Like a rutting buck.

Having shared the arguments of both St. Jerome and St. Augustine on sex in marriage (which again are not RCC doctrine*), I want to look at what the Bible says.  As several readers have noted, Song of Solomon literally sings the praises of the pleasure of marital sex.  But even aside from Song of Solomon, there is also Proverbs 5.  As with 1 Cor 7, the proverb starts by warning against sexual immorality and then exhorts the believer to direct their sexual passion as rightfully designed, into marriage:

15Drink water from your own cistern,
    running water from your own well.
16 Should your springs overflow in the streets,
    your streams of water in the public squares?
17 Let them be yours alone,
    never to be shared with strangers.
18 May your fountain be blessed,
    and may you rejoice in the wife of your youth.
19 A loving doe, a graceful deer—
    may her breasts satisfy you always,
    may you ever be intoxicated with her love.
20 Why, my son, be intoxicated with another man’s wife?
    Why embrace the bosom of a wayward woman?

This isn’t cold sex only to conceive a child, or mere duty sex.  It also isn’t a picture of sex “purified” by romantic love**.  This is sex with great physical passion.  The proverb exhorts husbands to rejoice in their wives’ bodies:

may her breasts satisfy you always

Contrary to the argument that sexual passion is sinful if it isn’t carefully constrained, husbands are exhorted to be intoxicated with passion for their wives.  The proverb offers the example to follow of a buck in the rut.  For how else can we interpret this exhortation?

A loving doe, a graceful deer

Certainly the proverb isn’t encouraging bestiality, but exhorting husbands to approach their wives with the same kind of passion a rutting buck has for a doe.

Aside from Song of Solomon and Proverbs 5, we also learn from Ecclesiastes 9:7-10 that marital sex, along with food and wine, are gifts from God, as they are our earthly reward:

7 Go, eat your bread with joy, and drink your wine with a merry heart, for God has already approved what you do.

8 Let your garments be always white. Let not oil be lacking on your head.

9 Enjoy life with the wife whom you love, all the days of your vain[b] life that he has given you under the sun, because that is your portion in life and in your toil at which you toil under the sun. 10 Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with your might,[c] for there is no work or thought or knowledge or wisdom in Sheol, to which you are going.

There is a carnal, matter of fact, feeling to this, since it is associated with enjoying food and drink. This passage is an echo of Ecc 8:15:

15 So I commend the enjoyment of life, because there is nothing better for a person under the sun than to eat and drink and be glad. Then joy will accompany them in their toil all the days of the life God has given them under the sun.

This comes from Ecclesiastes, the book that teaches that our earthly lives are vanity.  Yet even while teaching that what matters is the spiritual, it still exhorts us to enjoy the physical pleasures of food, wine, and marital sex.  These are it tells us, God’s portion for us for our earthly toil.

*As a Protestant it is not my intention with these posts to teach or comment on RCC doctrine.  My point is merely that the teachings of St. Augustine and St. Jerome are not themselves RCC doctrine.

**Romantic love is of course a wonderful thing in the context of marriage, and marriage and sex are both more enjoyable with it.  However, the idea that romantic love is purifying is not biblical, and comes from the medieval concept of courtly love, an idolization of adultery.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Beautiful truth, Marriage, Romantic Love. Bookmark the permalink.

209 Responses to Like a rutting buck.

  1. Pingback: Like a rutting buck. | Aus-Alt-Right

  2. The deep irony is that the “modern” view on sexual relationships is all about feeding Vanity. Ecclesiastes takes on a fascinating light in the post-modern era.

  3. Oh, and to drop in a common point I like to make: it all comes back to Self-Control & Carefulness. We talk about passion & “love” in terms of Fire quite a lot, and that’s the appropriate metaphor. Fire is insanely destructive if not controlled, but most of the modern world is build, forged and supported by the proper application of fire, in all of its forms. That is the power of Control of Nature.

    A pity Christians prefer “stupid” & self-interested most of the time.

  4. The Question says:

    What you’re stating here, Dalrock has basically been my viewpoint on the matter since I first read the Bible as a child. You can imagine, then, how bewildering it was to growing up to hear and read commentary by Christian leaders arguing and promoting otherwise.

    Sex is for pleasure and creating new life, but the feminism propaganda in the church today unwittingly or not leads women to marry someone they do not sexually desire after they have sufficiently sown their wild oats with other men. And they’re increasing marrying at an age when their fertility is on a steep decline.

  5. Scott says:

    Essential to the same comment I made last post.

    If I ever stop feeling/acting like a rutting buck around my wife, just shoot me.

  6. galloper6 says:

    Perhaps the anti marital sex attitude in Christianity is the results of the near monopoly of literacy and education by monasteries? For centuries monks controlled the books, both reading and publishing.

  7. infowarrior1 says:

    @galloper6

    There were trends in western philosophy at the time that infected men with the unbiblical notion that sex is evil and that having children is polluting the earth.

  8. Reluctant Neo says:

    Right on. Also I have been thinking more about the apparent lack of sexual desire in Christian women, and it puzzles me. The idea that women aren’t that interested in the physical side of a relationship is in many ways a lie, but why is it so true in Christian marriages? And I am talking about women with no prior sexual experience, not the alpha widow types.

  9. infowarrior1 says:

    @Reluctant Neo

    Its probably due to the fact that they marry men they aren’t sexually attracted to. But I think other commenters can chime in to offer other perspectives.

  10. Augustine372@gmail.com says:

    Dalrock, thanks for the blog. This Catholic has learned much from you.

    I am posting sections 2360 to 2363 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church to clarify what is the Catholic Church’s teaching. There is some additional teaching at the link below, but I think sections 2360-2363 get at the core of this issue.
    (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P86.HTM):

    III. The Love of Husband and Wife

    2360 Sexuality is ordered to the conjugal love of man and woman. In marriage the physical intimacy of the spouses becomes a sign and pledge of spiritual communion. Marriage bonds between baptized persons are sanctified by the sacrament.

    2361 “Sexuality, by means of which man and woman give themselves to one another through the acts which are proper and exclusive to spouses, is not something simply biological, but concerns the innermost being of the human person as such. It is realized in a truly human way only if it is an integral part of the love by which a man and woman commit themselves totally to one another until death.”142

    Tobias got out of bed and said to Sarah, “Sister, get up, and let us pray and implore our Lord that he grant us mercy and safety.” So she got up, and they began to pray and implore that they might be kept safe. Tobias began by saying, “Blessed are you, O God of our fathers…. You made Adam, and for him you made his wife Eve as a helper and support. From the two of them the race of mankind has sprung. You said, ‘It is not good that the man should be alone; let us make a helper for him like himself.’ I now am taking this kinswoman of mine, not because of lust, but with sincerity. Grant that she and I may find mercy and that we may grow old together.” and they both said, “Amen, Amen.” Then they went to sleep for the night. [143 -Tob 8:4-9.]

    2362 “The acts in marriage by which the intimate and chaste union of the spouses takes place are noble and honorable; the truly human performance of these acts fosters the self-giving they signify and enriches the spouses in joy and gratitude.”144 Sexuality is a source of joy and pleasure:

    The Creator himself . . . established that in the [generative] function, spouses should experience pleasure and enjoyment of body and spirit. Therefore, the spouses do nothing evil in seeking this pleasure and enjoyment. They accept what the Creator has intended for them. At the same time, spouses should know how to keep themselves within the limits of just moderation. [145 – Pius XII, Discourse, October 29,1951]

    2363 The spouses’ union achieves the twofold end of marriage: the good of the spouses themselves and the transmission of life. These two meanings or values of marriage cannot be separated without altering the couple’s spiritual life and compromising the goods of marriage and the future of the family.
    The conjugal love of man and woman thus stands under the twofold obligation of fidelity and fecundity.

    [D: Thank you.]

  11. Reluctant Neo says:

    That’s a fair way to read it infowarrior. Next question, why do they marry anyway? Have they also heard the lie repeated enough, and they convince themselves that the sexual component shouldn’t be important to the woman as long as the man is good/stable? And I’m talking about women that marry fairly young, not out of desperation.

    They may see their only other option as the bad boy who is not following God, and even though attracted to him physically they know he is not a wise life choice.

  12. Pathfinderlight says:

    Catholic doctrine often sets up ranges in which permissible beliefs can be held. It allows a lot of what we call emphasis while prohibiting denials of other’s permissible positions. This sort of framework helps prevent the SJW style appeal to tolerance, then subsequent refusal to entertain other beliefs as valid.

  13. Pingback: Like a rutting buck. | Reaction Times

  14. Spike says:

    Is this the Biblical view on sex from first principles?
    In Genesis we learned that God made them Male and Female. They had only one commandment – not to eat of the fruit of the tree. Had God thought it necessary to limit sex between the only two people present, He would have told them so.
    In the Law, we learn that God places limits on sex – that is, unrestricted sex, by reserving sexual relations to occur between married couples.
    Now, in Ecclesiastes, Scripture tells us that it is safe to objectify your wife. I say objectify because it is the biggest argument feminists have against men, that we “objectify” women. They do not tell us what we are supposed to find sexually attractive. Chickens, perhaps.
    In the New Testament, Jesus upholds the Old Testament views on marriage. Many of the Apostles, such as Peter, were married, and Jesus didn’t give them any specific instructions. Finally, the Apostle Paul, while not married*, gave Christian married couples the often quoted advice discussed here.

    My point is this: There is nothing in Biblical teaching that stands out as aberrant, unsustainable, or burdensome. it follows then that if “Modern Christian” (churchian) teaching IS burdensome, then it is unbiblical.

    *Some of Paul’s biographers maintain that, in order to be a member of the Sanhedrin, Paul would have had to be married at one time as it was a requirement. Many say he was widowed early in life, prior to his conversion.

  15. infowarrior1 says:

    @Reluctant Neo
    The scripture makes it clear the marriage should only be for those who “Burn with Passion” for each other (1 Corinthians 7:9). Otherwise its better to remain unmarried(1 Corinthians 7:8)

    Therefore they in doing this so called “marriage” make a mockery of the covenant that they make before God.

    Other from that I cannot deduce exactly what their motivations are. But to speculate perhaps the need to keep up appearance and unexamined gnostic assumptions.

  16. infowarrior1 says:

    @Spike
    Song of Solomon further reinforces the point that objectifying one’s wife is good and beautiful in the marital context.

  17. infowarrior1 says:

    @Spike

    We see the twin heresies within both sex-negative and sex-positive feminism of frigidity and promiscuity. Neither of which is godly or good. But each wholly negative and presenting false alternatives to the other.

  18. Dalrock says:

    @Spike

    Had God thought it necessary to limit sex between the only two people present, He would have told them so.

    Ha. At first I read this as an argument for threesomes, etc. But re reading it I get your meaning.

    Now, in Ecclesiastes, Scripture tells us that it is safe to objectify your wife. I say objectify because it is the biggest argument feminists have against men, that we “objectify” women.

    What is interesting is that women want to be objectified as much as men are tempted to do so. Clearly if a man objectifying a woman is a sin, then a woman wanting to draw a man into this sin is an equally serious sin*. And both are sins when directed outside of marriage, for a man to lust for a woman who is not his wife, and for a woman to want to be lusted after by men who are not her husband. But if it is always a sin, it is always a sin for both.

    *I’m guessing my new book series “Every woman’s battle”, stressing the importance of not giving in to the urge to dress for sexual attention, won’t make the same splash its counterpart did.

  19. @Spike
    “In the Law, we learn that God places limits on sex – that is, unrestricted sex, by reserving sexual relations to occur between married couples.”

    I have been looking for a long time for this and maybe you can help me. Where, precisely, does Scripture say that it is forbidden for a man and woman who are eligible to marry to have sex outside marriage?

    Where in the Law can I find the prohibition on sex outside marriage? I’m aware that certain sexual practices are forbidden, but I’m not asking about the 12 instances of incest, 3 instances of incest that are restricted to polygynous marriages, 1 of adultery, 1 of male homosexuality, 2 of bestiality and the prohibition on any form of idolatrous sex that are found in the Law. Nor am I concerned about the prohibition on having sex with a woman while she’s menstruating or the prohibition on having sex with a woman during the proscribed period after childbirth. I already know where all those are. I’m asking you where the specific prohibition is that forbids a man from having sex with an eligible woman if they are not married.

  20. Dalrock says:

    @AT

    I’m asking you where the specific prohibition is that forbids a man from having sex with an eligible woman if they are not married.

    See Proverbs 5, as quoted in the OP:

    15Drink water from your own cistern,
    running water from your own well.
    16 Should your springs overflow in the streets,
    your streams of water in the public squares?
    17 Let them be yours alone,
    never to be shared with strangers.
    18 May your fountain be blessed,
    and may you rejoice in the wife of your youth.
    19 A loving doe, a graceful deer—
    may her breasts satisfy you always,
    may you ever be intoxicated with her love.
    20 Why, my son, be intoxicated with another man’s wife?
    Why embrace the bosom of a wayward woman?

  21. Damn Crackers says:

    All these 2000 years of the Junior Anti-Sex League is making my head spin. I’m just going to follow the Catholic Catechism 2355 which states, “While it is always gravely sinful to engage in prostitution, the imputability of the offense can be attenuated by destitution, blackmail, or social pressure.”

    Due to the social pressure of our time, banging whores in the most unspeakable ways must be the smallest sin of all.

  22. Phil says:

    @infowarrior1:
    You wrote: “The scripture makes it clear the marriage should only be for those who “Burn with Passion” for each other (1 Corinthians 7:9). Otherwise its better to remain unmarried(1 Corinthians 7:8)”

    Balderdash. And this business of misinterpreting 1 Cor 7 has gotten out of hand; especially v.1 and the claim that Paul (and by extension, “the scripture” as a whole) universally extolled the celibate/unmarried state above marriage. If such were God’s view, the New Testament would depart radically from the law and the prophets, and indeed creation itself. Instead, however, we see that 1 Cor 7 stands as a lone voice in this admonition. We need look no further than the passage itself to see why: “I think that in view of the present distress…” (v.26, often left out of the discussion). Paul clearly states that, aside from unmarried persons dedication to God, his advice is in response to a “present crisis” in Corinth at the time of his writing. The nature of that crisis has been subject to much speculation, all of which fall short of certainty. But the nature of the crisis is irrelevant to the point that the crisis was a (if not *the*) substantial factor in Paul unique-to-this-book advice to avoid marriage if possible. It’s an exegetical embarrassment pluck 1 Cor 7:9 — and it’s corresponding verses in 26 & 27 — from their context and misuse them as a pretext to impose upon the rest of “the scripture” as you’ve attempted.

    If the scripture has a unified voice, it is one that extols marriage, as indeed Christ’s relationship to His Church is that of husband to bride. Elsewhere Paul is equally supportive of scripture’s unified voice promoting marriage; except, of course, in this *one* chapter.

  23. desiderian says:

    That intoxicated (ravished in the KJV) is the Hebrew shagah which usually means “err” or even “sin.” That’s a strange one, Mr. Grinch.

  24. Damn Crackers says:

    You really want to get the low down on marriage (and women in general), read the Hebrew Wisdom literature. Some of these books were written only a few centuries before Christ:

    A bad wife is like a yoke that doesn’t fit. Trying to control her is like holding a scorpion. A drunken woman is an infuriating sight; she can’t conceal her shameless behavior. You can tell an unfaithful wife by the bold and flirting look in her eyes.If your daughter is determined to have her own way, keep a close watch on her. If you don’t, she’ll take advantage of any chance she gets. If she is too self-willed, be on guard, and don’t be surprised if she disappoints you. She’ll spread her legs anywhere for any man who wants her, just as a thirsty traveler will drink whatever water is available.

    Sirach 26:7-12

  25. infowarrior1 says:

    @Phil
    Don’t you think the church right now is in a grip of distress right now given the attacks of modernity on christianity?

    Alright. Perhaps I misused the text. However my point still stands unless both sexes are head over heels for each other its better not to marry lest the farce of a marriage I responding to above occur.

  26. In other words, bang that bitch like it’s 1999! Right?

  27. Hose_B says:

    @Infowarrior

    I am assuming you are referring to voluntary marriages as opposed to arranged marriages in which there is no choice, but the instructions and requirements remain the same.

    Men and women, both Christian and secular, marry for a plethora of reasons and unfortunately “if the bible clearly says” rarely plays a role.
    You mentioned young virginal Christian girls in your question…….but think for a moment the duality of what a good young Christian girl hears. She might or might not be getting a good example of sex within a marriage. She might be getting taught to submit to her husband, she might be taught a twisted form of “Christian Feminism”
    Plus they WANT to get married, even for the wrong reasons. Social pressure, parental pressure, fear of lonliness, naive notions of marriage. And maybe that’s the most dangerous thing about young women……naïveté. They “know” more about the world these days, yet KNOW nothing.
    My wife was the virginal, marry young (19) Christian bride. I had very little biblical knowledge at that point….(maybe I’m the bad boy?) and it took over 15 years (and the help of good men like dalrocks) for me to see how twisted her views on marriage had been. And her parents really and truly meant well. Now, I’ve done way too much damage in the meantime for the knowledge to do much good in my marriage, but at least I can see the truth now. And hopefully avoid it in my own daughter.
    Guys, teach your sons and daughters. Support your fellow Christian husbands, teach your wives to support their sisters in supporting their husbands.

  28. theasdgamer says:

    I don’t see any such prohibition in the passage…it only speaks about adultery (“with another man’s wife”)

  29. Lyn87 says:

    A bunch of celibate guys talking about marital sex makes about as much sense as a bunch of Amish guys talking about adjusting carburetors.

  30. Chris says:

    “The scripture makes it clear the marriage should only be for those who “’Burn with Passion’ for each other (1 Corinthians 7:9).”

    Which serves as further proof that Matthew 5:28 is more often than not misunderstood. Going by the traditional (mis)interpretation, Paul’s words here would be unscriptural, because single people shouldn’t be burning with passion for each other in the first place.

  31. Stryker7200 says:

    Lyn87 – Nice shaming language, I’m sure it will be effective and get the results you want. As far as I know a large portion of the commenters on this blog, including myself, are married.

  32. Oscar says:

    @ theasdgamer says:
    December 22, 2016 at 7:27 am

    “I don’t see any such prohibition in the passage…it only speaks about adultery (‘with another man’s wife’)”

    Prov. 5:15Drink water from your own cistern,
    running water from your own well.

    Which “cistern” is “your own”? Which “well” is “your own”?

  33. Reluctant Neo says:

    Lyn87– that’s what some women like to say to shut down men talking about abortion. Anyone reading their Bible closely can tell a great deal about married sex and about what God thinks of it, celibate or not. There is certainly a deeper understanding for married men, but there is no excuse for anyone to twist the scriptures.

  34. theasdgamer says:

    Being raped (KJV: “ravished”) by love (for your wife) is indeed a strange one. I’m not a fan of the KJV.

  35. theasdgamer says:

    And, of course, we see shagah being used with reference to alcohol and drunkenness in Isaiah 28:7…

    “But they also have erred through wine, and through strong drink are out of the way” (KJV)

  36. Lyn87 says:

    Stryker and Neo,

    I was referring to the fact that the people whose extra-Biblical assertions we are discussing are all unmarried men who have taken vows of celibacy (Augustine, Jerome, JP2…). That alone makes their assertions regarding marriage and sex worthy of being viewed with skepticism, to say nothing of the fact that elders are to be “the husband of one wife.”

    1 Timothy 3:5 says, “For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?”

    How, indeed?

  37. sipcode says:

    Scripture is clear that the church will have fables and false teachers. You note a key fable. And fables are lies which lead to death. Both the world and church have done this; both lying about the purpose of sex. If a God fearing man was unrestricted in his own bedroom, glorious things —Glory to God– would happen.

  38. Reluctant Neo says:

    Lyn87, if an unmarried pastor or priest gives some biblical exhortations about marriage (don’t have sex if you’re not married, don’t stop having sex if you are married), should his assertions be viewed with skepticism just because he is celibate?

    The assertions you refer to are wrong because they are extra-Biblical, not because they come from unmarried men. Their marital state is no excuse and no explanation for their terrible theology.

  39. Lyn87 says:

    Neo,

    Your point about women claiming sole authority to discuss abortion is moot. Abortion is murder, and both men and women are capable of murder. I’m not twisting anything.

    As for the “deeper understanding” that married men have, both 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 declare that elders and deacons should be “the husband of one wife:” and Paul even tells us why, “For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?”

  40. Lyn87 says:

    Neo… we were typing at the same time…

    The assertions are not wrong BECAUSE they were uttered by unmarried men – we agree that they are wrong because they are against scriptures. As for “an unmarried pastor or priest,” I reject that notion that an unmarried man is qualified to be a pastor (1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1), and I categorically deny that anyone can be a priest in any way other than the “priesthood of the believer” sense.

    When Jesus was crucified God tore the veil – we have no need of human intermediaries.

  41. Gunner Q says:

    Lyn87 @ 7:50 am:
    “A bunch of celibate guys talking about marital sex makes about as much sense as a bunch of Amish guys talking about adjusting carburetors.”

    Forgive me, Father Billy Joe, for I have sinned. Last night, I touched myself while fantasizing about carburetors again. Maybe God meant for me to own a tractor? Life could be a lot easier if I had a tractor like our neighbors and they sure look like fun, even with all the extra maintenance.

    That’s crazy talk, Earl. If tractors made you miserable then you could be around them safely but not when they excite you so much.

    Relax, Billy Joe, I’ve been talking with these Pickup Artists from the town garage. They’re okay folks who discuss engines all the time.

    NOOOO! Come back, Earl! Don’t be tempted away from riding horses!

  42. Reluctant Neo says:

    Lyn87, I think you’re one of the best commenters here. I don’t want to get bogged down in arguments. The main problem I had with your earlier statement here is that you were focused on the _marital state_ instead of the _message_. Married and unmarried men should equally be able to discern God’s teaching on sex which Dalrock laid out well in this post. I’ll leave it at that.

  43. Lyn87 says:

    Neo wrote, ” Married and unmarried men should equally be able to discern God’s teaching on sex which Dalrock laid out well in this post. I’ll leave it at that.”

    First, Thank you for the kind words.

    Second, I have no issue with that at all – I don’t even have an issue with unmarried men attempting to exposit about Scripture – even if that exposition relates to marriage and sex. What I DO have a problem with (and what Paul had a problem with in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1), is a society of unmarried men making such pronouncements while claiming the authority to do so from positions of ecclesiastical authority.

  44. Boxer says:

    Lyn87, if an unmarried pastor or priest gives some biblical exhortations about marriage (don’t have sex if you’re not married, don’t stop having sex if you are married), should his assertions be viewed with skepticism just because he is celibate?

    I never want to go toe-to-toe with Lyn87, but in my (anecdotal) experience, I think I know why celibacy is/was an ideal. If I’m right, it’s not a bad reason.

    A celibate man who takes his vows seriously is not a potential lover or husband to the woman in the confession. He is in a paternal role instead. All tears, whining, showing of tits and other typical feminine attempts at manipulation come to no effect when used on her father, right? In theory, it should be the same with the priest. Male penitents face the same structure in the priest’s vow of poverty. The priest in his proper role can not be bribed, with money or sex. He’s an impartial judge and will hopefully pronounce a fair sentence for your bad deeds.

    Boxer

  45. bob k. mando says:

    *Dalrock
    As a Protestant it is not my intention with these posts to teach or comment on RCC doctrine
    . ”

    to be fair to the Catholics, it’s not as if the Protestants have not ALSO practiced this stupidity from time to time.

    the Shakers, amongst other denominations
    https://infogalactic.com/info/Shakers

    the problem is this, that by making a “Saint” out of someone so far outside nominal doctrine ( and so obviously ‘problematic’ ) that it provides a lot of impetus to the whole celibacy-within-marriage movement.

    and remember, the ‘celibate priesthood’ didn’t exist in practice until the 11th century:
    https://infogalactic.com/info/Clerical_celibacy#Eleventh_and_twelfth_centuries

    the problem was the expectation that married priests were to live in “continence”, which is in direct opposition to all of the Scripture cited here:
    http://www.barnhardt.biz/2016/12/21/prayers-answered-feedback-on-priestly-celibacy/

  46. Lyn87 says:

    Boxer,

    The reason I don’t buy the RCC / celibate man / priesthood paradigm is not because I think that married men are better people, or better Christians, or any of that. The reason I reject the model is because it violates scripture, and I have to accept that.

    The Apostle Paul declares – twice – that elders and deacons are to be “the husband of one wife,” and he goes on to tell us why so there’s no ambiguity: “For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?”

    That strikes me as blindingly straightforward and not subject to much latitude. Most people nowadays (including people whose exegesis I respect) argue that Paul did not intend to categorically exclude men who were not-yet-married, but either way there’s no possible way to declare that married men are categorically EXcluded from those positions, which the RCC has done for most of its history. So not only do we have – at least a seeming preference for married men in those positions – but we know the reason why that preference exists: a leader of the church is a man who who has demonstrated that he can lead at home (or at least not demonstrated that he cannot do so in the case of those who posit that marriage is not a requirement for deacons and elders). In any case, the proof is in the pudding – the men who first came up with the idea that marital sex is wrong (or at least something to be viewed with suspicion and not enjoyed for its own sake), were men who had eschewed experiencing that themselves – hence my earlier comment that, “A bunch of celibate guys talking about marital sex makes about as much sense as a bunch of Amish guys talking about adjusting carburetors.”

    The other problem I see is that you’re bringing up the confessional, but the confessional is extra-Biblical as well. Although we are told to “confess our sins one to another” that is certainly NOT so that “priests” can give us “absolution.” By definition, a priest is someone who acts as an intermediary between a person and God (or even “a” God in the case of pagan religions). As Christians, we ARE a “royal priesthood” (1 Peter 2:9) with Christ Himself as our High Priest (Hebrews 4:14-16). We have no Earthly intermediaries whose favor we need to curry nor whose hoops we need to jump through to be forgiven. That’s why Protestants generally don’t have “confessional” booths, and why we heed the scripture that says “Call no man “Father.” (Matthew 23:9). It’s also why we don’t have Purgatory or do rituals of penance – we accept that when Jesus said, “It is finished!” that He meant it (1 Peter 3:18). Within Biblical Christianity, the problem you bring up in your last paragraph is never an issue.

    I hope that helps clarify my position.

  47. SJB says:

    @Dalrock: good series; you have shown Solomon/Qoheleth, Augustine, and Jerome to be at least as opinionated as contemporary comboxers.

  48. theasdgamer says:

    @Oscar

    Which “cistern” is “your own”? Which “well” is “your own”?

    Where’s the prohibition? The only prohibition in the passage is against adultery. Your objection is a red herring, but it brings up an interesting point in the passage about giving your wife sexual attention.

  49. Oscar says:

    theasdgamer says:
    December 22, 2016 at 12:52 pm

    “Your objection is a red herring”

    False.

    If someone admonishes you to “mind your own business”, and you instead mind business that is not your own, you’ve clearly violated the admonishment.

    The passage clearly commands us to “Drink water from your own cistern, running water from your own well.” If a man drinks water from a cistern that is not his own, or running water from a well that is not his own, he violates the passage. So, please answer the questions.

    Which “cistern” is “your own”? Which “well” is “your own”?

  50. dvdivx says:

    Good thing God also tells you to be trapped in a marriage from hell with a frigid harpy. Must have missed the verses on how to enjoy it. The Bible is missing that there are two roads to hell not just one. Don’t believe in Christ and marry the wrong woman. Jesus only saves you from the first hell. And the whole alpha/beta crap is pointless when someone marries you wanting kids,money etc. It’s entering a contract with one side not knowing the actual terms. There comes a point when you don’t want to win her back you don’t even want to be near her. Before I got married I often wondered why someone would abandoned their spouse and kids but now I know. Trapped animals just want to be free even if they have to naw off their own limbs to do it.

  51. Stryker7200 says:

    Lyn87 – I apologize your comment went whizzing right by me, I had found it a bit odd coming from you too.

    As far as the “Man of one wife”, I always read this as having to do not with married vs single men, but rather men with one wife vs men with multiple wives.

  52. Jeff Strand says:

    Lyn,

    You claim that abortion is murder, but you can only rely on your opinion of that. The N.T. is silent on the matter, and the O.T. has some cryptic verses that are far from definitive. Which is why the vast majority of Jews accept the O.T. as Scripture AND accept abortion. And even St. Thomas Aquinas taught that abortion may be accepted until “quickening”.

    So for example, I have a friend who is a devout Baptist (she’s also a Cuban, go figure). She goes on all the time about how she has “accepted Jesus”, she is “saved” and therefore going straight to Heaven, etc. Yet she thinks abortion should remain legal for women who want to avail themselves of it. Heck, she could even get an abortion herself. Is that wrong? Not according to her, and how she reads the Bible. You can disagree with her, but so what? You can’t judge her. And I wouldn’t think you would hold that God can judge her either…because then you open yourself to judgment for rejecting all the doctrines that the Church Fathers taught.

    For example, the Council of Florence in the 1200’s explicitly pronounced that all non-Catholics are damned. And added that this included “not only the pagans, but also Jews, heretics, and schismatics. […] even if they have shed their blood for the name of Christ.” So obviously this includes you. So how angry would you be to find yourself damned at your judgment, because you rejected the Council of Florence? You see, and that’s an authoritative Church Council! So how much more could my friend claim to reject your opinions…or Pat Robertson’s, or whoever. So in Protestantism, you can make no judgments about what is sinful – you can only claim what you think, based on your own interpretation of the Bible, is a sin. But you have no right to assume that’s true for anyone else…because they may interpret the Bible differently. And if you deny them that right, then you are denying the whole basis of Protestantism.

    P.S. You know that Bible you are so fond of? Well, brace yourself: the canon of Scripture was decided at the Councils of Hippo and Carthage by…wait for it…celibate old men. And that’s the same Bible you use today, except for a few books of the O.T. that Martin Luther pulled out (on his own authority – you can’t make this up!) because they had references to Catholic doctrines (such as prayers for the dead) that were a little too uncomfortable for the volatile German Augustinian. Luther also wanted to make large changes to the NT (including removing the entire Book of Revelations) but his close associates talked him out of it, as they thought that beyond what even the common folk could accept.

  53. Dalrock says:

    @Oscar

    If someone admonishes you to “mind your own business”, and you instead mind business that is not your own, you’ve clearly violated the admonishment.

    The passage clearly commands us to “Drink water from your own cistern, running water from your own well.” If a man drinks water from a cistern that is not his own, or running water from a well that is not his own, he violates the passage. So, please answer the questions.

    Which “cistern” is “your own”? Which “well” is “your own”?

    I think it is pretty clear that any Scripture we point to here won’t “count”. The parallels between Proverbs 5 and 1 Cor 7 are pretty striking, as both of them very clearly explain that sexual passion should only be directed to marriage. OT or NT, take your pick, the message is clear.

    But even the logic of their argument doesn’t make sense. If the only sex God has a problem with is sex with another man’s wife, why would God tell us to marry to avoid sexual sin? After all, if no man married, there would be no married women to tempt us into sexual sin. More marriage would (under AT and ASDGamer’s theory) only increase sexual sin, whereas less marriage would reduce it. Why didn’t God think of that?

  54. theasdgamer says:

    You have made a logical error. “Drink water from your own cistern” =/= “Do not drink water from other cisterns”.

  55. Scott says:

    Jeff Strand.

    The problem of how/who/when the scripture was collated is precisely the wedge that caused me to start the journey to Orthodoxy.

  56. Oscar says:

    @ theasdgamer says:
    December 22, 2016 at 3:41 pm

    “You have made a logical error. ‘Drink water from your own cistern’ =/= ‘Do not drink water from other cisterns’.”

    You have made a logical error. “Mind your own business” =/= “Do not mind business that is not your own”.

  57. Oscar says:

    @ Dalrock says:
    December 22, 2016 at 3:38 pm

    Indeed.

  58. theasdgamer says:

    Dalrock:

    I think it is pretty clear that any Scripture we point to here won’t “count”.

    Invalid interpretations and scripture-twisting never “count.”

    both of them very clearly explain that sexual passion should only be directed to marriage.

    Both of them very clearly explain that sexual obligations should be fulfilled in marriage. You add the “only” interpretation to the text and turn obligations into passion.

  59. theasdgamer says:

    Dalrock:

    If the only sex God has a problem with is sex with another man’s wife, why would God tell us to marry to avoid sexual sin?

    Are you referring to But since sexual immorality is occurring? If so, then I suspect that Paul was writing because some were teaching that having sexual relations with a wife was a sin (“gune” can be “woman” or “wife”). I get this from Now for the matters you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” From this issue, Paul launches immediately into a discussion of sex in marriage and fulfilling sexual obligations in marriage. Maybe the husband was ignoring the wife (this seems to be the main problem in Corinth) and she was going outside the marriage to get sex. Context matters.

  60. RichardP says:

    Was scripture not actually collated by the various churches that sprang up after the death of Christ? Those documents found “useful” were read to the congregation repeatedly and readily circulated to other congregations. Those documents found “less useful” were read less, or not at all – and gradually fell out of circulation. A careful reading of the circumstances suggests that the council which “created” the Bible more correctly gave a stamp of approval to those writings that had already been “selected” by the church at large over time. Thus, it really is a misdirection to state that the the Bible was a creation of celibate old men.

  61. Scott says:

    RichardP

    The problem is, even if I were accept that version of the “where did scripture come from” narrative (I don’t) my response would be that it sounds like there is a centuries long scripture tradition that Protestants use (and then one man threw out the ones he didn’t like 1100 years later).

    Therefore the difference is that Catholic/Orthodox admit they rely on tradition to have handed them their text.

  62. RichardP says:

    Is there a logical difference between

    – Only This (so can do nothing else)
    and
    – Not this (but can do everything else)

    Re. ‘Drink water from your own cistern’

    The logical problem with the quoted statement is that it is not conclusive.

    Saying “Only drink water from your own cistern” (Only This) would prohibit you from drinking from any cistern that is not your own (without defining how we can know if a cistern belongs to you). But the quoted statement doesn’t say that.

    Saying “Don’t drink water from someone else’s cistern” (Not This) would restrict you to drinking from only your own cistern (again, without defining how we can know if a cistern belongs to someone else, and if a cistern belongs to us). Again, the quoted statement does not say this either.

    The quoted statement maybe implies something, depending on your point of view. But that is the question – where is the command, not where is the implication?

    “Have no other god’s before me” is not an implication. It is a command.

    The question put forth in this thread is – where is such a command against an unmarried man having sex with an unmarried woman who is not the wife of another man and is not betrothed to another man? Where is the command, not the implication.

    I firmly believe the question “where is the command …?” cannot be answered without first answering the question “what creates a union of which God says ‘let not man put apart’?”. AT answers this question with his three-step process, the third step of which is “God joins them together”. But that begs my question, which is – which unions does God join together, such that man should not put them apart? What are the criteria that must be present before God will perform the third step of AT’s three-step process? I don’t have an answer I am willing to be dogmatic about at the moment, other than I doubt God will join those who reject his authority (the nonredeemed) together into a union of which he says “let not man put apart”. Particularly since that union that God has ‘joined together’ is a reflection of the union between Christ and his Church. The union of two nonredeemed definately do not reflect that union. I question whether the union between a redeemed and nonredeemed reflect that union either – since the Church is comprised of the redeemed.

    This is why theologians (or their equivalent in the Catholic Church) were invented – to answer questions like these – because the answer are not immediately obvious from reading the Bible.

    But, the Bible does say that whatsoever is not of faith is sin. And it does say this:

    “… the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.” (Luke 12:48 NIV)

    That verse could be taken to mean that God distinguishes among varying levels of faith. Which implies that God may well have different standards, for different levels of faith, for behavior that will trigger the coveted “well done thou good and faithful servant” utterance from his mouth. So – perhaps “drink from your own cistern” was purposefully left ambiguous, to be interpreted by each according to their level of faith / knowledge / understanding. Kind of like the meat offered to idols argument that Paul puts forth in the New Testament.

    The last part of this post invites wild speculation, but the first part – about the difference between “Not This” and “Only This”, the difference between implication and command, is firmly grounded in logic. The question asked in this thread is a legitimate one. The fact that no one can point to a command, and must resort to implication, is significant.

  63. Scott says:

    Although it did just occur to me that RC/Orthodox/Protestant debates are frowned upon on this site, so I’ll quit.

  64. Oscar says:

    @ RichardP says:
    December 22, 2016 at 4:51 pm

    “The last part of this post invites wild speculation, but the first part – about the difference between ‘Not This’ and ‘Only This’, the difference between implication and command, is firmly grounded in logic.”

    Since asdgamer won’t address the issue, maybe you will. If someone admonishes you to “mind your own business”, is it then logical for you to conclude that “he didn’t say not to mind business that is not my own, so then it must be permitted”?

  65. RichardP says:

    @ Scott: “Therefore the difference is that Catholic/Orthodox admit they rely on tradition to have handed them their text.”

    Then I did not word myself correctly, for I agree totally with your quoted statement. (Short version at last paragraph.) I was simply pointing out that the “tradition” did not start at the Council that ratified the Cannon. The Council (“comprised of old men”) ratified a tradition that had started much earlier. And that tradition was the churches (not comprised only of old men) who felt the Holy Spirit speaking to them through certain texts, and so retained them, and other texts where the churches felt they were either weakly repetitive of other, stronger writing, or were not inspired by the Holy Spirit.

    That is, the early Church served as a filter for what became the Cannon, and the Council mostly ratified what that filter had produced. I would only add that most mainstream Protestant denominations agree with what is presented here, including your quote above. The process is a matter of history that has been documented.

    The fact that Luther believed that Revelations could not be digested by the ordinary man (true) and that James should be left out because it seemed at odds with the rest of Paul’s teaching is not an obstacle to accepting the “tradition” point of view. There were folks at the Council who were not in total agreement on what should be included also. Disagreement’s aside, history teaches that the bulk of the New Testament is there because that is what the Church’s which sprang up after Christ’s ascension came to rely on as the most inspired by the Holy Spirit.

    My point restated: Sentient beings handed words written by other sentient beings (however inpired by the Holy Spirit they were) to the body of believers at the Council that determined the Cannon. Those words were not handed to that Council by some nebulous “tradition”. There was a process by which that happened, human hand to human hand, which history records. Protestants do not deny this. The main disagreement is mainly over what the words mean, not how they came about.

  66. Jeff Strand says:

    Scott,

    You make a good point. By what possible authority could Luther claim the right to change the canon of Scripture after it had been unquestioned for 1,100 years throughout all Christendom? No pope would would ever dream of claiming that power! Nor would any Eastern Orthodox Patriarch.

    If this authority is granted to Luther (a defrocked, ex-communicated former Augustinian monk who married an ex-nun), then to whom exactly is it denied? If Luther could throw out books from the Scriptures that he didn’t like, then why couldn’t Pat Robertson (for example) do likewise? After all, Luther did it after 1100 years, while Pat Robertson would be doing it after only 500.

    And btw, ALL Protestants – not just Lutherans – grant Luther this authority because they all use his Bible. It just makes absolutely no sense!

    So it gets even worse. According to Protestants, all the Christians who quoted those Biblical books that Luther would later take out…for all that 1100 years, were actually reading non-inspired material. They THOUGHT it was Holy Writ, but they were mistaken. By the same token, when Lyn quotes OT Scripture to me to justify her theological opinions, she has no idea if some future Martin Luther will also pull those books out of the Bible! Hey, if it happened once it can happen again!

    That’s what I meant earlier when I said that Protestantism is contrary to reason. I wasn’t trying to be mean, it just is. It is self-contradictory and therefore CANNOT be true.

  67. RichardP says:

    Edit: “and other texts where the churches felt they were either weakly repetitive of other, stronger writing, or were not inspired by the Holy Spirit” – add “were let go and not held onto”.

  68. RichardP says:

    @Oscar: “mind your own business”

    adsgamer point is this: what is my business? The answer to that question is not provided in the phrase “mind your own business”.

    I will gladly mind my own business. Where is the definition of what that is?

    That is is point of the question “where does it say an unmarried man cannot have sex with an unmarried woman who is not otherwise bound to someone else?”

    Note that I am only adressing the logic involved here. I am not making a case that all unbound folks are free to fornicate to their hearts content. Although I agree with those who say it is difficult to find where there is a command about this in the Bible, rather than simply an implication.

  69. Jeremy VanGelder says:

    You know, this discussion of the Canon touches closely on Jerome. Because Jerome translated the Bible into the Latin Vulgate. Luther translated the Vulgate into German. And, while doing that, he came across Jerome’s list of the Canon, and his dismissals of the Deuterocanonical books in his prologues. For example, see Jerome’s Prologue to the Books of the Kings:

    “This preface to the Scriptures may serve as a helmeted [i.e. defensive] introduction to all the books which we turn from Hebrew into Latin, so that we may be assured that what is outside of them must be placed aside among the Apocryphal writings. Wisdom, therefore, which generally bears the name of Solomon, and the book of Jesus the Son of Sirach, and Judith, and Tobias, and the Shepherd [of Hermes?] are not in the canon. The first book of Maccabees is found in Hebrew, but the second is Greek, as can be proved from the very style.”

    http://www.bible-researcher.com/jerome.html

  70. RichardP says:

    @Jeff Strand: “… all the Christians who quoted those Biblical books that Luther would later take out…for all that 1100 years, …”

    Your logic needs to be firmed up. The printing press was just becoming widely used at the time of Martin Luther. Those “Biblical books” were not widely read and quoted from before Luther’s time. Only the educated Church folks could read and quote. And if they wanted to put their own unique spin on what those “inspired words said” and claim that heaven was for sale, who were the common uneducated folks to know any different?

    That was Luther’s point (one among many). Luther found ignorance of the scripture appallingly high among the common folk in Germany. Luther believed that the common folk needed something that they could get their uneducated minds around (thinking they could actually do this may have been Luther’s greates error), and so he created something for them. He would not have had any reason to be thinking along these lines before the printing press was invented.

    If memory serves, Luther wanted to toss Revelation and James, but I believe he ultimately retained them. And the disputed books – I believe he moved them to a special section between the Old and New Testaments – he did not discard them. However, later printings did place those disputed writings in a separate volume, so as to reduce the size of the printed Bible to a more manageable level. Protestants have not denied those disputed writings to the people. They have simply elevated what they believe to be the more important / inspired writings into a volume that is easily portable, and therefore more likely to be used / read.

  71. theasdgamer says:

    I don’t think that you are tall enough for this ride.

  72. Feminist Hater says:

    Luther’s point was quite simple. Instead of having ideologues telling you what you must believe, you must be able to read it yourself and understand. In essence, what Luther did was give the ability to the ordinary man of reading God’s word himself. The Catholic Church hated that, which is why they ex-communicated him. The Catholic Church loved to use their knowledge to abuse their populace by fleecing them of their money. Only through the Catholic Church could you be saved. Oh how wonderful that was. That and the Pope’s army to back him up.

    History is a cruel mistress and the Catholic Church is not without sin.

  73. Lyn87 says:

    Jeff Strand,

    I thought we were going to observe the Peace of Westphalia. Oh well. I’ll try not to drag the thread much farther off-track and I’ll attempt to bring it back at the end. This will hopefully be my final “Wall-o-text” on the subject.

    I’m prepared to generally accept the Textus Receptus as the final word in Scripture because I know enough about where it came from to do so. That said, I’m not against using various translations for comparison, since translation is not an exact science. And while it’s true that men are fallible – including those who “chose” the canon and those who translated it into the vernacular – God is not, and I have no choice but to draw the line somewhere or else I would be subject to ever-changing winds of doctrine. As an RC, you can’t do that, since your doctrine is subject to change. You may choose to consider that as either a feature or a bug, but doctrinally, you’re standing on sand, since councils, church fathers, saints, and popes have been busily contradicting each other for 17 centuries, and that doctrinal churning is the basis for two of the three pillars of the Roman Catholic Church (namely, the “Sacred Apostolic Tradition” and the “Church’s Magisterium”).

    Anyway… back to the canon: take 2 Corinthians, for example. Second Corinthians is almost certainly not the second letter Paul wrote to the Corinthian church, but rather the third. Where’s the second one? Lost to time. Why is it lost to time? I have no idea, but I know that if God wanted it included in His Word it would not have been lost. If God can use a donkey – a literal jackass – to speak to Balaam, I’m confident that He was able to give us the scriptures we need absent writings that we don’t need. And if a couple of councils of celibate men (who I assume did their work with diligence and prayer) were instrumental to some great degree, then who am I to gainsay? (And even though they may have been wrong about some aspects of celibacy, they included the scriptures that showed that they were wrong. That greatly adds to their credibility. – Psalms 15:4.)

    I see where you’re trying to go with the abortion thing, but there’s no “Gotcha’!” to be had. True science always supports the truth, and the “new” science of genetics shows that an unborn child is, indeed, fully human and fully separate from the moment the DNA strings combine. Having said that, James 4:17 says, “Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.” Fortunately God doesn’t seem to hold us to account for genuine ignorance, but He does demand that we walk in the light we’re given – the “Romans Road” goes into that in great detail. That’s undoubtedly good or we’d all be hosed – you and I included, surely. Where that leaves your Cuban friend, I don’t know: I’m not God.

    You err if you think that means I’m denying the essence of Protestantism by doing that, though. “Sola Scriptura“, is not a free-for-all precisely because we agree on a single un-moving goalpost (I would argue that as being one of the definitive aspects Protestantism). We Prots often disagree about specifics (although less than the documented disagreements within Roman Catholicism), but we agree that an issue may be settled by appeal to scripture, and we DO generally agree on the big things. Look at it this way: think of the Bible as similar to the U.S. Constitution. Everybody knows what it says (or at least they ought to), but after 200+ years we have political parties that vehemently disagree about what it means. Those disagreements are based on the fact that various congresses, courts, and presidents have deviated in various ways to the point where things that are blatantly unconstitutional are now regarded as compulsory, while some things that are required are routinely prohibited. Those institutions are analogous to councils, church fathers, and popes in this example. At some point the “clarifications” and their ever-expanding ripple-effects render the original text little more than an historical curiosity that everybody pretends to respect but almost nobody does. “Stare Decisis” rules our jurisprudence, but just because people have monkeyed about with it doesn’t mean that we can’t just pull out the original document and live by what it says any time we want to. Protestants are the “Original Intent” guys in this analogy.

    Anyway, if a guy truly believes that kissing his wife during foreplay is a sin, then he should abstain. Not because he’s correct, but because to do so would be a different sin: rebellion. Better still: he should learn that it’s NOT a sin, embrace his freedom in Christ and “the wife of his youth,” and advance in faith and spiritual maturity.

  74. Lyn87 says:

    Jeff Strand,

    I just read one of the comments you made while I was typing just now. You must be new here: I’m not a woman.

  75. Oscar says:

    @ RichardP says:
    December 22, 2016 at 5:15 pm
    @Oscar: “mind your own business”

    “adsgamer point is this: what is my business? The answer to that question is not provided in the phrase ‘mind your own business’.”

    No, actually, that was not his point. He didn’t address that point at all.

    “I will gladly mind my own business.”

    Great. That doesn’t answer my question, though. Is it, or is not, reasonable to conclude that “mind your own business” means that it’s permissible for you to mind business that is not your own?

  76. Hose_B says:

    @lyn87

    Very well said sir.

  77. Hose_B says:

    @Oscar

    Yes. It is reasonable. In the same way if a father sees his young son drinking from someone else’s glass, he will simply tell the child, “drink from your own glass.”

  78. Hose_B says:

    Correction, it is NOT reasonable for the same as above.

  79. Denomination fights are frowned upon because they almost always start with the assumption of “look how stupid X is!”, and most are started by Men who are approaching the topic from little more than “my time is better!” intentions. I don’t think that’s why Jeff is really trying to start it, but it’s just a warning that it’s not terribly welcome topic.

    Though I do love to run out my beatdowns of anyone that wants to re-fight the Reformation. That’s always fun.

  80. theasdgamer says:

    @RichardP

    “Mind your own business” has an enthymeme attached…”and stay our of my business.” The scriptural passage has no such enthymeme attached. There is a great deal of language associated with water. The husband is to enjoy his own cistern (his wife) lest the waters from the cistern overflow in the streets (his wife cheats).

  81. Oscar says:

    @ theasdgamer says:
    December 22, 2016 at 7:21 pm

    “’Mind your own business’ has an enthymeme attached…’and stay our of my business’.”

    False. The implication is “stay out of business that is not your own”.

    Likewise, “drink water from your own cistern” has a similar implication.

  82. Oscar says:

    @ Hose_B says:
    December 22, 2016 at 6:52 pm

    Indeed.

  83. “my *team* is better!”. I really need to stop editing together two thoughts.

  84. RichardP says:

    @Oscar: Is it, or is not, reasonable to conclude that “mind your own business” means that it’s permissible for you to mind business that is not your own?

    @Hose_B: “In the same way if a father sees his young son drinking from someone else’s glass, he will simply tell the child, ‘drink from your own glass.’ ”

    To both, we are all saying the same thing: “mind ONLY your own business” means it is NOT permissible to mind business that is not your own. There is no debate about the meaning of what that phrase means. But that is not the phrase / logic statement under discussion.

    Drink from your own cistern is not a useful statement if it is nowhere described what your own cistern is. Drink from your own glass is not a useful statement if it is nowhere described what your own glass is. (That is why the learning curve for infants and small children is long; they must first understand the split between self and other before that statement can make sense to them.)

    And from a standpoint of logic, it can be successfully argued that stating “drink from your own cistern” is not the same statement as “drink ONLY from your own cistern”.

    So – even if it has been defined what your cistern (or glass) is – saying “drink from your own cistern” is not the same statement as “drink ONLY from your own cistern” is not the same statement as “don’t drink from someone else’s cistern”.

    For, in fact, the question is about drinking from a cistern that has not been defined as belonging to anybody. So that cistern is still logically up for “drinking from” under both “drink from your own system” (doesn’t say ONLY from) and “don’t drink from somebody else’s cistern” (target cistern isn’t “somebody elses”).

    The only statement that would provide guidance in the form of a command, rather than an implication, is “drink ONLY from your own cistern” (assuming that “your own” has been previously defined). That is unambiguous – and provides direction to drink from no cistern that is not expressly defined as yours. So this statement excludes from your consideration all cisterns owned by others, and all unclaimed cisterns. But that is not what the Bible says.

    The argument being correctly advanced is that there is nowhere in the Bible where it says “drink ONLY from your own cistern”. The Bible does say to avoid adultry and fornication. However, there is not an unambiguous definition of what “fornication” means in the Bible. As with other words in the Bible, they were spoken to a specific group of people, using their language and their frames of reference, and it was assumed that the audience knew what the words meant.

    It is safe to assume that most people today know what those words mean. But it is also correct to say that the word “fornication” is not specifically defined by the Bible. So we have people generating conversations like this one.

  85. infowarrior1 says:

    @bob
    ”to be fair to the Catholics, it’s not as if the Protestants have not ALSO practiced this stupidity from time to time.”

    Don’t find us disagreeing. We have our fair share of heretics and apostates that pervert the gospel. As warned by our Lord and Teacher himself.

  86. RichardP says:

    @theadsgamer: ““Mind your own business” has an enthymeme attached…”and stay our of my business.”

    I come from a perspective of computer programming and law. If you wish to get a computer to obey your commands, you soon learn what your unspoken assumptions are. The computer does not operate on unspoken assumptions. Everything must be defined and stated. So it is with deciding whether something is legal or not. Everything desired by a particular law must be stated. “The law said this, and then left the assumption undefined” is never a defense in the courtroom.

    That approach is applicable here, because we will all one day stand before a judge, who will judge over things we did while in the body. He cannot, he will not, hold us accountable for commands that he assumed, but did not state outright. We don’t read minds, and we certainly don’t read God’s mind. Nothing in the Bible tells us that God expects us to read his mind. All we have is what he has told us. And to tack on “assumptions” to the words spoken in the Bible is the sure path to trouble – and a kajillion different denominations, who each assume a different assumption.

    The Bible says “let your yay be yay and your nay be nay. That is a command; it is not an implication or an assumption. There is no cause for assumption in that command. That is why the question about “drink from your own cistern” has comeup. It is not nearly as specific as “drink ONLY from your own cistern” or “don’t drink from anybody else’s cistern, and don’t drink from unclaimed cisterns”. Those two statements are unambiguous, they don’t call for assumptions. “Drink from your own cistern” does call for assumptions – such as the enthymeme attached … “and stay out of my business”.

  87. infowarrior1 says:

    @Lyn87

    Although there does seem to be attempts to monkey with the translation and hence deceive God’s people. Even though the holy writ as it was originally written is infallible theologically speaking:
    http://www.bible-researcher.com/cbmw.niv2011.2.pdf

    The 5th column rubs the hands in glee as they get to insert women as leaders of the church over men. Destroying the meanings of the old testament and inverting the order of the family where wife is the head.

  88. horatius67 says:

    Dalrock, good summary. We Catholics are not immune from the things you discuss. Current Church thinking on this is that married sex is meant to be enjoyed, as long as it is open to the transmission of life. Although there are a few traditionalist priests who preach Jerome and Augustine as though it were official teaching, the main problem in the Catholic church is too many sissifyed priests, telling husbands to serve their wives and do whatever it takes to make them haaaaapppy. A sermon about masculinity? Rare, but it does happen. St. Joseph is our main role model, which is good.

  89. Hose_B says:

    @RichardP

    Women unclaimed by father or husband might be the wayward woman warned against. I haven’t fully fleshed out that thought but it seemed reasonable enough.
    That would leave your wives/cistern, cisterns belonging to other husbands/fathers and wayward women.
    Open to thoughts…….

  90. andrew says:

    Dalrock, thats bad logic about unmarried sex. Think about it. Having sex with your wife during her period is important enough to explicitly forbid in the Law during Moses’s day, along with rules like if you seduce a virgin, etc…
    But unmarried sex doesnt get mentioned until david starts writing proverbs how many hundreds of years later? And then not even explicitly, but in a metaphor? How much sense would that make? That God remembered ‘no period sex’ when handing down the law but forgot the ‘no unmarried sex’ until david was writing proverbs?

  91. andrew says:

    Not to mention david had how many wives and concubines of his own, but his biggest sin was taking another mans wife? Or seizing another well vs drinking from wells he owned, like his concubines for example?

  92. Jeff Strand says:

    Lyn,

    Oh, I assumed you were a woman because I was thinking “Lynn”. My bad.

    As far as these doctrinal issues, we are only talking past each other…so this is a wasted effort. I will conclude by stating that I believe the fact that Protestantism has degenerated into many tens of thousands of warring sects (when Our Lord prayed to His Father “that they be one, even as You and I are One) is all by itself, more than enough proof of the failure of Sola Scriptura…and the idea that every man is free to interpret the Bible as he so wishes. Which was always an extraordinary claim – that even if the individual has no special knowledge in theology, history, ancient Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, may be weighed down with worldly cares and concerns, and may even be a downright moron – his own opinion can be taken by him to be as sure as all the Church Fathers, saints, Church Councils, etc. Lord save us from such madness!

    The complete failure of Protestant Christianity should bring with it a return (on a vast scale) to Holy Mother Church, which is the Church founded by Our Lord Himself upon St. Peter. But alas, the enemies of Our Lord have infiltrated the Bride of Christ, which led to the great apostasy of the Second Vatican Council…and culminating now in the disgrace and spiritual disaster that an open heretic claims to be the pope (and is in fact, taken to be the pope by most of the world). Even the validity of the sacraments themselves are now in doubt!

    It is an absolutely dreadful situation…every bit as dire as the prophecies of Our Lady of Good Success to Mother Marianna of Quito from 400 years ago. Google them for yourself. They are eerily accurate.

    Come, Lord Jesus.

  93. theasdgamer says:

    “Drink from your own cistern” does call for assumptions – such as the enthymeme attached … “and stay out of my business”.

    I disagree and I have unusual reading skill and also come from a background of computer programming. I also have been told that I have a first rate legal mind…I have won three court cases out of three, so there is some evidence for that person’s opinion.

    Where is there anything in context to hint at an enthymeme? Using the context, I have provided an alternative explanation of the passage and no one has claimed to have found holes in it. Perhaps people are too invested in a particular framework to apply to the passage (instead of reading what comes out of the passage based on context) so that they force their desired output from the passage after applying their Procrustean framework to the passage. GIGO

  94. RichardP says:

    @Hose_B: “That would leave your wives/cistern, cisterns belonging to other husbands/fathers …”

    My thoughts also.

  95. theasdgamer says:

    So what is the cistern? And what are the streams of water flowing in the streets? And how does all this gibe with “let them be yours alone.” I can only see this making sense if the water images refer to the wife and to someone having sex with her.

    What is sexual immorality? Sex with slaves wasn’t considered immoral in Jesus’ time…nor sex with prostitutes. So “sexual immorality” in the NT cannot include those things…and certainly wouldn’t include viewing pornography…of course, I am looking at this objectively and not because I have a vested interest in any of this…I am looking for the meaning of the passage.

  96. Boxer says:

    Sex with slaves wasn’t considered immoral in Jesus’ time…nor sex with prostitutes. So “sexual immorality” in the NT cannot include those things…and certainly wouldn’t include viewing pornography…of course, I am looking at this objectively and not because I have a vested interest in any of this…I am looking for the meaning of the passage.

    …the lips of an adulterous woman drop as an honeycomb, and her mouth is smoother than oil: but her end is bitter as wormwood, sharp as a twoedged sword. Her feet go down to death; her steps take hold on hell.

    (Proverbs 5)

  97. theasdgamer says:

    kind of irrelevant isn’t it…no mention of slaves or prostitutes in the passage…only of another man’s wife…we all agree that ADULTERY is forbidden

  98. RichardP says:

    @theadsgammer: “I disagree … ”

    At 7:21 above you stated: “Mind your own business” has an enthymeme attached…”and stay our of my business.”

    At 9:58 above you state: Where is there anything in context to hint at an enthymeme?

    Are you disagreeing with what you said earlier. I truely am confused by your “I disagree”. Assuming your said what you meant at 7:21, this is my final thought on this.

    Enthymeme = an argument in which one premise is not explicitly stated.

    The words in the Bible are for instruction. One who already knows needs no instruction. So, by definition, the words in the Bible are for those who do not know, or who forgot and need to be reminded. In that circumstances, using an argument in which one premise is not explicitly stated creates a useless instruction for the one who does not know. For he does not know the premise not explicitly stated. Therefore, that not stated premise has no difference in effect than an unspoken assumption. And, at the Judgement Seat, where all shall give account for what they did while in the body, God is not going to convict anyone of disobeying a command that was never explicitly given to us by him, a command that existed only as an unstated assumption or premise in God’s mind.

    Again, I’m simply arguing that “drink from your own cistern” leads to assumptions and therefore cannot be used as a command. It could be used as a command, the need for assumptions would disappear, if that statement was more explicit. But it is not. I am not arguing that one can fornicate at will so long as it is with an unclaimed cistern. Dinner has arrived (In and Out for those of you who know). Over and out

  99. Boxer says:

    kind of irrelevant isn’t it…no mention of slaves or prostitutes in the passage…only of another man’s wife…we all agree that ADULTERY is forbidden

    If you think that “adulterous women” somehow excludes “prostitutes”, your head is even further up your ass than usual. Do keep babbling, though. It’s entertaining to see Anna Freud’s work on ego defense so blatantly illustrated in print.

    Boxer

  100. theasdgamer says:

    Oscar was trying to apply the “mind your own business” figure of speech to “drink water from your own cistern”. I contend that his application doesn’t fit because “drink water from your own cistern” doesn’t require an enthymeme. Hence, apples and oranges.

  101. theasdgamer says:

    Seems that you and Oscar have something in common. You are just a little more obnoxious and rude. Aren’t you up past your bedtime?

  102. Anon says:

    Dear Boxer,

    Is there a reason you have chosen that obese pedophile’s image as your own? I hope it is part of some elaborate plan to provoke the creature in question.

  103. Boxer says:

    Is there a reason you have chosen that obese pedophile’s image as your own? I hope it is part of some elaborate plan to provoke the creature in question.

    Someone told me that ol’ Manboobz Futrelle was babbling about me recently. I’ve yet been too lazy to wade through the nonsense (metres deep) on his site to see what his issue is. All that aside,

    About a year ago I was Lindy West for a while, after she mentioned me in one of her inane youtube videos. I always acknowledge my fans.

    Boxer

  104. Feminist Hater says:

    The complete failure of Protestant Christianity should bring with it a return (on a vast scale) to Holy Mother Church, which is the Church founded by Our Lord Himself upon St. Peter. But alas, the enemies of Our Lord have infiltrated the Bride of Christ, which led to the great apostasy of the Second Vatican Council…and culminating now in the disgrace and spiritual disaster that an open heretic claims to be the pope (and is in fact, taken to be the pope by most of the world). Even the validity of the sacraments themselves are now in doubt!

    And yet you cannot see the irony of your statements. If there were no Protestant Church or groups of Churches and we were all Catholic, we would all be bound to follow the decrees of your Church, infiltrated by the current Pope as it were, never mind that there have been other Popes in the past that were rather unfit to lead before the Second Vatican Council. And thus would be damning ourselves by breathing disagreement, as you have done now. If the Pope says it, it must be true. You cannot disagree, the Pope is God’s liaison on Earth and thus above reproach. Ex-communication is your prize if you disagree, which is what Luther suffered at the hands of a Church drunk on power.

    If the common man cannot understand how to live his life, and merely does what he does under fear of punishment, he has not been saved, merely controlled.

    All the different Protestant Churches have their disagreements but agree on the singular idea that through faith, reading of the Bible and Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross, we are made whole in God. No need for the endless hand wringing of Priests flagellating themselves and others or demanding tribute to fill their coffers.

    Are you trolling or just looking to get a rise out of people? It is good to fear the coming of Jesus.

  105. Feminist Hater says:

    I will conclude by stating that I believe the fact that Protestantism has degenerated into many tens of thousands of warring sects..

    Lol! You are trolling.

  106. theasdgamer says:

    NB: “adulterous women” = “married women having sex with men other than their husbands

  107. Hose_B says:

    @RichardP
    I will agree with your technical statement that instructions to drink from your own we’ll do not mean the same as drink from you ONLY your own well. And that is why I am not a lawyer and kinda despise the whole process. But, God seems very much to be about intent over legalism. The Pharisees were in trouble not because they didn’t follow the LETTER of the law (they were very good at this). They were in trouble because they didn’t obey the SPIRIT of the law.
    We are warned against wayward women, and told that joining ourselves to prostitutes is detestable (might have phrasing off, I could find ref if needed)
    To me, marriage is about responsibility. If a man is taking the responsibility of a woman, he is taking her as his wife and she then owes him her submission. I see evidence this applies to as many wives as he is willing to take responsibility of, but I am not 100% sure.
    He is not married to the prostitute or the wayward woman (unattached single female) even if he sleeps with her, although this is warned against. And it still says that sex with a prostitute still makes them “become one”……..grrrrrrr confusing.

    To conclude……..if you are confident enough to stand in front of God and honestly say that you understood scripture to mean that you were allowed to have sex with unmarried women…….go for it. I hope you are right and I commend the confidence in your interpretations.

  108. theasdgamer says:

    “Putting the cookies on the lower shelf” Dept.

    Some prostitutes are not married or divorced. Hence, some prostitutes aren’t adulterous women. Hence, prostitutes as a class aren’t in view in the passage because not all members of the class of prostitutes are adulterous women. Hence, the passage isn’t about prostitutes as a class. It’s about married women who have sex with men who aren’t their husbands. Hence, the passage referenced by Boxer is irrelevant to my comment.

    I leave it to the reader to discover who needs the cranio-rectal procedure.

  109. Jeff Strand says:

    Feminist Hater: “If the Pope says it, it must be true. You cannot disagree, the Pope is God’s liaison on Earth and thus above reproach”

    I thought to be done with this, but felt I should correct your erroneous statement here…lest others take it to be the truth.

    First of all, it’s not a requirement to believe the pope is always right in his every utterance, as your statement seems to imply. The actual belief is that the pope is preserved from error when he teaches all the faithful in matters of faith and morals. This is the meaning of “papal infallibility”.

    Which shouldn’t be as strange to Protestants as you might think…after all, they believe Martin Luther was infallible on at least one occasion – namely, when he changed the canon of Scripture that had been settled in all Christendom for over a millennium, by removing 7 books from the O.T.

    Secondly, you imply that a Catholic must follow the pope even if he teaches heresy. Not true. This question has been discussed at length over the centuries, and the common opinion amongst saints and theologians alike has developed into the teaching that if the pope should openly teach heresy, he would by that very act cease to be pope. In fact, he ceases to even be a Catholic…just as a Baptist or Methodist (who are heretics from the Catholic point of view) is also not a Catholic.

    So the moment a pope publicly becomes a heretic, he is no longer pope and no Catholic is bound to follow him. Which is why I don’t follow Mr. Bergoglio. He is not the pope. As a public heretic, he is not even Catholic.

    So just wanted to clear that up.

  110. Lyn87 says:

    Jeff Strand,

    So now you – personally – have the right to disavow the official doctrine (The Second Vatican Counsel) and the authority of a duly-elected pope (Pope Francis) of “Holy Mother” Church.

    There’s a word for people who do that: Protestants.

    Welcome aboard. If you take a look around you’ll realize that we aren’t “warring” against each other like you mentioned above – that’s a Catholic thing too, since history is awash with actual blood being shed to secure the power and wealth of the papacy.

    We do disagree about some of the non-essentials (although our internal disagreements are no larger than the disagreements within the RCC), but I think you’ll discover that Striving for Truth is preferable to being United in Heresy.

  111. Dalrock says:

    @Hose_B

    I will agree with your technical statement that instructions to drink from your own we’ll do not mean the same as drink from you ONLY your own well. And that is why I am not a lawyer and kinda despise the whole process. But, God seems very much to be about intent over legalism. The Pharisees were in trouble not because they didn’t follow the LETTER of the law (they were very good at this). They were in trouble because they didn’t obey the SPIRIT of the law.

    Indeed. They are working incredibly hard to get this wrong, clinging to the slightest technicality. But the technicality used to (too clever by half) pretend to escape one verse is demolished by another. All of this energy to deny Prov 5:15 is made laughable by verse 17:

    17 Let them be yours alone,
    never to be shared with strangers.

    And as mentioned upthread they could read 1 Cor 7, and while at it 1 Cor 6. The thing to understand is this isn’t really a theological debate. It isn’t a quest for understanding. This is an endless grasping for a secret way around the prohibition of fornication (for AT) and a loophole to allow ASDGamer to better threaten to cheat on his wife to perfect his dread game on his wife. It is the theological equivalent to the sperging you will find on the loophole freeing one from US income tax, etc, because a flag has gold fringe.

    You can’t argue someone out of this state because logic didn’t get them where they are.

  112. Gunner Q says:

    Dalrock @ December 22, 2016 at 3:38 pm:
    “But even the logic of their argument doesn’t make sense. If the only sex God has a problem with is sex with another man’s wife, why would God tell us to marry to avoid sexual sin?”

    Excellent point. I never thought of that.

    andrew @ December 22, 2016 at 9:22 pm:
    “Not to mention david had how many wives and concubines of his own, but his biggest sin was taking another mans wife?”

    David disobeyed Deuteronomy 17:17 long before Bathsheba happened. She was only the culmination of a lifetime of unchecked evil tendencies.

    Dalrock @ 9:17 am:
    “You can’t argue someone out of this state because logic didn’t get them where they are.”

    True. I keep up the argument because this how the situation will get even worse, men deciding that we too should get to be lawfully promiscuous. The Biblical pattern is Eve went feral, Adam followed her example and finally Divine Intervention had to happen. I’d hate to see that happen again… so much better if men can hold to virtue until women finish shipwrecking themselves.

    There’s no saving AT but maybe other guys will be discouraged from playing Devil’s Advocate with God. The One who gave us our reason will surely not be defeated by it.

  113. Damn Crackers says:

    If you are arguing that true Christianity is either between Magisterium vs. Sola Scriptura, you really haven’t been reading the real problems with the faith on this blog. Hell if Unitarians, Monophysites, or Nestorians were on board with Patriarchal principles, I’d welcome them into the flock.

  114. Damn Crackers says:

    About prostitution/fornication – if the OT/NT didn’t exist – does anyone think that banging whores for your whole life is better than being married and raising children?

    That is what Proverbs/Wisdom Literature/St. Paul is saying. Sure, adultery is a much worse sin. But still, a prostitute/harlot/slut (they are all the same thing Biblically) is, according to Sirach, like spit, a polluted woman. Why would you want to be with one?

    So yes, going back to Proverbs 6:26 – The price of a whore is a loaf of bread, but the adulteress is hunting for a precious life. Neither of these actions are wholesome/wise, but adultery is by far the greater sin/more foolish.

  115. Damn Crackers says:

    And of course, Merry Christmas to all here!

  116. andrew says:

    Gunner

    Fair enough about david. The logical problem remains though. When God laid down the law he explicitly gave details about homosexuality, bestiality, period sex, if a man seduces a virgin, if a man rapes a single woman… But just forgot to forbid unmarried sex? What, then he smacked his forehead hundreds of years later ‘omg david put something in that can apply to married sex. But don’t even mention the words marriage or wife.’

  117. Feminist Hater says:

    Testing

  118. Damn Crackers says:

    Proverbs 5:17 – Let them be yours alone, never to be shared with strangers.

    Isn’t this referring to wife swapping/cuckolding/pimping out your wife to others? I always thought this was the biggest no-no referred to in Revelations as the sin of the Nicolaitans.

  119. Boxer says:

    Dear Dalrock:

    This is an endless grasping for a secret way around the prohibition of fornication (for AT) and a loophole to allow ASDGamer to better threaten to cheat on his wife to perfect his dread game on his wife.

    I am really enjoying ASDGamer’s kook-rants, and don’t want to discourage him from expressing himself. At the same time, your ongoing discussion with him (and those like him — he’s far from the only one) brings up an interesting dichotomy between marrieds and playas.

    It seems to me that playa tactics have only a marginal utility in marriage, as the endless series of threats, leveled by ASDGamer (and those like him) to bang some skeezy ho, will eventually lose their potency among their wives.

    The wife, in contrast, has a very real and never diminishing threat of taking the husband to divorce court, stripping him of all his wealth (including his potential wealth, through lifetime alimony) and living large at his expense.

    Cheap tricks like “dread game” work on low quality women in short-term flings; and I’ve seen such nonsense work well. I don’t know that such things would be strategically effective with a higher quality woman (and whatever anyone may think of his particular wife, at any particular moment, she has proven herself smart enough to land a man in a binding, lifetime legal marriage).

    I wonder if you’ve ever written about these disparities? I think it might be useful for the married bros to get a handle on the real value of such things.

    Best,

    Boxer

  120. Jeff Strand says:

    Lyn: “So now you – personally – have the right to disavow the official doctrine (The Second Vatican Counsel) and the authority of a duly-elected pope (Pope Francis) of “Holy Mother” Church.

    There’s a word for people who do that: Protestants.”

    Yes Lyn, I’m well aware of that retort. Many “semi-Trad” Catholics will hurl it at sedevacantists (Latin for “the seat is empty”…meaning the throne of Peter is vacant).

    But still, long before Vatican II many saints and theologians debated what would happen if a pope were to openly preach heresy. As I said, the common opinion is that by the very act itself, he would cease being pope.

    So you can see that this is very different from the Protestant view…which rejects the papacy, the sacraments (except for baptism), and the entire teaching Church that Our Lord founded upon St. Peter. You see, sedevacantists accept and submit to the magisterium and the papacy…but recognize that right now there is no pope to submit to. Since Bergoglio is an open heretic, he cannot be the pope…regardless of what he claims. In point of fact, he’s not even a Catholic!

    Is this a good situation? No, to be frank it sucks. “The shepherd has been struck and the sheep are scattered.” But it is what it is. And it was foretold. At La Sallette, Our Lady (in the early 1800’s) told the children “Rome will lose the faith and go into apostasy”. At another point, she said “The Church will go into eclipse.”

    At Akita, Japan (a Church-approved apparition) the Mother of God said “Satan will even infiltrate into the Church…in such a way that you will see bishop against bishop and cardinal against cardinal.” She said that in the early 1970’s, and you’re seeing it happen in real time, right before our eyes! Notice how the 4 cardinals have called out Bergoglio publicly and called for him to retract his heresy concerning the divorced and “remarried” receiving the Blessed Sacrament. There is even talk of schism.

    Also, google the prophecies of Our Lady of Good Success. I think you will be amazed at how tragically accurate they are.

    The Chair of Peter is empty. Were that it was not so.

    P.S. I don’t put too much stock in these things, but it is…interesting…that on the day the previous pope resigned in Feb of 2013, lightning struck St. Peter’s TWICE. There is an amazing shot of the bolt of lightning coming down from the heavens and striking the top of the dome…you can easily find it online. And this happened TWICE on the very day the prior pope resigned, which made way for anti-pope Bergoglio. Curious, to say the least.

  121. Boxer says:

    Dear Damn Crackers:

    I like Psalms and Proverbs in particular, because it seems to be written in a clear, non-esoteric way, so that simpletons (like my own bad self) can clearly understand it.

    I agree with you that the author of the text probably takes a dim view of wife swapping. It’s also clear from even a cursory read of the text that he frowns upon cavorting with skanks (be they married or not, and be you married or not) and that he does not approve of married people bringing third (or fourth, etc.) into the mix of the marriage. Note that while I have not always followed this advice, I can’t deny that it is sound advice for a young bro wanting to avoid trouble and do well in life.

    You guys who are commenting here either believe in a patriarchal system or you don’t. Both the Bible and also secular scholars (Freud, Jung, et. al.) point out that polygamy, whoremongering and the playa lifestyle is a step backward, toward the matriarchal hell we managed to evolve out of. If you don’t believe in the message of the Bible, that’s totally cool; but you should be honest with yourself and others, and quit trying to play word games and have it both ways. It’s undignified.

    Boxer

  122. Feminist Hater says:

    At Akita, Japan (a Church-approved apparition) the Mother of God said “Satan will even infiltrate into the Church…in such a way that you will see bishop against bishop and cardinal against cardinal.” She said that in the early 1970’s, and you’re seeing it happen in real time, right before our eyes! Notice how the 4 cardinals have called out Bergoglio publicly and called for him to retract his heresy concerning the divorced and “remarried” receiving the Blessed Sacrament. There is even talk of schism.

    He has already done it, he did it many years ago, the Catholic Church has had two or three Popes at one time, all believed they were ordained by God. It couldn’t get its act together then and can’t now because it is politically motivated. The Catholic Church entered politics many a time, to organise with Kings against the populace.

    The Atika train of thought is just a rewrite of what we already know stated in Luke. Nothing new, a Church approved apparition, lol, just sign here please Ms Ghost and we’ll get you approved right away.

  123. theasdgamer says:

    From the spiritualist mindreading Dept.

    @Dalrock

    Indeed. They are working incredibly hard to get this wrong, clinging to the slightest technicality.

    Are you trying to upstage Kreskin? I am spergy about accurately reading Scripture. Haven’t you understood this yet about me?

    The rest of your comment ABOUT me doesn’t merit a reply.

    You will twist Scripture to accommodate your theology. I see this over and over…very typical of Protestants…Protestants are no better than Catholics…everything comes to maintaining your doctrine…twisting Scripture is quite acceptable to Protestants…so you end up perverting and hiding the Truth.

  124. theasdgamer says:

    Pay no attention to Boxer’s clumsy digs at Dread Game…he has no understanding of it…as I have shown in a post on my site, Dread can be found in the Song of Solomon.

  125. SJB says:

    @dvdivx: you have your answer: you are given one, and only one, cistern. If the well dries up you must sit at its side and expire from dehydration because that is the Spirit Of Marriage (which is not an idol).

  126. theasdgamer says:

    “you have your answer: you are given one, and only one, cistern”

    So what of muslims with multiple wives who convert to Christianity? What are they to do with their excess water?

  127. Boxer says:

    So what of muslims with multiple wives who convert to Christianity? What are they to do with their excess water?

    Such things have been covered here, many, many, many times. Since a search of dalrock blog is apparently beyond your abilities, here’s a link to a good starting point.

    https://www.jstor.org/stable/43052879

    Hope this is helpful for you,

    Boxer

  128. Feminist Hater says:

    Give Gamer and AT credit though, they try hard and I wish them well. There has to some other men to pick up the slack of men like me who won’t be drinking from any one cistern. Women are like leaky cisterns, always requiring maintenance, causing damage and when repaired, still give back chat.

    So what of muslims with multiple wives who convert to Christianity? What are they to do with their excess water?

    Lots of thirsty betas out there.

  129. Boxer says:

    Give Gamer and AT credit though, they try hard and I wish them well.

    I think there’s a qualitative difference between Artisinal Toad, who makes sound arguments in support of his position, and ASDGamer, who is about as sensible as Trex on World Peace.

    NSFW and very crass. Warning…

  130. theasdgamer says:

    @Boxer

    Finally, you’re on point. Unfortunately for your position, the link only says that polygamists are to divorce their excess (from doctrine, not scripture!) wives. Put them out on the street, as it were, just like the Pharisees used to do. You’re in fine company!

  131. theasdgamer says:

    Indeed. But the water runs away from them.

  132. Dalrock says:

    @asdgamer

    You will twist Scripture to accommodate your theology. I see this over and over…very typical of Protestants…Protestants are no better than Catholics…everything comes to maintaining your doctrine…twisting Scripture is quite acceptable to Protestants…so you end up perverting and hiding the Truth.

    What Truth? The Truth of banging hos? This is the glorious Truth you want to share as God’s gift to us, and I’m hiding His glory?

    Your claim is that God/Scripture is silent on the topic, by carefully dismissing all verses which prove this wrong. But even the silent claim should give you great pause. What is the righteous way to bang hos? You argue that when Proverbs and Corinthians teach us the righteous way to have sex, they aren’t talking about the kind of sex you have with hos, because sex with hos is a special exemption. Ok. For sake of argument, what exactly is this exemption? Is all sex with hos permitted? Or should a Christian man seek out a special kind of ho? When banging a ho what rules should you (and she) follow? Must she be a one man ho? Or can other men also bang your ho? If she bangs men other than you, is she cheating? Are you guilty of any sin for banging another man’s ho? Is there a time period your ho should observe between banging you and another man (and vice versa)? And what about the children that this will create? Does God not want them to have a father? What should a godly ho banger do to do right by his bastards?

    The argument is that God has been silent on a huge area of sexual morality, with profound implications. You arrived at this argument by denying all of the Scripture which says not to bang hos. Under your logic, there is a huge oversight by God. How can you not see the arrogance in this?

  133. theasdgamer says:

    @Boxer

    Both the Bible and also secular scholars (Freud, Jung, et. al.) point out that polygamy, whoremongering and the playa lifestyle

    Of course, I have never advocated FOR polygamy (rather I argued with AT that it is impractical), whoremongering (STDs anyone?), or the playa lifestyle (whateverthehellthatis).

    Nice try at tarring me with your standard, deceptive tactics.

    Dread Game…Bible approved

  134. Lyn87 says:

    Jeff Strand,

    That is what is known as a “Distinction Without a Difference.” The bottom line is that you have repeatedly disavowed the rulings of Vatican II, which has been in effect since 1962 and endorsed and enforced by the last six popes – not just Pope Francis. You’ve done exactly what your accuse Protestants of doing regarding the doctrines of the RCC and the authority of the pope – the difference between us is that we’re honest about it.

    To be consistent you must at least admit that Luther had better cause to renounce the six popes between 1483 and 1517 than you do to deny any of the six popes that endorsed Vatican II (unless you want to advance the absurd notion that Rodrigo Borgia and Giovanni di Lorenzo de’ Medici were worthy of being crowned “Vicar of Christ”).

    It is precisely because people give credence to anyone who has the imprimatur of “Holy Mother Church” that guys like Jerome and Augustine are taken seriously when they write things that are directly contradicted by scripture and experience, and the consequent “appeal to tradition” (which is a well-known logical fallacy) keeps their errors alive in the “Sacred Apostolic Tradition” and the “Church’s Magisterium.”

    Jerome was wrong. Augustine was wrong. Pope Francis is wrong.

    Gee… what attributes do all three of those guys have in common?

  135. andrew says:

    By your logic, God remembered to forbid adultery, homosexuality, period sex, etc when he gave the law but forgot about unmarried sex until David came around to write proverbs. How much sense does that make?

  136. Hose_B says:

    @asdgamer
    Effort to understand your view here….. I understand the use of dread game from both the male and female perspective, but is your view that Dread Game is the “best” or “most effective” method of maintaining alpha status with your wife?
    I know Dalrocks had equated negative motivations (like dread game) to the Soviets. It only works in the short to medium. I can see the “knowledge” that your sigother has options keeping you/them from becoming complacent, but as a normal way of living it seems hard.

  137. Gunner Q says:

    theasdgamer @ 11:35 am:
    “So what of muslims with multiple wives who convert to Christianity? What are they to do with their excess water?”

    I answered that here:
    https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2016/11/22/a-big-win-for-grudem/

    You guys need to start writing this stuff down, if you’re going to be out in public with the attention span of a housefly.

    @ Jeff Strand:
    We can observe the truce or not. Let me know because I get cranky around this time of year. I would MUCH rather beat on Papists than sing about babies. Stupid solstice cooping me up indoors all day…. nobody to talk to but distant relatives…

    GQ: “So, are we cousins or second cousins?”

    Ditsy: “Twice removed.”

    GQ: “Oh.” awkward silence.

    Ditsy: “So did you see Suicide Squad? I’m like whoa, that is so MEE!”

    GQ: “You are a hypergamous hamster suffering Pareto Principle sexual delusions?”

    Ditsy: *blank stare*

    GQ: “I mean, you’re Bonnie to the Riddler’s Clyde Barrow.”

    Ditsy: “Yeah! You get me!”

    GQ: “If I got you then I wouldn’t be a virgin… and our bastard would be congenitally deformed.”

    Ditsy: “Mommmeeee! Q is being creepy again!”

    GQ: “Man, I wish Dalrock hadn’t turned on moderation to keep me away from Catholics.”

  138. Hose_B says:

    When referencing biblical figures such as Solomon and David, etc……please remember that just because the bible tells ABOUT their actions, it doesn’t mean that those actions were APPROVED by God. And if God choose to not punish these figures for their obvious wrongdoings, that’s his business. Aaron made the people a golden calf and did not receive rebuke. That doesn’t mean that we should follow his example.

  139. andrew says:

    And lets get real here about proverbs 5… Its talking about how you shouldn’t sleep with a married woman. Read it. Its not a secret meaning, he writes ‘why my son be intoxicated with another man’s wife?’ and ‘for the lips of the adulterous woman drips honey.’ its a warning against adultery, flat out. Doesn’t take a genius.

  140. theasdgamer says:

    @Hose

    Thanks for your intelligent question…I don’t get a lot of them around here…you and Richard are the only recent ones.

    Dread Game is taught in the Song of Solomon. It uses Preselection and being away to cause the wife to attribute value to her husband. Since the bible teaches it, does it matter whether it’s “best” or “most effective”. I assume that God know what is good for the husband to do.

    As for it working in the short and medium term…God knows better than Dalrock. There need be no negative motivation in Dread Game…just be about the business of focusing on good things, being fun/playful, encouraging, etc. with other women…be a man who is the life of the party, like Jesus was. Even the Pharisees invited Jesus to their parties.

    Anything is hard until you develop unconscious competence. In the short term, managing your wife will be hard because you are learning how to do it. Eventually, you learn how to do it and you develop unconscious competence and it becomes easy.

  141. Hose_B says:

    The concept you described seems much less ominous than the term “Dread Game” gives impression to.

  142. Scott says:

    In case anyone is looking for something different to read today:
    https://americandadweb.wordpress.com/2016/12/23/on-step-fatherhood/

    Carry on, Gentlemen.

  143. theasdgamer says:

    For a brief and, perhaps, unclear exegesis of I Cor. 7:1-5, see my comment marked December 22, 2016 at 4:08 pm. If you ignore the context provided by verse 1, you will fail to understand what Paul is saying. The problem was, husbands were refusing sex to their wives. Let me repeat this…husbands in Corinth were refusing sex to their wives. This was because of some bad teaching. Paul was concerned that the ignored/horny wives would go out and have sex with other men of the city and this would be a blot on Christ’s name.

  144. theasdgamer says:

    @Gunner

    Thanks. That was helpful and is similar to my position. However, I take issue with your reading of I Cor. 7. It doesn’t give any command about monogamy. Again, remember, I am spergy about accurate reading of scripture.

  145. Gunner Q says:

    theasdgamer @ 1:04 pm:
    “There need be no negative motivation in Dread Game…just be about the business of focusing on good things, being fun/playful, encouraging, etc. with other women…be a man who is the life of the party, like Jesus was. Even the Pharisees invited Jesus to their parties.”

    So Jesus could hit on their women to keep his own bitch in line? It didn’t even work. Peter disowned Him three times.

    Man, my brain is already on vacation.

  146. Gunner Q says:

    theasdgamer says:
    “I take issue with your reading of I Cor. 7. It doesn’t give any command about monogamy.”

    1 Cor. 7:2. Every woman gets a man and every man gets a woman. Because men and women exist in roughly equal numbers, the math requires a 1-to-1 relationship of husbands to wives. In other words, monogamy.

  147. Feminist Hater says:

    There need be no negative motivation in Dread Game…just be about the business of focusing on good things, being fun/playful, encouraging, etc. with other women…be a man who is the life of the party, like Jesus was. Even the Pharisees invited Jesus to their parties.

    You haven’t described Dread Game at all. It runs entirely on negative emotion. If the wife threatens divorce, you are to go get a lawyer, draw up the papers and throw them on the desk the when she least expects it. If she becomes sexually frigid, you are to flirt with your secretary and get a date for the next evening. If she refuses to cook and clean, you are to forget to pay the electricity and water bills. If she threatens to leave, you are to go upstairs, pack her bags, come back down, open the door and say, “Fine, leave, here’s the taxi fair..”.

    It relies on creating the feedback loop that she needs you but you don’t need her, that need creates the want. Upping your social status in her eyes. What you describe is merely being a man with backbone who likes to flirt on occasion and enjoys the company of others.

  148. RichardP says:

    @Hose_B: “… if you are confident enough to stand in front of God and honestly say that you understood scripture to mean that you were allowed to have sex with unmarried women …”

    I stated several times that I was only debating the logic (or lack of same) of the statements made, that I was not arguing that the Bible allows us to fornicate at will. I said this several times, in several ways.

    Maybe you meant to direct that comment at someone else.

  149. theasdgamer says:

    Ok, @gunner, since you want to dog this issue…

    1 Now for the matters you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” 2 But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. 3 The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband.”

    The context is a question the Corinthians had about whether husbands shouldn’t have sexual relations with their wives, which, implicitly, someone at Corinth was teaching. The text states that this led to sexual immorality in at least some of the Corinthian households, likely by the wives who were being ignored. Paul’s solution was to make it explicit that husbands had a sexual duty to their wives and vice-versa. There is nothing in this passage that COMMANDS monogamy, though it is expected.

    If you’re going to make a case for monogamy, you should go to Genesis 2, “For this cause….” Even in Genesis 2, polygamy is not forbidden. But we are far afield from the original post, which is actually quite interesting.

  150. theasdgamer says:

    I was describing “Soft Dread.” That ups your social status in your wife’s eyes and showing backbone also helps to create/reinforce your value in her eyes. And flirting with other women invokes Preselection and Dread and creates more value for you in her eyes. Mrs. Gamer came down with a dose of Dread last Friday just because I danced once with a pretty young redhead.

    You were describing “Hard Dread.”

    You and I aren’t really disagreeing about anything substantive…just quibbling over words.

  151. RichardP says:

    @ Dalrock: “. All of this energy to deny Prov 5:15 is made laughable by verse 17: ‘Let them be yours alone, never to be shared with strangers.’

    The debate is over whether the Bible specifically defines what is “yours”. The debate is over whether the Bible says not to drink from cisterns that are unclaimed (it doesn’t do this, directly and specifically). You dismiss the truth of that debate by pointing to a verse that says not to share what is yours. That begs the question?? No one is debating that we shouldn’t share what is ours.

    Not trying to be nasty here. Just trying to help the debate stay on point.

    By way of reminder, I stated this upthread: the Bible was written to people about things they were actually involved in, using words that they actually used and understood. To state that the Bible doesn’t define what “fornication” is (in whatever language you want to point to) is a truth. To state that the people to whom that word was spoken and written didn’t know what the word meant when they heard it is an untruth. Therefore, we cannot argue in all cases that the Bible is perfectly clear because it defines every word it uses. It doesn’t (neither do we define every word we use every time we use it). It “assumes” that the reader / listener will know what the word means when it is used. Fornication is only one word of many where this occurs in the Bible.

    That is my beef with AT and others. The Bible does not need to define every single instance of what we should not do. It only needs to define “this only”. Every succeeding generation will then have no trouble undertanding that all instances of “not this” are forbidden without it needing to be written in the Bible. And we will have a Bible that is short enough in length that people will actually read it.

  152. theasdgamer says:

    “Seems much less ominous” because you are a man. From a woman’s perspective where her husband has had Oneitis for her, it’s Shock and Awe ™.

  153. theasdgamer says:

    I’m not sure I got your point, gunner, but you made me smile. Peter was Jesus’ bitch, huh?

  154. RichardP says:

    There are folks who honestly believe that the Bible will contain a “not this” for every thing we should not do. And so they look for those “not this”, and debate when they don’t find them. The purpose of my debate in this thread and elsewhere is to introduce the concept that there is NOT a “not this” in the Bible for every thing we should not do. So it does no good to continue looking for them. Better to look for the “this only” stuff (knowing that everything that is “not this” is off limits). And extrapolate from there, based on the common meaning of words used in the Bible but not defined there. This really is not a slippery slope if you honestly aim to be careful with the language.

    Folks who insist on arguing that certain words ARE defined in the Bible, when they actually are not, don’t really help with the effort to educate folks that there is not a “not this” in the Bible for every forbidden / frowned upon behavior.

  155. andrew says:

    The bible goes as detailed as forbidding cooking in certain manners and even talks about hair style like long vs short… Yes it definitely should have a ‘no unmarried sex.’

  156. theasdgamer says:

    @Richard

    At one time, the population of Rome was 3/4 slaves. Slaves weren’t allowed to marry, of course, because the marriage could be dissolved at the master’s whim simply by selling one or the other to someone in another city. And there was no law against the master having sex with his own property.

    So, we have to pay attention to social context when we read the Bible. Slavery was legal and practiced often.

    It only needs to define “this only”.

    But Genesis 2:24 doesn’t do that…it only defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Remember, this was about Adam and Eve, primarily. The poetic language indicates that it also applies to the reader in some way. Being poetic, it’s not a command, but wisdom.

    Potentially, a man could unite with several women, one after the other, with all unions fitting in the Genesis 2:24 definition of “marriage”. We must beware eisegesis.

    And we will have a Bible that is short enough in length that people will actually read it.

    Read it, maybe. Read it carefully, not so much.

  157. theasdgamer says:

    Actually, the Law of Moses did a whole lot of defining “not this” even if you count Gen. 2:24 as “this only” as regards marriage. Case law.

    And, in the New Testament, Paul reiterates quite a lot of “not this.”

    And “frowned upon” is highly murky and may be infused with cultural/sectarian bias. Some things might be allowed, but not good, because forbidding them might lead to a worse outcome.

    Then there’s the whole issue of twisting (misreading) scripture to support a position…ironically, the position may be correct even when invalid supporting arguments are used (arguments which rely on twisting scripture).

    I have taken NO position on premarital sex, prostitution, and some other issues that we have discussed. I have taken issue with misreading/twisting scripture.

  158. Jeff Strand says:

    Lyn said: “To be consistent you must at least admit that Luther had better cause to renounce the six popes between 1483 and 1517 than you do to deny any of the six popes that endorsed Vatican II (unless you want to advance the absurd notion that Rodrigo Borgia and Giovanni di Lorenzo de’ Medici were worthy of being crowned “Vicar of Christ”)”

    Your problem is that you don’t understand the difference between “infallible” (again, when teaching the whole Church in matters of faith and morals ONLY) and “impeccable” (meaning, without sin).

    The popes you mentioned may have been great sinners, but they never publicly taught heresy, as Bergoglio continues to do on a weekly basis it seems. Being pope is no guarantee of going to Heaven, and it is possible the popes you mentioned are in Hell right now. As a matter of fact, for 500 years leading up to the close of the 20th century…out of all those popes in those 5 centuries…precisely TWO were later canonized as saints. For all the others, we have no certainty that they are in Heaven, only a fervent hope.

    If on the other hand you are right, then anyone could immediately invalidate any religion by merely making his way to a top position within that religion, and then committing grave sins. Presto! The religion is immediately falsified! I hope you can see how absurd that claim is.

    Again, study the difference between “infallible” and “impeccable”.

  159. Boxer says:

    ASDGamer larps as a historian, and writes…

    At one time, the population of Rome was 3/4 slaves. Slaves weren’t allowed to marry, of course, because the marriage could be dissolved at the master’s whim simply by selling one or the other to someone in another city. And there was no law against the master having sex with his own property.

    Oh LOLOLOL! You have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about. Seriously, read a few papers and realize how ridiculous you sound.

    For those who aren’t paying attention, ASDGamer is a complete fake and a total pretender. It’d be fair to assume he’s just trolling, but I’ve seen him behave like this before. He’s actually crazy enough to believe he has the one true interpretation of the Bible (and classical history too) that trumps all the commentary, written by church fathers and serious scholars, for two thousand years.

    Let’s recap:

    The bible says it’s hunky dory to have sex with prostitutes
    3/4 of the population of Classical Rome was enslaved
    No slaves were allowed to marry in Roman antiquity

    All of this is total bullshit, of course, but let’s see what the goofball comes up with next. It won’t be truthful or authentic, but it’s guaranteed to amuse and entertain.

    Boxer

  160. @Dalrock:

    ‘This is an endless grasping for a secret way around the prohibition of fornication (for AT) and a loophole to allow ASDGamer to better threaten to cheat on his wife to perfect his dread game on his wife.’

    Right on, D.

    Secret knowledge is the essence of Gnosticism: conversion of heart is not necessary, but only the right knowledge is. Keep in mind that Lucifer did not suffer from a defect of knowledge: he knew/knows more than any mortal who has walked the earth. And yet he remains permanently banished from Heaven.

  161. Boxer says:

    Dear ASDGamer:

    I have taken NO position on premarital sex, prostitution, and some other issues that we have discussed. I have taken issue with misreading/twisting scripture.

    You must have forgotten what you wrote, mere hours before. Here it is…

    Sex with slaves wasn’t considered immoral in Jesus’ time…nor sex with prostitutes.

    I note with amusement that you still haven’t provided the verse in the Bible which goes something like “Behold, it is good for a man to sleaze around with a ho, for I say unto you, he commits no sin who sleeps with an unmarried whore…” I’m sure you’ll get around to citing some support in the text for this nonsense real soon now.

    Regards,

    Boxer

  162. theasdgamer says:

    And Boxer said that he had sex with his sister. How do you like it when I put words that you never said in YOUR mouth, Boxer.

  163. Anon says:

    Wasn’t adsgamer previously a Tradcon who wanted his over-30 daughters to be married off, and could not figure out why their prospects were lower than he expected, even though they were doctors?

  164. Cane Caldo says:

    @Dalrock

    This comes from Ecclesiastes, the book that teaches that our earthly lives are vanity. Yet even while teaching that what matters is the spiritual, it still exhorts us to enjoy the physical pleasures of food, wine, and marital sex. These are it tells us, God’s portion for us for our earthly toil.

    This reminds me[1] of The Parable of the Dishonest Manager.

    8 The master commended the dishonest manager for his shrewdness. For the sons of this world are more shrewd in dealing with their own generation than the sons of light. 9 And I tell you, make friends for yourselves by means of unrighteous wealth, so that when it fails they may receive you into the eternal dwellings.

    10 “One who is faithful in a very little is also faithful in much, and one who is dishonest in a very little is also dishonest in much. 11 If then you have not been faithful in the unrighteous wealth, who will entrust to you the true riches? 12 And if you have not been faithful in that which is another’s, who will give you that which is your own?

    Have you found Jerome or Augustine writing about the evils of farmers or vinedressers? For example: Are they supposed to seek early retirement rather than be fond of their work and produce?

    On the Purported Biblicity of Banging Hos:

    People who don’t want to understand, won’t. The passages from Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Corinthians, etc. are word diagrams–pictures–of marriage. It is exactly if, upon seeing a wedding photo, they start looking for the whores. Not finding in whores in the picture, they conclude that the picture has nothing to say about whores at all.

    The apologetic gains from allowing and engaging their idiocy quickly diminishes.

    [1] This parable bothers me, in general. I think about it often, and wonder about the implications.

  165. theasdgamer says:

    I note that you have never denied having sex with your sister.

  166. Boxer says:

    And Boxer said that he had sex with his sister. How do you like it when I put words that you never said in YOUR mouth, Boxer… I note that you have never denied having sex with your sister.

    This is the typical sort of trash I’d expect from a male feminist. Thank you for illustrating your own lack of moral character here in the comment section (as though another illustration was really necessary, given your history).

  167. theasdgamer says:

    @Boxer

    Go away, little boy. Just go away. Your parents didn’t rear you properly.

  168. Boxer says:

    Go away, little boy. Just go away. Your parents didn’t rear you properly.

    You’re fond of bringing people’s family members into the discussion when it doesn’t go your way. I’ll remind you that you’re also the same guy who talked about how his own wife wouldn’t fuck him. Whether you were lying then or now, I’d say you have much bigger problems than I do.

  169. theasdgamer says:

    “Adultery was a sexual offense committed by a man with a woman who was neither his wife nor a permissible partner such as a prostitute or slave.”

    That was in Rome. During Jesus’ time.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_in_ancient_Rome

    Then, of course, there was the time that a prostitute was washing Jesus’ feet with her hair, which shocked the Pharisees.

    Prostitutes were looked down on by the common folk, but using a prostitute wasn’t considered immoral. Everyone knew who they were, including the Pharisees, and yet somehow prostitution survived in Judea during Jesus’ time.

  170. Lyn87 says:

    Jeff Strand wrote,

    “If on the other hand you are right, then anyone could immediately invalidate any religion by merely making his way to a top position within that religion, and then committing grave sins. Presto! The religion is immediately falsified! I hope you can see how absurd that claim is.”

    Actually, that “absurd” claim is the entire essence of Christianity. Jesus is the head of His church, and if He had not been sinless then the cross and resurrection would have meant exactly nothing.

    (And do you really want to make the argument that every, single Pope prior to Francis refrained from rank heresy? That’s an argument even the most staunch Catholic can’t possibly think he can win.)

  171. SirHamster says:

    [1] This parable bothers me, in general. I think about it often, and wonder about the implications.

    A Christian businessman wrote on how he used a rule of thumb for himself on when to give up on God-inspired activities – “Would I give up at this point if this were a 500K business deal?” I’m not sure how often he actually gave up when using this rule of thumb; he had some pretty crazy stories about following through.

    The desperation, dedication, and creativity of the dishonest manager exceeds mine. I suspect Trump may have a thing or two to show us Christians who consider ourselves less of a moral failure.

    “The tax collectors and the prostitutes will enter the kingdom of God before you do.”

  172. Jeff Strand says:

    Lyn

    Prior to 1958, not a single pope taught heresy when teaching the whole Church in matters of faith and morals. That is correct.

    Since 2013, we have a certain heretic claiming to be the pope.

    What about the popes in between (from 1958 to 2013)? I think it is a grey area…it’s very confusing and difficult to discern. I’ve heard good arguments for both cases.

    But Bergoglio is a heretic, that is certain. Therefore, he cannot be the pope…though he pretends to be, which really makes him an anti-pope.

  173. Boxer says:

    And do you really want to make the argument that every, single Pope prior to Francis refrained from rank heresy? That’s an argument even the most staunch Catholic can’t possibly think he can win.

    The Cats have something called ex cathedra, which is not unlike the Mormon legalism that excuses guys like Brigham Young for their (frequently recorded) bigotry, hypocrisy and lunacy (we call it “speaking as a prophet” v “speaking as a man”).

    In any event, the Pope is considered infallible when issuing a ruling ex cathedra. He’s not infallible if he makes a dope of himself when drinking with the boys on Friday night. You know this already, and I assume you’re writing rhetoric, so I gotta play Pope’s advocate.

    Boxer

  174. Jeff Strand says:

    Boxer, you’re close. But it’s not JUST when ruling ex cathedra that a pope is infallible. An ex cathedra ruling is incredibly rare – I believe there have only been two in the last millennium or so (the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin, and the doctrine of her Assumption into Heaven, body and soul).

    No, it’s more than that. A pope is infallible when, drawing upon the authority of his office, he intends to teach the entire worldwide Catholic Church, in matters relating to faith and morals.

    But you are correct that any opinions he has in politics, history, science, etc are NOT infallible and he can easily be wrong here. And he can even be wrong in matters of faith and morals, if he is only expressing his personal opinion as an individual or even as a theologian, and not using the teaching office of the papacy to instruct the worldwide Church.

    Protestants have such misconceptions about the doctrine of papal infallibility that I always feel it’s worth the time to spell it out accurately and correctly.

    And again, as I pointed out to Lyn, a pope can be a grave sinner in his personal life. He can even be damned to Hell. The pledge of papal infallibility from God is for the benefit of THE CHURCH, not the individual pope. He still has to work at saving his soul, as we all do. In fact, he must work even harder…since he will presumably be held to a very high standard at his Particular Judgment, given that he was Christ’s Vicar on Earth. “From those to whom much has been given, much will be demanded,”

  175. Dalrock says:

    @Cane

    On the Purported Biblicity of Banging Hos:

    People who don’t want to understand, won’t. The passages from Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Corinthians, etc. are word diagrams–pictures–of marriage. It is exactly if, upon seeing a wedding photo, they start looking for the whores. Not finding in whores in the picture, they conclude that the picture has nothing to say about whores at all.

    The apologetic gains from allowing and engaging their idiocy quickly diminishes.

    True. We’ve engaged this long enough. If AT or asdgamer want to further discuss the theological merits of banging hos on their own blogs they are free to do so.

  176. Lyn87 says:

    “Prior to 1958, not a single pope taught heresy when teaching the whole Church in matters of faith and morals. That is correct.” – Jeff Strand
    ________________________________

    First of all, nice attempt at diversion. I answered your “absurd claim” like this, “Actually, that “absurd” claim is the entire essence of Christianity. Jesus is the head of His church, and if He had not been sinless then the cross and resurrection would have meant exactly nothing.” and you ignored it in favor of the above quote. Oh well…

    Don’t say I didn’t warn you. Papal heresy when speaking “infallibly” prior to 1958 is trivial to prove using the words of the popes themselves.

    For the uninitiated, a pope is considered to be speaking infallibly when:

    1) He speaks ex cathedra, which means in his official capacity as pastor and teacher.
    2) He speaks with the manifest intention of binding the entire church to acceptance.
    3) The matter pertains to faith or morals taught as a part of divine revelation handed down from apostolic times.

    By that definition, a papal bull concerning papal infallibility would ABSOLUTELY be considered to be infallible according to at least two, and arguably all three, of the official requirements.

    So… where did it come from?

    Papal infallibility entered official RCC doctrine (for the first time) with Pope Nicholas III (1277-1280) in 1279 in the papal bull “Exiit qui seminat.”

    I think you see where this is going…

    But Pope John XXII (1316-1334) condemned the doctrine of Papal Infallibility as heretical… and not just a garden-variety heresy either, he called it “a work of the devil … the Father of Lies“… in 1324.

    Oh, snap. Two diametrically-opposed “infallible” statements just 45 years apart… 700 years ago.

    And here’s the funny part: John’s renunciation occurred in the papal bull Docta sanctorum patrum, which means that he was speaking ex cathedra himself!

    So either Nicholas III taught heresy while speaking infallibly when he issued Exiit qui seminat in 1279 or John XXII taught heresy when speaking infallibly when he issued Docta sanctorum patrum in 1324

    … both of which occurred before 1958 (as if even that arbitrary date mattered)… and there are literally dozens of similar examples. So much for Jeff’s claim.

    I agree that Francis is a heretic, but he is by no means the first pope who was.

    I was hoping to avoid re-fighting the 30 Years War, but as long as Jeff keeps making these claims (which require him to accept statements from guys like Jerome and Augustine as part of the “Sacred Apostolic Tradition”), I’ll keep smacking them down.

    Now… how about addressing the central issue: if my assertion is “absurd,” why was it important for Jesus to be perfectly sinless?

  177. Hoosierhillbilly says:

    I’ll throw my hat in I guess for those of us on the confused side of the adultery discussion here. I am probably missing something terribly nuanced in the Greek, but I would start the defense on Hebrews 13:4. “Marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled; but fornicators and adulterers God will judge.”

    Seems to this simple redneck like there are two separate categories there being judged. 1 Corinthians 6:9 seems to have these two categories to boot.

  178. Gunner Q says:

    Jeff, you broke the truce and timed it for Christmas. Do you think Christ would be honored by such bickering this close to His birthday? I don’t. Perhaps we will discuss on the 26th, if Dalrock patiently permits, but until then let’s keep the peace to respect Our Lord.

  179. BillyS says:

    Interesting site I just came across:

    https://bible.org/seriespage/9-teachings-paul-divorce-part-1

    Some relation to this thread.

  180. Damn Crackers says:

    So, are concubines ok?

  181. Boxer says:

    Just popping in to wish everyone (friend and foe alike) a very indulgent and enjoyable Christmas, and a prosperous 2017. The feminists and related looneys like to pretend they’ve got the world all sewn up, but if that were true, they wouldn’t be so frantic to silence all of us. Joy and merriment as we completely crush them in the coming year.

  182. Jeff Strand says:

    Lyn: “… both of which occurred before 1958 (as if even that arbitrary date mattered)… and there are literally dozens of similar examples. So much for Jeff’s claim.”

    LMAO! “Literally dozens” of examples to choose from…and yet you cannot provide even one! For me to even consider your claim against John XXII you would need to quote him, at length and in context, to prove he was teaching heresy to the universal Church. Which is precisely what you did not do.

    But you have a bigger problem. You see, papal infallibility was not defined as a dogma of the Church until Vatican Council I, in the mid 1800’s. So a pope expressing doubt on the issue prior to that time was in no way heretical. Just as some of the greatest saints expressed doubt about the Immaculate Concenption of the Blessed Virgin prior to 1854, when the doctrine was proclaimed as a dogma of the Church. Before 1854, there was no heresy in expressing doubt on the subject. Because it was not yet defined. But since 1854, it would indeed be heretical for a Catholic to teach that the Immaculate Conception is an open question. So see, same applies to papal infallibility since Vatican Council I, meaning it can no longer be doubted.

    Can’t believe I have to explain this to you, and yet you consider yourself competent to pass judgment on these matters!

    FYI, all the ancient bishoprics of the ancient world like Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, etc, fell to heresy at one point or another – whether it was Arianism, Monophysitism, Manicheanism, Donatism, Gnosticism, etc. All but Rome, which alone ALWAYS taught the true, Catholic Faith and always rejected all those heresies (and rejected many other heresies besides, including..,yes…Protestantism, which is also a heresy. And might I add, is one of the most pernicious heresies in history, as it deprives its members of the graces of all the sacraments instituted by Our Lord, save baptism)

  183. Feminist Hater says:

    Secondly, you imply that a Catholic must follow the pope even if he teaches heresy. Not true. This question has been discussed at length over the centuries, and the common opinion amongst saints and theologians alike has developed into the teaching that if the pope should openly teach heresy, he would by that very act cease to be pope. In fact, he ceases to even be a Catholic…just as a Baptist or Methodist (who are heretics from the Catholic point of view) is also not a Catholic.

    Who decides this? You? At the exact point you decide, you have declared war against those that follow the Pope and if the Church continues to follow the Pope, the Catholic Church as well. In the end, Luther did the only thing he could in the end, followed the path best he could. He’s not infallible, far from it.

  184. Feminist Hater says:

    Jeff, you broke the truce and timed it for Christmas. Do you think Christ would be honored by such bickering this close to His birthday? I don’t. Perhaps we will discuss on the 26th, if Dalrock patiently permits, but until then let’s keep the peace to respect Our Lord.

    He can’t, he views us as Heretics, he has pronounced judgment on all of us here who are not Catholic. He would start the wars again. He would lead an inquisition if he could, like a Jesuit.

  185. Gunner Q says:

    I remember the last guy who tried to cause trouble here on Christmas, trolling Vox Day. While I’m not accusing Jeff Strand of competing for Grinch 2016 yet, his behavior is fitting the pattern. There’s enough evil in this world to warrant special suspicion on our holy days, like a Jew celebrating Yom Kippur with one hand on the Star of David and the other on a gas mask. A lot of people don’t like us, either, and they’re closer than ever.

    Take the hint, Jeff. You can wait 40 hours to foment strife between brothers. If not then we have a real issue to discuss. It’s rather telling that you’re the only “Catholic” wanting to break the truce.

    Looking Glass @ 10:23 am:
    “Merry Christmas!”

    The mountains of Los Angeles even have snow for the first time in a few years. Gonna be a good Christmas!

  186. Hose_B says:

    Merry Christmas all

  187. Isa says:

    @gunner q The guy is a sedevacantist, they never stay silent from what I can tell. Bringing internal Catholic fights to a Protestant blog on Christmas? Par for the course. If he is SSPV, they do have lovely Christmas services, so perhaps he will be too busy churching to be fighting.

  188. Hose_B says:

    @RichardP

    This was not directed at you in specific. It is my view towards others interpretations in general. You may swap in the subject matter of the scrupture and I will still have the same view. Keeps my arguments to a minimum and good discussion to a maximum.

    To conclude……..if you are confident enough to stand in front of God and honestly say that you understood scripture to mean that you were allowed to have sex with unmarried women…….go for it. I hope you are right and I commend the confidence in your interpretations

  189. Jeff Strand says:

    Gunner Q; “Jeff, you broke the truce and timed it for Christmas. Do you think Christ would be honored by such bickering this close to His birthday? I don’t. Perhaps we will discuss on the 26th, if Dalrock patiently permits, but until then let’s keep the peace to respect Our Lord.”

    Uhhh, I wasn’t talking to you. I was continuing a conversation with Lyn, and if you weren’t interested in it then you could easily skip over our posts. No one pointing a gun at your head, forcing you to read our discussion.

    And how about I start lecturing you on the way I think you should “respect Our Lord”. Do I get to decide that for you? Gee, that’s not too pompous and arrogant, now is it? You are neither a party to my discussion with Lyn, nor is this your blog, yet you think you have the right to silence me or anyone else. Usually, only feminists and Leftists think that way.

    Grow up.

  190. Jeff Strand says:

    Oh, and Merry Christmas to all!

  191. Lost Patrol says:

    Another rip roaring Dalrock thread! How can so many men be so right about so many things? One day, when feminism is dead and buried (spits on ground), this blog will be in the Smithsonian.

    For all those here that have given me comfort and motivation:

    Giorgio Tozzi – God Rest Ye Merry Gentlemen – no vid

    For extra enjoyment play it in hearing range of a go girl feminist.

  192. Jeff Strand says:

    My contribution:

    A beautiful rendition of Ave Maria by Andre Rieu, featuring Mirusia. Enjoy and Blessed Christmas fellow Dalrock readers!

  193. Jeff Strand says:

    Couldn’t resist one more. The US Air Force band performing a flash mob Christmas carol at the Smithsonian.

  194. Lyn87 says:

    Jeff Strand,

    You staked your claim on your assertion that NO pope taught heresy prior to 1958, and I proved you wrong, using the words of popes from 700 years ago, no less. Two popes, just decades apart, issuing ex cathedra papal bulls that directly contradicted each other on the very subject we’re discussing: papal infallibility. You even went so far as to claim that papal infallibility entered official RCC doctrine in the 1900’s although one of your “non-heretical” (or is it pre-heretical?) popes by the name of Nicholas III declared it to be so in 1279 in the papal bull “Exiit qui seminat.” That doctrine was declared heretical in 1324 by another of your “non-heretical” popes, this time John XXII in his ex cathedra papal bull, “Docta sanctorum patrum,” and that “infallible” statement was subsequently declared heretical by the First Vatican Counsel in 1870, at which time it became the official current doctrine (again)… at least until the next time a pope or counsel reverses it (again).

    These back-and-forth dueling accusations of heresy are common events in RCC history, and every serious student of the history of the Roman sect knows it. There are dozens of other examples, but in the interest of not writing a dissertation – and because your position is predicated on their being NO examples prior to 1958 – then even that one is sufficient to prove that you are no more reticent to disavow RCC doctrine and papal authority than Martin Luther was… he just figured it out a lot sooner than you did.

    Then you made the absurd claim that I had not given one example, right after I quoted a papal bull that directly contradicted you (from well before your arbitrarily-selected date of 1958, no less).

    I’m done with this game – every time you make a claim and I disprove it, or show that you’re doing the very thing you condemn Protestants of doing, you just blow smoke and change the subject. May you and your “church fathers” like Jerome, Augustine, Nicholas III, John XXII, Rodrigo Borgia, and Jorge Mario Bergoglio have a very Merry Christmas.

  195. Finsals Collons says:

    As a practicing Catholic and admirer of my Protestant brethren in Christ (from which I have learned a lot) , it pains me to see Dalrock’s blog becoming a place of division among us, especially during Christmas.

    There are websites devoted to the debate between Christian sects (debate which goes nowhere and changes nobody’s opinion – the Catholic remain Catholics and the Protestants are Protestants). But Dalrock is a blog about Christian red pill and it doesn’t matter if you are Catholic, Anglican, Evangelical, Fundamentalist, Orthodox or any other Christian denomination.

    Division in the Christian Church has been caused by Satan. I dream of a future where all disciples of Christ are united in one Church. Meanwhile, we could respect our differences and be united against the common enemy.

    Dark times are coming to us. When our enemies decide to attack us, our denomination won’t matter to them. The Church is going to be purified through fire and we are going to discover that the things we have in common are more and more important than our differences.

    Having said that, I wish all the people here a Merry Christmas. Time to remember the birth of Jesus and to allow Jesus to be born in our hearts.

  196. philnicholas says:

    @dvdivx wrote: “Good thing God also tells you to be trapped in a marriage from hell with a frigid harpy.”

    Not necessarily. It depends on your understanding of the marriage covenant itself. As founded by God (Gen. 2:24) and confirmed by Jesus (e.g., Matt. 19:5) the terms of the marriage covenant is three-fold: 1. Leave. 2. Cleave. 3. Become one-flesh. Sexual denial in marriage is an inferred violation of the second covenant term and an explicit violation of the third covenant term. Even a slave wife could divorce her husband if he diminished (not ceased, but even so much as diminished) her sexual rights when her husband took another wife (Ex. 21:10-11). Setting aside the polygamy issue in that passage, it goes without saying that if a slave wife has the right to divorce due to obviously willful diminished marital sex, then all the more so a free woman or man necessarily has the same rights.

    Martin Luther echoed this view in “The Estate of Marriage” (1521) when he wrote, “The third case for divorce is that in which one of the parties deprives and avoids the other, refusing to fulfill the conjugal duty or to live with the other person. For example, one finds many a stubborn wife like that who will not give in, and who cares not a whit whether her husband falls into the sin of unchastity ten times over. […] When one resists the other and refuses the conjugal duty she is robbing the other of the body she had bestowed upon him. This is really contrary to marriage, and dissolves the marriage.” (Note: abridged quote) I encourage you to read Luther’s larger treatment; it’s freely available online.

    Until we return to a covenant understanding of marriage — including the ever important terms of the covenant — our mishandling of these human wickedness in marriage will remain an exegetical embarrassment upon the Church.

  197. infowarrior1 says:

    @Finsals Collins
    ”The Church is going to be purified through fire and we are going to discover that the things we have in common are more and more important than our differences.”
    Alot of error cleansing needs to occur for that to become a reality.

  198. BillyS says:

    Jeff needs to chill out a bit.

  199. ACThinker says:

    I think some context should be brought on this.
    1. Augustine’s anti sex approach – for Augustine, he was a libertine as a youth, and much as a recovering alcoholic tends to be the most out spoken about alcohol, so a recovering sex adict would be the most vocal about the sins of the flesh. I don’t know enough about Jerome to know if his is for the same sort reason.
    2. Isn’t part of Dahlrock’s point that we don’t need idols? Is not “lust” in the modern term a putting of Sex above all, above, wives, husbands, and especially God? If wife worship is bad, so also is sex worship. In this context, lust is wrong, and should not be understood as desire or want, but lust.
    3. The flip of this is also true. God created us to be physical, and therefore sex in and of itself is not evil. “Male and female He made them- and it was very good”
    4. The Catholic Church calls the virtue of chastity “Sex in right relationship” Which it then defines as “husband and wife seeking unification and open to procreation” Thus eliminating anything out of marriage. So recall all of us are called to be chaste.
    5. There is a time for everything….. And as there is a time for carnal relations,

    But above all, NO IDOLS!…. Be they idols of self, or sex, or spouse.

  200. Lyn87 says:

    ACThinker,

    I’ve encountered that line of thinking before: the idea that liking something “too much” is idolatry. That idea is unsupported by Scripture (and Scripture has plenty to say about idolatry). The warnings against it involve worshiping something other than God as if he/she/it was an actual god. When we use words like “idolize” today, we mean that we hold something up as being laudable, or something we like a lot… NOT that we we think it is literally divine. One shouldn’t become obsessed with worldly things in general, but that is typically not what scripture means when it refers to idolatrous practices.

    At the risk of re-opening the earlier can of worms: unless you’re on your knees in front of a statue or image, you’re probably not practicing idolatry. (The one exception to that rule in scripture is greed, which is specifically identified as a type of idolatry in Colossians 3:5 and Ephesians 5:5.)

    On the other hand, if you like to have sex with you wife – even if you really like it a lot – you aren’t guilty of idolatry. If you build a shrine to the Greek god Eros and pray to him, though, then you’re guilty of idolatry.

  201. Feminist Hater says:

    One shouldn’t become obsessed with worldly things in general, but that is typically not what scripture means when it refers to idolatrous practices.

    Thin line. To idolize can be to worship something or someone to the point of Godhood. I definitely think there is a case of worship when it comes to idolizing singers, celebrities, sports stars and so forth.

  202. Lyn87 says:

    FH,

    I suspect that we’re going to end up agreeing to disagree, and I agree that “idolizing” in the modern use of the term is unhealthy, but scripture is not on your side here.

    Back in my much younger days I used to watch football, and I was a big fan of the Miami Dolphins – I watched every game, and I even had a Dolphins belt buckle the size of a Kia hubcap. My favorite player was Paul Warfield (I could catch a ball at my shoelaces at a dead run back then), and although I aspired to play like he did I was never under any illusions about his divinity.

  203. Feminist Hater says:

    Yeah, I suspect so too. I’m not going to argue it, my point is only that it is the degree to which idolizing takes place. Looking up to someone and trying to emulate them isn’t idolatry. Placing a person, thing or other divinity above or equal to God, is.

  204. BillyS says:

    The only quibble I would make is that I think far more people idolize things today than they realize. It is kind of like the Pharisees of Jesus’ day. They did not have the idols of the pre-exile time, but they certainly had many things they put far above God.

    They don’t call it “American Idol” for nothing.

    I would have to think more about the football story. A belief in the deity of something or someone is not the sole issue. Putting something in the place of God is the issue. Letting your life be consumed with a sports team would fit the pattern and thus be wrong. Just having lots of stuff related to them would not.

    A lot of fuzzy boundaries there.

  205. Lyn87 says:

    BillyS

    I think the notion that “putting things ahead of God” is literal idolatry comes from an extrapolation of Colossians 3:5 and Ephesians 5:5, which both specify that greediness IS idolatry (not “like unto” idolatry, but actual idolatry), as well as possibly a desire I have seen to create a sort of “Unified Theory of Sin” (my term) wherein any sin is some form of every sin. The most extreme example I have seen of that is someone who posited that any transgression of any of the Ten Commandments was necessarily a transgression of each of them… and not in the sense of James 2:10, “For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it,” but in the sense of every sin being a violation of each of the Ten Commandments in particular. (So if you don’t honor your mother, you are somehow also automatically guilty of coveting your neighbor’s goat. To say that’s a stretch would be, in my opinion, overly generous… but unifying theories have a certain appeal, no doubt.)

    As for my take: there’s enough real, unambiguous idolatry to worry about without looking for other things to put the label onto. Your mileage may vary, and I’m on board with you and FH that it’s bad to turn our focus away from God, so there’s little point in getting tangled into a discussion over semantics.

  206. Kevin says:

    I have not read all the posts yet but I remain utterly amazed that there exists any Christian that believes you could have sex outside marriage. Search all you want for some biblical verse, or you could just use your own brain to determine that sex outside marriage is obvious moral incontience and a sin. If you need some obscure verse to clarify that for you by all means I hope you find one, but this is so obviously a sin that it’s hard to take the claims of people espousing it seriously. What do you do about the children of these trysts?

    I believe in a wonderful and healthy intimacy in marriage but deriving doctrine from borderline scripture like Song of Solomon is weak sauce. If Luther had had the good sense to rip that book out it would not be missed, as it exists for literary purposes not doctrinal.

    Others have claimed that women will intrinsically want sex from their husbands and women are as interested in sex as men (or comments appraching that). Seriously? Alpha all you want, but some women are not interested in sex after they get married and it’s out of your hands. The difference is historically women thought more of marriage and duty (cue Rollo) and so did not deny their husbands advances even if they were not initially interested. Now the modern woman is taught a bunch of rubbish and rationalizes unkindness towards their spouse.

    That’s enough random rants. Otherwise I appreciate the continued condemnation of the idea that sex in marriage is wrong or dirty. I also continue to appreciate one of Dalrocks very best insights-that romantic love has been elevated to the sanctifier of sex and not God. Brilliant as it works outside of marriage and continues brilliance applied inside marriage.

  207. Pingback: Embracing no fault divorce is the natural result of elevating romantic love to a moral force. | Dalrock

  208. Pingback: Romance is sexual. | Dalrock

Please see the comment policy linked from the top menu.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s