver. Then he must marry her, and he may never divorce her as long as he lives". Deut 22:28-29

Man has always overstepped his bounds and authority and pastors and priests of today are no exception.

WOW! I'm stunned! Those were my very own words ravenously stolen!


Let him be., bro. Our vocabulary depth is infinitely accommodating.

NairalandHeroes:
if urhobos can praise themselves for having Okumagba as a chief a subject to the king OLU OF WARRI, then I should stand on Nairaland roof top to sing my praise for beheading the son of an unknown refugee in Warri.

Guy, I don't want to hear anymore of your acidic ripostes. You're making me feel so much pity for this poor lad, Kirigidi.

Kirigidi:
[/s]
As usual, that is my willing pet dog ! Nobody can drag your place of folly with you .

"Nobody can drag your place of folly with you"

This is an abuse of the English language - a typical aberration of standard English accustomed to the backwater, slum dwellers in Warri amongst whom standard English is an offence.

Standard English reads:

"Nobody can contest/take your place in folly".

The word "drag" is never synonymous with "contest". That is Warri slum-language associated with the town's bumpkins


Education remains the key to youth development and not militancy.

Kirigidi:
[/s]
My obedient dullard pet dog @TheUmbra! Are you fool there ? Don't be tired now! Don't worry, let me give you a fat rotten bone to energize your folly . Now take it: you are a useless confused illiterate !

Kirigidi:
[/s]
My pet goats @NairalandHeroes? Why are you quiet and not bleating as before . Let the fun continue now . There are people here enjoying your display of stupidity . I understand why you pursed, no energy left in you continue your usual bleating after my flogging of you for misbehaving . My willing pet, now take this yam peels to ginger your bleating: Your mother is a harlot !

All @ the emboldened:

Education isn't resource control agitation or deve collection. Good morning!

NairalandHeroes:
When your father budgeted more funds for his ogogoro than he did your education, I'm not surprised you don't know the past participle of the verb run. And you want to pretend your parents went to school.

Devil destroy you!

Eh! But why? Why do you have to commit day light murder?

Ok now that you've kill Kirigidi, please accord him the right to a decent burial.
Would that be too much of an asking?

NairalandHeroes:
So you don't know verb and their participles again? It's "have run" not "have ran" as "run" is the past participle of the verb "run".

You must be one of those unwashed dregs of humanity whose value is just plain nuisance to humanity.

Even the earth will reject your corpse in death. Nature erred making you human, you should have evolved as a pit latrine maggot.

Oh no, not again!

Another decapitation of Kirigidi. But when the braincase is empty, what's the use keeping the function-less head?

Well done, nairalandheroes!!!

NairalandHeroes:
when urhobos are the least educated tribe in Delta state. Stop trying to give your crown to others!

Ah! Arrow shot straight at the target's chest!

Aarrghhh!!!

Kirigidi:
Rubbish from a shameless illiterate!

Your misery has only just begun. Continue running your mouth. Hope you are pummelling nairalandheroes and theumbra?

Hallucinogenic, psychopathic, self-promoting empty skull.

You're finished!

Niger Delta restive, hardened criminal!