Is marriage the cause of sexual immorality?

There is a recurring argument in the comment threads which claims that some forms of extramarital sex are not prohibited.  The argument is that fornication isn’t a biblical concept, and only a small set of defined extramarital sex activities are prohibited:

  1. Adultery.  Sex with a woman who is another man’s wife, or sex with a woman who is not your wife (but for this latter definition only if you are married).
  2. Sex with a virgin.  But after another man has had sex with a virgin, she is fair game unless one of you is married.
  3. Sex with prostitutes.  Some claim this is only a prohibition against sex with certain kinds of prostitutes (e.g. pagan temple prostitutes).
  4. Incest.
  5. Bestiality.
  6. Homosexuality.

All other forms of sex outside of marriage are then claimed to be permitted.  I won’t lay out the entire foundation of faulty logic used to arrive at this claim, but in broad strokes it involves a very narrow reading of the OT, focusing on Leviticus and Exodus, and a tortuously narrow reading of the NT, specifically 1 Cor 6:13-20 (ESV):

13 “Food is meant for the stomach and the stomach for food”—and God will destroy both one and the other. The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. 14 And God raised the Lord and will also raise us up by his power. 15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never! 16 Or do you not know that he who is joined[d] to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, “The two will become one flesh.” 17 But he who is joined to the Lord becomes one spirit with him. 18 Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin[e] a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body. 19 Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, 20 for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.

I’m not spending time identifying and correcting the long and twisted path of rationalizations used to arrive at the no such thing as fornication claim, because even if the logic used to get there weren’t in fact faulty, 1 Corinthians 7 is sufficient to blow all of these rationalizations out of the water.

7 Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” 2 But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. 3 The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 5 Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

6 Now as a concession, not a command, I say this.[a] 7 I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own gift from God, one of one kind and one of another.

8 To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single, as I am. 9 But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

What the Apostle Paul explains repeatedly in this passage is that marriage is the solution to sexual temptation.  If you don’t desire sex, do not marry.  But if you desire sex, the only licit way to pursue it is to marry.  And once married, you don’t have the right to refuse sex to your spouse because this would create temptation for sexual immorality.

The text is clear.  Marriage is the only permitted path to sex.  That we have done great violence to marriage doesn’t (and can’t) change this.  However, the fact that we are thwarting God’s plan by destroying marriage should be deeply humbling and convicting.  Divorce, child support, and even the subversion of headship are all questions of sexual immorality.

So 1 Cor 7 blows all of the no such thing as fornication rationalizations out of the water at once.  But it is even worse for the rationalizers, because their implicit claim is that marriage is the cause of sexual immorality.  If no one were married, excluding prostitution homosexuality bestiality incest and sex with virgins, there would be no sexual sin.  Every unrelated woman who wasn’t a virgin or a temple prostitute would be fair game for a randy Christian man, so long as neither had married.  Christians could be having a giant sexual free for all, if only men and women didn’t marry*.  This is not only absurd, but it is the exact opposite of what the Apostle Paul explains is the case.  Marriage is the solution to the problem of sexual immorality, but through tortured logic the rationalizers have come to the inescapable conclusion that marriage is the cause of sexual immorality!

I’ll close by noting that Proverbs 5 teaches the same message as 1 Corinthians 7.  Verses 1-14 warn the reader to resist the temptation of sexual immorality, or you will fall into the same trap as the speaker:

I did not listen to the voice of my teachers
or incline my ear to my instructors.
14 I am at the brink of utter ruin
in the assembled congregation.”

Then verses 15-19 explain the proper solution to this temptation, before verses 20-23 again remind the reader of the risk if he doesn’t heed the instruction:

15 Drink water from your own cistern,
flowing water from your own well.
16 Should your springs be scattered abroad,
streams of water in the streets?
17 Let them be for yourself alone,
and not for strangers with you.
18 Let your fountain be blessed,
and rejoice in the wife of your youth,
19 a lovely deer, a graceful doe.
Let her breasts fill you at all times with delight;
be intoxicated[d] always in her love.
20 Why should you be intoxicated, my son, with a forbidden woman
and embrace the bosom of an adulteress?[e]
21 For a man’s ways are before the eyes of the Lord,
and he ponders[f] all his paths.
22 The iniquities of the wicked ensnare him,
and he is held fast in the cords of his sin.
23 He dies for lack of discipline,
and because of his great folly he is led astray.

*Non Christians would of course have to do the honors of having sex with virgin women to change their status, but so long as Christians aren’t the ones doing this (according to the rationalization) Christians could engage in an endless orgy without sinning.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Marriage, Rationalization Hamster, Rebellion. Bookmark the permalink.

782 Responses to Is marriage the cause of sexual immorality?

  1. podethelesser says:

    Unless you’ve preemptively banned Toad, I’m gonna grab a seat and some popcorn, dis gon be gud.

    [D: Ha! I have not.]

  2. Pingback: Is marriage the cause of sexual immorality? | @the_arv

  3. Heidi_storage says:

    An unmarried poster on CAF asked what to do about his sexual desire, and I suggested he find a nice girl and get married. I was, of course, roundly rebuked on the forum for denigrating women by making them some horny guy’s sex doll, but it did seem to be a Biblical solution for someone who had a hard time with lust.

    Now, many people here (yourself included) have pointed out the risks of marriage that make it such an undesirable option, and that of course is one of the great evils of our age–that the only legitimate (for a Christian) condition for having sex is now so perverted and broken that it scarcely exists in a recognizable form.

  4. Joe says:

    I think you are correct that sex outside of marriage is always sin. Perhaps the confusion comes from the fact that some prohibited sexual relations, but not all, are also crimes. Prostitution for example, appears to be a sin but not a crime so long as the prostitute is not married (or the daughter of a priest in the Old Testament). Also, I am not convinced that we understand the biblical definition of adultery. It appears that adultery is defined in the Bible solely as a married woman having sex with a man who is not her husband. I am not aware of anywhere in the Bible that says a married man who has sex with an unmarried woman, or who takes more than one wife, commits adultery. If I am wrong about this, then what does 2 Sam. 12:8 mean?

  5. thedeti says:

    Just by way of clarification, “fornication” is an unmarried man and an unmarried woman having sex with each other. By that standard, probably 95%+ of all men and women have fornicated.

    Dalrock, the conclusion that marriage is A cause (not THE cause) of sexual immorality isn’t entirely wrong, at least not in the current context. A major problem is women refusing sex to their husbands for one reason or another, which then drives men to pornography and masturbation, and perhaps a few to adultery and many to divorce. Another major problem is women marrying men for whom they have no, or very little, sexual attraction, and those wives then refusing sex to their husbands. This is not to excuse men; but to explain their conduct.

    Perhaps it might be more accurate to say “Marriage 2.0 is a cause of sexual immorality” or “People marrying for the wrong reasons is a cause of sexual immorality” or “Women marrying men and then refusing sex to their husbands is a cause of sexual immorality”.

  6. The Question says:

    @Dalrock

    This whole debate can be put to rest with this passage alone from Deuteronomy 22:13-21

    “If a man takes a wife and, after sleeping with her, dislikes her 14 and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, “I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity,” 15 then the young woman’s father and mother shall bring to the town elders at the gate proof that she was a virgin. 16 Her father will say to the elders, “I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her. 17 Now he has slandered her and said, ‘I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.’ But here is the proof of my daughter’s virginity.” Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town, 18 and the elders shall take the man and punish him. 19 They shall fine him a hundred shekels[a] of silver and give them to the young woman’s father, because this man has given an Israelite virgin a bad name. She shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives.

    20 If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the young woman’s virginity can be found, 21 she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done an outrageous thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house. You must purge the evil from among you.”

    Or this from Exodus 22:16, in the case that marital fraud wasn’t involved.

    “If a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged to be married and sleeps with her, he must pay the bride-price, and she shall be his wife.”

  7. thedeti says:

    Finishing my thought before I hit “post”:

    A big part of the problem is what we in modern society have bastardized marriage into. What we now call “marriage” has almost no resemblance to what the Bible and Christian tradition describe as marriage, or even what marriage was before no-fault divorce and the sexual revolution. Marriage no longer works for a sizable portion of the population, in no small part because it no longer is what it was, or what it is intended to be.

  8. miforest says:

    dalrock exuding brilliance and faithful love.

  9. Minesweeper says:

    @Joe, you are right, the Christian culture and its opinions about what is legal sex is so outside of what the bible says, we really need to go back to the original text in its original language in its original culture to understand what it means as we have completely lost all understanding.

    Its fully allowed in the NT to have slaves (nowadays salaried workers) and multiple wives (nowadays 1 wife currently legally married too, 2 previous on alimony with kids) .

  10. Minesweeper says:

    “thedeti says:
    August 9, 2017 at 2:01 pm
    Just by way of clarification, “fornication” is an unmarried man and an unmarried woman having sex with each other. By that standard, probably 95%+ of all men and women have fornicated.”

    fornication is far closer to “prostitution” than anything else in the Greek. If we go by what we think it means in the church, then 99.999% of couples have sinned with the sin of fornication in the eyes of the church\God before they got married.

  11. Minesweeper says:

    @deti, as most think of fornication to mean any form of sexual touching even heavy kissing with tongues (oh the heavens….)

  12. Is the argument the never married Men who want to sleep around? They should stay chaste and prepare for Marriage. They desire and we should only warn them to protect themselves from the hordes of immoral Women who will use their solemn vows to abuse them. They still have a good shot at a happy marriage, family and life if we teach them.

    I think the argument is probably more supported by divorced Men like myself who are often told we are sexuallly immoral (beyond being Men with a libido) for having sexual desires and no longer being Married. A church that can’t handle simple matters like obeying the Bible’s commandments can’t solve complex matters like what to do when a Man is the victim of someone who didn’t. With this failure many Men simply given in to worldly advice instead and it’s easy to do in this day and age where adulteress Women gives themselves easily to Men. The price might not be divorce but there is still a heavy price for giving in.

    I won’t pretend to have easy answers for it myself. My Ex- fully embraced Feminism and turned her back on the Bible while calling herself a Christian (Lesbian). For that and many other reasons there is no rescuing that relationship.

  13. thedeti says:

    Mine: Yeah, “fornication” is P in V sex. Going all the way. The “home run”. The thing every 15 year old boy wants to have happen with his GF.

  14. Pingback: Is marriage the cause of sexual immorality? - Top

  15. Joe says:

    Minesweeper, I wouldn’t go so far as to say that multiple wives is “fully allowed” in the New Testament. Just because a thing is not illegal and punishable by death as adultery is (or was, depending on your view of how much of the Old Testament Law is still applicable), does not mean it is fully allowed. We are told in 1 Tim. 3:2 that elders and deacons are to have but one wife. There must be some reason for this. Why would polygamy disqualify one to serve as an elder if it were fully allowed? I think that if a married man has sex with an unmarried woman and knocks her up, he should be REQUIRED to marry her. Her and her child should be HIS responsibility and not the welfare state. Don’t misunderstand me though; I am not saying that polygamy is a good thing. I am simply saying that if a man is going to be tom catting around, he should bear the responsibility for it. If a man does have more than one wife then, which is evidence of his lack of self control, then he should not be an elder of a church.

  16. Someone says:

    This kind of discussion is why I’m not a Christian or get excited about it. Churchians are always babbling about this alleged sin of sex which is a turn off to most of us. I will never apologize for desiring or wanting sex with an attractive woman.

    I don’t disparage monogamy or its necessity in raising children, but I’ve always been doubtful that a supreme being obsesses with my sex habits. Also, when churchians speak of marriage, what do they mean? Through the church as was probably the tradition or some government piece of paper licensing such?

  17. Joe says:

    Someone: Nowhere in the Bible is the Church or the State given any authority to create, license, or officiate a marriage. Marriage in the Bible is strictly a family affair. Read Genesis 24, the story of Isaac & Rebekah’s marriage. I challenge anyone to give me biblical authority for a church wedding, officiated by clergy, who has power vested in him by the state, after purchasing a required license.

  18. thedeti says:

    “Churchians are always babbling about this alleged sin of sex which is a turn off to most of us. I will never apologize for desiring or wanting sex with an attractive woman.”

    There is no such thing as the “sin of sex”. The biblical principle is that sex is licit only in marriage.

    No one expects men to apologize or self-flagellate for desiring or wanting sex with attractive women. Maybe stupid Churchians and Protestant “family ministries” do, but there’s nothing in the Bible or Christian traditions which says that men wanting or desiring sex with attractive women is sin.

  19. The Question says:

    “Churchians are always babbling about this alleged sin of sex which is a turn off to most of us. I will never apologize for desiring or wanting sex with an attractive woman.”

    That’s the result of the conflicting and contradictory teachings in the modern church. On the one hand, they insist that men not have sex until marriage. Fair enough. In a world where young men marry at the same age their bodies are biologically ready to procreate, that makes sense.

    But modern church teaching is that they not get married until they check off a bucket list of accomplishments and achievements that are not only wholly unrealistic, but require they wait until they’re around 30. So they create a culture in which sex is bad and to be frowned upon. If a young man sexually desires a young woman, church leaders freak out because, as they see it, they “can’t” get married that young, and they can’t morally have sex outside of marriage.

    If an 18-year-old is not “ready” to get married, then the parents and society and culture that raised them are admittedly that they failed, because they’re acknowledging an adult they raised is not fully prepared for adult responsibilities.

    Davis Aurini did a great video on this phenomenon a few years ago and how churches raise their sons like maidens and their daughters like sons and all the chaos this results in

  20. BillyS says:

    Joe,

    I suspect the argument would be based on obeying civil authorities and the lack of any prohibition of that licensing.

    Deti,

    I thought Dalrock’s point was that marriage makes previous activities immoral in the eyes of many (or what they claim). I thought he was arguing against the illogic that something that was perfectly acceptable (many types of sex outside marriage) suddenly was banned once a man married.

    Dalrock can clarify, but I would fully agree with his points if I read them correctly. The argument saying all these things are good and fine is rubbish. I don’t think those things are the worst crimes in the world however and I believe women should be held more accountable for their role pushing men toward those things however. That rarely happens. I cannot think of a single example recently beyond a few sentences, at most, and I listen to quite a bit of preaching.

  21. Dalrock says:

    @The Question

    This whole debate can be put to rest with this passage alone from Deuteronomy 22:13-21…

    Indeed. The challenge as is the rationalizers want to play a game of theological rope a dope, firing off rationalizations faster than you can refute them with references from the text, hoping that eventually you or the people reading will grow exhausted and give up. But this still leaves the fact that they have inverted the fundamental teaching on marriage, holding it as the cause of sexual immorality instead of the way to avoid it.

  22. BillyS says:

    Churchians are always babbling about this alleged sin of sex which is a turn off to most of us. I will never apologize for desiring or wanting sex with an attractive woman.

    I cannot recall hearing anyone claim this directly. The implications do underlay some thinking, but it is never directly claimed. At least I have not heard it. I am sure you could find someone claiming it someplace on the wide Internet, but you can find just about anything there.

  23. The Question says:

    @Dalrock

    Don’t forget Matthew 5:28 “But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”

    Notice he didn’t say “another man’s wife.”

    Maybe I missed something, but if you’re not supposed to think about banging hos, my guess is actually banging them doesn’t constitute as a righteous act, either.

  24. ace says:

    thedeti says:
    August 9, 2017 at 2:01 pm

    Marriage 2.0 doesn’t work exactly because of premarital sex. All that fornicating makes a women unfit to be a wife.

  25. Dalrock says:

    @BillyS

    I thought Dalrock’s point was that marriage makes previous activities immoral in the eyes of many (or what they claim). I thought he was arguing against the illogic that something that was perfectly acceptable (many types of sex outside marriage) suddenly was banned once a man married.

    Dalrock can clarify, but I would fully agree with his points if I read them correctly.

    I’m not sure what you are saying here so for clarity I’ll restate my position:

    Marriage is the solution to sexual temptation. If you don’t desire sex, do not marry. But if you desire sex, the only licit way to pursue sex is to marry. And once married, you don’t have the right to refuse sex to your spouse because this would create temptation for sexual immorality.

  26. feministhater says:

    I cannot recall hearing anyone claim this directly. The implications do underlay some thinking, but it is never directly claimed. At least I have not heard it. I am sure you could find someone claiming it someplace on the wide Internet, but you can find just about anything there.

    Come on guys, it happens in almost every thread about sexual relations.

    @thedeti

    “But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.”
    -Mattn 5:28

    Now, I’m sure someone will have some reason why God is totally wrong here and THEY actually know what He was really trying to say and it DEFINITELY is NOT what it obviously says because that’s like totally too hard, but hopefully any young men reading this can see the inherent dishonesty in that position and leave their Church of Me forever.

  27. BillyS says:

    I was not clear, but I agree with your statement Dalrock.

    I would explain more, but it would probably be equally muddy!

  28. Trinn says:

    Define “marriage.”
    As usual, the Devil is in the details.
    And the details have been ignored here.
    If one’s belief is that marriage involves a State marriage license, then one believes that we should render to Caesar that which is the Lord’s. Such a one is in blatant violation of the Holy Scriptures.
    His people are destroyed for lack of knowledge.
    Such is the danger of the traditions of men.

  29. Robert What? says:

    As an aside, I always found Paul’s exhortation to remain single, if possible, very interesting. If everyone followed his advice, where were new Christian children going to come from? Or was Paul so certain of Christ’s imminent return that he thought that progeny was a non issue?

  30. 27 “You have heard that it was said to those of old,[a] ‘You shall not commit adultery.’[b] 28 But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

    Whenever this topic comes up everyone pretends like Jesus never said this.

  31. Dave says:

    but I’ve always been doubtful that a supreme being obsesses with my sex habits.

    That God cares very much about each sexual act is the logical inference from his participation in the procreative act by creating the human soul at the moment of conception(when a new human life is created, scientifically speaking).

  32. Minesweeper says:

    @rollo
    “27 You have heard that it was said to those of old,[a] ‘You shall not commit adultery.’[b] 28 But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”

    Whenever this topic comes up everyone pretends like Jesus never said this.”

    because he didnt !

  33. RedPillPaul says:

    @Minesweeper

    He didnt?

  34. Minesweeper says:

    @RPP, not according to the Greek, no he said something else. only the KJV says this and all other translations follow from that. translations from 1300 seem to be more accurate, strangely.

  35. Minesweeper says:

    Matthew 5:28 Wycliffe Bible (WYC) circa 1390

    28 But I say to you, that every man that seeth a woman [for] to covet her, hath now done lechery by her in his heart [now he hath done lechery with her in his heart].

  36. Minesweeper says:

    @RPP,Rollo
    What the greek actually says is :
    But I tell you that anyone who 1(looks with eyes) at 2(someone’s wife) 3(desires and covets her with passion) has already committed adultery with her in their heart.

    Its not talking about looking at images or movies or novels or having sexual fantasies.

    You need 3 things to commit adultery in your heart according to the verse above :
    1. Looking at her (not an image or a thought)
    2. Someone’s wife (not single female or male)
    3. Covetousness* of her with passion (not sexual desire\arousal\fantasy)
    * Marked by extreme desire to acquire or possess, excessively and culpably desirous of the possessions of another.

  37. podethelesser says:

    Which corresponds nicely to the OT commandment not to covet thy neighbor’s wife. Almost as if Jesus was explaining the meaning of the original commandment rather that issuing a new one. Which would have been the sin of adding to the Law, meaning He would have sinned and could not be a sacrifice for anyone else’s sins.

  38. okrahead says:

    Question: If sex outside of marriage is sinful, is not the inverse true, that a person who refuses sex inside of marriage is committing an equivalent sin? I Corinthians 7 specifically prohibits refusing sex inside of marriage, churchian rationalizations notwithstanding. That being the case, is a spouse refusing sex committing fornication by omission? In other words, if a wife refuses to have sex with her husband, is she guilty of sexual immorality?

  39. Minesweeper says:

    @pod, ding ding ! you win the prize, you are exactly correct. What Jesus was saying was to not covet anyone’s wife.

    It never ceases to amaze me just how utterly obfuscated and tied up in knots the church culture seems to believe anything related to sex.

    An easy example, Catholics\some Christians still get their knickers in a twist over masturbation. Because of the sin of Onan, now Onans sin wasnt that he was jerkin off, it was that he used the pull out method while having sex with his sister in law. Thus depriving her of his semen so she couldnt have kids related to her now deceased husband.

    So because 1 guys used the pull out method with someone who wasnt his wife, now masturbation is a mortal sin.

    Go figure ? Its like even the most simplest things involving anything to do with any part of sex in the bible, just is taken to an nutty level. And this obscures the real purpose of the church as its too busy focusing on this BS.

  40. okrahead says:

    Dalrock…. I would say a sexless marriage (which is actually an oxymoron) might cause sexual immorality, although we all know churchians would deny such.

  41. earlthomas786 says:

    I will never apologize for desiring or wanting sex with an attractive woman.

    Sex in the right context (marriage) is not a sin. No Christian would say sex itself is a sin. God told us to be fruitful and multiply.

    Outside of marriage is missing the mark with sex…thats where sin begins.

  42. Sigh.

    What’s more likely, every Christian and every Jew as far back as anyone knows has got it all wrong about what’s permitted and what’s not or someone busted out the Greek and discovered the “real truth”, that as long as you aren’t married or she isn’t “real” (images in porn), go nuts.

    I’m not saying there aren’t bad arguments being used by orthodox people but cmon there’s a smell test problem here.

  43. Disagree.

    And to be precise, sex with a virgin isn’t forbidden. As someone quoted, if a man deflowers a woman, he either has to marry her, or pay the bride price for virgins. Pretty far from the list of sexual sins spelled out in the OT.

    And don’t forget, the law of the lord is perfect. So he did not forget to put anything in.

    I love when people go “well it was understood that’s why it wasn’t spelled out.” if that was true then why did bestiality and murder and theft have to be explicitly mentioned? Because no one knew murder was bad?

    And “fornication” goes to “porneia” which means sexual immorality or illicit sex. The fact that we use fornication for an explicit act today might help explain why modern translationa like the niv juat put “sexual immorality” or such.

    And lastly Jesus said you commit adultery… The greek word was not porneia. Adultery requires violating marriage vows. It’s not unmarried sex.

  44. Pingback: Is marriage the cause of sexual immorality? | Reaction Times

  45. And seriously, why the snark in the post? It isn’t befitting of a serious discussion.

    Another point. You snarkily comment that that would mean marriage causes sexual immorality. You know, people today have just as much adultery and premaritial sex and everything as back when the bible was written. But, most people still think a committed relationship is far more desirable than casual sex.

    And the fact does remain–God felt the need to spell out so many sexual sins and label them shameful or death crimes, but he did not bother say pre maritial sex is bad?

  46. Son of Liberty says:

    …she is fair game unless one of you is married.

    Not really. Marriage happens upon penetration, in my research. It is like God recommending not to eat any animal that is not both “cud chewer” and cloven hoof. For ocean animals, only scales and fins together, not one or the other, are allowed, which means shrimp, lobster is not allowed. Can you eat it though? Sure, you can also shoot your foot as well, doesn’t mean you will lose salvation, or that you committed sin, but the reason God recommended not to eat these species is becasue they bring bad toxins, metals and parasites in your body, and this is why it is much more difficult to receive or discern the holy spirit, because you pineal gland, mind and body are full of crap, and God has clearly stated our body’s are temples… Yet… thousands of years later, we have science proving that all the stuff the Bible states, is literally true. Mercury, parasites, worms, no matter how well cooked bring long term issues in the body, as one science study proves that we have a second brain, the gut, who has more neural connections to the brain than any other organ. How many of you here in Dalrock have literally had contact, recently or long time ago, with the Holy Spirit? Led by God or Jesus as testimony? Perhaps we need to detoxify our bodies, juicing, suppositories, essential oils and do exactly what God has stated…. Now back to topic about sex…

    Science on regards of sex is not quite there yet (my theory is that the satanic culture that we have across the world refuses to reveal this from the laboratories to keep the problems going on), but it is slowly coming to light. Not long ago Russian scientists discovered the “wireless”, or “photonic” nature of DNA, and how DNA reacted to light for possible communication of some sort (DNA Science and What Russian Researchers Have Surprisingly Discovered…), this goes very well along Dan Winter’s research as well about fractals and DNA (The Purpose of DNA | Dan Winter). Now this wireless DNA concept weighs more on the male side but also applies to the female as well. We do not know what happens in the unseen world, as God mentions that, I paraphrase, “the unseen world is more real than the seen (flesh)” 2 Corinthians 4:18. So it is quite ignorant and stupid to see sex as the flesh only, thinking that sex can only bring diseases and bad behaviors for women, ahem…but assume that men cannot be clinged and addicted/chasing to p*ssy?

    Now on to the female side about DNA, but this time, physical and not electrical and light. It is called Microchimerism, where any DNA contact, into her blood, whether vaginally, orally, etc will PERMANENTLY infuse the male’s DNA into her and be essentially be sludged or caked into her system for life, affecting her emotions, behavior and future child. Which means that any child from a non virgin, 1+ partner wife from the first “husband” (I quote husband becasue husband happens upon penetration, not under civil papers under satanic state of Rome that has taken over Washington, but that’s another story), is 100% his, and it is not a coincidence that some kids come out BARELY similar to the Father, why? Because the mother has had previous partners before. “Oh but what about condom and protected sex!”… Sure, you might prevent your DNA microchimerism from being dispersed but now the electrical and light properties come into play, which we DON’T realize, and come into full effect, p*ssy addiction from the male side, and emotional mess on the female side. So, no, the female MAY be divorced under civil papers, single, etc… IT DOES NOT MATTER, becasue if she was “penetrated”, she’s MARRIED FOR LIFE UNDER GOD’S LAWS because that is how nature works. It is why there’s the concept of “soul ties”… where people have emotional and satanic infiltration throughout their lives, becasue they have had sex with others who are NOT saved and have demons attached to them (YouTube, “soul ties sex”). So the notion that it is “ok” to remarry a detached female is bogus, becasue if she is NOT a virgin, she’s destroyed goods, period. The Bible does mention this..

    Luke 16:18 KJV
    Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from [her] husband committeth adultery.

    Marry = Penetration (Microchimerism or DNA Penetration transfer)… So once you ****** her, and putteth away her for another, that ‘another’ as in whether she’s virgin or not, you committed adultery. And if you ****** that putteth’ed wife (divorced or non virgin), you just screwed yourself into adultery whether you were abstinent or not. Guys it is clear, ask yourselves why Royalty families are upmost protective about this, becasue it RUINS their line of generations, but for the peasants below, its ok for them to intermingle and mess up their way of life through promiscuity. Does this have to do to the fact that the Bible states clearly about generational curses upon sin?? (Bible Verses About Generational Curses), on how the next 2 or 3 generations will be affected due to the actions of the grandfather or great grandfather? I do not know, those are advance topics, but it is clear.

  47. Gunner Q says:

    okrahead @ 4:45 pm:
    “I Corinthians 7 specifically prohibits refusing sex inside of marriage, churchian rationalizations notwithstanding. That being the case, is a spouse refusing sex committing fornication by omission? In other words, if a wife refuses to have sex with her husband, is she guilty of sexual immorality?”

    The crime here is rebellion, not immorality. God gave an order and she refused to obey. She’s rebelling against hubby, too.

  48. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

    Although “burn with passion” seems to be a common translation, the Greek word πυροῦσθαι, which is what Paul uses here, literally just means “to burn” or “to be burnt”, and it’s quite possible Paul’s referring to burning in Hell here. Which, of course, would only reinforce the point you’re making about extra-marital sex being a sin.

  49. Son of Liberty says:

    Here’s the Microchimerism study…
    Male microchimerism in women without sons: quantitative assessment and correlation with pregnancy history.

    Here’s a fun forum gone into depth about this…
    Women absorb and carry living DNA and cells from every male they have sexual intercouse with

    In my view, marriage happens upon penetration, now of course, if there was never love in the first place, then God never sees it as a legitimate marriage, therefore ruining yourself and herself.

  50. Ute67 says:

    Faith ( evidence of things unseen, yet true) is required of me to believe in God & Christ. I hold to that faith. The existence of biblical marriage is not a matter of faith. I can observe the world, read the bible & study the contexts of “what is marriage?”, and come to a conclusion that in the world & time I live in, (1.) the biblical institution of marriage either does not exist, or (2.) there are possibly some places in the world I could move to that may possibly sustain a legal framework for a successful biblical marriage. Is my faith sufficient to try and forego all worldly concerns and move around this planet in search of such a Christian/Churchian utopia?

    Nope. I will not forego my ability to provide for my family ( broken or not), and myself, to pursue across the planet a mad vision of a Churchian marriage utopia for the sake of finding a place where God is A-OK with me banging a unmarried woman.

  51. The Question says:

    @archerwfisher

    Good grief, man. There’s no verse explicitly forbidding adults from having sex with children, either. There’s no age of consent specifically mentioned. Are you going to argue that the Bible permits pedophilia or that it is ambiguous on the subject?

    If you keep scraping the bottom of the barrel for ways around the issue like this, you’re going to get splinters.

  52. The Question says:

    Here’s another one, the story of Ammon and Tamar, which can serve as the final lid on this coffin.

    2 Samuel 13

    “And Tamar took the bread she had prepared and brought it to her brother Amnon in his bedroom. 11 But when she took it to him to eat, he grabbed her and said, “Come to bed with me, my sister.”

    “No, my brother!” she said to him. “Don’t force me! Such a thing should not be done in Israel! Don’t do this wicked thing. 13 What about me? Where could I get rid of my disgrace? And what about you? You would be like one of the wicked fools in Israel. Please speak to the king; he will not keep me from being married to you.”

    Since Tamar is advising him to approach David about marrying her rather than having sex with her at that moment, what “wicked” thing is she referring to, if not premarital sex with a virgin?

    The prosecution rests its case, your honor.

  53. Bart says:

    The Question and everybody,
    In Matt. 5:28, Jesus specifically did use the Greek word for a MARRIED WOMAN.

    It is a translational issue. The Greek word wife and woman are the same word! That word is usually rendered wife in most places. The translators should render it that way in Matt. 5:28.

    The Law always regards adultery as sex with another man’s wife, and the word Jesus used was completely consistent with that definition. Yes, Matt. 5:28 corresponds to the 10th Commandment against coveting your neighbor’s wife.

    Jesus did not say that looking upon a marriageable virgin with honorable and upright sexual desire (desire for sex with her in within the confines of marriage) was adultery.

    I suppose lusting to bang hoe’s would be pornea in the heart.

    By the way, I agree with Dalrock on the larger point. The only acceptable place for sex is within marriage.

    As much as I like Toad, he is wrong on this issue.

  54. @ Minesweeper:

    You need 3 things to commit adultery in your heart according to the verse above :
    1. Looking at her (not an image or a thought)
    2. Someone’s wife (not single female or male)
    3. Covetousness* of her with passion (not sexual desire\arousal\fantasy)
    * Marked by extreme desire to acquire or possess, excessively and culpably desirous of the possessions of another.

    Your Greek is a bit off here:
    – The Greek has γυναῖκα, which, whilst it could refer to a wife, usually just meant a woman simpliciter. If Christ really had meant to refer specifically to already-married women rather than women in general, he’d have used a more specific term, such as ἄλοχον.
    – Ἐπιθυμῆσθαι could mean “covet”, but its meaning was broader than this, and encompassed longing for something, desire for something, desire to do something, etc. Again, if the distinction between “extreme desire to acquire and possess” and “lusting after someone” had been important, we’d expect him to have chosen a more precise word.

    As for “Looking at her (not an image or a thought)”, the distinction between looking at someone directly and looking at them via a picture is of questionable moral relevance. Unless you can give some plausible reason for why lustfully gazing directly at a woman is wrong, but lustfully gazing at a picture of her is A-OK, the more obvious conclusion would be that Christ is speaking to ordinary people who recognise the sense of what he’s saying, not slippery lawyer types seeking to pare the statement down to the absolute minimum possible.

  55. davidvs says:

    “And to be precise, sex with a virgin isn’t forbidden. As someone quoted, if a man deflowers a woman, he either has to marry her, or pay the bride price for virgins.”

    Not OR but AND.

    Biblically, consensual sex with a virginal woman initiates marriage. See Genesis 2:24 (also Matthew 19:6) as well as the above-quoted Deuteronomy 22.

    There is only one exception. If she is still living in her father’s house, and he does agree to the marriage, the sexual act counts as a “vow” she made that her father can veto. See Exodus 22:16-17 and Numbers 30.

    Scripture does define adultery as sex with a married woman in Leviticus 18:20 and 20:10. Sex with a virgin is called *marriage*. There is not supposed to be a common third state of non-virginal but non-married women with whom to have sex.

    Perhaps the exception clause of Exodus 22:16-17 should be applied broadly today with a default paternal “no”. Christian fathers don’t expect their sexually active daughters to marry the first boy that bangs them! But even if that follows the letter of the law, it clearly violates its spirit.

  56. It is a translational issue. The Greek word wife and woman are the same word! That word is usually rendered wife in most places. The translators should render it that way in Matt. 5:28.

    Actually there were words, such as ἄλοχος, which referred specifically to wives. If Christ had meant to refer specifically to a married women, he could have used such a word, or else some circumlocution (“a woman who is married to another man”), to make this clear.

  57. The Question says:

    Pharisee Jesus: Verily, I sayeth unto thee – dwell thy thoughts on banging a fair maiden all you wish, for it seemingly righteous in the eyes of God. But if by some happenstance thou discovereth that fair flower is already wed, dismiss they evil wicked thoughts henceforth!

  58. Jared says:

    Slightly off topic, but in relation to both 1 Cor 7 and the recent post about John Piper. Has anyone seen his exegesis of the verses listed above? http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/sexual-intimacy-and-the-rights-over-a-spouses-body-in-marriage Is it me or does he ignore the plain meaning from verse 5 so that he can twist Paul’s words to mean the exact opposite of what he intended? Ever since stumbling upon this, it threw everything else I’ve heard by them into doubt.

  59. Minesweeper says:

    “The Question says:
    August 9, 2017 at 6:06 pm
    Here’s another one, the story of Ammon and Tamar, which can serve as the final lid on this coffin.

    2 Samuel 13

    “And Tamar took the bread she had prepared and brought it to her brother Amnon in his bedroom. 11 But when she took it to him to eat, he grabbed her and said, “Come to bed with me, my sister.”

    “No, my brother!” she said to him. “Don’t force me! Such a thing should not be done in Israel! Don’t do this wicked thing. 13 What about me? Where could I get rid of my disgrace? ”

    its because he was going to “rape” her. she was not consenting to this nor had any idea.

  60. The Question says:

    @ Minesweeper

    Again, she suggest Ammon go to David have them married. Is she didn’t want to have sex with him then, why would she suggest marriage?

  61. Andreas says:

    I suppose you can argue scriptural context and translation endlessly, but strict or legislated monogamy will always fail eventually because it’s like onenites in ‘game’ terms. You are essentially elevating a women above her station and thus you’ll not be able to sustain the relationship in a balanced way. It will either be a stone cold type of relationship or one which is overly emotional.

    A man who has recused himself from having options, has no power to balance things out or make anyone feel special. In fact, when a man to promises exclusivity to a woman, it only makes it harder on her to remain loyal him in the long run. Legislated monogamy ends therefore in serial monogamy.

  62. Bart says:

    Another thing we aren’t talking about is the fact that sex creates a one flesh union (marriage).

    The only truly single women are the virgins. A woman who isn’t a virgin is a man’s wife.

    In 1 Cor. Paul tells us that even sex with a prostitute makes you “one-flesh” with her (exact same language as Genesis 2). If banging a hooker makes you one flesh, then obviously deflowering your girlfriend does as well (and God’s Law requires marriage in that situation).

    Sex with a virgin was a violation of the father’s authority (sin), but it wasn’t a form of sexual immorality proper. Sex with a virgin was basically entrance into marriage without proper authorization (and the father retained the legal authority to nullify it).

    There are virgins. There are wives. There are whores/adulteresses/harlots/prostitutes. There are widows. That is it.

    Those are the Biblical categories of women.

    Of course that brings up the difficult fact that most marriages today aren’t lawful marriages at all. They are adulterous unions.

    All that makes me really glad that I’ve only had sex with one woman, that she has only had sex with me, and that her father gave her to me. My wife is actually my wife (18th anniversary next week).

  63. necroking48 says:

    @Dalrock
    Did I just trigger you?, LOL, just joking Dalrock!
    Going over the comments in here, I couldn’t find where anyone is implicitly saying there’s *”no such thing as fornication”* but i could be wrong?

    But I’ll attempt to give my 2 cents on this topic, which is for all ears, I’m not targeting anyone in particular!
    In order to establish my foundation, all my quotes are from the KJV, as I believe ALL other versions of the bible are corrupt and non trust worthy (And I say this with deep respect to everyone who differs with me ok, so let’s please not derail this topic with a needless debate
    )
    The scriptures are very clear indeed , THERE IS such a thing as fornication ( Matt 5:32, Galatians 5:19 etc)….The question then becomes, not does the bible affirm “fornications” existence BUT what is fornication? You can rest assured that 99% of churchians think fornication is sex before marriage, and they hammer that point relentlessly, but is fornication exclusively limited to sex before marriage? NO, of course not….we have a clear example in Jude 1:7 that says that the sin of SODOMY= fornication….so if you’re having anal sex you’re fornicating
    We have the clear text in 1st Corinthians 6:15-18 that says that fornication is having sex with prostitutes, ….also having sex with your mother, while you’re married is considered fornication 1st Corinthians 5:1

    So while the Greek and the English testify that fornication is a broader term that includes adultery, and other illicit sex acts, we should never make the 2 mistakes that churchians make: 1: that fornication ONLY means sex before marriage, and 2: that the terms fornication and adultery are interchangeable. See 1st Corinthians 6:9 where fornication AND adultery are mentioned in the same verse….the apostle would be speaking redundantly if those 2 terms mean the same thing

    The reason that last point is so important is because well meaning Christians look at Matthew 5:28 where Jesus is specifically talking about adultery, and make the baseless claim that Jesus is REALLY talking about fornication, in order to uphold their stupid belief that looking with sexual desire at a women is lusting and a sin. But as you can see here, Mat 5:27  “Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery”…. Nowhere in the LAW is a commandment given against fornication, Jesus is talking about ADULTERY which is what he is alluding to in Matthew 5, by saying “by them of old time……Context is VERY important here, but the “church” can’t get away with condemning all men for committing the sin of lust if they can somehow force Jesus to talk exclusively about adultery, so they deliberately change what Jesus says, and claim that Jesus is really talking about looking at ANY women with desire a.k.a fornication!…..the mental gymnastics these churchians pull to uphold their false doctrines is mind boggling
    Once you understand that 1: Jesus is specifically targeting adultery (which has a very narrow definition in scripture), and NOT the single unattached man, and 2: that lust is NOT necessarily sexual desire/fantasy/porn use etc, and 3: that the definition of lust= TO COVET (covet doesn’t have a sexual component), you will be free to demolish the arguments of those who attempt to emasculate men by claiming that their God given sexual nature is somehow sinful if they look at an attractive sexy woman/and or porn

    In conclusion, let it be said that marriage IS God’s safety valve and solution to the problem of fornication, BUT we happen to live in an age where wives/women arbitrarily decide when their husbands get sex.
    Try telling an unbeliever, or a churchian woman that she has no right or power to say no to her husband when he needs sex….the only legitimate time a woman can refuse sex is by MUTUAL CONSENT, 1st Corinthians 7:5…notice that it’s not when she decides to consent not to have sex, but it must be by MUTUAL consent.
    Every time a wife pulls the “I’m not in the mood, i need to bond emotionally with you before we have sex, i have a headache” excuse she is sinning and tempting her man to commit fornication
    The truly sad thing is, marriage is meant to be the place where men get their sexual needs met, but now, it has become the 1 place where a man will not get sex, or it will be rationed by the wife, when SHE feels like it

    So is marriage the cause of “sexual immorality” as Dalrock quotes those who claim that?
    Nope, it’s not meant to be the cause, but modern day marriage has become an evil tool that women use to weaponize sex and control their man’s access to his God given need for sexual release….It’s about time we hold women, especially wives, to account for denying their husbands access to sex
    I for one, believe that the “porn issue” will all but vanish once wives learn to be always available for sex, and not be so stingy

  64. Bart says:

    The Question

    Tamar understood that the act of sex created the marriage bond. He raped her, but they were now “one flesh”. She didn’t want to marry him, but she realized that they were now one flesh.

  65. The Question says:

    @ Bart

    That brings up another thing. What makes a prostitute a prostitute and therefore immoral for a man to sleep with? Does she have to actually have to be paid in terms of money or items?

    What’s the difference between a woman who bangs 20 men in a day for $200 a pop and a woman who “righteously” bangs 20 men in a day because she enjoys it? Can a Christian man bang a prostitute as long as he’s not an actual John and therefore she’s not acting at that moment as a prostitute? If he fixes a woman’s car after sex, does that constitute an implicit transaction and therefore make her a prostitute?

  66. The Question says:

    @ Bart

    “Tamar understood that the act of sex created the marriage bond. He raped her, but they were now “one flesh”. She didn’t want to marry him, but she realized that they were now one flesh.”

    Except she said that before, not after, he raped her. She was saying “let’s get married before we have sex. If you wait and approach the King, he’ll marry us.” She wasn’t insisting they get married after he raped her.

  67. Minesweeper says:

    “theoriginalmrx says: @ Minesweeper:

    Your Greek is a bit off here:
    – The Greek has γυναῖκα, which, whilst it could refer to a wife, usually just meant a woman simpliciter. If Christ really had meant to refer specifically to already-married women rather than women in general, he’d have used a more specific term, such as ἄλοχον.”

    See Mat 5:31 (“It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.’) Jesus uses the exact same word for and it can only refer to a wife – γυνή gynḗ,

    https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=g1135

    Even simple understanding of english and the wording of the verse shows that its translation is faulty, do you really think Jesus would say ONLY looking at women commits lust in the heart ? Not men looking at men, men looking at girls, boys etc ?

    If Jesus was wanting to tell us that someone looking with sexual desire (lust) at someone is adultery in the heart, then he would have said so. To constrain it just to looking at women when its probably the most favourable outcome dosnt make sense.

  68. SirHamster says:

    Pharisee Jesus: Verily, I sayeth unto thee – dwell thy thoughts on banging a fair maiden all you wish, for it seemingly righteous in the eyes of God. But if by some happenstance thou discovereth that fair flower is already wed, dismiss they evil wicked thoughts henceforth!

    Ah, but if you look at the picture from *before* she was wed, that’s still fair game. Fap away!

  69. Bart says:

    The Question,

    The money isn’t the issue. Christians should only have sex with their own wife. Hoe/harlot/prostitute/adulteress are all basically the same thing.

  70. Minesweeper says:

    “The Question says: @ Minesweeper

    Again, she suggest Ammon go to David have them married. Is she didn’t want to have sex with him then, why would she suggest marriage?”

    to quell his desire at that moment and stop her from being raped ?

  71. Bart says:

    The Question,

    Good point about Tamar saying that before the rape. I’d forgotten that. Here is a likely explanations.

    She is just trying to say whatever she can to escape from being raped. She knows David won’t let them marry, but at least saying that might help her get her away.

    Also, she might not he thinking straight, given the situation.

  72. SirHamster says:

    Once you understand that 1: Jesus is specifically targeting adultery (which has a very narrow definition in scripture), and NOT the single unattached man, and 2: that lust is NOT necessarily sexual desire/fantasy/porn use etc, and 3: that the definition of lust= TO COVET (covet doesn’t have a sexual component), you will be free to demolish the arguments of those who attempt to emasculate men by claiming that their God given sexual nature is somehow sinful if they look at an attractive sexy woman/and or porn

    “If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.”

    Jesus is not wasting everyone’s time talking about corner cases. He is talking about all the flaws we accept because they’re not *explicitly* called sins … but reflect our sinful heart. Mutilation of our very bodies would be preferable to tolerating anything in us that leads to hell.

    Necroking … king of death. Oddly appropriate name for what you’re selling.

  73. Son of Liberty says:

    theoriginalmrx says:
    August 9, 2017 at 6:11 pm

    @ Minesweeper:

    You need 3 things to commit adultery in your heart according to the verse above :
    1. Looking at her (not an image or a thought)

    Matt 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

    Strong’s Concordance
    G991 βλέπω blepo (ɓle’-pō) v.
    1. to look at or upon.
    2. (by implication) to look for or look about.
    3. (thus, by implication) to search for (physically or mentally).
    4. (example #1) I looked at the man, and saw (G1492) that he was deep in thought.
    5. (example #2) I looked for an answer, but I did not see (G1492) one.
    6. (example #3) I looked at the answer, and did not see (G1492) how it fit.
    {literally or figuratively; differing from G1492 which connotes comprehension, gaining knowledge rather than simply looking upon it.}
    [a primary verb]
    KJV: behold, beware, lie, look (on, to), perceive, regard, see, sight, take heed
    Compare: G1492, G3700

  74. Bart says:

    The Question

    You asked –
    “what “wicked” thing is she referring to, if not premarital sex with a virgin?”

    Wicked thing is (1) incest – sex with your sister is prohibited (2) sex with a virgin violates the authority of the girl’s father. She belongs to her father.

  75. Novaseeker says:

    It’s fascinating to me that this is even a topic of discussion, really. Wow.

  76. SirHamster says:

    She wasn’t insisting they get married after he raped her.

    “Then Amnon hated her with intense hatred. In fact, he hated her more than he had loved her. Amnon said to her, “Get up and get out!”

    “No!” she said to him. “Sending me away would be a greater wrong than what you have already done to me.””

    She didn’t want to be sent away at that point.

    Also, she might not he thinking straight, given the situation.

    You are not thinking straight and you project that onto Tamar.

  77. The Question says:

    @Minesweeper

    “to quell his desire at that moment and stop her from being raped ?”

    Again, if does she not want to have sex with him, what exactly does marriage have to do it? Why is she suggesting he talk to the king about marrying them? What does getting married change, if not the moral context of the act?

  78. Anonymous Reader says:

    Nova
    It’s fascinating to me that this is even a topic of discussion, really.

    Not All Rabbit Trails Are Like That.

  79. The Question says:

    Now that I’m thinking over the Ammon and Tamar situation a little bit, the fact that they’re half-brother and half-sister actually is relevant. Tamar might have been trying to say that, contrary to what was traditionally acceptable, David would have let them get married if Ammon had insisted on it. It was a desperate plea.

  80. “The Question says:
    August 9, 2017 at 6:06 pm
    Here’s another one, the story of Ammon and Tamar, which can serve as the final lid on this coffin.”

    1. Are you and Huntress still dating? Big fan.
    2. The Bible actually specifically addresses this as a sexual sin.
    Leviticus 18, which lists sexual sins, also says “No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. I am the Lord.”
    Then it goes on later in the chapter “Do not have sexual relations with your sister, either your father’s daughter or your mother’s daughter, whether she was born in the same home or elsewhere.”

    See? The law of the Lord is perfect, refreshing the soul, The statutes of the Lord are trustworthy,
    making wise the simple. God didn’t feel so cruel as to need to leave to us mortals to decide what’s a sin or not–he spells things out enough that simple folk can understand clearly what he’s saying.

  81. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    thedeti: A major problem is women refusing sex to their husbands … Another major problem is women marrying men for whom they have no, or very little, sexual attraction,

    This highlights a double standard held by women.

    * Women have a right to expect great sex from their husbands. If wives aren’t attracted to their husbands, it means the husbands have failed to “man up,” and wives are forgiven for fornicating.

    * Men have no right to expect any sex from their wives. If husbands expect sex, it means they’re sex-crazed perverts.

  82. Okay, reading over the comments, why did no one say how incest is forbidden, and God specifically said so when he spelled out the long list of sexual sins? Does no one know that the law specifically banned incest as bad?

  83. Jonadab-the-Rechabite says:

    Adultery is not

    The definition of Adultery does not include “sex with a woman who is not your wife”. That is fornication or uncleaness, still a sin but under a different heading. Adultery is defined in the OT as sex between a married woman and anyone not her husband (a capital offense). It is the spirit of egalitarianism that desires to make men and women alike. Wives were like property, very precious property to be sure, the act of Adultery was not so much a crime of passion, but as the taking from a man something that was his alone and irreplaceable. One of the greatest fears and shame was a cuckold raising another’s offspring unknowingly.

  84. Bart says:

    Archefisher,
    I mentioned that incest is prohibited. 😊

  85. Now the real question is, will Question reply to his Tamar and Ammon point being addressed and dealt with?

    And let’s be real… girl is about to be raped by a half brother. Tamar wanted to go ask David. AKA girl in trouble wanted Daddy to rescue her. Basic human response.

  86. Boxer says:

    Thank you for this definitive post. It’s a long time in coming.

    I’m also waiting for my nigga Toad to get here. There’s gonna be some wild times a-coming!

  87. Boxer says:

    Heidi:

    An unmarried poster on CAF asked what to do about his sexual desire, and I suggested he find a nice girl and get married. I was, of course, roundly rebuked on the forum for denigrating women by making them some horny guy’s sex doll, but it did seem to be a Biblical solution for someone who had a hard time with lust.

    I’d enjoy a link to the source on this. Not that I doubt your story. I’ve even seen worse, and not infrequently so.

    Catholic Answers is, of course, an absolute travesty; but, in another context, it’s the biggest joke on the internet. If you didn’t laugh, you’d just despair…

    Boxer

  88. necroking48 says:

    @Dalrock

    I truly ask for your forgiveness in advance for my following comment in here, but I have not been able to find out how to contact you in any other way?
    I ask for your mercy and lenience, and I hope you can see that I’m being respectful towards you and the commenters in here:

    The reason for THIS comment of mine is because I’ve noticed that you have arbitrarily deleted all of my comments except 1…I’ve also noticed that you have deleted @earlthomas786’s comments as well:

    Here is your comment policy in full:
    “Lastly, I’ll define some general rules for commenting on the blog which apply to men and women. The first three rules below have always been in place, and the fourth is new:

    1: Don’t violate copyright law. If there is a question, I’m inclined to err on the side of caution. A link and a paraphrase is ideal.
    2: Don’t advocate violence.
    3: Avoid changing the topic from the original post, especially early in the comment thread (the first few days or 100 comments after a post is published). After a few days and or 100 comments I’m fairly lenient here so long as the topic change isn’t egregious.
    4: Don’t brag about or advocate adultery.

    In addition to the above, avoid the following topics unless I specifically make an exception in a post:

    Age of consent laws. This is a guaranteed thread derailer. It is ok to reference the existence of these laws provided it is on topic, but don’t do this in such a way that would invite a discussion on what should be the proper age of legal consent.
    Marital corporal punishment”……….end quote

    I have personally gone over my comments and @earls and I’m completely satisfied that I haven’t broken any of your rules in posting…..so my question to you is, why are you arbitrarily removing comments that don’t violate the terms of use?

    This is extremely important to me because I don’t feel comfortable now in posting any comment in the future if it’s going to be consigned to oblivion for no reason whatsoever….your heavy handed approach to deleting posts you disagree with, even though they DON’T break the commenting rules is unfair to say the least and it makes me terrified to have an “opinion” on your blog here, as there seems to be no point in making contributions any more in case it incurss some random, arbitrary displeasure from you.
    I expect this behavior from SJW’s, and beta cucks, (Steve Shives lol), who can’t tolerate any view that differs from their own……I didn’t expect this type of behavior from a Christian blog, consisting of adults who are sharing thoughts that are mostly in agreement with each other. Do we really want to start adopting the same type of cowardly behavior that we accuse the Social Justice Warriors of??

    I Love your blog Dalrock, I really do……for once in my life I finally found a safe haven of like minded believers who are aware of the damage that feminism has done, and we can come together and share our experiences and thoughts, so I’m begging you, and it is my earnest prayer that you don’t see me as attacking you, but merely offering my puzzlement at why my posts are deleted, and perhaps a tiny bit of constructive criticism of this blog’s seemingly extreme approach to deleting ANYTHING that even remotely sounds suspicious or dares to raise a different opinion

    I humbly beseech you as a fellow believer in Christ….please pray about this Dalrock, and please see me as reaching out to you, and if I’ve said or done anything to upset you or offend you I ask for your mercy and forgiveness and lenience…..I’m honestly not trying to disrupt this blog

    And now I’m terrified that you’re going to delete this post and then ban me from your blog, just because i dared to question you

  89. Derek Ramsey says:

    @davidvs “There is only one exception. If she is still living in her father’s house, and he does agree to the marriage, the sexual act counts as a “vow” she made that her father can veto. See Exodus 22:16-17 and Numbers 30”

    There is no exception. It is an authorized nullification of the marriage. The sexual act results in marriage, but the father can veto the vow and nullify the marriage (divorce) if he is dead set against it. This is completely compatible with Jesus saying that the law of divorce was given due to the hardness of man’s heart, since all divorce is undesirable (God hates divorce) but some is allowed.

    Exodus 22 states that the husband must pay the bride price whether or not the marriage is allowed to continue. This is unconditional and the point of the passage. The bride price had to be paid to make her a proper free wife (i.e. not a bond wife or concubine).

  90. infowarrior1 says:

    @The Question
    ”Good grief, man. There’s no verse explicitly forbidding adults from having sex with children, either. There’s no age of consent specifically mentioned. Are you going to argue that the Bible permits pedophilia or that it is ambiguous on the subject?”

    The holy bible apparently does have implicit prohibition of pedophilia:
    http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/marriage_age.htm

    I was doing research on Islam and found this article among them

  91. PokeSalad says:

    It’s fascinating to me that this is even a topic of discussion, really. Wow.

    🙂 ..and people chuckle over the “how many steps count as ‘work’?” debates in Mosaic Law…

  92. Is marriage the cause of sexual immorality?

    No.

    Secular society altering divorce laws such that a government sanctioned marriage is a minefield that fewer and fewer men want to partake, IS the cause of sexual immorality. Government and “The Devil” have a full partnership when it comes to Earthly marriage.

  93. RecoveringBeta says:

    When Arabic Muslims men are denied women, due to the oldest son marrying multiple wives, the youngest go off on Jihads to get land and females. I wonder how long it will be before Western men throw off Churchian and (((secular))) lies and partake in a crusade, or a Romulus/Remus style wife gathering expedition. When Betas realize how much they are stomped on, the system collapses.

  94. Cane Caldo says:

    @Novaseeker

    It’s fascinating to me that this is even a topic of discussion, really. Wow.

    Dalrock’s headline mentions this is a post-feminist world, but it is post-Christian, too.

  95. bob k. mando says:

    you’ve misapprehended one of AT’s primary points.

    he says that sex between a man and a virgin woman cannot be sin … because the act itself is the marriage.

    now, it IS possible for the woman’s father to void this marriage ( which is why you typically ask the father before you take the daughter to wife ), but the OT requires that the father make this decision-to-void on the VERY DAY in which he learns that his daughter has slept with a man / married. which, i assume, would make any further contact between those two the “sin” of fornication.

    this makes sense of the story of Tamar; she is raped by her half brother ( which is against the Law , incest ) but attempts to stay in the house once he has despoiled her. Amnon throws her out, at which point she becomes distraught. Tamar seems to have thought that she should have been considered Amnon’s bride, even though he had taken her against her will.

    the Lawful answer to this specific question would have been for David to
    a – void the marriage the day he learned of it
    b – punish Amnon, likely by putting him to death for his crime

    between fathers voiding ad hoc marriages and situations where husbands have divorced their wives or the husband dies ( such as Ruth ), there is now a supply of non-virgin but unmarried women. these may or may not be taken to wife.

    AT’s question is whether it would be permissible to sleep with such a woman outside of a marriage relationship. he says yes.

    i find that a rather big pill to swallow. i do think he has the right of it with regards to the marriage of virgins though.

    i notice that Ruth ( widowed ) offers herself to Boaz … and that Boaz’s response is to tell her that she did nothing wrong:
    https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ruth+3&version=KJV

    OTOH, God doesn’t seem to have had any problems with Samson consorting with Gentile whores. and why that might be is a pretty serious question to answer.

  96. Naama says:

    Hi Dalrock,
    I like your blog very much good job! What i have to say is not to be critical, rather, I am trying to enhance your post. Remember, the scope of change has been so complete it had effected almost everyone-so please consider this when you read my response
    Marriage is not a monolith or single universal practice, rather, it gets its meaning from the accepted norms and practices of a society. So, we know now romantic love has become the primary purpose of sexuality which in turn (re)defined marriage and this became it’s own moral authority. This is called the egalitarian/revised view because it reverses and revised the ideals of the previous conjugal/biblical view. The conjugal view is where childbearing and child-rearing is the primary purpose of sexuality, which defines marriage and becomes the moral authority. So, couples would arrange their roles based on this primary principle-you know, the man provides and supports his wife and she remains at home to welcome any children born. The birth of a child can’t alter the relational fabric of the relationship because they are organized around this ideal. The sad fact is most conservative couples are just referencing back to the former ideal of marriage when they try to defend traditional marriage they don’t practice themselves. For example:When conservative Christians tell a couple they are living in sin and need to get married the couple soon realize that nothing changed in the relationship by getting married. They had nothing to change into because marriage has been redefined to the point it is no different than living together. The marriages of the people telling them to get married function no differently than the couple they told were living in sin. Look around and you will see it everywhere. When the conjugal view was practiced and legally, socially and religiously practiced unmarried couples had to change the nature of their relationship whether they were two virgins, sexually active or expecting to get married
    When most conservative folk talk about authority and submission they are also referencing back to a former conjugal marriage but are really practicing the feminist view of marriage. Now everything about this is based on a spiritual authority removed physical reality. Just like romantic love removed physical realities.
    In order to have authority a person needs to be responsible for that person or else it would be tyranny. In the same way I can’t be my husbands authority without making him into my slave because I am his dependent and he is responsible to provide for me.
    For a man to claim to be his wife’s authority while she has all the same responsibility as the husband and “fixes” herself n order to earn a living and drop off any offspring to a day orphanage is just not what Christianity has ever taught or practiced regarding sex, marriage or authority and submission.

  97. Darwinian Arminian says:

    @Rollo Tomassi
    27 “You have heard that it was said to those of old,[a] ‘You shall not commit adultery.’[b] 28 But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

    Whenever this topic comes up everyone pretends like Jesus never said this.

    Much respect for Rollo, but I have to disagree with this. The modern church leadership actually knows that passage quite well. I know this because I’ve heard them repeat it many times, usually during a sermon about how all the men today are looking at porn, and how that is due to the evil and wickedness in their hearts that they must repent of immediately. In all honesty, I’ve lost track of how many times I’ve heard a preacher give that tired speech.

    But the devil is in the details: While pastors love to rail against lust and porn and “objectification of women” they tend to make be a bit more . . . reluctant to address the adultery that they’re supposed to lead to. I already mentioned that I’ve heard many a church give an anti-porn message. But in the last ten years that I regularly attended one I can’t recall even once hearing a sermon against divorce. Or cheating on one’s spouse. Or cutting them off from sex. Hell, there are even pastors now that openly say that they want to avoid condemning any of that, because with so much sex happening outside of marriage they don’t want nonbelievers who hear them (and whom are often female) to think that they’re beyond redemption.

    The modern church establishment is quick to hammer on lust and porn (particularly towards young men), but they’ll usually say that they do this because those are the “root causes” of even worse sins. I might take this a bit more seriously if they were occasionally willing to speak out against those sins that are “even worse.” But that would cost them a lot more social capital, so they won’t. It’s yet another reason why the church today isn’t much more than a real-life version of that old joke people used to tell about the Southern Baptists: Do you know why they’re against pre-marital sex? Because it could lead to dancing!

  98. Don Quixote says:

    There is a three volume set of books by Martin Madan recently re-published that are an excellent insight into this subject:
    Thelyphthora, or A Treatise on Female Ruin.
    Here’s a link to volume 1
    https://www.amazon.com/Thelyphthora-Treatise-Female-Ruin-Consequences/dp/0982537506/ref=sr_1_15?ie=UTF8&qid=1502352826&sr=8-15&keywords=Martin+Madan

    In volume 2 he continues with his marriage by consummation model and contrasts the problems that occur when marriage laws don’t sync with the Genesis model. He critiques both the Council of Trent and the Marriage Act of 1753.

    These books are a bit difficult to read because of the olde english, he uses the old ‘s’ it looks like an ‘f”. Words like wise look like wife. But well worth the effort.

    For those familiar with the previous discussions here, its like reading Toad but without the BS.

  99. Mycroft Jones says:

    In the Bible, marriage is between two men. Look it up. The answer to the riddle is this: not gay marriage. Marriage, as used in the Bible, is a covenant or alliance between two families. Sex with a virgin is a literal “bris” or covenant, as proven by the blood on the bedsheet that is proof of her virginity. A man can “take” a woman, a woman can go and belong to a man, but the “marriage” is an alliance or merger of families. Don’t have time to pull up all the references and write a long treatise on this. Just use your Strong’s Concordance, you’ll see the truth of the matter in seconds.

    Since marriage is a covenant between two men (or two families), poking a virgin doesn’t create a marriage. It does create a bond between them. But not a marriage. Only if papa consents is there a marriage. And consent or no, the man has to pay the marriage price. But may not get a marriage out of it.

  100. I’m mostly a lurker here these days, bit I felt the need to drop by with a hearty “amen” on this post. It’s really well done! 🙂

  101. Mycroft Jones says:

    Also, in addition the Tamar story, look at the story of Dinah and Shechem. Shechem took her virginity, then he said to his father “go, get her for me as a wife”, and so his father went to her father to negotiate a marriage. Ergo, she was no longer a virgin, but wasn’t marriaged. And for treating her like a whore, her brothers slaughtered the entire city.

  102. necroking48 says:

    @Son Of Liberty

    Is “looking” the instrumental or causative cause of sin in Matthew 5:28?.
    You have argued wrongly that “LOOKING” is the causative cause of sin in a person’s heart……But that’s NOT what Matthew 5:28 says, so I urge you to read the whole verse and the 1 proceeding it in it’s entirety.
    Looking is not the sin here, as it is connected with a conjunction: “to lust after”….It’s the lusting after which is the sin that Jesus is talking about…….I reject categorically the churchian’s definition of the word “lust” i.e sexual desire/fantasy/being horny/porn use etc and I insist on the biblical definition which is to COVET….Romans 7:7……”for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet”.

    Tell me, when you are coveting your neighbor’s lawnmower is there any sexual desire or component to it?…..of course not, so why do churchians suddenly make “lust” a sexual thing when it concerns coveting thy neighbor’s wife??

    Also Jesus is talking about breaking a particular law, known as ADULTERY…..in order for a man to commit the sin of adultery, he has to transgress what the LAW says about it….For e.g, if you’re a single man and you have sex with an unattached SINGLE woman have you committed adultery?……now be honest, have you?……Of course not, and God will NOT hold you to account and condemn you for committing adultery when you and I both know that no sin of adultery has taken place, you may or may not have committed “fornication”, but you certainly haven’t committed adultery……God defines HIS own terms in the scriptures, look at Leviticus 20:10 to see how God defines adultery, and you will see that is NOT how the world or churchians defines it.

    This is why churchians are fanatical in trying to change Jesus’s words in Matthew 5:28 and force the text to say Fornication when it doesn’t say that….they do this so they can have false ammunition to accuse others of sinning when they’re not

    If it helps to see things more clearly, look at the term “lust after” as NOT so much the desire to do something, but the DECISION to do something…….This is why sin starts in the heart of man, before it’s acted out in reality

    Already I see in the comments here that I’m accused of splitting hairs, or advocating a teaching of DEATH (LOL), based on my name sake, but all I’ve done is to the best of my ability to not……… “nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God”. 2nd Corinthians 4:2
    I simply refuse to change what the word of God says, in order to uphold a “pet theory or doctrine”
    Jesus was talking about ADULTERY in Matthew 5, if he wanted to talk about fornication, he had the word πορνεία available to him but he didn’t, he used the word moicheuō instead

  103. Some of you guys still trying to say sex is marriage? Ugh. I’d love to see your scripture for that… Not to mention, in the old test., a man who seduces a virgin has to marry her. You can’t marry a woman you just married. Don’t yoy think scripture would kindly say sex is marriage?

    And yes, church can be wrong. Baptists still preqch that drinking an alcoholic beverage is immoral, simple example.

  104. Name (required) says:

    One point I saw A. Toad make repeatedly is that in OT terms, sexual intercourse with a virgin IS marriage to her, so not fornication at all. Fornication and prohibition of prostitution are largely NT concepts, although 100% aligned with the OT; it’s just that they are hammered on more explicitly in the NT than in the OT. As Dalrock points out, they are explicitly advised against in Proverbs, just for a start.

    On the Levitical laws concerning marriage, those were laws God was willing to see His people follow. They may have been God’s preferred model, or those laws may have been given because of the hardness of their hearts. Either way, the Bible assumes marriage everywhere else, so those laws are whar we have for definition.

  105. Derek Ramsey says:

    @bob k. mando “you’ve misapprehended one of AT’s primary points. he says that sex between a man and a virgin woman cannot be sin … because the act itself is the marriage.”

    AT says that sex between man and virgin is not marriage if the father does not approve. He treats this as an exception, so there is no unequivocal rule that sex with a virgin is marriage. He doesn’t view the father’s annulment as divorce. It is simply as if the marriage never existed. There is no voiding of a marriage because the marriage never happened because the woman was not legally able to enter into a marriage agreement. My response to that is the same as I gave to davidvs in my comment above.

    It’s an absurd loophole where a woman can lose her virginity without becoming married or sinning. Dalrock missed that when he said non-Christians have to take care of virginity before sex is free-for-all. Christian men can have no-strings-attached-sex with virgins too, so long as the father of the woman doesn’t approve of their marriage.

    @archerwfisher “Some of you guys still trying to say sex is marriage?”

    I found it easier, when discussing this with AT, to just presume this point for the sake of argument. Since AT’s entire position rests on this premise, it is best to just go with it. Dalrock does this implicitly in his post.

    “a man who seduces a virgin has to marry her. You can’t marry a woman you just married.”

    If a marriage is created by sex, that marriage is a real thing. However, a father can refuse it and end the marriage. This is seen in Ammon and Tamar (See bob k. mando’s Lawful answer) and Exodus 22. “Marrying a woman you just married” means making it official (i.e. getting the father’s stamp of approval). As Mycroft Jones pointed out “In the Bible, marriage is between two men.” The key to the riddle are the two facets to marriage in the Bible: (1) the one-flesh joining between the man and woman; and (2) the legal joining between men. The former is done by God and the latter is done by man.

  106. Zippy says:

    This might be of interest, at least for Catholics, on the question of what brings a Christian marriage into existence:

    According to the laws, let the consent alone suffice for those whose union is in question; and if, by chance, this consent alone is lacking in the marriage, everything else is in vain, even if solemnized by intercourse itself, as attested to by the great Doctor John Chrysostom, who said: “What makes a marriage is not intercourse, but the will.” — Pope Nicholas I, Ad consulta vestra, November 13, 866 AD, (quoted in Denzinger)

  107. SJB says:

    Would it not be amusing if 1 Corinthians 7 was a partial sentence quoted to begin the response? If the full sentence were (this is Corinth after all): “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman but to boff his buddy” then St. Paul’s response would have quite a different twist.

    But I know you know the full context of the letter St. Paul was responding to; plus, St. Paul, knowing his written word would be idolized down the ages, would never have wittingly or unwittingly chopped a sentence. That would have been non-inerrant.

  108. Dalrock says:

    @necroking48

    The reason that last point is so important is because well meaning Christians look at Matthew 5:28 where Jesus is specifically talking about adultery, and make the baseless claim that Jesus is REALLY talking about fornication, in order to uphold their stupid belief that looking with sexual desire at a women is lusting and a sin.

    As I pointed out on the previous thread when you made the same assertion, you are missing the point. Matthew 5:21-30 is about the nature of sin. Sin starts in our hearts, not when we act. Jesus wasn’t just talking about murder and adultery. He was talking about all sin. He just used murder and adultery as examples to illustrate the nature of sin*. So fornication is covered.

    See also Matt 15:

    16 And he said, “Are you also still without understanding? 17 Do you not see that whatever goes into the mouth passes into the stomach and is expelled?[d] 18 But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a person. 19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander. 20 These are what defile a person. But to eat with unwashed hands does not defile anyone.”

    Fantasizing about illicit sex is itself illicit. This only leaves the question of whether the sex being fantasized about is illicit. As I demonstrated in this post, the answer is yes.

    *I don’t think that Christ was redefining physical adultery in this segment any more than He was redefining physical murder. But the wording does leave open some room to interpret it the other way. Unless this is being used to justify divorce, however, I don’t see where it matters much.

  109. Damn Crackers says:

    OT Fornication-
    1.Do not have sexual relations with thy father (Leviticus 18:7).
    2.Do not have sexual relations with thy mother (Leviticus 18:7).
    3.Do not have sexual relations with thy father’s wife (Leviticus 18:8).
    4.Do not have sexual relations with thy sister (Leviticus 18:9).
    5.Do not have sexual relations with thy son’s daughter (Leviticus 18:10).
    6.Do not have sexual relations with thy daughter’s daughter (Leviticus 18:10).
    7.Do not have sexual relations with the daughter of thy father’s wife (Leviticus 18:11).
    8.Do not have sexual relations with thy father’s sister (Leviticus 18:12).
    9.Do not have sexual relations with thy mother’s sister (Leviticus 18:13).
    10.Do not have sexual relations with thy father’s brother (Leviticus 18:14).
    11.Do not have sexual relations with thy father’s brother’s wife (Leviticus 18:14).
    12.Do not have sexual relations with thy daughter-in-law (Leviticus 18:15).
    13.Do not have sexual relations with thy brother’s wife (Leviticus 18:16).
    14.Do not have sexual relations with a woman and her daughter (Leviticus 18:17).
    15.Do not have sexual relations with a woman and her son’s daughter (Leviticus 18:17).
    16.Do not have sexual relations with a woman and her daughter’s daughter (Leviticus 18:17).
    17.Do not have sexual relations with thy wife in addition to her sister, as rivals (Leviticus 18:18).
    18.Do not have sexual relations with a menstruous woman (Leviticus 18:19).
    19.Do not mix seed by sexual intercourse with thy neighbour’s wife (Leviticus 18:20).
    20.Man can not have sexual intercourse with another male (term: religious male?) (Leviticus 18:22).
    21.Man can not have sexual relations with an animal (Leviticus 18:23).
    22.Woman can not have sexual relations with an animal (Leviticus 18:23).

  110. Damn Crackers says:

    Anything outside of this is not considered to be fornication from the OT perspective.

    Matthew 5:27-28 has bad translations of “lust” and “woman” that should be translated as “covet” and “wife.” Another post pointed this out.

    According to many of the posters here, the only way to avoid sexual sin is to encourage pedophilic matrimony-starting at the ages of 12 to 14.

    Also, remember what St. Augustine said (considered to be one of the most anti-sensual Church Fathers by some): “If you do away with harlots, the world will be convulsed with lust.” – De ordine 2.4.

    TL:DR – Biblical marriage is as dead as slavery. Fuck whores.

  111. MKT says:

    DC: Nope. Relations with prostitutes are condemned in the OT (Prov 23:27 and other place in Proverbs) and 1 Corinthians 6:16. The fact that some men had relations with them in the OT doesn’t justify your position.

    The loopholes and rationalizations continue. I’m waiting for the bestiality apologists to jump in here Though it’s explicitly forbidden, I’m sure some would-be Hebrew scholar will set me straight.

  112. Damn Crackers says:

    1 Corinthians 6 never made sense to me. Sex with a prostitute isn’t marriage and doesn’t create “one flesh.” Jesus said marriage makes one flesh, not sex in accord with the OT.

    “All other sins a person commits are outside the body, but whoever sins sexually, sins against their own body.” This statement makes no sense unless St. Paul is talking about venereal disease. How does having sex sin against your own body? STDs?

    Much of what St. Paul says only makes sense when you consider the Corinthians were still going to the Temples for feasts and whores (see 1 Corinthians 8 for what he says about food dedicated to pagan gods/goddesses). And, when St. Paul talks about the body/body of Christ he’s talking about the new Christian church.

    Therefore, it appears that St. Paul doesn’t want the body of Christ infiltrated with whores like the pagan temples. The woman from 1 Corinthians 5 would be an example.

  113. Dalrock says:

    @Necroking48

    The reason for THIS comment of mine is because I’ve noticed that you have arbitrarily deleted all of my comments except 1…I’ve also noticed that you have deleted @earlthomas786’s comments as well:

    I haven’t deleted any comments from either of you. I just checked the spam folder and don’t see any there as well. Sometimes the spam filter goes awry, but it doesn’t seem to have happened here. Perhaps it was a network issue?

    Feel free to re post your missing comments.

  114. Damn Crackers says:

    @MKT Proverbs 23:27 27For a harlot is a deep pit And an adulterous woman is a narrow well. 28Surely she lurks as a robber, And increases the faithless among men.…

    Your argument from Proverbs makes it seem that harlots are a minor sin, but adultery is the much greater danger/sin.

    See Proverbs 6:26 –

    “For a prostitute can be had for a loaf of bread, but another man’s wife preys on your very life.”

    No one here agrees that having sex with prostitutes is moral or even wise, but it gets a hell of a lot worse than that in the Bible!!! If the readers here want to marry up a whore rather than just fuck them, be my guest.

  115. Damn Crackers says:

    Also Proverbs 5:15-17:
    15 Drink water from your own cistern,
    flowing water from your own well.
    16 Should your springs be scattered abroad,
    streams of water in the streets?
    17 Let them be for yourself alone,
    and not for strangers with you.

    Isn’t this referring to pimping out your wife/wife swapping? THIS was the big no-no for early Christians. See the sin of the Nicolaitans from Revelations.

  116. MKT says:

    I agree that Prov. 6:26 says adultery is a lot more dangerous than hooking up with a prostitute. However, the fact that Proverbs warns of prostitutes and wayward women elsewhere (it’s a major theme in the book) as well as Paul’s admonishments in the NT are more than enough to condemn the practice. Again, our goal should be holiness, not “this verse says X is worse than Y, so I’ll just do Y.”

  117. Damn Crackers says:

    @MKT –

    True. Perfection is the goal. But, how do you keep Christian men chaste until they are ready to marry at 25 or 30?

  118. 9767 says:

    Those of you saying pre-marital sex was not condemned in the OT are wrong. It is condemned in
    Deuteronomy 22:21, in the case of a woman who is sexually promiscuous prior to marriage:

    “she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done an outrageous thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house. You must purge the evil from among you.”

    Those of you also saying sex with a virgin is “marriage” need to read up on actual marriage customs in ancient Israel. It is not just having sex. In order to have a marriage, you had to have a contract / agreement between families, which usually involved a payment:
    http://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/ancient-jewish-marriage/

    Consummation of the marriage was vital, but sex alone was not considered to be marriage. Consider Deut 22 again.

  119. Carlotta says:

    Not to intrude, Son of Liberty if you have a blog I would like to read it. You brought up many things I have been tracking for years re: genetics and chimeras and diet.
    Thanks.

  120. Dalrock says:

    @Damn Crackers

    See Proverbs 6:26 –

    “For a prostitute can be had for a loaf of bread, but another man’s wife preys on your very life.”

    No one here agrees that having sex with prostitutes is moral or even wise, but it gets a hell of a lot worse than that in the Bible!!!

    I think some commenters really are saying this is allowed. If not with prostitutes, then with unmarried non virgin women. You are right that in the OT adultery was punished by death, so the earthly consequences were very different. Either way, the point of the post stands. As Christians we have clear instructions from 1 Cor 7 on how to handle sexual temptation. The claim that sex with unmarried women is permitted not only goes against that clear instruction, but turns Paul’s explanation upside down.

    Also Proverbs 5:15-17:
    15 Drink water from your own cistern,
    flowing water from your own well.
    16 Should your springs be scattered abroad,
    streams of water in the streets?
    17 Let them be for yourself alone,
    and not for strangers with you.

    Isn’t this referring to pimping out your wife/wife swapping? THIS was the big no-no for early Christians. See the sin of the Nicolaitans from Revelations.

    Check out the entire Proverb. Verses 1-14 are all about the need to stay away from wayward women. Then 15-20 present the correct way to focus sexual desire, and 21-23 remind of God’s judgment of those who don’t obey. Clearly it isn’t ok to share your wife, but the message here is that when you have sex with wayward women you are spreading your seed outside of your marriage, and also sharing the wayward women with other men.

  121. MKT says:

    “True. Perfection is the goal. But, how do you keep Christian men chaste until they are ready to marry at 25 or 30?”

    Prayer, discipline, finding other profitable things to do with your time (exercise, business, serving in the church, etc.) Accountability can be good if you can find someone trustworthy. I never said it was easy, but really, are we just slaves to our desires and hormones? If we can’t overcome that, there’s not much hope for other parts of our lives. Plenty of other men do this. Even pagans on “no FAP” threads at Reddit are successful.

  122. necroking48 says:

    @Dalrock

    I offer you my deepest apologies Dalrock….I just checked, and you haven’t deleted ANY of my comments….All those ones I thought were deleted were over in your other thread. I truly feel like such an idiot…..Navigating through wordpress is quite hard sometimes
    Feel free to delete THIS comment though after you’ve read it lol
    Before shooting my mouth off in the future I promise to get my facts right first *facepalm*

    Thanks for allowing me to post in your blog,….the comment section has been amazing on this topic!

  123. Minesweeper says:

    @”Damn Crackers says: August 10, 2017 at 9:31 am
    OT Fornication-
    20.Man can not have sexual intercourse with another male (term: religious male?) (Leviticus 18:22).”

    Your post and the translations used are correct for your post, the “strange” exception is Lev 18:22, the hebrew dosnt actually say that, it says

    From ISA2 : “and-with male not you-shall-lie-down beds-of woman abhorrence she”

    I would paraphrase that as : “its an abhorrence for her if you have sex in her bed with a man”

    Lev18 has no compulsion to hide people having intercourse with animals, why would it not use the same wording here ? Is it abit like Mat5:28, a cultural translation that we all assumed to be true that actually says something else ?

    disclaimer: the idea of “lie-ing” down with a man in any bed is pretty gross idea to me (womans or not), I’d rather have splinters put under my finger nails. But still, is this another cultural rewording to fit what we want it to say ?

  124. feministhater says:

    The question becomes if Christian men have to remain chaste from 15 to 30, why should they then get married after that? It’s a dead end argument. You made them make the sacrifice and quash their sexuality for 15 to 20 years and now you want them to get married and support a family? Is that right?

    Either get women to marry younger or kiss marriage goodbye. You can’t have your cake and eat it too. If you expect men to kill their sexual urges for the most sexually trying time of their lives, as the morally uptight here do, then you cannot just expect them to turn it back on and nor should they, they’ve already conquered their urges and now should follow Paul’s teaching on the subject. That is what the Bible states, argue against it but Paul says to marry if you burn with passion. Men can’t get married when they burn so they are left to squelch their sexual appetite; at which point Paul informs them to not get married.

    That is all.

  125. Cane Caldo says:

    *Non Christians would of course have to do the honors of having sex with virgin women to change their status, but so long as Christians aren’t the ones doing this (according to the rationalization) Christians could engage in an endless orgy without sinning.

    Yessir. Those who hold that non-marital sex with whores is licit–because whores were “common-law married” (by deflowering), but are now “common-law divorced” (by abandonment) and so fair game for unmarried sex–are really cuckold fetishists who want the option to be cycled by lots of women.

  126. Dalrock says:

    @Boxer

    Thank you for this definitive post. It’s a long time in coming.

    Thank you. My initial take was the same as Novaseeker’s above. But as the claims continued the need to make a dedicated post instead of arguing piecemeal became obvious.

    I’m also waiting for my nigga Toad to get here. There’s gonna be some wild times a-coming!

    He must be busy. I keep checking the spam bin to make sure he isn’t stuck there.

  127. Dalrock says:

    @necroking48

    I offer you my deepest apologies Dalrock….I just checked, and you haven’t deleted ANY of my comments….All those ones I thought were deleted were over in your other thread. I truly feel like such an idiot…

    No worries. Thanks for letting me know. I did find some comments by commenters in the spam bin when I first published this post and let them out. Some of them were from a week or more back. So it does sometimes happen.

  128. Damn Crackers says:

    @Dalrock – Thanks for your answer. I think this is one of the biggest issues in Christianity. Many of these arguments would disappear if Biblical marriage at a young age actually was the norm.

  129. MKT says:

    DC, since Doug Wilson has been a topic of discussion here recently, here’s an article he did on why men should marry young…and got a lot of flak for it.
    https://dougwils.com/s7-engaging-the-culture/7-reasons-young-men-marry-23rd-birthday.html

  130. Minesweeper says:

    All, re my comment above which surely be enraging for most, Im not an apologist, merely a seeker for truth and when I find translated scripture that differs from the original it “Piques My Interest”

    another bizarre example is communion, whats said in every church in the land “Jesus said do this in remembrance of me” is actually the wrong way round, what Jesus said was “Do this so I remember you!”

    I really wonder why some very simple things are translated untruthfully. If we don’t understand it, it should be marked as such, rather than just replacing it with something that we prefer.

  131. RedPillPaul says:

    @ those who say Matt 5:28 is only speaking about Adultery (strictly, unless a married woman is involved, its any else but adultery).

    how is the sin of sleeping with a prostitute categorized? Where does watching pornography lie? What kind of sin is it? Is it just “coveting”?

    Isn’t what Jesus was really addressing in Matt 5:28 was not that physical action of the sin but a sin being charged to you if its in your heart? If you wanted to steal something (i guess it falls in coveting here) but didn’t, you are charged with the sin of “stealing” (technically coveting). If you want to kill someone/angry at someone, you committed the sin of murder in God’s eyes. That is the standard that God uses, he judges the inside (the outside/actions too but he is interested on the inside, the root). His law is what our actions should look like when our heart is right. It does not necessarily mean that when our actions are right, our hearts will be also. Not to say its strictly one way, but I would argue the effectiveness of Heart to action rather than action to heart.

    Let me put it in this way with Romans 9:30-32

    30 What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but the people of Israel, who pursued the law as the way of righteousness ,have not attained their goal. 32 Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works.

    Are we not playing modern day Pharisees when we are looking at the rule/letter of law rather than the spirit (through faith) of the law?
    Can we really say to our selves that we are pursuing this discussion in faith? Or is it closer to our desire to circumvent the law with “details” and a narrow interpretation so that we can attempt to make a “case” so that we can interpret the law to mean whatever we want? or at least excuse our behavior?

    I do see another angle to this discussion. A common denominator that I have picked up while reading the comments is that some commenter dislike how Matt 5:28 has been used as a weapon to force and control mens behavior while not being equally applied to women (as do I). As in, Matt 5:28 has traditionally been used in modern churchian settings to make it appear that mens sexual sin is so evil that women’s sin in comparison is less, so much less (or man is so evil) that she might as well be a pure goddess and therefore, thus treated like one.

    Given the abuse of using Matt 5:28 in churchianity, I can understand why commenter would strictly hold to Matt 5:28 to mean involvement with married woman only. I do agree that men have a desire for women, and that is not a bad thing. It isn’t necessarily a good thing in all circumstances either.

    Ok, adultery is strictly with a married woman, so Churchians, stop using Matt 5:28 as a blanket for all sexual sin falling in adultery, but isnt the flesh wanting to engage in carnal fleshly activities? When you are watching porn, an its not adultery (ok, you have established that as long as the image isnt really married in real life or maybe its hentai) are you living by the spirit? are you living in faith?

    Its like you are right (commenters position that all sexual sins do not fall under adultery) but wrong at the end of the day (commenters unspoken position that adultery is the only sexual sin you can commit).

  132. feministhater says:

    Once again he got flak because he places the expectations on men and will not focus on the problem of women not getting married young. Just who is a young man meant to marry? Old women in their thirties? One of the other reasons he got flak was because saying men should get married young, well obviously women would have to get married young too; and the women were having none of that. Back to square one I’m afraid. Lol!

    Remember, you are speaking to someone who looked for most of my late teens and most of my twenties without success. Only after I established myself was there any interest, at which point I realise they’re not interested in me at all, only my resources. Young women simply do not care to marry you and would only do it once you’ve put in the hard work and once they’ve had their fun

    Once again, the elephant in the room is the delaying tactic by women to extend courtship indefinitely and to provide as little sex as possible within marriage but free sex outside of it.

  133. Gunner Q says:

    Damn Crackers @ 9:38 am:
    “Also, remember what St. Augustine said (considered to be one of the most anti-sensual Church Fathers by some): “If you do away with harlots, the world will be convulsed with lust.””

    Which came first, the harlot or the lust? This is not a chicken-and-egg argument; the lust came first, that’s *why* you went to the harlot. That was Christ’s point. The specific expression of the impulse doesn’t matter; refusing to restrain the impulse does.

    It isn’t hard unless you want it to be.

    feministhater @ 10:40 am:
    “The question becomes if Christian men have to remain chaste from 15 to 30, why should they then get married after that? It’s a dead end argument. You made them make the sacrifice and quash their sexuality for 15 to 20 years and now you want them to get married and support a family? Is that right?”

    This is likely the main reason guys don’t learn Game. A decade or two of “don’t you dare touch or even look at that girl parading her spandex-clad body in front of you” conditioning is a crushing burden to overcome. Having been through that myself, I would no longer marry even if God Himself swore that unicorn would be loyal. I only want to spike that door shut and walk away.

    Those Goddamn Churchians. They whine incessantly about how porn “corrupts” a guy then demand his sex drive be strangled outright. That’s why we’re having these debates, men don’t want to end up emotionally castrated if there’s any chance of alternative.

  134. Caspar Reyes says:

    @Necroking48:

    I get where you’re coming from on the matter of sexualizing covetousness; however, the “sexualizing” of a wife it is not a product of churchians but is bound up in the nature of a wife. To covet anything is to illegitimately desire it, either to use it or to be admired for possessing it. If you covet a lawn mower it’s because a) you want to cut your grass with it; b) you want to be seen or imagined owning it. Why else would you covet your neighbor’s wife if not for the use of her and/or for the admiration of others, both of which are sexual?

    Other thoughts:

    Matthew 5:28 is an example of adultery, not a definition. To those who self-righteously tell themselves, “I am righteous because I don’t commit adultery”, Jesus says, in effect, “By God’s standard you DO commit adultery. If you are righteous by your own standard, then your standards are wrong, and you demonstrate that you don’t know how to judge yourself.”

    Pedantry fails when you try to ram the square peg of biblical categories into the round hole of modern taxonomies. I.e., whales are mammals in our modern classification system, but it’s entirely reasonable for anyone, book-learnin’ school or no, to call a whale a fish. You cannot say that there does not exist some system of classification somewhere, where a whale is a fish.

    Example, someone asserted above that “pre-marital sex” was not prohibited in Scripture. You can’t prohibit something if there’s no word for it, and you can only prohibit what you do have a word for. It’s a principle that a law applies to only what it applies to. It is not explicitly prohibited to covet your neighbor’s daughter, only under the blanket prohibition not to covet any thing that is thy neighbor’s. So your neighbor’s daughter may be your wife, in which case desire all you want, it’s not coveting.

    Adultery is prohibited on its own. Coveting is prohibited separately, so no one can claim that the ten commandments cover outward actions only. So, while Jesus did not add to the law, he set, as he was wont to do, both a higher (perhaps even impossible) standard and a greater freedom at the same time, to do right.

  135. Dota says:

    I don’t mean to change the subject, but this is hilarious –

    woman sues elite dating agency after a string of disastrous matches
    Ms Daggett, a 62-year-old divorced mother of four, was introduced to a procession of incompatible suitors, according to documents filed in a federal court.

    http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/money-cant-buy-you-love-woman-sues-elite-dating-agency-after-a-string-of-disastrous-matches/ar-AApOpd4?li=AAmiR2Z&ocid=spartanntp

  136. Novaseeker says:

    DC, since Doug Wilson has been a topic of discussion here recently, here’s an article he did on why men should marry young…and got a lot of flak for it.

    MKT —

    The main problem with that article is what Wilson leaves out (often this is the problem with his writings): the main driver of late marriage is actually women who want to have their education and career established before they marry, and that takes until the later 20s/around 30 to achieve. That is more of a driver than what Wilson actually discusses there. Young women don’t want to marry at 23 or 24 any longer, they want to have flexibility to finish their education where they want, and then move where they want to start their career, before being interested in “settling down”. Most Christian women follow this path, too. Why this is left out of any discussion of marital ages can really only be the result of a gross oversight, or the willing failure to see what is really going on with people under 30 today.

  137. earlthomas786 says:

    I do enjoy discussions like this…because they need to be talked about more. There’s a lot of rationalization going around trying to cover up several sexual sins.

  138. earlthomas786 says:

    They whine incessantly about how porn “corrupts” a guy then demand his sex drive be strangled outright.

    They follow the feminist script. They only see the male side of sins. Try debating a feminist on modesty. They’ll tear you limb from limb suggesting a woman should wear modest clothing so as to not entice lust in men.

  139. dadofhomeschoolers says:

    Late to the game, as usual,
    But let’s think about it. At Creation, “let’s make man in our image”. What image? Why does God care about sex. Because it’s about his image. Why does sex feel so good? Because it’s a glimpse into what it will be like in heaven. That whole church the bride thing. Is it significant, that out of all the species in the world, how many mate face to face?
    We are an image of God when we are having sex, God cannot be unfaithful to himself, so when we as images of him, have sex inside a faithful relationship, we are keeping true to his image.
    God cares about what comes out of those organs, both male and female. He looks long range. He is looking for Godly offspring.

  140. Damn Crackers says:

    OK, I’ll be the a-hole here. What about Biblical concubines?

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

  141. Anon says:

    Just who is a young man meant to marry? Old women in their thirties?

    That is exactly what Jim Gay-ratty recommends in his ‘Ward Cleaver is a Stud!’ video. Jim Gay-ratty himself married a single mother who might be older than him, and admits that he lives under threatpoint every day. His solution? Claim that threatpoint is a good thing!

  142. MKT says:

    “A decade or two of “don’t you dare touch or even look at that girl parading her spandex-clad body in front of you” conditioning is a crushing burden to overcome.”

    This reminds of some SJW-Lite Christian females blogging about yoga pants. They say things like “there are starving people in the world (or) men are looking at porn that’s supporting sex trafficking…and you want to worry about my yoga pants?!”

    As if they two are related. When I saw that, I was very tempted to reply “So showing every curve, bump and crevice on your body is cool and your right, but as soon as you get objectified it’s all icky and porn-like…except part of you enjoys being objectified by men and envied by other women (assuming you’re thin and fit). Otherwise, you wouldn’t wear skin-tight clothes. You can’t have it both ways, sweet cheeks.”

    But I didn’t want to argue with her and 50 more snowflakes just like her.

  143. SJB says:

    @Caspar Reyes: Why else would you covet your neighbor’s wife if not for the use of her and/or for the admiration of others, both of which are sexual?

    At one time women were productive: the wife of another may make a fairly tasty yogurt and I may covet that capability for myself; she may weave a fine cloth that would robe my dashing self; etc. Not that women are really productive these days.

    The prohibition against using (or coveting) the reproductive function of a woman is covered under “no adultery.”

  144. earlthomas786 says:

    This reminds of some SJW-Lite Christian females blogging about yoga pants. They say things like “there are starving people in the world (or) men are looking at porn that’s supporting sex trafficking…and you want to worry about my yoga pants?!”

    As if they two are related.

    Of course they aren’t…but there are many women who are well versed in the deflection tactic because they have no legit comeback. They instictively know yoga pants are immodest and will give them plenty of male attention if they have an attractive shape…otherwise they wouldn’t bring up porn or starving children. You got to keep them on point.

  145. Mycroft Jones says:

    Let’s clarify Matthew 5:28. Covetousness is a key point that really needs to be understood, and so far noone has really gotten the concept right.

    First, the LXX. The Bible was translated into Greek, and is called the LXX/Septuagint. By using the LXX, we can see how various Hebrew words are equivalent to Greek words… as understood by the translators. LXX Greek is different from regular “pure” Greek. There are a lot of Hebraisms in it.

    Second, the New Testament. it is written in Greek, but it isn’t written in regular Greek, it is written in the same Hebraic Greek as the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament.

    So, if you want to argue about the meanings of the Greek words, you have to follow them back into the Old Testament to see which Hebrew words they are equivalent to. Because Hebraic/LXX Greek is a dialect.

    Now, back to the three essential words: “woman”, “fornication”, and “lust”. We can discuss the difference between “divorce” and “put away” another time.

    Woman: as in Hebrew, the word generally does mean wife. There are more specific words for young unmarried women. It doesn’t HAVE to mean “wife”, but it generally does.

    Fornication: it isn’t just talking about adultery, but about any immoral sexual act. For the definitions of immoral sexual acts, see Leviticus and Deuteronomy.

    Lust: this is the big one. A previous commenter was correct, Jesus was talking about Coveting, not “desire”. Most people understand coveting as desire, but this is wrong. I had to search long to find a good word study on coveting. Did you know the word only occurs about 4 times in the Hebrew Bible? And the context it occurs in makes it very hard to pinpoint a clear definition. However, the context does allow us to know this much: coveting is more than just feelz and desire. Coveting is not “lust”. It is something that leads a) to action and b) to your target being alienated from his property. Coveting is sneaky and can be hard to detect, that is why it is the last of the ten commandments. Coveting isn’t theft; it is more like the envious person who says “if I can’t have it, you can’t either!” When you covet, you prevent your neighbor from enjoying the usage of his property, and there is an element of envy (or blind selfish desire) involved.

    If you covet your neighbors wife, you may never lay a finger on her, but Jesus is right, it is sexual immorality. Why? Because forbidden explicitly in the ten commandments.

    When you understand this about coveting, you can see that white knights are guilty of covetousness, and need to be slapped down hard. There used to be an English Common Law against “Alienation of Affection”. Actual actionable tort. This is just a fancy phrase for Biblical coveting. This concept needs to come back in a big way, our whole society is suffering from it.

  146. earlthomas786 says:

    Jim Gay-ratty himself married a single mother who might be older than him, and admits that he lives under threatpoint every day. His solution? Claim that threatpoint is a good thing!

    Well that is one of two outcomes that is brought about living under threatpoint. It’s a crazy outlook to any reasonable person…but women can make men think and do unreasonable things.

  147. Caspar Reyes says:

    @SJB:

    Your neighbor’s wife can legitimately give you yogurt or sell you cloth. And “thou shalt not commit adultery” does not cover “thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife”. Coveting never put anyone’s paternity into question.

  148. Mycroft Jones says:

    So when Jesus says “If you look at a woman so as to covet her”, the looking at her is not the coveting. The looking at her is a step towards the actual coveting. But once you make the intention in your heart to break up her neighbors marriage or otherwise get the woman to be disloyal, you are already guilty.

  149. MKT says:

    “That is exactly what Jim Gay-ratty recommends in his ‘Ward Cleaver is a Stud!’ video. ”

    Who is this? I don’t keep up with either mainstream or Christian pop culture. I assume that’s where this guy is known.

  150. Derek Ramsey says:

    @9767

    Sex with a virgin being marriage is centered right on Genesis 2, where the language certainly implies that it is sex that glues the man and woman together, not a social marriage construct, which isn’t even mentioned. There isn’t even a mention of the woman’s father and his involvement in the process. That joining together is something that no man can separate, even if there is a legal divorce. (I have also never seen a linguistic argument that shows that Genesis 2 doesn’t apply to all woman, virgin or non-virgin, which has great bearing on this discussion.)

    Even the marriage customs of ancient Israel required physical consummation for the marriage to be completed. While betrothal was treated as marriage from a legal and social standpoint, it wasn’t consummated. If betrothal was considered marriage, why would sex be required? Without sex, the marriage was incomplete, pending, or in progress. The correct procedure was a social contract followed by consummation. Many of the laws pertaining to sex prior to legal marriage have to do with remedies for going about the process in the wrong way (seduction, rape, etc.).

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m not aware of a single instance of marriage in the Bible that did not involve sex as its culminating act. Whether concubinage or full marriage, it was made complete through sex. There are many different ways to enter into a marriage, but they all share this common thread.

    So the notion is that sex absolutely creates marriage, but it is not enough for a proper marriage. There is also a social and legal component that must be followed.

    @DC – “OK, I’ll be the a-hole here. What about Biblical concubines?

    I don’t see the issue under the framework I’ve laid out above. Concubinage is marriage too. It’s just a different social construct version of marriage, but the underlying one-flesh-marriage is the same. I’ve already suggested that Exodus 22:16-17 is about preventing the woman from becoming a concubine by forcing the man to comply with the social and legal marriage construct.

  151. Caspar Reyes says:

    @Mycroft Jones

    The corruption of the heart goes all the way down. You can’t scrape away enough layers to get to motives that are completely pure without the taint of selfishness, or greed, or illegitimate lust, or something.

    Matt 5:28 is an exhortation to examine your own motives and recognize that however you draw the line, there will always be some standard by which you are sinful. It’s part of being a Christian–recognizing the need to be saved from this body of death.

  152. SJB says:

    @Caspar Reyes: yes, the persons and animals in the commandment can be licitly co-opted. However, wife is listed for the productive capability — as are the other persons and animals — rather than her reproductive capability. Thus coveting your neighbor’s wife is not solely sexual–you can certainly covet both her productive and reproductive capability but it’s your choice.

  153. earlthomas786 says:

    Even the marriage customs of ancient Israel required physical consummation for the marriage to be completed. While betrothal was treated as marriage from a legal and social standpoint, it wasn’t consummated.

    Well I’m going to bring in some scary Catholic church canon law…but a case for annulment is if the marriage was never consumated. Sex and marriage do in fact go together…which is why a lot of sexual sins is when it gets farther away from this relationship.

  154. Caspar Reyes says:

    @SJB
    I’ll concede that one might covet a man’s wife for her table, but one is more likely to covet the maidservant for that. Insofar as you can only covet what you can’t legitimately have, I stand by my answer to Necroking. The lack of a sexual motive in the coveting of a wife would be an aberration. The office of a wife is sexual in nature.

  155. Shaka Zulu says:

    Hi Dalrock. In your reply to @The Question, (Aug 9th, 2:55 p.m.) your last line reads:
    “the fundamental teaching on marriage, holding it as the cause of sexual morality instead of the way to avoid it”
    I suppose you meant “holding it as the cause of sexual immorality…”

    I always look forward to your excellent articles. Keep ’em coming.

    [D: Thank you, and you are correct. I’ve fixed it now.]

  156. Dalrock says:

    @Dota

    I don’t mean to change the subject, but this is hilarious –

    woman sues elite dating agency after a string of disastrous matches
    Ms Daggett, a 62-year-old divorced mother of four, was introduced to a procession of incompatible suitors, according to documents filed in a federal court.

    http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/money-cant-buy-you-love-woman-sues-elite-dating-agency-after-a-string-of-disastrous-matches/ar-AApOpd4?li=AAmiR2Z&ocid=spartanntp

    I haven’t seen that article, but my wife showed me the Daily Mail article on the same thing. The comments at the Daily Mail are brutal.

  157. ys says:

    In summary of this thread, I think the best quote of Mark Driscoll’s career wraps it up:

    “What does that mean in the Greek, Pastor Mark?” You can always tell a rebellious evangelical. They do word studies. They try to go to the Greek and figure out if it perhaps means something else.”

  158. Gunner Q says:

    Damn Crackers @ 11:47 am:
    “OK, I’ll be the a-hole here. What about Biblical concubines?”

    PokeSalad’s Law, that’s what.

    Derek Ramsey @ 12:24 pm:
    “Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m not aware of a single instance of marriage in the Bible that did not involve sex as its culminating act.”

    King David & Abishag in 1 Kings 1.

  159. earlthomas786 says:

    I haven’t seen that article, but my wife showed me the Daily Mail article on the same thing. The comments at the Daily Mail are brutal.

    Shocking part is the comments with the most green arrows and the comments with the most red arrows say just about the same thing.

  160. MKT says:

    In summary of this thread, I think the best quote of Mark Driscoll’s career wraps it up:

    “What does that mean in the Greek, Pastor Mark?” You can always tell a rebellious evangelical. They do word studies. They try to go to the Greek and figure out if it perhaps means something else.”

    Yep–loophole theology. Not to mention that much of the Bible (especially Proverbs and Paul’s epistles) is about wisdom, holiness and doing what’s honoring to God–not just every possible thing that might be legal if my shaky Greek is right. Those trying to get away with pron, prostitutes and pre-marital action miss all of the greater commands and broader messages.

  161. Anonymous Reader says:

    ys quotes Mark How Dare You Driscoll
    You can always tell a rebellious evangelical.

    But you can’t tell him much. Eh, Mark?
    Man, the irony is thick sometimes.

  162. Derek Ramsey says:

    @Gunner Q – “King David & Abishag in 1 Kings 1.”

    Much thanks. I had forgotten that. I’ll have to give this more thought. Obviously unconsummated marriages existed. Anyone attempting to say that sex is equivalent to marriage has to deal with that issue. And the case of Abishag is certainly a problem for that strict view. Clearly David had a legal/social marriage, for she was his concubine. Adonijah wanted to make a political claim to the throne by claiming David’s property and marrying Abishag. There was no annulment of the marriage by divorce, so the marriage was in good standing until David’s death. Was she a widow, a virgin, or both? That’s a very interesting question.

    Now, was the marriage a one-flesh joining without sex? I don’t see how it could be. It’s pretty obvious that David’s attendants wanted him to have sex, keeping in place the notion that a proper marriage involves both a social construct and sex. The thrust of the passage seems to be that a king had to be sexually capable in order to maintain the throne for socio-political reasons (v11).

    If marriage is just a social construct, then how to explain the sexual language used to describe a one-flesh joining?

  163. Dalrock says:

    @MKT

    “That is exactly what Jim Gay-ratty recommends in his ‘Ward Cleaver is a Stud!’ video. ”

    Who is this? I don’t keep up with either mainstream or Christian pop culture. I assume that’s where this guy is known.

    He is talking about Jim Geraghty of National Review. You can see my posts referencing Geraghty here: https://dalrock.wordpress.com/category/jim-geraghty/

  164. earlthomas786 says:

    This article starts out with adultery…but the reason is something I’ve alluded to before:

    ‘The One Thing Guaranteed to End All Marriages’

    http://www.faithwire.com/2017/08/05/the-one-thing-guaranteed-to-end-all-marriages/

  165. feministhater says:

    In summary of this thread, I think the best quote of Mark Driscoll’s career wraps it up:

    “What does that mean in the Greek, Pastor Mark?” You can always tell a rebellious evangelical. They do word studies. They try to go to the Greek and figure out if it perhaps means something else.”

    Cuz no one says it better than Mark Driscoll and no one has ever, ever needed to translate the original transcript before, ever.

  166. Hmm says:

    OT: The puritans on husbandly authority:
    https://singingandslaying.com/2017/08/07/how-a-husband-loses-his-authority/

    Includes encouragement of husbands to say no to their wives.

  167. SirHamster says:

    Matt 5:28 is an exhortation to examine your own motives and recognize that however you draw the line, there will always be some standard by which you are sinful. It’s part of being a Christian–recognizing the need to be saved from this body of death.

    It is not just that there exists a standard by which we are relatively sinful. One can create arbitrary standards that say good is evil and evil is good.

    It is that God is the perfect standard that we need to measure ourselves by … a standard that we all fail. The hypocrite uses a lesser standard and thinks himself righteous according to it.

    The contrast is most extreme with the Left, when they abandon all standards and call their intolerant Tolerance good. But we must not fool ourselves into thinking ourselves righteous just because we can adopt a slightly better low standard.

    We are called to be perfect sons of God our Father. Blessed are you who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for you will be filled.

  168. BillyS says:

    I am still reading through the replies, but the fact that we are even having this conversation (is sex meant only for marriage) shows an additional reason so many have failed to keep God’s proper balance of marriage.

    Amazing.

  169. ys says:

    FH-
    On that point, yeah, few say it better than Mark Driscoll. Good of him to do it, too, since most pastors HAVE studied the original langauges, and such study can be a reason to “lord it over” those who haven’t. That’s why so few Christian leaders actually would say what Driscoll said.
    And his point is valid to your second statement, too, this statement: “no one has ever, ever needed to translate the original transcript before, ever.”
    That’s the point. We have English translations. Many. We also have concordances, interlinear Bibles, language software…on it goes. If some person, particularly one person who is armchair translating the Greek, comes up with some radical, new translation that is completely off-course from the good English translations (KJV, NKJV, ESV, NASB, to name some), that should tell you something. Those translations were translated from the originals, by good, scholarly men who know the languages. And when the armchair translators come in, it is to do exactly what Driscoll said, avoid what the text says in English.

  170. feministhater says:

    It’s just another case of ‘do as I say and don’t question’. The same shit you guys have been doing here all along. I don’t agree with what others say about twisting words this way or that but I think the discussion is important. You just come here to shut it down.

    Just to let you know but Mark Driscoll is not liked around here, nor is he thought of as a authority.

  171. feministhater says:

    That’s the point. We have English translations. Many.

    And there’s the point. If you have many, obviously it wasn’t as simple to translate the original; or there have been definitive steps to choose meanings in order to control others, leading to their being multiple different translations.

  172. ys says:

    FH-
    Yeah, I read every Mark Driscoll post here when Dalrock went through them some time ago. So? Broken clock, right twice a day, etc. I don’t agree with Driscoll on much, too.
    And to your second point, if it’s not simple to translate the original, and I agree, it isn’t, that should scare anybody who did grab a concordance and thinks they have found a unique meaning.

  173. SirHamster says:

    And there’s the point. If you have many, obviously it wasn’t as simple to translate the original; or there have been definitive steps to choose meanings in order to control others, leading to their being multiple different translations.

    Those translations are on the whole very similar. Jesus tells his followers to be perfect, Jesus is crucified, Jesus rises from the grave. Believe in Jesus to be saved.

    There is no aspect of the Christian faith that requires precise Greek translation.

    That is why we can refute all the churchian heresies using English translations, rather than needing to study Greek first.

  174. feministhater says:

    Well, I don’t go seeking Greek translations. However, I enjoy the conversation anyway. I would just like the text to make logical sense to me. And Jesus saying that me desire a woman is the same as committing adultery in my heart doesn’t make sense to me. How is any man meant to find a wife if he isn’t allowed to desire her first?

  175. SirHamster says:

    And Jesus saying that me desire a woman is the same as committing adultery in my heart doesn’t make sense to me.

    Jesus says lust, not desire.

    Dictionary.com offers the following definitions for lust:

    1. intense sexual desire or appetite.
    2. uncontrolled or illicit sexual desire or appetite; lecherousness.
    3. a passionate or overmastering desire or craving (usually followed by for):
    4. ardent enthusiasm; zest; relish:
    5. Obsolete. – pleasure or delight; desire; inclination; wish.

    Do you say you desire her, or lust for her?

    How is any man meant to find a wife if he isn’t allowed to desire her first?

    He is not forbidden from desiring her, because the word used is lust, not desire.

    Personally, considering pre-arranged marriage (ex: Isaac), I suspect we overrate desire. I think few couplings will fail the deserted island sexual attraction test. (which would also fix any obesity related repulsion) Though I’d fix the scales by having the man be older.

  176. pamelaparizo says:

    Perfectly said. Marriage is the answer to all sexual immorality. The only thing I would add is that agape love is the overarching principle. Agape love is the answer (for the most part) to disobedience to male authority. Feminism has destroyed women. They do not want women to realize that marriage holds the key to their happiness. Women who passionately devote themselves to their husbands will find their husbands less inclined to immorality, and the husband who affectionately and caringly loves his wife in and outside the bedroom will find a more obedient wife. Peace in Jesus Christ.

  177. Hmm says:

    OT: Doug Wilson on God’s words to Eve:
    https://dougwils.com/s7-engaging-the-culture/feckless-evangelical-bridge.html

    I happen to agree with Wilson, but certainly Susan Foh’s perspective certainly seems to be coming true in our time. Of course, her interpretation corresponds with the rise of Feminism 2.0..

  178. Dave says:

    And Jesus saying that me desire a woman is the same as committing adultery in my heart doesn’t make sense to me.

    In the next verse, it talks about ripping your eye out of your socket. If you assume the absolute literal interpretation, that doesn’t make sense either. If it did, most Christians for the past 2000 years would be walking around with pirate eye patches. So rather than assume the absolute literal interpretation, try and pick up the nuance of the verse. That there is some level of desire which is morally just and natural to feel, and some level of desire beyond that which is crossing the line to sinful.

  179. @Dalrock

    To be clear, in Romans 4:15 and 5:13 he explained that sin is defined as a violation of the Law. The Apostle John also said as much, that sin is lawlessness. Thus, Paul, the Pharisee of Pharisees, trained in the Law AND speaking in the Spirit, stated that sexual sins are clearly listed in the Law. And we should also know that the Law itself contains an injunction on adding to the Law as well as subtracting from the Law.

    So, either the Apostle Paul is a liar, or someone else around here is teaching as doctrine the precepts of men.

    The most striking thing about your post is I notice you don’t touch the central point to your question. Is marriage causing sexual immorality today? The answer is most assuredly yes. Modern so-called marriage, not marriage as defined Bibically.

    To understand how marriage begins, we observe Genesis 2:24. Jesus was very helpful in providing exegesis of that passage. When the Pharisees questioned him on the grounds for divorce, He quoted Genesis 2:24 as the authority on marriage. The Pharisees did not dispute that (as some idiots on my blog have). We know from the text of the passage that exactly *when* a man and woman are married is dependent on the meaning of the Hebrew word “dabaq” as used in Genesis 2:24. Fortunately, that word was translated (as part of that passage) in to the Greek “kollao” and the Apostle Paul very helpfully used the same word to mean “sex” in 1st Corinthians 6:16 within the context of Genesis 2:24. Paul quoted half the verse to ensure we all understood that sex is the act by which a person becomes one flesh.

    For a more thorough explication, see my post on Biblical Marriage. That’s part of the series I did on Theology For Men of the West

    So, according to Genesis 2:24, the man shall leave his father and his mother, he shall have sex with his wife and the two shall become one flesh. The sexual intercourse is the marriage ceremony. Which is also why it’s known as the act of marriage. When the eligible virgin has sex, she is married to the man who takes her virginity.

    I have received massive amounts of flack for pointing out that no-where in Scripture is there any prohibition on a man having sex with a woman he is eligible to marry, except for 1st Cor. 6:16, the rule against Christian men banging whores. The obvious reason there is no prohibition on a man having sex with a woman he is eligible to marry is that marriage begins with sex. Yet, on close examination no-one has been able to produce such a prohibition and while I’m accused of taking Scripture out of context, that isn’t the case. When the eligible virgin has sex, she is married to the man who penetrated her and took her virginity.

    Which means that as you look around your congregation, every so-called “married” couple you see in which the man did not get that woman’s virginity, with only rare exceptions they are living in adultery. The woman was already married to the man who got her virginity, which means the party with the dress and the cake was fraud. Which means that the church’s teaching of completely wrong doctrine has caused this widespread immorality within the church.

    The virgin did not have “premarital sex” and she didn’t commit “fornication” when she gave up her virginity to some young man. She married him. She did not sin in doing so and she cannot “confess” it and get forgiveness for the act of marriage. Because it was not a sin. She’s a married woman now.

    Everything else, whether it’s a virgin’s lack of agency, a widow’s right to choose who she will marry, the man’s automatic commitment when he penetrates the woman, the right of a man to have more than one wife, the prohibition on Christian divorce, whether prostitutes and lesbians are in sin, all of it is completely secondary to the initiation of marriage.

    And to ;answer Novaseeker’s question, this is probably the pressing question of the modern church today. All else pales in comparison.

  180. ys says:

    Well-stated SirHamster.

  181. Boxer says:

    Dear Fellas:

    Feminist Hater sez:

    Well, I don’t go seeking Greek translations.

    Nor should you. The King James Version is the authoritative source. It’s in (relatively) plain English.

    Note that people don’t read the bible primarily to get some historical or logical truth. They read it in order to get a vision of how to order an advanced society, and to get ethical insights. Few people who settled North America knew Greek; but they all knew the KJV. The KJV was enough for them and it ought to be enough for us.

    As an aside, this is why atheists are fools for not studying the KJV. That’s not really relevant to the original article, but I had to throw it in there.

    My Nigga Toad:

    I have received massive amounts of flack for pointing out that no-where in Scripture is there any prohibition on a man having sex with a woman he is eligible to marry

    You should consider it a great honor that you’re being deconstructed here. If you’re the subject of criticism on Dalrock, it’s not flack (by my definition, flack is just needless sniping). You should take this as an opportunity to hone your arguments.

    Note that when the author of this blog deconstructs feminists and crypto-feminist Christian priests, they all either ignore him or pretend offense. You’re a lot smarter than those guys, so more is expected of you.

    Your arguments are all formally valid. The problem is that you start them off with premisses that aren’t true. In this article here, for example, you’re excluding the middle, with an implied premiss that what isn’t explicitly forbidden is permitted. Not only is fornication, polygamy, and allowing your wives to dyke out in front of you forbidden, but even if it weren’t, it wouldn’t be permitted. (Lyn87 – another guy who is smarter than I am – convinced me of that).

    Anyway, I hope that you go through this article and, rather than doing what you did here (simply restating your premisses, implying a circular argument) you disambiguate your position so that it conforms to 1 Cor 6:13-20, or you revise your premisses that conflict with it.

    Note to the audience, that a couple of weeks ago, I criticized Toad for his innovations, and made the argument that his innovations are so comprehensive that he really shouldn’t call his post-Christian theology “Christianity” any longer.

    https://v5k2c2.wordpress.com/2017/07/30/conversation-with-toad-no-2/

    As I pointed out there, Toad is a thoughtful guy and quite intelligent. He owes it to people who follow his new post-Christian religion to delineate its differences. He also owes this to himself. Everyone benefits by living an examined life.

    Regards,

    Boxer

  182. @Derek Ramsey and @Gunner Q

    Note the wording of Deuteronomy 24:1, the specificity of “when a man takes a wife and marries her.”

    Taking a wife (via betrothal, obtaining her agreement, purchasing her or capturing her in war) is not the same thing as marrying her. Sex is what marries her. This is why the virgin betrothed in Deuteronomy 22:24 is referred to as a “wife”. In betrothing her, he has taken her as his wife, but until they have sex he has not married her.

  183. MKT says:

    “I have received massive amounts of flack for pointing out that no-where in Scripture is there any prohibition on a man having sex with a woman he is eligible to marry…”

    Ah yes, AT, the queen of loophole theology. The one whose blog begins with a couple of porn star-looking ladies in a hot tub. This guy is way out there, somewhere in Branch Davidian/Yearning for Zion Ranch territory.

  184. earlthomas786 says:

    The virgin did not have “premarital sex” and she didn’t commit “fornication” when she gave up her virginity to some young man. She married him. She did not sin in doing so and she cannot “confess” it and get forgiveness for the act of marriage. Because it was not a sin. She’s a married woman now.

    No she just had sex with him…it’s only half of what constitutes a marriage. Even in Deutoromony 22:28-20 if that scenerio happened the guy had to pay the father and have her as his wife. There has to be an outward sign of marriage as well as the private act. That’s why there are public witnesses to the outward act of the couple giving themselves to one another in marriage…whether that be in civil court or church. You can’t just have unmarried sex and then they are magically your wife…it’s a carnal act between unmarried people until they have some outward sign of marriage.

  185. earlthomas786 says:

    Ah yes, AT, the queen of loophole theology.

    Let’s just hope he didn’t take someone’s virginity. Lest he doesn’t practice what he preaches.

  186. Minesweeper says:

    ys,boxer et all, if you think a 2nd hand translation via a group of influenced humans who always have at least some agenda is more accurate than the actual words spoken in the original language.

    I only have 3 words.

  187. Minesweeper says:

    just to lighten the mood 😀

  188. necroking48 says:

    @Caspar Reyes

    “To covet anything is to illegitimately desire it, either to use it or to be admired for possessing it. If you covet a lawn mower it’s because a) you want to cut your grass with it; b) you want to be seen or imagined owning it. Why else would you covet your neighbor’s wife if not for the use of her and/or for the admiration of others, both of which are sexual”?………end quote

    I’m not sure people understand what “coveting” is and why it is condemned in scripture, but I’ll do my best to explain it
    Coveting is NOT the desire for a lawnmower, it is the desire to acquire your NEIGHBOR’S lawnmower
    Coveting is NOT the desire to have sex with a woman, it is the desire to acquire your NEIGHBOR’S WOMAN..
    The reason for this is because “coveting” leads to jealousy, envy, and then THEFT to take what doesn’t belong to you

    I personally don’t think anyone in the west has the true concept of what coveting really is (and I’m including 99% of Christians in that) because feminism has so corrupted our values and beliefs that we recoil with horror when we understand that from God’s perspective, a wife is her husband’s property, she belongs to him, he owns her. This is why coveting is so bad, it is because a man is tempted to STEAL what belongs to another man

    This is enforced in God’s rebuke to King David for his sin of murder, and subsequent adultery with Bathsheba……David’s sin, as pointed out by Nathan the prophet, was NOT that he had sex with a woman, namely Bathsheba, it was because she belonged to someone else, and if David needed to get his sexual needs met, he had 6 wives already at home waiting for him, and that God Himself would have given him even more women to add to his harem, if they weren’t enough……..see 2Sa 12:8  “And I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.”

    So to summarize, Coveting is not the desire for something, it is the desire to acquire what already belongs to someone else…..You can own 50 lawnmowers if that’s your fetish, just don’t take your neighbor’s lawnmower that’s all

  189. Minesweeper says:

    ““What does that mean in the Greek, Pastor Mark?” You can always tell a rebellious evangelical. They do word studies. They try to go to the Greek and figure out if it perhaps means something else.””

    Only because his theology was so off his members had to seek the truth, e.g. the insanity of Mat5:28 and the repercussions of a dreadful translation. Which all stems from the KJV and ALL English translations use this as the master guide. Now the KJV wasnt fully in error but the understanding of the word lust 400 years ago meant covet, 400 years later our translations still want to use the same word even with its different meaning.

    If you want to get under someone like MD he has a website with subscriptions im sure he would be delighted to have you on board.

    What Mark is saying above is he dosnt want anyone questioning his understanding of his understanding of his bible translation. He wasn’t just criticising using the original language, he was criticising those who – GASP – DO – WORD STUDIES !!

    The 1st commandment of Mark Driscoll is thou shall not do word studies or question me in any way.

  190. PokeSalad says:

    The 1st commandment of Mark Driscoll is thou shall not do word studies or question me in any way.

    Preacher man talkin on the TV
    Putting down the rock n roll
    Wants me to send a donation
    Cuz he’s worried about my soul

    He says Jesus walked on the water
    And I know that its true
    But sometimes I think that preacher man
    Would like to do a little walking, too

  191. @Earlthomas

    ” There has to be an outward sign of marriage as well as the private act. That’s why there are public witnesses to the outward act of the couple giving themselves to one another in marriage…whether that be in civil court or church. “

    By that standard, Adam and Eve were not married.

    You err because you are attempting to place something into Scripture that does not exist. Adam and Eve were either married or they were not. If they were married it was with the act of sex. Period, no ifs ands or buts.

    The question is how God has defined marriage. He defined marriage as the man penetrating the eligible virgin with the act of sexual intercourse. Period. Other things can be added by agreement (betrothal, etc), but the basic rule is the eligible virgin is married to the man who takes her virginity.

  192. Minesweeper says:

    @ys,MKT

    if you believe that what Mat 5:28 in most of our translations says from KJV onwards : ” But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.”

    maybe you can tell me why is only applies when looking at women ?

  193. earlthomas786 says:

    You err because you are attempting to place something into Scripture that does not exist. Adam and Eve were either married or they were not. If they were married it was with the act of sex. Period, no ifs ands or buts.

    A little context though…before the fall God created Eve from Adam and brings her to him. Adam makes the outward declaration she is flesh of his flesh and bone of his bones. I could take that as a marriage proposal because we read directly after that what marriage is about and she is called his wife (no reference to sex yet). Then the fall and results from that. Then after that it says Adam ‘truly’ knows his wife and she conceived. That’s the sex part after the outward declaration.

  194. Minesweeper says:

    @ys, if you need to believe a translation this is the most accurate translation ive found so far from 1390, pre KJV. Still missing the correct term for wife. Apart from that its bang on.

    Matthew 5:28 Wycliffe Bible (WYC)

    28 But I say to you, that every man that seeth a woman [for] to covet her, hath now done lechery by her in his heart [now he hath done lechery with her in his heart].

  195. SirHamster says:

    While AT continues his clown show falsely witnessing about what God says and defines …

    “And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man … Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. ”

    Note how the woman is the man’s wife before they become one flesh. The spirit precedes the flesh.

    If AT’s position were true, he would badger newlyweds that they aren’t husband and wife until their first night together. “Ahhhhktually, God says somewhere not in the Bible that you’re not married until sexual intercourse” Creepy nonsense, but part and parcel of how he subverts and destroys the existing order so as to lead others astray.

  196. Kevin says:

    I found most of this discussion involves wresting the scriptures to people’s destruction. Christ says not to lust after wives but apparently sex with virgins is ok outside marriage. This is legalese gibberish and inconsistent with any definition of virtue or Christian devotion. As bad as any churchian short comings. Christ wants us to become something. The Jews fell into apostasy because they were measuring their steps as a way to certify Sabbath worship instead of worshiping. Is porn ok is the woman is a virgin but not ok if she is a married porn star? These questions are all ridiculous. The guidelines are pretty simple and designed to foster spiritual and moral growth by allowing our simple passions to mature in marriage and be enhanced with the beauty of family. Looking for loop holes to Gods paths is missing the point of Christianity and who we worship.

    Another poster above said he cannot imagine a God who cares about his sexual habits. Well, you lack imagination just like everyone who says “I cannot imagine a God who…” followed by their favorite vice, social concern, or worldly attitude. What does our imagination have to do with anything? You have simply declared, “I am God, and no one rules over me.” Not original and the view of rebellious humanity through the ages.

  197. @Boxer

    “Your arguments are all formally valid. The problem is that you start them off with premisses that aren’t true. In this article here, for example, you’re excluding the middle, with an implied premiss that what isn’t explicitly forbidden is permitted. Not only is fornication, polygamy, and allowing your wives to dyke out in front of you forbidden, but even if it weren’t, it wouldn’t be permitted.”

    Boxer, I’m torn. On one hand, you fit the profile of certain jesuits, but on the the other hand I’ve seen you in some brilliant takedowns of the people arguing on the Frankfort school, etc, and I just can’t see a jesuit playing that game. Maybe you’re a new generation jesuit. If you’re KoM, there’s a protocol. Go for it. Seriously. OTOH, I’m sure this is amusing as hell for you. But maybe there’s a communication issue. You have that je ne sais quoi…. and I’m on the other side of the fence. Transgression is a Pandora’s box.

    Your argument is intellectually indefensible. State the “proper” premises (assumptions) in clear terms and let’s get started.

  198. earlthomas786 says:

    If AT’s position were true, he would badger newlyweds that they aren’t husband and wife until their first night together.

    “Ahhhhktually, God says somewhere not in the Bible that you’re not married until sexual intercourse”

    I guess that means Mary was never married to Joseph…even though in the Bible says he embraced her as his wife after the angel told him what was going down and there was no reference to intercourse. Now are we going to go with Scripture or someone who thinks only intercourse means marriage.

  199. SirHamster says:

    Still missing the correct term for wife.

    Are you an expert in Greek to English translation?

    You are claiming all the English translations of the Bible are wrong and corrupted because Jesus would not have talked about non-wives as the object of lust. Apparently words can only mean 1 possible thing, even though every dictionary contains multiple definitions of words.

    Unfortunately for your thesis, the entire porn industry exists as a testament to the depths of male lust, and the adultery we practice if we entertain it in our hearts. But clearly Jesus is okay with all of it and is only rebuking lust targeted at wives. Everything else must be good holy fun.

  200. Mycroft Jones says:

    @necroking48 Just a bit of correction on coveting. It isn’t desire, and it isn’t desire for another man’s property. Coveting is theft by legal means. Coveting is alienation of property, and in the case of human property, manifests as alienation of affection. Enticing and luring are forms of coveting. Inciting rebellion is coveting. Coveting is active, not merely a mental state. If someone sets up a scenario so you lose your legal property, with the goal of acquiring it for themselves, they coveted your property. Marital interference? Coveting. Theft and adultery are both explicitly mentioned as sins; coveting is added to them as a separate sin because it is different; it is a snowflake just “letting things happen”, and you can almost never prove it. But the outcome is the same; your brother or neighbor loses his lawful property, or the enjoyment thereof. City bylaws that prevent you from enjoying your property? Covetous neighbors; they covet your happiness. Knowing what coveting is, is really important; not understanding this, we can feel it is wrong, but without knowing it is the Biblical definition of covetousness, how do you fight back against it except on an ad hoc basis?

  201. Mycroft, take your George Gordon ideas and jump off a cliff.

  202. Jeff Strand says:

    Martin Luther, the founder of Protestantism, taught that it was not within man’s power to resist temptations to fornication and/or adultery. No more than it was within man’s power to fly like a bird. So in his disordered mind, the fact that the RCC had always enjoined the faithful to avoid sexual sin was just more proof of her “errors”. And yes, he believed all of Christendom (both Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox) had been in error for 1500 years. Until he, Martin Luther, came along to teach us the correct dogmas! Lord, preserve us from such insolence!

    Luther also explicitly taught that there was no real need for a Christian to abstain from sin, as long as he had faith in Christ. Luther was admirably clear and honest about this (clearly insane) idea of his when he stated that a believing Christian “could commit adultery – nay, murder – a thousand times a day and it would not affect his justification before God”. And since Luther did away with the apostolic doctrine of Purgatory, this hypothetical thousandfold murderer or adulterer would go STRAIGHT TO HEAVEN when he died. Which is why Lutheran summed up his teaching by exhorting his followers to “sin and sin boldly, but believe more boldly still!”

    According to Luther, this was possible because for the believing Christian the righteousness of Christ is IMPUTED to him at the time of Judgment. In other words, Almighty God is prevented from seeing the state of your soul and sees Christ instead. Luther explained further with an analogy: just as a fresh snowfall covers and makes a pristine appearance out of even of a “stinking dungheap”, so that it looks pure to the eye, so the polluted soul of an unrepentant, habitual sinner (yet believing Christian) appears pristine before the Judgment Seat of God. All that is needed is faith in Christ..and presto! – your sins are not judged against you.

    Can you see why the Catholic Church excommunicated this madman? For myself, I still just don’t understand how anyone can be a Protestant. Do you just make an effort to never study history? I mean , if you want to embrace a heresy…at least Arianism or Donatism or Monophysiticism (sp?) would seem to be somewhat rational. But Protestantism? It has to be about the nuttiest heresy ever (right there with the Albigensians) – how ironic that it proved to be the most popular of all the heresies. But human nature being what it is, where everyone wants something for nothing, I suppose a heresy that promises Heaven in return for taking 5 minutes to say the “Sinner’s Prayer” is just what the doctor ordered!

  203. @Hamster

    Are you still suffering from your lesbian porn addiction? Should I start linking? You chose to go head to head with me years ago and you lost. In fact, you were just a side-kick to Simple Tim. You are a tool. Nothing more. Save yourself the embarrassment and go away.

  204. Jeff Strand says:

    “Ahhhhktually, God says somewhere not in the Bible that you’re not married until sexual intercourse”

    Don’t know what any particular Protestant church would teach on this, since they all have their own doctrines. But I can give you the traditional Catholic teaching on this, if it helps:

    Assuming no other issues or impediments, a couple may marry without benefit of sexual intercourse (ever!) and the marriage is still completely VALID. The couple may live together as husband and wife in this valid marriage, and this is not sinful or a scandal in any way (with one exception – see below). However, the marriage is not INDISSOLUBLE until it is consummated, because it is in this act that the two become one flesh…which no man may put asunder.

    Now, for the exception I mentioned. If the couple make a deliberate plan to abstain permanently from the marital act because they don’t want to conceive children (thereby using abstinence as a form of birth control), then they are living in sin. Because they are violating the natural law (all animals are meant to reproduce), the commandments of God and the Church (“be fruitful and multiply”), and their own wedding vows (where they individually promise to lovingly accept any children God graces them with, and to raise them in the Faith)

    But in the case of people who cannot conceive because they are medically unable to, or in the case of old people who marry for companionship long past the age where children are possible, they may fully abstain from sexual relations and still take comfort in knowing that their marriage is fully valid, as long as they are both OK with the knowledge that the marriage is not indissoluble.

  205. davidvs says:

    @Derek Ramsey – I think we are quibbling over words in a way that the original audience would not understand. There were steps to a marriage in those days (being “given” by the father, the change in social status and responsibilities, the sexual consumation). The situation of Exodus 22:16-17 does not follow those steps. Whether negating that out-of-order marriage is a veto or a divorce is probably modern semantics. You are correct that the bridge price had to be paid.

  206. Mycroft Jones says:

    @Toad in regard to jumping off a cliff, don’t you recall the Word says, “You shall not tempt YHWH your God.”

    You managed to write a long blog post about the Biblical definition of marriage, and not once did you reference the actual Bible verses that contain the word “marriage”. Astounding.

  207. SJB says:

    @SirHamster: the Lord God separated the first human into male and female; at the some point the Lord God gave them the power to join again becoming yet another human. Obviously “one flesh” refers to the child of that joining. What God has joined together no man can separate.

  208. Minesweeper says:

    @SirHamster says:”
    You are claiming all the English translations of the Bible are wrong and corrupted because Jesus would not have talked about non-wives as the object of lust. ”

    only because our understanding of what worked correctly in that time has been corrupted, if I said until the 1600 unmarried females were called young maidens, old never married spinsters were called “old maids” – a term still used today.

    again, do you really think Jesus was saying this sin only applies to looking at women.

    what you really think it says is : “anyone who looks at anyone with sexual desire has committed adultery in their heart (except those who have signed a marriage license)” – which is the churchian translation.

    when i became a Christian decades ago a few did say to me there are odd translation errors between the versions, and I had about a dozen versions I used. i would say 99.999% of the translations are great, But in the time we are living in this verse is used to justify divorces, something Im pretty sure God hates. So Im going to keep trying to get to the bottom of it.

    God hates divorces and using a misunderstood single verse to justify them is sinful.

  209. davidvs says:

    Perhaps relevant in modern times is Deuteronomy 24:1-4, which speaks of a situation where a woman may be married more than once. If her first husband divorces her, she may become the wife of another man.

    Some of these comments imply that if a young couple has casual sex, without any thought of marriage, that the sex act somehow “traps” the woman in the category of “married”. As much as I am morally opposed to casual sex (and have seen its potential to be harmful spiritually, psychologically, physically) I can also sympathize with the claim that Deuteronomy 24:1-4 applies to modern casual “safe” sex. The man leaves her afterwards. Why should she be married? Why insist on an anachronistic writ of divorce when society is clear about what the lack of commitment?

  210. SirHamster says:

    … go away

    AT is not concerned at all that I accused him of false witness and leading others astray. You’ll notice he had no answer to any of my points, and that is because what I said was true.

    The only thing he wants at this point is for me to go away, to spare him the emotional pain. He claims to have won once and for all in some unseen past event, but that’s irrelevant to the topic at hand.

    This Brave Bible Warrior desires that others listen to him and follow his lead. Does he not inspire you when he intellectually surrenders on first contact?

    Perhaps, AT, you would get what you desire if you stuck to the truth and built Christians up, rather than baffling them with bullshit. But you would need to repent, first.

  211. pamelaparizo says:

    Automatic commitment? Ha! Tell that to all the men who have one night stands and think nothing of leaving a woman behind weeping. Even in the time of the Patriarchs there was generally a week-long feast to celebrate the marriage, and it is evident this occurred in the time of the NT Church (Wedding of Cana). Commitment doesn’t fix a lot of the problems with illicit sex mentioned in the law. Also, polygamy is not God’s ideal–Jesus has one bride. Polygamy generally resulted in many problems in the OT, not the least of which was Solomon’s apostasy. In terms of a virgin’s agency, Rebekah’s father and brothers asked her if she would go with the servant and become Isaac’s wife. Christian divorce is permissible where fornication (illicit sex as defined by the law) occurs. Remarriage is open to interpretation. I’ve read many of your posts, which are appallingly dark and not written with the Spirit.

  212. Mycroft Jones says:

    @Hamster back on the vilefacelessminion blog thread, Toad did beat you. You kept going in irrelevant directions, ignoring simple facts, etc. You won’t defeat Toad with mere Churchianity. Your corrupted form of Christianity is as bad as his. Possibly worse.

  213. SirHamster says:

    @SJB

    Obviously “one flesh” refers to the child of that joining.

    Questionable, when Paul, an expert Bible scholar, interprets it thus:

    “Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, “The two will become one flesh.””

    The sexual act is becoming one flesh, unconditional on the prostitute having child. Note also that one flesh in Genesis has no reference to Cain and Abel.

    Reproduction doesn’t even make sense when a couple can have multiple children! Are all those children one flesh? Or shall man and wife become many flesh?

  214. SirHamster says:

    @Mycroft

    @Hamster back on the vilefacelessminion blog thread, Toad did beat you.

    Toad asked for and received a proctored debate on Vox Popoli. He was too emotionally triggered by my position to fairly represent it to a neutral third party. I, on the other hand, summarized AT’s position in a way that he accepted.

    The emotionally incontinent can claim victory all they want, but AT is not smart enough to do detached analysis. Posturing may look like winning, but it is not.

    As for you, you never did provide the evidence you promised about the societal benefits of “polygyny”.

  215. @Hamster

    You are an idiot. Make a coherent argument. Cite some actual Scripture. Take a stand. Give it a try rather than your standard sniping and personal attacks. Or, perhaps I’m being too subtle for the Hamster. Make an argument. Be rational. Cite sources. Make an exegesis. Be a man.

  216. SJB says:

    @SirHamster: Did prostitutes in 50 AD not become pregnant as a result of coitus? Remarkable!

    The milieu of St. Paul seems to have not the modern separation of coitus and reproduction. Somehow those folks knew that “doing it” produced a child that was neither a clone of the father nor a clone of the mother but a joining of them both.

    As a side note: go ahead: separate yourself into the parts from your father and the parts from your mother. I’ll wait.

  217. pamelaparizo says:

    I do agree with you that the sexual act makes marriage valid. After all, it has long been generally accepted that without consummation there is no marriage. Even under our current societal laws, an unconsummated marriage can be annulled.
    Since at least the time of the patriarchs however, there have been steps added, for good reason, to assure commitment. Betrothal, the wedding feast, these all make the marriage known to the community, so that everyone knows who is married and who is not. The Jews also used a marriage contract, where the husband committed himself to protection, provision, etc. One has to consider that the Jews were under a theocracy. In other words, if a man raped a virgin, the Law forced him to marry her. No such laws exist in our time. There is nothing in our society to compel a rapist to marry a virgin, nor could her father legally stop her if she decided to (not that many women would want to). Many of your writings presuppose a theocracy such as existed under the Law. We won’t even get into the fact that we no longer live under the Mosaic Law as Christians.

  218. Mycroft Jones says:

    @SJB Hamster has his flaws, but he is correct about two becoming into one. It isn’t talking about having children. There is a spiritual and DNA level union that happens during the sex act, and modern science has been discovering that telogeny is a real thing.

  219. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Jeff Strand: Luther also explicitly taught that there was no real need for a Christian to abstain from sin, as long as he had faith in Christ.

    I think Protestants teach that if someone believes in Christ, then he can get away with sin, but he wouldn’t want to sin. That faith produces good works, even if good works are not necessary for salvation.

    So according to Protestants, if you have faith, you will lead a Godly life. If you don’t lead a Godly life, it’s a sign you don’t have faith. You have “dead faith,” which isn’t real faith.

    The Puritans led extremely Godly lives, because if they didn’t, they feared it was a sign they didn’t have real faith, and thus weren’t saved.

  220. SirHamster says:

    You are an idiot. Make a coherent argument. Cite some actual Scripture. Take a stand. Give it a try rather than your standard sniping and personal attacks. Or, perhaps I’m being too subtle for the Hamster. Make an argument. Be rational. Cite sources. Make an exegesis. Be a man.

    AT has a reading comprehension problem. He can’t even recognize a Scripture quotation from Genesis! Is it because I assumed too much of him by leaving off the Biblical citation? So much for AT being a Biblical scholar when he can’t see what was placed in front of him at the very beginning.

    Here is the rational refutation in my first post related to AT:

    “And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man … Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. ”

    Note how the woman is the man’s wife before they become one flesh. The spirit precedes the flesh.

    Like I said, he is emotionally triggered. He lashes out without understanding. Under pressure, he does not engage on the rational level, but goes to what he knows: Rhetorical attacks and posturing.

    I accept your surrender, AT, but you need to get right with God.

  221. MKT says:

    AT’s starting point seems to be “I wanna live like Hugh Hefner and Muhammad rolled up into one. How can I take some proof texts and build a theology around that”?

  222. Mycroft Jones says:

    @Hamster I’m not sure what you mean about “the spirit precedes the flesh”. Adam and Eve were married when God “brought the woman to Adam”. That is, the womans father gave her to the man. Transfer of ownership. That was the marriage; a covenant between father and son-in-law. Sex consummates it.

  223. Minesweeper says:

    @pamelaparizo, the Jewish system was in the time of Jesus/Mary/Joseph, the “marriage” (as we would term it) meant they were living together for up to a year, and was considered a “marriage” but deliberately unconsummated, which is why Joseph was going to divorce Mary even though they hadn’t consumed the marriage when he found out she was pregnant. It couldnt be annulled at that stage, only a divorce could be served.

    Its a strange concept for us, that arrangement.

  224. SirHamster says:

    @SirHamster: Did prostitutes in 50 AD not become pregnant as a result of coitus? Remarkable!

    Not always.

    Your interpretation doesn’t fit with how the concept is used in the rest of the Bible. But out of curiousity: Are multiple children one flesh, or multiple fleshes?

  225. Mycroft Jones says:

    @Minesweeper remember also, the penalty for sleeping with a betrothed virgin is the same as for adultery. Once two men make an agreement of marriage, then the marriage is as good as done. Even without sex. Jacob’s marriage to Rachel and Leah for instance; he did not consummate for 7 years. Simeon and Levi slaughtered a man who slept with their sister, even though he wanted to marry her later. As a reward, God made Levi the priestly tribe of Israel. That should tell you what God’s priorities are.

  226. @Hamster

    “Toad asked for and received a proctored debate on Vox Popoli. “

    For those who are interested in just how much of the debate belonged to Hamster, you may peruse it at the following link. I asked for moderation after some 900 comments when it had reached the point that Simple Tim and his sidekick Hamster refused to deal with the debate.

    http://voxday.blogspot.com/2015/06/bow-not-before-caesar.html

    The climax of the debate was Simple Tim declaring that he wanted to modify Scripture to make what I was saying (vis a vis female-female sexual contact) a sin…

    I believe what I have been taught, that all homosex is sin.

    Attacking Toad’s position cannot be made by showing a prohibition against woman-woman sex as no verse does so.

    The question then becomes, how do I make a Biblical case that it is sin absent such a verse?

    Simple Tim and his side-kick Hamster wanted to re-write Scripture to meet their beliefs. The funny part is that at the time I was bedbound recovering from wounds at the time. I can’t imagine what would have happened if there were no narcotics involved during that debate. Either the Apostle Paul is a liar, or Simple Tim and Hamster are liars.

  227. necroking48 says:

    @Kevin

    *”I found most of this discussion involves wresting the scriptures to people’s destruction”*…..end quote

    Quite the contrary, I find most of this discussion revolves around a wicked, boastful, self righteousness and moral superiority over anything “sexual”, whilst ignoring all the other sins in the bible

    Churchians, with their misguided, puritanical hatred of porn and sexual immorality seem to to think that Porn is THE worse sin a person can commit, whilst patting themselves on the back for committing sins of gluttony, wrath, strife etc

    The same bible that condemns adultery, and fornication ALSO condemns eating too much, and getting angry at your brother IN THE SAME VERSE, yet I don’t hear churchians castigating their followers of THOSE sins

    We literally have made the test of a Christian’s true character, and Christ-mindedness in whether they watch porn or not….God damn us all, we deserve the world’s hatred and scorn of us for our hypocrisy, and inconsistent handling of the word of God

    The same fanatical churchians who froth at the mouth over any believer caught watching porn, will gleefully watch 2 men beat each other to serious injury or death in an MMA fight, or Boxing match
    The same fanatical churchians who froth at the mouth over any believer caught watching porn, will have no problem with PRIDE on a daily basis. Instead they will justify under the banner of moral self righteousness
    The same fanatical churchians who froth at the mouth over any believer caught watching porn, will commit IDOLATRY on a daily basis with their devotion to football, baseball, their celebrities, their fav politicians, and anything else they put before God, and I’m not even going to include the sin of Marialotry, and idol worship which is rampant in the Roman Catholic Church….but of course THOSE sins are ok cause we’re not fapping to porn!!

    *”Christ says not to lust after wives but apparently sex with virgins is ok outside marriage. This is legalese gibberish”*……..end quote

    No it’s not legalese gibberish at all, it’s the retarded mess churchians get into when they add the precepts of men to the word of God, and/or make sins of things that ain’t sins

    The bible is very clear what the definition of sin is….It’s the transgression of the LAW…….How many times do we have to say this?, where there is NO LAW, there is no transgression……you ignore this at your own peril

    The reason a man can not covet a MARRIED WOMAN, yet pursue a virgin “outside of marriage” (your words), and not feel bad about it, is because there is no law forbidding it……any woman not currently married to an husband was fair game for any of the patriarchs to add to his wives that he already has, and no sin was incurred

    I’m so sick and tired of those who want to broaden what Jesus said in Matthew 5, and pretend that ADULTERY really means fornication as well, and I gave my reasons before in another comment why churchians do this

    *”Another poster above said he cannot imagine a God who cares about his sexual habits”*….end quote

    Perhaps the reason the commentator thinks this, is he has to contend with self righteous churchians like you think think that porn is the worse sin a person can commit because It’s such an easy target, and it hits home at male masculinity and a males sex drive…..by shaming them and belittling men who watch porn, you can assume an air of moral superiority, while jsutifying your longing gaze of a a hot chick in a bathing suit….but that’s ok, ccause I don’t fap to porn!!!!!

  228. Jeff Strand says:

    RPL said: “I think Protestants teach that if someone believes in Christ, then he can get away with sin, but he wouldn’t want to sin. That faith produces good works, even if good works are not necessary for salvation.

    So according to Protestants, if you have faith, you will lead a Godly life. If you don’t lead a Godly life, it’s a sign you don’t have faith. You have “dead faith,” which isn’t real faith.

    The Puritans led extremely Godly lives, because if they didn’t, they feared it was a sign they didn’t have real faith, and thus weren’t saved.”

    RPL,

    Good point on the Puritans and Calvinists – you are correct that they strived to live godly lives, as a sign of their predestination. Thanks for that.

    However, when it comes to Luther and his followers, I don’t think your statement applies about a believer in Christ can get away with sin, but wouldn’t want to sin. The reason is because Luther said it is NOT POSSIBLE for a man to resist sexual temptation. He meant that literally – it is not merely hard to resist sexual sins, it’s impossible in the same sense it’s impossible for a man to fly like a bird. (Try telling that to your wife!)

    That Luther taught this needs to be emphasized (“Sin and sin boldly, but believe more boldly still”). He also taught that man has no free will – if a man sins it’s because a demon has taken over his soul and rides and controls it like a man controls a horse he’s riding. And if a man does good deeds, it’s the exact same thing except it’s an angel controlling him instead of a demon.

    People don’t want to be reminded of these doctrines Luther taught, because they clearly show how mentally unhinged and deranged the founder of Protestantism was (and I didn’t even mention the time Luther claimed to have – literally! – bested the Devil in a farting contest!). But all this is a matter of the historical record and cannot be denied. If Catholics have to live with the sinful lifestyles of the Borgia popes (though none taught heresy), then Prots have to live with the crazy doctrines of Martin Luther.

  229. Minesweeper says:

    @necroking48 , your bang on, and i’ll raise your example of MMA which some would shirk from.

    Churchians will happily let the entire family on “any given Sunday” after church spend hours watching dozens of men give each other permanent and unrecoverable brain damage on a field while playing catch.

    But thats ok, cause no naked ladies involved.

  230. @MKT

    State a position, make an argument, cite your source. Otherwise you’re just one more idiot in the pack of anklebiters.

  231. Scott says:

    WAY off topic, but I have been wanting to do a series on workout/diet routine for a long time.

    https://ljubomirfarms.wordpress.com/2017/08/11/time-to-get-in-shape/

  232. SirHamster says:

    @Mycroft

    @Hamster I’m not sure what you mean about “the spirit precedes the flesh”. Adam and Eve were married when God “brought the woman to Adam”. That is, the womans father gave her to the man. Transfer of ownership. That was the marriage; a covenant between father and son-in-law. Sex consummates it.

    It is an observation.

    In marriage, the two are bonded into one before the two physically become one flesh. That is the spirit of marriage, versus the flesh of marriage. Some reverse this order, and there is a loss in doing so. Keep the marriage bed holy.

    Now marriage teaches us something about the nature of our salvation:

    “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” This is a profound mystery–but I am talking about Christ and the church.

    One must be born again to enter the kingdom of heaven. “Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit.” There needs to be a spiritual life to enter the place of eternal life. Yet we also know that there is to be a physical resurrection, for Paul teaches, “So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable …”

    Whether in marriage or resurrection, the spirit precedes the flesh. Why does this matter? “Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit.”

  233. Boxer says:

    Dear Toad:

    Thanks for the levelheaded reply. Please see inside text…

    Boxer, I’m torn. On one hand, you fit the profile of certain jesuits, but on the the other hand I’ve seen you in some brilliant takedowns of the people arguing on the Frankfort school, etc, and I just can’t see a jesuit playing that game.

    The SJ taught me to think as a teenager. In retrospect, I’m pleased with the job they did, but I’m not a member of any religious organization; and I’m sure my lifestyle precludes my membership (in the church, much less the SJ).

    Maybe you’re a new generation jesuit. If you’re KoM, there’s a protocol. Go for it. Seriously.

    I don’t understand this part, sorry.

    OTOH, I’m sure this is amusing as hell for you. But maybe there’s a communication issue. You have that je ne sais quoi…. and I’m on the other side of the fence. Transgression is a Pandora’s box.

    Amusing is part of it. I learn a lot from your contributions; and I think they have the potential to teach others. Certainly I don’t agree with the specifics of most of your articles, but they’re well formed and dense with sources.

    In any event, I only argue with people who are worthy of my time. For example: you don’t see me stooping to quarrel with SirHamster, do you? What on earth could he teach me? Incidentally, why do you bother with him? Isn’t it a little like a screaming match with the homeless wino, down at the subway station?

    Your argument is intellectually indefensible. State the “proper” premises (assumptions) in clear terms and let’s get started.

    Well, here and on your own blog, you have historically presented a series of contentious propositions, e.g.:

    1. Men may allowed to be married to more than one woman simultaneously
    2. The women in such families ought to indulge in lesbian sex with each other
    3. Banging ho’s (provided they are unmarried) is permissible

    I have no problem with any of these things (the first two, admittedly, aren’t anything I’d be interested in, but that’s a personal preference). The issue I have traditionally raised is the same issue the author of this blog just raised. Such things contradict the text, specifically 1 Cor 6:13-20.

    It seems to me to be difficult to reconcile your own contentions with the text of the bible. Hence my earlier suggestion (on my own blog) about disambiguating, calling your own innovation something other than Christianity, and perhaps issuing a series of rulings on the matter on your own authority. Given your reticence to this, I would say you have two choices.

    1. admit your own interpretation of the text contradicts the plain meaning of the text, as cited
    2. make some argument attempting to reconcile 1 Cor 6:13-20 to your own propositions, above.

    I think that if it were possible to run with the second choice, you’d have done so. You clearly know the text very well, and you’re a careful thinker. You can’t do it, because it really can’t be done by anyone. You’ve asserted P, Q, R, and the text clearly asserts ~P, ~Q, ~R.

    Your earlier response to me here, in which you declared the New Testament incomplete, and where you promoted a sort of religious intuitionism, was another hint that you’re going in your own direction. Admitting that you’ve innovated a post-Christian religion of your own would be the first step toward escaping this dilemma.

    There is nothing inherently wrong with leaving Christianity and starting a new religion. And note that doing so doesn’t preclude you from using the Bible (Christians use earlier pre-Christian stuff in their liturgy… that’s what the Old Testament is). You’d just be being honest, with yourself and others, about where you stand.

    Best,

    Boxer

  234. SirHamster says:

    @AT

    @Hamster

    I called you a false witness and one who leads others astray.

    Citing a 2 year old thread with 900+ comments is not a refutation and is completely irrelevant. You are even swinging at phantoms – simplytimothy is not here. His arguments are irrelevant to whether marriage is defined as penis in vagina, or something else.

    The question is how God has defined marriage. He defined marriage as the man penetrating the eligible virgin with the act of sexual intercourse. Period.

    You said God defined marriage as PIV, period. That definition does not exist. But as Genesis says, a woman becomes a man’s wife even before they become one flesh. You are refuted. You are a liar unfit to handle or teach the Bible.

    Now take your pick of fight, flight, or submission. But everyone can see you are in over your head.

  235. Damn Crackers says:

    1 Cor 6:13-20 – How is fornication the only sin against the body? Murder seems a lot more damaging.

    All I know is simple fornication isn’t a death sentence like sex during menstruation (Leviticus 20:18). How many of you married men have made that mistake? I’ll stick to the safer sins of sex with prostitutes.

  236. Damn Crackers says:

    Seriously, I always read St. Paul was dealing with a proto-Gnostic community at Corinth who proclaimed to avoid marriage. But unfortunately, they thought that believing in Christ made it ok to get away with eating food and banging whores at other pagan temples.

    Actually, St. Paul is making a moderate proposition. Sex and marriage are ok. And celibacy is greater if you can do it. But if you can’t, go ahead and get married.

  237. Damn Crackers says:

    Leviticus 20:18 – I guess sex during menstruation is a metaphorical death sentence:
    “And if a man shall lie with a woman having her sickness, and shall uncover her nakedness; he hath discovered her fountain, and she hath uncovered the fountain of her blood: and both of them shall be cut off from among their people.”

  238. Mycroft Jones says:

    Being cut off from among your people is not a metaphorical death sentence. It was understood to mean stoning to death, if you didn’t get out of dodge and run away across state lines first.

  239. @Hamster

    “I called you a false witness and one who leads others astray. “

    Cite it, chapter and verse. Make your argument. This is your opportunity to shine. Quote me from my blog, quote me from other verifiable sources. Make your argument, cite the relevant Scripture. This is your opportunity to show everyone that you actually know what you’re talking about.

  240. Derek Ramsey says:

    @davidvs – “I think we are quibbling over words in a way that the original audience would not understand…Whether negating that out-of-order marriage is a veto or a divorce is probably modern semantics.”

    Yes, I agree. I’m quibbling in light of AT’s legalistic loophole-based sexuality that Dalrock’s post is railing against. The exception creates a doctrinal legal loophole to allow certain types of free-for-all sex. Whether it was nullifying a vow or marriage, the spirit of the law is plain: a man should not be having sex outside the normal marriage traditions, period. Having sex is always a marriage commitment, and there is no exception to this. To be clear, the exception is that the father can nullify that commitment, but the original act was still sexual immorality. If, as AT claims, that it is not sexual immorality but just an invalid legal contract, then treating this as an exceptional case is wrong.

    @ Artisanal Toad – “Taking a wife (via betrothal, obtaining her agreement, purchasing her or capturing her in war) is not the same thing as marrying her. Sex is what marries her.”

    I made the proposition above that there are various ways to obtain a bride (you list some here) but that all biblical marriages are consummated with sex. Earlthomas786 raised the counterexample of the non-sexual marriage of Joseph and Mary. The case of King David & Abishag is a counterargument, one not easily ignored. If David and Abishag were not married, why was Adonijah’s action viewed as a claim to the throne? That said, it is plain from 1 Kings 1 that it was a failure that the marriage was not consummated: this is just as difficult a passage for those that say that sex does not institute marriage.

    I do make a distinction between a sexual one-flesh joining (brought together by God and irrevocable) and the social-legal joining (what we normally call marriage, brought together by man, and permitted to divorce). However, every proper marriage combines both of these, so speaking of one apart from the other is only helpful from a theoretical standpoint.

    If one has sex without the social-legal act of marriage, it still constitutes a marriage in God’s eyes and the eyes of the Law. Similarly, if one has a social-legal marriage without sex, it is also still a marriage, albeit a second-class, incomplete marriage as is also plain in the Law and historical tradition. (If you really need citations for this, I’ll dig them up)

  241. Derek Ramsey says:

    @SirHamster – “Note how the woman is the man’s wife before they become one flesh.” and “You said God defined marriage as PIV, period. That definition does not exist. But as Genesis says, a woman becomes a man’s wife even before they become one flesh. You are refuted.

    @Mycroft Jones – “Adam and Eve were married when God “brought the woman to Adam”. That is, the woman’s father gave her to the man.”

    I hate to give the appearance of defending AT’s extreme views, but this is hardly a refutation. In explaining Genesis 2:24, Jesus says in Luke 10 that divorce is wrong because man should not separate what God has brought together. God brings all couples together, not just Adam and Eve. It is an unjustified leaping inference to say that God acted as Eve’s father to make her Adam’s wife, when he does this for all couples (and not just the woman!). When does God bring a married couple together if not during sex? Is there any other identifying moment when this can occur?

  242. Mycroft Jones says:

    Sex before marriage does NOT create a marriage. It is a lottery ticket for the father-in-law. You do sex before marriage, you incur the price and obligations of marriage, but are not guaranteed any of the rights and rewards of marriage. Viewing humans as property is hard for the modern Western mind, but it is the only way to understand Scripture.

  243. Derek Ramsey says:

    @ Mycroft Jones – “Sex before marriage does NOT create a marriage. It is a lottery ticket for the father-in-law.”

    The two (sex = marriage and father’s lottery ticket) are not mutually exclusive.

  244. Joules says:

    If lesbian sex and prostitution are not violations of gods law and there is such a thing as moral prostitution, will we see the rise of evangelizing whore houses? . If Christian men can’t partake in prostitutes regardless of whether or not they pass the sufficiently severed from marriage test, it doesn’t mean that christian women who do pass the test are banned from prostitution. And if nothing else maybe widowed Betty could use her body as a ministry to the men in the church provided she take no compensation for it.

    It’s a shame the early church didn’t see the ingenuity of biblical morality and set up a wing of christian prostitutes to evangelize to the gentiles, paul who’s so enthusiastic about evangelizing to all people seems to have missed what could’ve been an incredibly popular evangelism method. And modern day churches can up the game and shoot christian pornos, the unsevered wives and severed prostitutes could engage in lesbian sex while reading the scripture or hardcore affairs with just christian prostitutes. Pauls admonition that if one burns with lust you should get married seems to ignore that for women they could just freely turn to each other.

    And a greater shame that christian history is missing the evangelizing whore houses and sex shows but an enterprising christian could blaze the way guided by a good modern grasp of scripture.

    On prostitution:
    Leviticus 19:29
    Do not prostitute thy daughter, to cause her to be a whore; lest the land fall to whoredom, and the land become full of wickedness.

    The legally minded would point this out as a restriction on merely pimping your daughter and that she’s free to pimp herself out but the reason given in the second part that prostitution is a source of wickedness and destruction invalidates prostitution as a neutral occupation. There is no moral prostitution.

    Hosea 4:13-14
    13 They sacrifice upon the tops of the mountains, and burn incense upon the hills, under oaks and poplars and elms, because the shadow thereof is good: therefore your daughters shall commit whoredom, and your spouses shall commit adultery.
    14 I will not punish your daughters when they commit whoredom, nor your spouses when they commit adultery: for themselves are separated with whores, and they sacrifice with harlots: therefore the people that doth not understand shall fall.

    Another verse where prostitution is shown in it of itself as being immoral, and here the daughters turn to whoredom of their own volition as opposed to being pimped out.

    Ezekiel 16:33
    33 They give gifts to all whores: but thou givest thy gifts to all thy lovers, and hirest them, that they may come unto thee on every side for thy whoredom.

    Jerusalem, who’s also an adulteress in this imagery, is admonished as being a whore of such depravity that she not only doesn’t accept payment but pays her lovers.

    Deuteronomy 22:20
    20But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: 21Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father’s house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.

    She’s stoned to death for whoredom with no evidence that she’s accepted payment for sex just that she’s not a virgin before marriage.

    On lesbians:
    Romans 1:26-27
    26For this reason God gave them over to dishonorable passions. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27Likewise, the men abandoned natural relations with women and burned with lust for one another…

    If the men are like the women and are lusting after each other then it’s obvious that the dishonorable passion of women was lusting after each other or lesbian sex.

    There’s a degree of obviousness and common sense to all this that legalism and nitpicking undercut. Consider Jesus’ admonition that divorce was wrong and not freely permissible, both the idea that you couldn’t divorce a woman for any reason and the idea that it was adultery to sleep with a divorced woman were not commonly accepted, Jesus does this by using the Genesis depiction of marriage and saying that since it is a God made union it is immoral to dissolve it which invalidates the deuteronomy 24 means of divorce. Jesus uses a common sense interpretation of God creating marriage in uniting adam and eve and invalidates a piece of biblical instruction for divorce and in this scenario we also have a loose use of adultery to as the man commits adultery by putting away his wife and marrying another regardless of the state of the new woman (in line with admonitions God makes that a man is supposed to keep and take care of his wife but I don’t know of this ever being called adultery).

    Matthew 19:9
    9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

    If Gods design is a sufficient argument I don’t see prostitution as having much room in the sexual morality established in the picture of marriage shown in eden and expounded on by Jesus.
    Another verse on commonsense sin:
    Galatians 5:16-18
    16This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh. 17For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would. 18But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law. 19Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,

    >Now the works of the flesh are manifest
    Sin of the flesh is obvious.

    it seems obvious and made all the more so by the picture of marriage in eden that prostitution/casual sex, divorce, etc are not permissible. Prostitution itself is forbidden and there’s no clear distinction between just being a whore and getting paid for it and as such no reason to believe that only those who engaged in casual sex for pay were violators. As for sex is marriage and widows et al have the legal power over marriage thus negating marriage upon copulation for “legal prostitution”, it is made ridiculous (and doubly so by the by Jesus’ instruction on the only legitimate use of divorce there is no special right to divorce granted to widows et al anymore than the deuteronomy 24 prescription for divorce is valid, Jesus makes clear the only valid condition for divorce.

  245. Gary Eden says:

    The modern church has a nasty Puritanical streak that runs counter to scripture. They lump everything sexual they don’t like under fornication. But thats not how scripture works. And its a big reason they lost the culture war and will continue loosing it.

    Fornication is a sometime translation of ‘sexual immorality’. Sexual immorality means just that, immoral sex. The definition for what sex is immoral come from scripture, namely the OT.

    Paul himself in Rom 7:7-12 and Romans 15:4 establishes that the OT was given to us to learn what is sin. When the law states something is sin, that is sin. By implication all things not condemned are not sin. And no where does the OT condemn all sex outside of marriage; only sex between certain classes of people (or animals).

    You can’t get away from this. The best you can do is claim it changed in the NT; but then you’d better have really clear verses and a very good reason as to why it changed between covenants and why you’re not adding to the law.

  246. Gary Eden says:

    Now lets unpack Dalrock’s interpretation of 1 Cor 7:

    because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband….I wish that all were as I myself am….But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

    From this he concludes:

    if you desire sex, the only licit way to pursue it is to marry.

    First clue: He interprets 1 Cor 7 to make things sin the OT never makes sin. BIG red flag.

    Second clue: Its really simple to just say, ‘all sex outside of marriage is sinful’. Nice, direct, simple, unambiguous statement. Yet in the whole of the Old and New Testament the scriptures never come right out and do that. That should make you pause.

    Third clue: Is 1 Cor 7:1-2 talking about the meaning of sexual immorality? No, Paul was talking about the issue of whether to marry or remain celibate. Dalrock is using it out of context.

    Fourth clue: Does 1 Cor 7:1-2 say that sex outside of marriage is sinful? Those words? No. Its about how to avoid sexual immorality, not what sex is immoral. It says the solution to avoiding sexual sin is to have a spouse.

    Why? Probably because as Paul teaches in the very next verses: they’re available for sex whenever desired. Its to reliable way to keep you satisfied.

    That doesn’t mean other sex is prohibited, it never says that and that would contradict the OT. It could simply mean this is the best way and that things like abstinence or masturbation won’t work well enough. Or it could mean the Corinthians were avoiding marriage in imitation of Paul and instead doing the usual Greek thing and having sex with men (an abomination, hence the BURN with passion).

    You know, 1 Cor 7 is a lot like the OT. The OT never says marriage is the ideal place for sex, but it sets up a system where most sex is in marriage. Most women are married off as virgins (forcefully if necessary). A women falsely passed off as virgins is stoned, making sure fathers kept their daughters chaste. And widows are married to the brother of the husband. Not a ton of other options; most women are married off. And if one wife is not enough you can have two or three of four; which really ought to keep you busy.

    Yet un-ideal and sinful are not the same thing. The OT didn’t make all sexual relations outside of marriage prohibited. It simply didn’t. There were still other women available for sex that weren’t prohibited (such as divorced women, despoiled virgins who didn’t marry, slaves, prostitutes, etc).

    That may not fit your church tradition or modern sensibilities, but thats the way God laid it down. I’m not going to teach as commandments the traditions of men just to avoid feel bads among the flock.

  247. Mycroft Jones says:

    Slave girls weren’t available for sex unless you were going to make them into a full wife.

  248. BillyS says:

    I guess that means Mary was never married to Joseph…even though in the Bible says he embraced her as his wife after the angel told him what was going down and there was no reference to intercourse. Now are we going to go with Scripture or someone who thinks only intercourse means marriage.

    I agree with part of your point Earl. They were married even though they did not have intercourse. But sexual relations are implied because it explicitly says he did not know (in a sexual manner) his wife until Jesus was born. That directly implies he did know here at some point after that. It does not indicate he stayed celibate his entire life, even though RCC doctrine asserts that.

    The sex act joins 2 people, but it does not marry them. The joining to the prostitute is the problem, not the marriage to the prostitute, to counter foolishness from others.

  249. Gary Eden says:

    That may be so MJ, I’m not entirely sure.

    There is also the issue of concubines, which I haven’t wrapped my head around yet. They were clearly allowed in the OT but are not wives and so prohibited by Dalrock’s interpretation of scripture. Another contradiction.

  250. BillyS says:

    AT,

    You are an idiot.

    People in houses made completely of glass should not through stones for the most part.

    Or better yet, “Pot meet kettle….”

  251. BillyS says:

    Gary Eden,

    Many things may be lawful, but many things are still not profitable.

  252. BillyS says:

    Derek,

    The father is not compelled to accept the marriage, thus the sex itself did not make it a marriage.

    Straining at gnats and swallowing camels much some of you?

  253. BillyS says:

    Slave girls weren’t available for sex unless you were going to make them into a full wife.

    Then what was a concubine? David had a few as did Solomon.

  254. Mycroft Jones says:

    The offspring of concubines are treated like the children of a regular wife. Beyond that, years of search hasn’t found an answer. Jewish tradition says one thing, Roman tradition another, and the Bible doesn’t go into much detail. Remember, Abraham also had concubines, and God never spoke ill of the institution. I have one last resource I plan to check for the meaning of “concubine” pilyegesh in Hebrew. In modern Hebrew a pilyegesh is just a girlfriend or fuck-buddy, but schtupping a man’s concubine had pretty bad consequences, look at the story of David and Absolom, where Absolom slept with his father’s concubines.

  255. Gary Eden says:

    Many things may be lawful, but many things are still not profitable.

    I fully agree. Just like I agree all girls should be married off as young virgins and sex is best done within the confines of marriage.

    Our real problem isn’t that men are having sex outside of marriage. Our problem is that the churchian culture is delaying marriage beyond what is reasonable and doing nothing to ensure the purity of their daughters. Start providing large numbers of chaste, godly women who want to become housewives and mothers at a young age and most of this problem goes away.

    But they want to have it both ways. They want to delay marriage and allow their women to sleep around with bad boys while painting every single way Christian men could get sexual release as sinful.

    Its not really about what is sin, its about maximally freeing women while maximally restricting men. Matriarchy. They just use ‘sin’ as a currency when speaking to churchians.

  256. Mycroft Jones says:

    Bible study has revealed this much: a concubine is a type of wife, a sub-class of the set of wives. Jewish tradition said it was a wife without a marriage contract, so perhaps a woman from a poor family marrying a rich man, and she doesn’t get anything from the rich man other than the right for her sons to inherit along with his other sons. The last resource I plan to check is with the Israelite Samaritans, who have lived the Law of Moses since it was delivered at Sinai, and without any Talmudic interpretations nullifying it.

  257. Mycroft Jones says:

    Looking at the word concubine linguistically, in Hebrew, it could be literally translated as “fuck-toy”. That isn’t a common translation, but the etymology allows it. It is suggestive of the general lower status of concubines; she isn’t high enough status to be his full wife, but she can join the family by being young and pretty and good at sex. Sort of like the consort/mistress concept in Catholic Europe. Mistresses weren’t supposed to sleep around, but be monogamous with their lover.

  258. Gary Eden says:

    @MJ:

    “Bible doesn’t go into much detail.”

    Maybe that is the key? Various cultures have different specifics, but in general it seems like a catchall for ‘woman that man has sex with thats not his wife or a prostitute’? Thats also the literal definition given by wikipedia. Though I’d be happier with a tighter definition from the Hebrews.

    We have many terms for these today (girlfriend, fuck buddy, baby mamma, etc). Though the various ancient understandings seem to be various forms of what was once called a mistress. Which is to be expected in a pre-pill pre-babyless sex world.

  259. Gary Eden says:

    Looking at the word concubine linguistically, in Hebrew, it could be literally translated as “fuck-toy”. That isn’t a common translation, but the etymology allows it.

    Where do you get that?

  260. bob k. mando says:

    Mycroft Jones says: August 10, 2017 at 3:35 am
    Also, in addition the Tamar story, look at the story of Dinah and Shechem. Shechem took her virginity, then he said to his father “go, get her for me as a wife”, and so his father went to her father to negotiate a marriage. Ergo, she was no longer a virgin, but wasn’t marriaged. And for treating her like a whore, her brothers slaughtered the entire city.

    way to prang that up.
    a – Schechem was not Hebrew, thus not subject to their law
    b – even IF he was abiding by Hebrew Law, it would *require Jacob’s consent*, otherwise the he is at risk of her father voiding the marriage, as has already been pointed out. this does NOT mean that she was NOT married, it means that the marriage in which she has already joined herself to a man was voided by her father.
    c – Dinah may not be a “whore” but she certainly IS a slut. she was a rich farmer’s daughter who got all her girlfriends together and took an unsupervised vacay in the big city. while there, she attracted the attention of one of the king’s sons. yeah, just like she was trying to do. she was ALL ABOUT not giving up the poontang. sure she wasn’t. because nobody has ever seen this story before.
    yes, Jacob did screw that up royally by ever permitting the Girls Gone Wild spring break in the first place. but, you know, that’s hardly the only example of a Patriarch failing to exercise proper authority over their children in the OT
    d – Jacob AGREED to the marriage which had already been consummated, as was entirely his right and responsibility as Father and head of household to make this decision
    e – thus Simeon and Levi are not merely guilty of the murder of an entire city of new converts to Judaism and the Law and the worship of the True God, they are also in direct rebellion against their Father. what does the Law require as punishment of rebellious sons?
    https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+21%3A18-21&version=KJV
    sounds a lot like Jonah, eh? rather risk dying themselves than have a city of Gentiles repenting and abiding by the Law.
    f – thus, Jacob is ALSO sinning against the Law for failing to discipline his sons ( mind you, this is the same sin as King David with respect to Amnon, and the hardness of the father’s heart likewise brings further disaster )
    g – which is why Simeon and Levi would go on to attempt to murder their own brother, the only decent one in the whole family

    protip:
    anytime you’re going to cite the actions of Simeon and Levi as approval for some point you’re trying to make, that’s the moment when you should realize you’re being a damn retard. they can never be mistaken for moral exemplars of the Law.

    if you’re going to cite Simeon and Levi for examples of how the Law works, then you should also be following the example of Cain for maintaining domestic harmony between siblings.

    9767 says: August 10, 2017 at 10:25 am
    Those of you saying pre-marital sex was not condemned in the OT are wrong. It is condemned in
    Deuteronomy 22:21, in the case of a woman who is sexually promiscuous prior to marriage:

    you’re having a really hard time tracking this.

    IF
    a virgin is married to the man who takes her maidenhead, by the act of Consumation
    AND
    holding a marriage ceremony with some subsequent hapless schmuck ( who, by the by, would also have paid her father a bride price ) who wasn’t the sexy Alpha who tagged her first
    THEN
    the attempted ceremonial marriage to the schmuck IS ADULTERY on her part.

    and, of course, the Lawful consequence for Adultery is death. which is exactly what Deut 22:21 calls for.

    it seems the Law is quite consistent on this.

    Derek Ramsey says: August 10, 2017 at 1:27 pm
    Adonijah wanted to make a political claim to the throne by claiming David’s property and marrying Abishag.

    true.

    the problem being that Abishag had been the ceremonial wife of his father … thus incest under the Law.

    this is why there was nothing wrong with David taking Saul’s wives … David and Saul were not related, thus there was no incest violation to be made.

    earlthomas786 says: August 10, 2017 at 6:22 pm
    I guess that means Mary was never married to Joseph…

    considering that the NT says that Jesus had siblings
    AND
    that you assert that Joseph never consummated his marriage
    THEN
    i guess that means that Jesus’ brothers and sisters were also born of a virgin due to the Holy Spirit visiting Mary multiple times.

    wonder why we never hear anything of signficance about these other Sons of God?

    yes, i’m well aware of all the ridiculous hoops the Catholic / Orthodox jump through to try to say that these verses don’t mean what they quite clearly say.

  261. Gary Eden says:

    on sex with slaves….Exodus 21:7-10 goes over that. Not wives, but afforded much the same protections. Not called a concubine either.

    English concubine comes from Latin, literally ‘to lie down together’ so ya, fuck buddy.

    Couldn’t find an etymology on the Hebrew word for concubine, but it is a loan word meaning mistress. Used that way in the OT without much comment. Often giving children. Similar to Greek word for concubine which came from word ‘entice’.

    What we call today girlfriend, long term relationship or cohabiting is basically the same thing as what the Hebrews called a concubine. Todays those are considered sinful, but not in the Old Testament, they just called her a concubine and considered her to have lower status.

  262. Dale says:

    >Remember, you are speaking to someone who looked for most of my late teens and most of my twenties without success.

    Ditto.
    My best chances for marriage were when I was in Ukraine. If you are looking for a wife, and find nothing but rebellious, masculine women in your area, consider searching elsewhere.
    And do not tie yourself down with debt so that you feel you cannot afford to take a few months off to go look for something (marriage) that is so valuable. That was my mistake. In essence, I treated money (or debt servicing) as more important than marriage. So now I have success in money, but only good success in marriage. The “good success” being the successful avoidance of marriage with an unworthy woman.

  263. Don Quixote says:

    bob k. mando says:
    August 11, 2017 at 1:50 am

    IF
    a virgin is married to the man who takes her maidenhead, by the act of Consumation
    AND
    holding a marriage ceremony with some subsequent hapless schmuck ( who, by the by, would also have paid her father a bride price ) who wasn’t the sexy Alpha who tagged her first
    THEN
    the attempted ceremonial marriage to the schmuck IS ADULTERY on her part.

    and, of course, the Lawful consequence for Adultery is death. which is exactly what Deut 22:21 calls for.

    it seems the Law is quite consistent on this.

    The circumstances you have described [Deut.22:13-21] are condemned as playing the whore [H2182} in her father’s house . The word adultery doesn’t appear in the passage. According to my trusty esword the word whore [zanah H#2181] is only used in the OT for harlot, whore, whoredom and so on. It never is used as adultery.
    She was guilty of pre-marital sex as Mycroft Jones stated. Aka fornication in the KJV. Jesus gave this as grounds for divorce in Matt. 19:9

  264. earlthomas786 says:

    The two (sex = marriage and father’s lottery ticket) are not mutually exclusive.

    Basically trying to reduce marriage to mere intercourse is trying to circumvent authority of the outward declaration of marriage. It’s a way to try and rationalize fornication. If marriage is just PiV…then there’s some players out there have plenty of ‘wives’ that can claim spousal support. You know the current court system wouldn’t mind going that route.

    And I bet if that happened those who claim PiV only is marriage will backtrack their statement faster than you can say spousal support.

  265. SJB says:

    @Mycroft Jones: Hamster has his flaws, but he is correct about two becoming into one. It isn’t talking about having children. There is a spiritual and DNA level union that happens during the sex act, and modern science has been discovering that telogeny is a real thing.

    Children are the fruit of marriage. You will read that the covenant with God is likened to a marriage covenant; the analogy is not to indicate there is some spiritual joining but that God produces fruit–these are “fleshy” fruits like being secure (physically safe) in the land of mike and honey (real food).

    A man and a woman become one flesh; that flesh we call “child”.

  266. Joules says:

    @Gary

    >What we call today girlfriend, long term relationship or cohabiting is basically the same thing as what the Hebrews called a concubine. Todays those are considered sinful, but not in the Old Testament, they just called her a concubine and considered her to have lower status.

    A concubine is just a low status wife, she may or may not be a slave but she’s essentially just a wife given less consideration. Abrahams wife keturah is called both wife and concubine.

    Gen 25:1-2
    1Then again Abraham took a wife, and her name was Keturah
    2And she bare him Zimran, and Jokshan, and Medan, and Midian, and Ishbak, and Shuah

    And then the same woman called a concubine:

    1 Chronicles 1:32
    32Now the sons of Keturah, Abraham’s concubine: she bare Zimran, and Jokshan, and Medan, and Midian, and Ishbak, and Shuah. And the sons of Jokshan; Sheba, and Dedan.

    Slave and servant wives were concubines and possessed less status than those called wife but possessed the same responsibility that they be taken care of financially. You don’t handle your girlfriends expenses or feed and clothe her, modern gfs are more like floating rate prostitutes than they are like concubines.

  267. SJB says:

    @SirHamster: But out of curiousity: Are multiple children one flesh, or multiple fleshes?

    Roughly speaking, a male body and a female body undergo gametogenesis producing a male gamete and a female gamete. The gametes may join shortly after the male and female engage in coitus. The joined gametes become a zygote which grows into an embryo which then grows into a fetus which is then born as a human. A zygote has no option to revert to what were the gametes–it’s life or death thenceforth.

    In short, a unique male and a unique female produce a unique child. The child is not quite the same as the father but may be in the spirit of the father (i.e. heritable traits); the child is not quite the same as the mother but may be in the spirit of the mother. Two have become one.

    Your question is a non-sequitur; you may as well pose yourself “am I one flesh or many fleshes?”

  268. Hmm says:

    @Joules: “If lesbian sex and prostitution are not violations of gods law and there is such a thing as moral prostitution, will we see the rise of evangelizing whore houses?”

    The Children of God cult tried that back in the seventies:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flirty_Fishing

    I know personally, because when I was in the Navy in the Seattle area in 1975, one tried her wiles on me.

  269. mickeyboy says:

    Don’t know if anybody has brought up this info before, but has anyone
    noticed how the application of the marriage ceremony is the inverse/reverse of the Biblical model?
    We see the model shown when The Bible refers to the rapture.
    Try telling a Church woman to do it the Biblical way. We see

    BIBLICAL: Bride waits for Groom at home, who then takes her to the venue
    MODERN: Groom waits for Bride at Venue

    BIBLICAL: Groom arrives at home & takes away Bride to take her to venue
    MODERN: Wife arrives at venue THEN Groom takes her

  270. MKT says:

    “The Children of God cult tried that back in the seventies:”

    AT sounds like a hodgepodge of every weird, heretical sex cult in church history, starting with the church at Corinth.

  271. Damn Crackers says:

    @Joules – “You don’t handle your girlfriends expenses or feed and clothe her, modern gfs are more like floating rate prostitutes than they are like concubines.”

    Not sure about that, it sounds like the Sugar Daddy/Baby arraignment would model the Biblical concubine.

    @Don Quixote – If sex before marriage is fornication, then can’t anyone divorce their wife who didn’t marry a virgin according to Matt. 19:9?

    All adultery is fornication, but not all fornication is adultery.

  272. Paniym says:

    I’m just going to raise the same argument I’ve raised in the past. We can’t even have a conversation about marriage as marriage outlined in the OT and NT doesn’t even exist in our culture today. So why even talk about today’s marriages, sex and scripture. With the state destroying marriage it’s time to make two definitions of marriage. State sanctioned marriage and Christ sanctioned marriage.

    If the Church can create their own (non state) marriages then apply scriptures all you want regarding sex, etc. But you can apply scripture to what we have today. It is not Godly, it is not Holy and it is not marriage. Only God can define what he meant by marriage and what we have today isn’t what God ordained. So when the church figures out a way to have marriages without the State polluting it with it’s policies then lets start a conversation. Otherwise all conversation is meaningless.

  273. Damn Crackers says:

    @Joules: “If lesbian sex and prostitution are not violations of gods law and there is such a thing as moral prostitution, will we see the rise of evangelizing whore houses?”

    Yes, there were certain Gnostic/Christian sects that tried just that – common love/marriage and all that. This is the source of what St. Paul was getting at in 1 Corinthians. Temple prostitutes were used to bring in followers and money to the cult. Christians were not to do this, according to him.

    But, St. Paul was just warning his followers at Corinth about how prostitutes lead one astray from the true religion (look up the Sin of Balaam and the women of Moab).

  274. MKT says:

    “Not sure about that, it sounds like the Sugar Daddy/Baby arraignment would model the Biblical concubine.”

    Not really. It was a lifetime commitment to take care of them, not just when they’re young and hot.

  275. Paniym says:

    Dalrock,
    Maybe you could create a post regarding the Church creating their own non state marriages.

  276. Damn Crackers says:

    @Paniyam – Here, here. But the question arises again, what do we do? How many people can take their virgin bride and head for the hills to turn their back on the world? Maybe we should all just go full Amish.

  277. ys says:

    Minesweeper,
    You are wrong, and don’t know what you are talking about. The word woman used by Jesus in Matthew 5:28 (Gune, best attempt), can be used when talking about women, whether they are married or unmarried.
    Mycroft Jones,
    There was nothing special about the Greek used in the New Testament. It was Koine Greek, a language commonly spoken throughout the Roman world at that time.
    Of course, everyone uses the name drop of Mark Driscoll to try to disqualify. Might as well try to call me a racist. He is right, though. Dalrock went over it some time back with the whole Wayne Grudem deal, and Greek word studies on Kephlae. Feminists said the Greek could also mean, source. They are wrong, but the scurried to the Greek in the first place BECAUSE they hated what the Word of God told them, clearly, in English.
    You all are the same as those feminists. Thinking Matthew 5:28 means wife, only. Therefore, wank to single women. Or, thinking it means something special, like coveting to take as a wife, thus, as long as you just wank, and don’t really wish to marry her, you’re fine.

  278. Damn Crackers says:

    @MKT – I don’t know about concubines being a lifetime contract.

    According to the Babylonian Talmud (Sanh. 21a), the difference between a pilegesh and a full wife was that the latter received a marriage contract (Hebrew:ketubah) and her marriage (nissu’in) was preceded by a formal betrothal (“kiddushin”), which was not the case with the former. According to R. Judah, however, the pilegesh should also receive a marriage contract, but without including a clause specifying a divorce settlement.

    Granted, this is merely Wikipedia scholarship.

  279. ys says:

    Paniym-
    Marriage today may not be what God intends, but that assumes that there was a time before when it was perfect. If there was ever a flaw in marriage, such as it was, then we could claim lack of perfection. We have commands from God to follow, and we ought to do so. Saying conditions aren’t currently ideal amounts to excuse-making.

  280. feministhater says:

    Saying conditions aren’t currently ideal amounts to excuse-making.

    Understanding when a deal is bad and better to not enter into is not excuse making. You can stick your head in the wood chipper, go ahead.

  281. feministhater says:

    You all are the same as those feminists. Thinking Matthew 5:28 means wife, only. Therefore, wank to single women. Or, thinking it means something special, like coveting to take as a wife, thus, as long as you just wank, and don’t really wish to marry her, you’re fine.

    Why don’t you guys just come out and say it. Every Christian man must never wank, never think about women in a sexual way and wait to get into a bad deal when he is older and more established. Say it and then go.

  282. MKT says:

    “I don’t know about concubines being a lifetime contract.”

    Lets’s stick with the Bible instead of other ancient Near Eastern sources filtered through Wikipedia. If the Bible gave no time limits (“ye shall take care of her untl she appeareth no longer hot…”), then men were to take care of them indefinitely.

    I’d also refrain from comparing anything from current times (like sugar daddies) to Biblical times. AT does this and it’s one reason his blog starts with something that looks a couple of Penthouse models in a hot tub (thought the pic is safe for work). He wants to live like a 21st century rapper and tries to find proof texts to support this. Among other logical fallacies, he’s begging the question.
    https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/53/Begging_the_Question

    That’s why I won’t even get into a spitting contest with him about individual verses. He loses the debate prima facie.

  283. MKT says:

    “Why don’t you guys just come out and say it. Every Christian man must never wank, never think about women in a sexual way and wait to get into a bad deal when he is older and more established. Say it and then go.”

    Someone loves his porn/fapping habit, that’s for sure. Being enslaved to sin is a beast, as I can say from personal experience.

  284. Minesweeper says:

    @ys, “You are wrong, and don’t know what you are talking about. The word woman used by Jesus in Matthew 5:28 (Gune, best attempt), can be used when talking about women, whether they are married or unmarried.”
    ” They are wrong, but the scurried to the Greek in the first place BECAUSE they hated what the Word of God told them, clearly, in English.
    You all are the same as those feminists. Thinking Matthew 5:28 means wife, only. ”

    actually its the feminists (male+female) in the church who LOVE the fact this verse condemns almost all men at all times unless you are wearing a blindfold and even the evil men have “thoughts” without looking. so i guess your the feminist here, the Word of God was never spoken nor written in English.

    a translation is just that, if your going to choose a hill to die on you had better ensure the group you are trusting to translate for you got it right.

    Look at Mat5:31, same word used for women\wife, spoken within seconds of Jesus saying 5:28. Now this can only mean wife in v31 as its talking about divorce.

    and again I will ask you to explain to me why this ONLY refers to looking at WOMEN ?

    but ys you have clearly made your choice in this matter, you want to continue to believe a wrongful understanding that is used to destroy families and promote unlawful divorces in the eyes of God.

  285. squid_hunt says:

    Feministhater,

    Throughout the Bible, there is a trend of men screwing up sexually. And God makes very little deal out of it. Look at the situation with Judah and his daughter in law. I think in a lot of cases, the punishment is built in to the sin in those cases. I don’t believe God is going around with a rubber mallet whack-a-moling everyone every time they watch porn and get off. But it does have an effect. It is causing problems in those individuals’ lives and well being.

    Just like Judah, just like David, God can take our mistakes and keep on building and make something good out of it. That doesn’t belie the original sin. The standard is still the standard.

    I’m not going to sit here and pretend like I fit the standard currently or ever have since about 12 at least. But the standard is 1. not to engage in impure thoughts and 2. not to engage in lascivious or licentious behavior. Masturbation and pornography fail on both counts. Covetousness is to desire anything that is not rightly yours. Pornogrpahy is engaging in covetousness. As is lusting after someone else’s wife, maid, or concubine.

    Saying “You people don’t want…” may be an accurate statement. I do believe the cards are stacked against men in churches. I think a bunch of very petty, arrogant, windbags are running our churches these days and they love to have their ears itched by bitter, rebellious women. But while their ways and means are completely jacked up, they are also right in what they’re saying, even if their conclusions are ridiculous and unfair. Your problem is not with other people. Your problem is with God, which is to say, your problem is with you and your sin.

    The Bible says if we confess our sins, God is faithful and just to forgive us AND to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. That’s something you’re going to have to go to God with. And it’s a two-fold sin, your thoughts and your actions. He can and will cleanse you of those sins if you give him the chance. You won’t move on with him until you do.

  286. Damn Crackers says:

    @MKT – How can we have a debate about what the Bible means when we cannot use the historical context about those words when they were written? The Hebrews definitely saw a concubine different than a wife. We also have to look at the historical context about fornication as well.

  287. feministhater says:

    Marriage today may not be what God intends, but that assumes that there was a time before when it was perfect.

    Sure, it’s never been perfect but there were protections provided and headship was assumed. It happened when he was young enough not to have to go through 15 years of abstinence. There is a difference that you refuse to take into consideration. Once taken into account, getting married becomes a fool’s business. You’re going to get married to a person who can call the police anytime and get you arrested. Can make false claims of abuse and/or rape and turn your life to shit, can divorce you at the drop of a hat, take your life’s earnings, your children and lead you to suicide. There is no help for you, your church will disown you, your friends will disown you, society will turn its back on. By getting married, your solution, men end up in hell anyway. You get that, right. They end up in hell anyway.

    The difference, ys, is that women have been turned and used as a weapon against men, you cannot marry your enemy. The solution cannot be to just suck it up and get married for that does nothing to solve sexual frustration within men, it’s not a logical argument. Man can no longer fulfill his need for sex by getting married. Restating that he can is not true. Most men will simply not be able to follow this anymore.

    I’ll say it again, just lay it all out. What you are saying is that men are to serve at the behest of women for they are not allowed to seek alternatives elsewhere. They are not to wank, not to think about women sexually, all they can do is go about their lives in pure agony. Since women have all the power in the relationship, men must either quiescence and submit to their wives or become loners, loved by no one. I told you before, tell men the truth, stop telling to make a bad decision that will crush them. Give them the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Lay it all out there.

    It’s get married and get a little sex but place yourself in precarious situation that can lead to your demise or learn to live with no sexual contact, no marriage and overcome over many years of a hellish existence but eventually break free once your big head overpowers your little head. Say it. Tell men to leave marriage behind or become the tradcon fuckwit you’ve always wanted to be.

  288. Boxer says:

    BillyS sez:

    People in houses made completely of glass should not through stones for the most part.

    Or better yet, “Pot meet kettle….”

    I don’t think so. The fact that you don’t happen to agree with him doesn’t make him an idiot. He argues well and always debates the real issues. His opponents personalize and sexualize their arguments, because they’re stupid and/or lazy, and he calls them out for it. That’s acceptable in my playbook (though admittedly it’s a waste of time).

    Regards,

    Boxer

  289. Dalrock says:

    @Paniym

    Dalrock,
    Maybe you could create a post regarding the Church creating their own non state marriages.

    There are two problems with this:

    1) The problem isn’t so much divorce laws (assets/alimony) as child support. Child support is the family model we have adopted to replace marriage, and this new model is always operative at one level or another, for every family. Even state recognized marriages are always convertible to the child support model at a whim. Not legally marrying doesn’t take you out of this model, it merely avoids the legal facade.

    2) The church loves the new model, as they see it as a vast improvement. The problem isn’t that modern Christians are uncomfortable with headship/submission. They want an incredibly muscular version of headship and submission, they just want the sex roles reversed. Threats of divorce are their primary tool to encourage this reversed model, and for threats of divorce to be credible there needs to be a steady stream of husbands crushed to serve as examples to keep the others in line. If you had a church that didn’t love the new model, or loved it less than they loved Scripture, they could exert an immense amount of social/moral pressure that would cut divorce rates at least in half.

  290. feministhater says:

    Your problem is not with other people. Your problem is with God, which is to say, your problem is with you and your sin.

    I’ve had so many attacks from you pious lot today. Yet I haven’t condoned porn, I haven’t condoned extra-marital affairs, I haven’t condoned any of these sins. I’ve only ever stated that you have given men no means to get the solution God has given them.

    You can keep telling them that marriage is the answer but clearly, by looking at the stats, the well being of divorced men, suicide rates of divorced men and the lack of society support or even church support leads me to believe you are all full of shit.

    Marriage is dead, our own church failed to protect. It doesn’t exist guys, it’s not there. Perhaps in another 100 years but for now, men need to learn and be told the truth, it does not exist.

  291. Boxer says:

    Dear MKT:

    Someone loves his porn/fapping habit, that’s for sure. Being enslaved to sin is a beast, as I can say from personal experience.

    The punchline: Some of the same guys who insist that masturbation is cool were having a fit, just a few weeks ago, when we were discussing oral and anal sex. There is room for debate about these things.

    One of the old Jesuits who taught me as an undergrad would probably tell all y’all that masturbation falls into the same category of degenerate sex as schtupping your wife in the mouth or anus.

    In the Christian interpretation of sex that I was taught, there were three parts:

    1. Recreation
    2. Procreation
    3. Affection

    If you’re privileging one or two of these facets at the expense of another, then you’re doing it wrong.

    Banging your hand, banging your wife in the mouth, banging your wife in the butt, banging another dude (or, if a chick, another chick), using chemical or barrier birth control, etc. is all frowned upon. Christians believe there is a proper way to have sex (just as they believe there are proper ways to eat a meal) and they have standards.

    I have read the new testament, and I agree with Christian bros that none of these things are explicitly forbidden; but, in a general sense, when you make a holy act into an act of mindless self-indulgence, you’re probably not living the discipline. That goes for lots of stuff.

    Best,

    Boxer

  292. ys says:

    Minesweeper-
    And you want to continue believe an interpretation of the verse that allows you to wank to your heart’s content, as long as it’s not someone else’s wife.
    Someone misusing the truth for evil doesn’t make it false.

  293. Paniym says:

    Thanks FeministHater for sticking up for my premise as I don’t think YS has personally seen the effects of the corruption of marriage today.

    Just recently divorced after a 40 year marriage I don’t think that anyone can accuse me of not “sucking it up”. FeministHater, your points above are spot on.

  294. squid_hunt says:

    Feministhater,

    It’s hard to make the statement, “I’m not going to sit here and pretend like I fit the standard currently or ever have since about 12 at least.” and be counted in the ranks of the “pious lot” the way you intend it. I’m in the ship with you, also bailing water.

    Marriage is not dead until God disannuls it. He set it up. He set the rules. Regardless of what we, the church, the world, or women do with it, it is his ordinance that establishes it.

    That is hard in the current environment, but it doesn’t change the requirements. I don’t think doing everything the Bible says to do in marriage gives you a perfect marriage. There’s another person in it and how many different personal and social landmines just waiting to wreck it. You have to accept that first. God is right. End of story. Then work backwards from there.

  295. ys says:

    FH-
    You say you never support masterbation…but:
    “I’ll say it again, just lay it all out. What you are saying is that men are to serve at the behest of women for they are not allowed to seek alternatives elsewhere. They are not to wank, not to think about women sexually, all they can do is go about their lives in pure agony. ”
    Anyone with a clue would know what you are saying with that statement. Just say it. Don’t be dishonest about it.
    Now, to your other stuff, the truth is the truth, regardless. You say, “What are we supposed to tell men? They live in agony, and it’s hard.” Tell them the truth. Wanking is a sin. Hard truth? Yes. Truth? Yes.
    What you advocate is no different than pretending hell is not real to someone who just lost a non-Christian family member. “What are you supposed to tell them? That their parent/spouse/child is in hell? Until you Christians have something else to offer, you can save it.”
    The truth is the truth. Stop reframing what I am saying. I am not telling you that you must get married. Not at all. What I am saying is that, yes, marriage is the only legit sexual outlet, that is not sin. You can say marriage is compromised, and you won’t get married. Very well. But then accept celibacy, and no sexual release. That’s what the Bible teaches. So, ManUp! and don’t get married, but don’t justify sin.

  296. Boxer says:

    Dear MKT:

    AT sounds like a hodgepodge of every weird, heretical sex cult in church history, starting with the church at Corinth.

    He actually sounds exactly like my own (Mormon) cousins… except for the fact that he’s not a welfare parasite, he’s well educated, and he’s intelligent enough to have thought up some convoluted lines of reasoning why he believes his lifestyle coheres with the New Testament.

    My cousins have only one advantage on Toad: They don’t call themselves Christians. I think it’s important to be honest with oneself, and I think Toad would benefit by calling himself something else.

    In any event, I live in America, where the first amendment allows for people to be Nazis, Satanists, Feminists, or any number of other things I disagree with, provided they behave themselves. I have no problem with Toad. I just wish he would quit confusing people by labeling himself something that he’s not.

    Best,

    Boxer

  297. Paniym says:

    Dalrock,
    I know you are correct as it doesn’t matter what form of marriage you create.

    For one, the feminist infested church is so corrupt that what they create will as bad or worse than what the state has created.

    Two, No matter what form of marriage is created the state will still override it and corrupt it.

  298. Dalrock says:

    @Artisanal Toad

    To be clear, in Romans 4:15 and 5:13 he explained that sin is defined as a violation of the Law. The Apostle John also said as much, that sin is lawlessness. Thus, Paul, the Pharisee of Pharisees, trained in the Law AND speaking in the Spirit, stated that sexual sins are clearly listed in the Law. And we should also know that the Law itself contains an injunction on adding to the Law as well as subtracting from the Law.

    So, either the Apostle Paul is a liar, or someone else around here is teaching as doctrine the precepts of men.

    No. Both of those passages are explaining that sin is rebellion against God and His instructions. Eating the fruit of knowledge of good and evil was not part of the Law. But it was a transgression against the specific instructions God gave Adam. Romans 5:12-14:

    12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men[e] because all sinned— 13 for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. 14 Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.

    And Romans 15:13-15

    13 For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith. 14 For if it is the adherents of the law who are to be the heirs, faith is null and the promise is void. 15 For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression.

    16 That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his offspring—not only to the adherent of the law but also to the one who shares the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all,

    Ironically you are using these two passages to argue that you can disregard the instructions you are given in the NT (1 Cor 7), and only follow the Law. This is the exact opposite of what Paul was saying.

  299. ys says:

    Paniym-
    Actually, my parents got divorced when I was quite young. I hate divorce.

  300. feministhater says:

    There’s another person in it and how many different personal and social landmines just waiting to wreck it.

    Yep, step right up gents, into that minefield you go! That’s the tradcon way, we need more food for the grinder!

  301. Minesweeper says:

    @ys, “And you want to continue believe an interpretation of the verse that allows you to wank to your heart’s content”

    I dont consider consider that sinful, a bodily function is about as sinful as going to the toilet or breathing or exercising but there are certainly branches of Christianity that consider many things are sinful that arn’t. As Paul says, these rules give the appearance of wisdom but are in fact foolishness.

    You obviously consider the above sinful and once again you are clearly unable to answer the question I have given you twice. No point asking it again. Are there any questions you can answer ? Just for future reference.

    l will mark you down into the “divorce him for looking at porn” crowd.

  302. squid_hunt says:

    Feministhater,

    Doesn’t have anything to do with politics. You’re referring to yourself as a Christian. That puts you under the authority of scripture. If that is an accurate assessment, then you are obligated to obey scripture regardless of what the tradcons or neolibs or neocons or classicallibs or anarchocapitalists say.

    I’m not jumping on the man up bandwagon. You can’t get through this thing, though, unless you start with the first principles. God is always right.

  303. feministhater says:

    Anyone with a clue would know what you are saying with that statement. Just say it. Don’t be dishonest about it.

    I’ve already stated it long ago. I stated quite clearly that since you leave men with no option, they will sin, they will sin until they come to terms and are able to live the single life. Then they will be able to repent and seek redemption for their sins.

    I’m just telling you that the church is sending them off to sin for no one can provide them with no other alternative to years and years of celibacy before they might eventually get married and still get no sex.

    They’ve been led into temptation by the one institution that was meant to save them from it. Nice, eh?

  304. Dalrock says:

    To clarify, what Paul is saying is that sin is a rebellion against the will of God, and the will of God doesn’t change. Yet we are not held accountable for violating instructions that have yet to be revealed.

    13 for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. 14 Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam.

    This wasn’t saying that all we have to do is follow the Law. He is saying that Adam was held accountable for disobeying the instructions God had given him. That is the original sin. Once the Law was given, it would have been sin for the Israelites to say “we need only avoid eating the fruit of knowledge of good and evil, and we are good”. Yet you want to do the same, disregarding NT instruction and only following the Law. Again, this was the opposite of what Paul was explaining.

  305. feministhater says:

    I’m not jumping on the man up bandwagon. You can’t get through this thing, though, unless you start with the first principles. God is always right.

    You’re demanding men step into a minefield of horror to get scraps of food. However, even before he can step onto the minefield, in has to wait for decades with no food or water, starving. After he has learned to survive starving, he must then go out into the minefield, with no mine detector and hope for the kitchen scraps; or choose to go home hungry for the rest of his days until he dies.

  306. MKT says:

    “I dont consider consider that sinful, a bodily function is about as sinful as going to the toilet or breathing or exercising”

    You can consider what you want, but that’s not what the Bible says. “That each of you know how to possess his own vessel in sanctification and honor, not in lustful passion, like the Gentiles who do not know God” 1 Thessalonians 4:4-5

    That’s one of many verses like it. Paul’s epistles are full of them. Going to take a whiz and fapping are completely different things. That’s a false analogy if I ever heard one.

  307. ys says:

    To answer your other complaint, FH, you have said that men have to wait decades…implying late marriage. While this is generally true, there are exceptions. Family friend is 21, getting married in three months. Family wedding three years ago…22 year old groom. There are exceptions.
    Of course, the odds are, statistically, against that. But every pro football player made it to the NFL, despite the odds. Should they have told themselves, “The odds are against me, guess I won’t make it,” and then quit? You are in charge of your life. Be the exception. Beat the odds. Or, stay single, but don’t complain.
    Incidentally, the church doesn’t save men, God does.

  308. ys says:

    Minesweeper-
    Not trying to duck your question. I occasionally skim. I can only imagine what people do to my longer comments.
    This question: Why does the verse only refer to looking at women?
    If that’s the question, what is the point? You mean, why didn’t Christ refer to masterbation? Why He didn’t include looking at men, also, if one were homosexual? I could answer your question, but what are you driving at?
    The masterbation one, to guess that is your point, is easy. Merely looking with lust is sin. To physically act upon it (Which is what masterbation is ) is obviously also a sin, and moreso, if merely looking is one.

  309. Minesweeper says:

    @ys, “Wanking is a sin. Hard truth? Yes. Truth? Yes.” – LOL

    you have a scripture verse for that in your translations ? now remember if the bible is not shy talking about people copulating with animals – then it wont be shy about saying that exactly if its a problem.

    Good luck on your quest ! btw adding to the bible is sin. which you clearly are. enjoy putting extra burdens on people ? oh yeah there are verses on that too.

  310. MKT says:

    “To answer your other complaint, FH, you have said that men have to wait decades…implying late marriage. While this is generally true, there are exceptions. Family friend is 21, getting married in three months. Family wedding three years ago…22 year old groom. There are exceptions.”

    I have a friend whose son got married in college (around 21) and his 19-year old is close to getting engaged. It helps to be in a church and social circle where that’s accepted and even encouraged. I’d say that’s a better alternative than simply whining about the problem.

  311. earl says:

    St. Paul only gave two options…if you burn with passion then get married as to avoid sin (that even includes the bad deal with marriage today) or stay celibate for the kingdom of God. Being bitter about not having sex when you want it because of whatever bad hand has been dealt tells me that’s the more important god than a relationship with God.

  312. feministhater says:

    Oh sure ys, exceptions, exceptions, exceptions. Old. The amount of divorces, unhappy marriages, sexless marriages and just okay marriages vastly, vastly, over represent the majority of marriages that ever happen. The age of first marriage has been ticking up progressively for years.

    It’s like seeing the black and ominous clouds, with the loud roar of thunder and the blinding flashes of lightning, telling your to go back but there’s ‘ys’ telling you, “I knew a friend who survived a lightning strike once, go ahead, it’ll be fine!”.

  313. ys says:

    Minesweeper-
    And for real, you don’t consider fapping a sin, b/c it’s a bodily function? What caused that bodily function? Rape, adultery, etc. must also be okay, b/c they are bodily functions?
    Sure, if you are going to break it down to the very basic level, having an emission is not sin. What caused it, might be.

  314. necroking48 says:

    @ys

    “Thinking matthew 5:28 means wife, only. Therefore, wank to single women. Or, thinking it means something special, like coveting to take as a wife, thus, as long as you just wank, and don’t really wish to marry her, you’re fine”…….end quote

    You truly are pathetic, and I might add, grasping at straws as well.
    The reason we KNOW IMPLICITLY that Jesus is talking about a wife as opposed to a single woman is because the very issue being discussed here in Matthew 5:28 is ADULTERY. ….in fact Jesus even told you explicitly that he’s talking about adultery because he says “….by them of old time, thou shalt not commit adultery” ….where in the flippen blue blazes is adultery even mentioned by them of old time (referencing the OT), except the LAW

    It is Jesus himself who established the foundation and context of Matthew 5 so this is why we know that the “woman” referred to are MARRIED WOMEN because adultery can only occur in God’s eyes by having sex with a WIFE who belongs to an husband
    That is GOD’S definition of adultery not mine, so when you reject what God says you show me you’re nothing but a filthy apostate bible corrector who is desperate to change what God says in order to uphold your disgusting shaming tactics to belittle men who “wank over porn ”

    You can’t uphold your spurious anti sex garbage IF Jesus is not talking about adultery in Matthew 5, so what YOU and others have done in this comment section is to deliberately change what Christ said in the text and PRETEND he wasn’t talking about adultery
    This sinful commission on your part to alter God’s words makes you not only a self righteous pharisee, but a true feminist in my eyes…..as no one hates men more for their God given sexual urges than feminists do

  315. earl says:

    Good luck on your quest ! btw adding to the bible is sin. which you clearly are. enjoy putting extra burdens on people ? oh yeah there are verses on that too.

    I’m still waiting on the specific verse in Scripture that says ‘by Bible/Scripture alone’.

  316. ys says:

    MKT-
    Exactly. I have similar thoughts when I see some say that there are no (as in, zero) virginal, young women who are following Christ. It’s not common anymore, of course, but I know some. It’s the circles you run in. When men say they know zero, it reveals much to me about their social circle, which matters, because we tend to group ourselves around our spiritual equals.

  317. feministhater says:

    St. Paul only gave two options…if you burn with passion then get married as to avoid sin (that even includes the bad deal with marriage today) or stay celibate for the kingdom of God. Being bitter about not having sex when you want it because of whatever bad hand has been dealt tells me that’s the more important god than a relationship with God.

    Yes, everyone knows this. However, why is Paul telling them to get married if they burn with passion?

  318. Chris says:

    A reply to an article refuting the traditional(mis)interpretation of Matthew 5 sums it up well:

    Jesus was, in this passage, describing the futility of trying to live a perfect life according to the law, and thus the universal need for forgiveness and grace. Love your enemies, don’t call people fools, divorce is bad, etc.. No one but no one has ever lived perfectly according to the law — WHICH WAS THE POINT!

    So, He said to a bunch of guys that the law says don’t commit adultery, but that if you really want to be perfectly pure, then you can’t even look lustfully. Unsaid, but understood by any guy, was “and you know you do that pretty much constantly, don’t you? In fact, Mark, would you please stop looking at Martha’s chest long enough for me to finish my point?”

    This was an illustration of a point, not the creation of a new law. It’s weird how people don’t get that Jesus didn’t rebuke the Pharisees for legalism just to come in and make stricter, more-impossible laws.

  319. feministhater says:

    Another way to ask the question. If one burns with passion and does not get married, what happens?

  320. ys says:

    FH-
    Two answers to your two questions.
    1) Paul tells them to get married because marriage is the only non-sinful way for Christians to achieve sexual satisfaction. Given that he was also saying in 1 Cor. 7 that single people can do more for the kingdom, if there was ever a time, that is when he would have said, “never mind, don’t get married. Do more for the kingdom while single, and just have a couple of wanks a week if you burn.”
    2) If one burns and does not get married, you are in for a difficult path. One full of temptation to sin. Paul urged spouses to satisfy each other, sexually, so there was no temptation to sin for those spouses. If you burn, and have no spouse for the lawful satisfaction of that burning, you are in temptation to sin in a very big way.

  321. Gunner Q says:

    MKT @ August 10, 2017 at 7:39 pm:
    “AT’s starting point seems to be “I wanna live like Hugh Hefner and Muhammad rolled up into one. How can I take some proof texts and build a theology around that”?”

    I don’t know who he’s trying to fool either. God isn’t going to say “I didn’t want you to whore across town like you did but you exploited loopholes in my words so well that I’m not allowed to find fault with you. Well done, faithful servant! Had you been any less clever, I’d have damned you to Hell.”

    feministhater @ 9:08 am:
    “I’ll say it again, just lay it all out. What you are saying is that men are to serve at the behest of women for they are not allowed to seek alternatives elsewhere. “They are not to wank, not to think about women sexually, all they can do is go about their lives in pure agony”

    Yes, unfortunately. God demands sex only inside marriage and society demands sex only outside marriage. That leaves us nowhere to go. I went through this myself, not impressively, and it was pure Hell.

    The day is coming when God will give us justice. Until then, God openly promised we would suffer in His service. The Baby Boomers & Churchians don’t get to tell us to suck it up but God does, and He wrote Ephesians 5:3. Not even a hint of sexual immorality.

  322. Zippy says:

    feministhater:

    Another way to ask the question. If one burns with passion and does not get married, what happens?

    The same choice that every Christian ultimately faces: take up your cross and follow Him, or the Lake of Fire.

  323. feministhater says:

    There we go. Nicely done. Since the church and society have made marriage such a bad deal for men and have delayed the marriage age so far into the future…. what they have in effect done is increase the magnitude of temptation for the average Christian Joe into the stratosphere and then everyone wonders and demands why they are sinning and looking at porn?

    You still don’t get it though, do you? They’ve created the very problem they complain about. It’s not the men, stupid, it’s the institution.

    The reason Paul stated that you must get married if you burn with passion is because if you do not, you will sin. That’s all there is to it. So… we now have a situation where the choice to get married if you burn with passion is removed and so now the statement has to read that “men who burn with passion will sin until they stop burning with passion” which what I was trying to say all along.

  324. Zippy says:

    Pretty much every human being “burns with passion” in a generic sense. The sex drive is as natural and universal as hunger. One difference is that you have to eat to live, wheras you won’t die if you are deprived of sexual release. Another is that every morally-acting person will go through long periods of sexual deprivation in their lifetimes for one reason or another: no spouse, sick spouse, etc.

    One reasonable interpretation of Paul is that if a couple burns with passion for each other specifically, they should marry: to interpret his words as specific not generic. Interpreting him as saying “if you are horny you should marry” is to construe him as saying that you should act irrationally, because simultaneously being horny and lacking a rational path to marriage is, and has always been, as commonplace as sand on a beach.

  325. Ron Tomlinson says:

    @Chris

    Yes. I’m no biblical scholar but my impression is that he didn’t teach by laying down new and improved laws, or by elaborating on old laws, but by parables. If you catch the meaning, the work of the parable is done. The laws he did emphasise (Luke 10:27) relate to one’s inner condition and it’s hard to interpret them legalistically or straightforwardly at a behavioural level.

  326. MKT says:

    “Gunner Q:
    August 11, 2017 at 10:24 am
    I don’t know who he’s trying to fool either. God isn’t going to say “I didn’t want you to whore across town like you did but you exploited loopholes in my words so well that I’m not allowed to find fault with you. Well done, faithful servant! Had you been any less clever, I’d have damned you to Hell.”

    I almost spit out my water reading that. Good one.

  327. NCMike says:

    Matthew 13:55-56New King James Version (NKJV)

    55 Is this not the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary? And His brothers James, Joses,[a] Simon, and Judas? 56 And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this Man get all these things?”

    If Mary and Joseph never had sex where did these brothers and sisters of Jesus come from?

  328. Minesweeper says:

    @ys says: ”
    Minesweeper-
    And for real, you don’t consider fapping a sin, b/c it’s a bodily function? What caused that bodily function?”

    no i dont, neither does the bible, neither does God, but you and your ilk obviously do, so I will let you carry that burden alone. Paul had to constantly wrestle with idiots making up new rules all the time, heck some even insisted that Christians had to get circumcised to be righteous. You done that yet ?

    ive met this kind of idiocy before and there is no end to the rules they want to add to the bible. no alcohol, no coffee, no movies, no books, no non Christian music, no exercise (how could this worship God) etc… and do you know all it does ? 1:produces the most fucked up Christians,2:totally distracts them from the real mission. As the rules are so important and more important than people or God.

  329. SJB says:

    @Zippy: I would add: we do not know the question or statement, in full, St. Paul was addressing. It seems, to me, quite the jump to respond to the good of not having sex with a woman to talking about marriage and passion; mining the response without recourse to the context is probably not the better path.

  330. MKT says:

    Zippy says:
    August 11, 2017 at 10:26 am
    “Another way to ask the question. If one burns with passion and does not get married, what happens?

    The same choice that every Christian ultimately faces: take up your cross and follow Him, or the Lake of Fire.”

    Nice to see that we conservative Protestants and Catholics can agree here. I’m a pretty High-Church Protestant, with deep respect for things that the church has agreed on for the last 2,000+ years. These “Me and My Bible Alone” types are coming to conclusions that Catholics, Orthodox and the Reformers would all dismiss in a heartbeat. It reminds me a bit of the Münster Rebellion, which Protestants and Catholics together squashed:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnster_Rebellion

    “The 25-year old John of Leiden was subsequently recognized as Matthys’ religious and political successor, justifying his authority and actions by the receipt of visions from heaven….adopting royal regalia, honors and absolute power in the new “Zion”….he legalized polygamy and himself took sixteen wives. (John is said to have beheaded one woman in the marketplace for refusing to marry him; this act might have been falsely attributed to him after his death.)”

  331. MKT says:

    “Minesweeper says:
    August 11, 2017 at 10:45 am
    “no i dont, neither does the bible, neither does God, but you and your ilk obviously do, so I will let you carry that burden alone. Paul had to constantly wrestle with idiots…”

    Yes, idiots like you. That’s why he told believers in the churches to “honor their vessels” and had numerous admonishments in his epistles about sexual purity. If you can’t piece together the Bible’s entire teaching on lust, sex and purity and come to the right conclusions, you’re the one with the issues. It’s obvious you are others are more interested in justifying your habits (“slavery” in Paul’s terms), so you read at a 3rd grade level and say “if he didn’t say this particular word, I can do it!!”

  332. feministhater says:

    The same choice that every Christian ultimately faces: take up your cross and follow Him, or the Lake of Fire.

    Cool, I’m okay with that. Going to use that a lot from now on, on everyone. No more complaints. Every question or problem can now be utterly silenced by this alone. Just pick up your cross and follow him. Anything else, burn!

  333. ys says:

    FH-
    First, you are wrong. There are still legitamate marriage options. But that aside…
    “men who burn with passion will sin until they stop burning with passion”
    You don’t have to sin. You can burn, and not sin. Difficult, yes, impossible, no.

  334. ys says:

    GunnerQ-
    I, too, LOL’d. Thank you.

    “I didn’t want you to whore across town like you did but you exploited loopholes in my words so well that I’m not allowed to find fault with you. Well done, faithful servant! Had you been any less clever, I’d have damned you to Hell.”

  335. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Jeff Strand: If Catholics have to live with the sinful lifestyles of the Borgia popes (though none taught heresy), then Prots have to live with the crazy doctrines of Martin Luther.

    Because Protestants believe in sola scriptura, I don’t think many of them feel bound to Luther, or to any particular Protestant teacher, should they decide that a teacher went off-scripture.

    Many Protestants call themselves “non-denominational,” which means they’re free of past teachers, free to interpret scripture anew.

    I’ve met many Evangelical Christians who deny that they are Protestant. They say that’s a Catholic term and an insult. They say they are simply Christians. If pressed, many will say that they are non-denominational Christians.

    OTOH, mainline Protestants seem content to call themselves Protestants. But of those, I think only Lutherans feel tied to Luther’s teachings.

  336. earl says:

    Cool, I’m okay with that. Going to use that a lot from now on, on everyone. No more complaints. Every question or problem can now be utterly silenced by this alone. Just pick up your cross and follow him. Anything else, burn!

    Well it was good enough for Jesus to say and he is the Word made flesh. Perhaps there is something to it.

  337. ys says:

    Minesweeper-
    “ive met this kind of idiocy before and there is no end to the rules they want to add to the bible. no alcohol, no coffee, no movies, no books, no non Christian music, no exercise (how could this worship God) etc… and do you know all it does ? 1:produces the most fucked up Christians,2:totally distracts them from the real mission. As the rules are so important and more important than people or God.”

    I don’t believe any of that stuff. No matter. Lusting is a sin, and has always been seen as so by the church. For instance, Paul actually told Timothy to drink wine. He would not have done so if it was a sin. He also told the church in Corinth to marry, rather than burn. If he would have told them to wank on, you would have an argument.

  338. feministhater says:

    First, you are wrong. There are still legitamate marriage options. But that aside…

    Where? List them so that men can find them. I could tell you that a unicorn exists. Just because you can’t find it, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

    You don’t have to sin. You can burn, and not sin. Difficult, yes, impossible, no.

    Only the self-righteous think that.

  339. Pingback: Friday links and resident hawtness. – Adam Piggott

  340. Minesweeper says:

    @MKT, “Yes, idiots like you”

    your are obviously a very immature Christian in the Lord who only understands rules given to him by men. If you want to construct a false belief system – well thats your right, but you wont get any rewards for that. It is in fact foolishness and leads to sin, like you calling me an idiot above.

  341. squid_hunt says:

    Feministhater,

    I’m demanding nothing, as my first comment stated. I’m just letting you know the standard, sir, according to scripture. You will have to determine what you do with it.

  342. feministhater says:

    When you give a person two options and only two options, which you have done. Then you are demanding they do either one or the other. Word play.

  343. earl says:

    That’s why he told believers in the churches to “honor their vessels” and had numerous admonishments in his epistles about sexual purity.

    St. Paul says to flee sexual immorality and Timothy says to flee youthful lusts.

    https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+6%3A18%2C2+Timothy+2%3A22&version=NASB

    And it flat out says in Thessalonians the will of God is to stay away from sexual sin.

    http://biblehub.com/1_thessalonians/4-3.htm

    So it’s either do the will of God or try to rationalize wanking, porn, or whatever sexual sin you want because it doesn’t say it specifically in Scripture.

  344. feministhater says:

    He also told the church in Corinth to marry, rather than burn. If he would have told them to wank on, you would have an argument.

    Well you see, Zippy just changed that. According to Zippy, the reasonable interpretation of this is that he was only speaking to two people who were burning with passion for each other. The rest? It doesn’t matter, they burn with passion until it wanes.

  345. feministhater says:

    In the end, I’m waiting for you all to come to the same conclusions I’ve already come to. For the vast majority of Christians, you need to be honest and open with them and tell them they will need to learn to live life as an a-sexual person.

  346. Keith says:

    I’m bust hell wide open. I will not fall into the marriage trap again. Marriage to a western woman is slavery death and the grave

  347. feministhater says:

    That should read ‘of two people’ in other words, couples who are burning with passion with each other’ not literally only two people.

  348. squid_hunt says:

    “When you give a person two options and only two options, which you have done. Then you are demanding they do either one or the other. Word play.”

    Except I’m not the one that set the options. God is. Take it up with him and quit blaming everyone else for telling you the truth of God’s word. If the hardest thing you suffer as a Christian is a lack of wife and the need to deal with your lust, you’re doing pretty good.

    Christ went 40 days without eating knowing full well he just had to speak food into existence. The angels on standby to feed him. How’s that for temptation? He did all things well, though, and he is the standard. Don’t be surprised that you fall short. Just admit it and get the mercy he’s holding for you.

  349. ys says:

    FH-
    Unicorns. Again, I am married to a woman who loves God and tries to honor Him. I know at least 7 wives of friends who are the same. I know several (4-5) single women who are the same. They are out there. And even if they weren’t, that doesn’t excuse sin.
    The self-righteous are not the only ones who think it is possible to not sin. I did not have sex before marriage. Difficult? Very. But I did it. You should save your self-righteous line, though. The feminist Christian women who slut it up before marriage would probably love to use it as their own justification.

  350. Zippy says:

    feministhater:

    In the end, I’m waiting for you all to come to the same conclusions I’ve already come to. For the vast majority of Christians, you need to be honest and open with them and tell them they will need to learn to live life as an a-sexual person.

    If by a-sexual you mean practicing sexual chastity (morally correct behavior with respect to sexuality) whatever one’s state in life, then yes. Everyone is called to chastity, and everyone can and will face times in life when sexual abstinence for extended periods is morally mandatory.

    Here is a very short post of mine from several years ago:

    https://zippycatholic.wordpress.com/2013/01/15/abstinence-makes-the-heart-grow-stronger/

    Rather than waiting for others to reach the conclusion that chastity is always the moral standard, you seem to be scrabbling toward that conclusion yourself.

    Welcome aboard!

    None of this excuses the modern feminist life plan for women, or anything about the sexual cesspit of modernity.

    But you’ll eventually find that living your life in such a way that you are always craving the favor of women is not really a good way to live. Not for anyone, especially married men.

  351. MKT says:

    Minesweeper says:
    @MKT, “Yes, idiots like you”

    You’re the one who first used the word “idiot” then “idiocy” when making a terrible false analogy between wanking and true legalism (no alcohol, no movies, etc.) I don’t believe in abstaining from anything on your list, but wanking/porn has a huge amount of Biblical data against it. Again, read the whole of Scripture instead of looking for what it doesn’t specifically say. I’ve quoted some verses here and so have others. Outside of marriage, Paul *always* comes down on the side of turning away from sexual thoughts and actions. He says it over and over again. No one in their right mind comes away thinking “Gee, I guess Paul wants me to fap!!”

    You, my friend, are the immature one, who’s simply looking for a way to rationalize his sin.

  352. Dota says:

    @Dalrock

    I haven’t seen that article, but my wife showed me the Daily Mail article on the same thing. The comments at the Daily Mail are brutal.

    The commenters on MSN used to be quite merciless as well, and I suspect that MSN disabled comments for this reason. I expect the other portals to follow suit in time.

  353. earl says:

    Christ went 40 days without eating knowing full well he just had to speak food into existence.

    Christ also went from 12-33 without a wife which many of us long suffering Christians seem to have to do. If he was also true man that should lead us to believe he had the same sexual desire any other man had…but also had self-control about it. He was the one who told us about the adultery thing so obviously he knew about it but didn’t sin. Again he is the standard but he also knew all our struggles.

  354. feministhater says:

    squid hunt, ain’t interested in finding myself a wife, buddy, it’s never been my complaint. Nor has lust been my complaint. If you actually read my points, it’s not about me personally, I’m finished, done. Not going to do any of that marriage stuff. It’s about the countless other young men who were in the position I was in years ago, stuck wondering, with no hope, no solutions and no help. I’m just here to get you and all the other pious gents here to lay it out in its full glory. To show these young men that they don’t have a hope of having marriage as it was Biblically designed by God and that they need to turn their life to celibacy.

    That is all. Have a nice day.

  355. squid_hunt says:

    “Christ also went from 12-33 without a wife which many of us long suffering Christians seem to have to do.”

    He really is touched with the feeling of our infirmities. That’s why we know we can take these problems to him and he can comfort us. That’s just amazing.

  356. Novaseeker says:

    For the vast majority of Christians, you need to be honest and open with them and tell them they will need to learn to live life as an a-sexual person.

    Well the vast majority of Christians do marry, still. It isn’t the case that the vast majority do not marry. Now, they may be in dead bedroom marriages, which is of course a problem, but the solution to the sin of the wife denying sex (a clear sin per St Paul) isn’t for the husband to engage in his own sexual sins. Does this create suffering due to unsatisfied sexual desire? Yes, it does. But we’re told that this life will be filled with suffering as we bear the Cross of Christ, aren’t we? I know you don’t like that answer, but it doesn’t mean it isn’t true. When faced with a choice between sin and suffering the Christian is always supposed to choose suffering, which means the Cross. Hard teaching to be sure, but kind of Christianity 101, whether it involves sexual sins or other kinds of sins.

  357. feministhater says:

    Unicorns. Again, I am married to a woman who loves God and tries to honor Him. I know at least 7 wives of friends who are the same. I know several (4-5) single women who are the same. They are out there. And even if they weren’t, that doesn’t excuse sin.
    The self-righteous are not the only ones who think it is possible to not sin. I did not have sex before marriage. Difficult? Very. But I did it. You should save your self-righteous line, though. The feminist Christian women who slut it up before marriage would probably love to use it as their own justification.

    Cool story bro, why don’t you give their numbers to the gents on this forum? Not me mind you.

  358. squid_hunt says:

    Feministhater,

    You really seem to be arguing points I’m not making, but fine. You take care.

  359. earl says:

    When faced with a choice between sin and suffering the Christian is always supposed to choose suffering, which means the Cross.

    And choosing the Cross, while certainly not a pleasant thing, does have a good ending in due time. Don’t believe me…read up on the Resurrection. The main reason it seems like a stumbling block or foolishness is because a lot of people don’t see suffering as something that leads to glory.

  360. Minesweeper says:

    @earl, sexual immorality involves others, if jerkin off was bad, it would say so – it would say “thou shall not masturbate neither male nor female”, but it dosnt, if finding others sexually attractive it would say “thou shall not finding others sexually attractive neither male nor female”, but it dosnt, if having a sexual thoughts was sinful it would say it would say “thou shall not be having a sexual thoughts neither male nor female”, etc.

    Of course the largest repression of sexual desires is from the Catholic church and we can all see how dreadfully that has worked out in the end.

    be as repressed as you want. i dont care. considering men in the NT could take multiple wives without sinning but finding them sexually attractive is sinning 🙂 yeah, as paul was to the circumcisers maybe they should go the whole way and cut the lot off.

  361. earl says:

    Well I know I’m going to bring up the scary Catechism of the Catholic church…but it does address it.

    ‘By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. “Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action.” “The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose.” For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of “the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved.” (CCC 2352)

    Now tell me what is wrong about this statement in regards to sexual immorality. If your only argument is ‘well scripture doesn’t say this, only the Magisterium and tradition do’…I can’t help you.

  362. Mycroft Jones says:

    Wanking actually is a sin. The penalty is that you bathe with water, and then limit physical contact with other humans for 12 hours. The Jews would say 24 hours, the Israelites would say 36 hours, but Scripture allows a 12 hour interpretation.

    Hardly on the same level as adultery, which is a death penalty sin.

    If you have a cold or a flu, you have the same penalty as for wanking.

    I see some here are still clinging to the word “lust” instead of covet. Coveting is an action, not a state of mind.

  363. feministhater says:

    Now, they may be in dead bedroom marriages, which is of course a problem, but the solution to the sin of the wife denying sex (a clear sin per St Paul) isn’t for the husband to engage in his own sexual sins.

    No, never said the solution was to commit sexual sin. The solution is what I stated already, he has to become an a-sexual celibate. There’s no one he can get his wife to have sex with him, he already chose marriage because he thought he would get sex but that solution has been denied to him too, so we’re back to were we started.

    Namely: For the vast majority of Christians, you need to be honest and open with them and tell them they will need to learn to live life as an a-sexual person.

  364. earl says:

    Besides the fallacy of ‘sexual repression’ with the Catholic church is only repressing sexual sin. Once you’re lawfully married…have it as often as you and your spouse want.

  365. squid_hunt says:

    “sexual immorality involves others, if jerkin off was bad, it would say so – it would say “thou shall not masturbate neither male nor female”, but it dosnt, if finding others sexually attractive it would say “thou shall not finding others sexually attractive neither male nor female”, but it dosnt, if having a sexual thoughts was sinful it would say it would say “thou shall not be having a sexual thoughts neither male nor female”, etc.

    /snip/

    be as repressed as you want. i dont care. considering men in the NT could take multiple wives without sinning but finding them sexually attractive is sinning yeah, as paul was to the circumcisers maybe they should go the whole way and cut the lot off.”

    @minesweeper

    I’m not sure you could justify a single point you made in the above two paragraphs with scripture. I’d be interested to see what you came up with, though.

  366. Zippy says:

    If the conclusion from (some flavor of) Biblical literalism is ‘fap away’, then so much the worse for (that form of) Biblical literalism. The Bible doesn’t literally say that Bruce Jenner shouldn’t hack up his genitals and pretend to be a woman. I did a full text search for “Bruce Jenner” and nothing came up.

  367. Minesweeper says:

    MKT, “Paul had to constantly wrestle with idiots…”, i wasnt insulting anyone on the forum but you were. obviously reading is hard, but I was referring to what Paul was dealing with almost 2000 years ago with those who were insisting on circumcision for men who became Christians.

    but im kinda bored trying to give you milk, if you think jerkin off is sinful, then that speaks volumes, I would guess you have a very sterile life with the Lord as he would be telling you thats nonsense.

  368. Zippy says:

    Minesweeper:

    I would guess [MKT has] a very sterile life [of not masturbating] with the Lord as he would be telling you [to fap away].

    Boyfriend Jesus tells you that you should do whatever makes you haaaaaaaapppy.

  369. earl says:

    I would guess you have a very sterile life with the Lord as he would be telling you thats nonsense.

    LOL..sterile life with the Lord. That’s why sexual immorality messes up people’s priorities and thinking…if you don’t engage in sexual release then you have a fruitless life. I know because I used to think that way too…later I realized I was railing on it hard because I was trying to defend the sin rather than engage in a relationship with God.

  370. Zippy says:

    When I read the Bible I always skip the parts that say “Hear, oh Israel …” since I’m an American.

  371. squid_hunt says:

    “When I read the Bible I always skip the parts that say “Hear, oh Israel …” since I’m an American.”

    Seems like a fairly sound policy.

  372. Boxer says:

    Dear Fellas:

    Now tell me what is wrong about this statement in regards to sexual immorality. If your only argument is ‘well scripture doesn’t say this, only the Magisterium and tradition do’…I can’t help you.

    What they’ll tell you is that they prefer their feelings over a strict interpretation of the text, or the commentary written by experts. This is a very feminized way to look at things, and not one we’re unfamiliar with here on Dalrock, right?

    if you think jerkin off is sinful, then that speaks volumes, I would guess you have a very sterile life with the Lord as he would be telling you thats nonsense.

    The New Testament sets out a discipline. The fact that no one’s going to live it perfectly doesn’t mean that those who approach the discipline shouldn’t make an attempt to achieve the ideal.

    Here’s a simple analogy… You are going to get dirty on a regular basis. Getting dirty is part of living in the world. You can admit that being clean is the ideal, and make an effort to stay clean with good hygiene practices, or you can be like Pigpen in the Peanuts cartoon, and just forego the taking of showers and the washing of hands, since it’s impossible to stay clean. It’s easier not to wash, but there are benefits from washing. Which course of action makes most sense, to you?

    Best,

    Boxer

  373. squid_hunt says:

    “Here’s a simple analogy… You are going to get dirty on a regular basis. Getting dirty is part of living in the world. You can admit that being clean is the ideal, and make an effort to stay clean with good hygiene practices, or you can be like Pigpen in the Peanuts cartoon, and just forego the taking of showers and the washing of hands, since it’s impossible to stay clean.”

    This is the entire point of the feet washing at the last supper. It’s impossible to travel in the world and not get your feet dirty. They’re in direct contact with the dirt. We’re going to get the parts of us in contact with the dirt dirty as we travel along. The best part, though? 1. It’s really simple to clean off. 2. That doesn’t mean we have to get another bath. (i.e. get saved again)

  374. feministhater says:

    Besides the fallacy of ‘sexual repression’ with the Catholic church is only repressing sexual sin. Once you’re lawfully married…have it as often as your wife wants

    Don’t act like you’re getting a choice in the matter.

  375. Minesweeper says:

    @squid – you obviously missed it, the point is, its not in there and you lot are saying it is.

    which is in error

    @zippy – what the f88k are you on about? obviously your mental repression has reached new levels.

    @earl – again sex immorality involves others.

    @boxer – wtf ? for a guy who bangs broads on a regular basis im suprised you want a dog in this fight. Im still going to take you up on your offer you made me a while ago via IM, you still in NO ? I will be travelling over shortly, hope you are keeping those guns oiled. I have shot before but not for a long time.

  376. thedeti says:

    “Another is that every morally-acting person will go through long periods of sexual deprivation in their lifetimes for one reason or another: no spouse, sick spouse, etc.”

    Add to that ‘disobedient spouse’ and ‘rebellious spouse’. These are the main causes of sexual deprivation among married men.

  377. earl says:

    I’d like to see where it says in Scripture specifically it says it is evil or immoral to have an abortion. Or are we going to figure out how to rationalize abortion because St. Paul or Jesus or a prophet didn’t say it specifically.

    I can tell you it’s in the Catechism 🙂 . But that would bring in those nasty tradition and Magisterium aspects again.

  378. podethelesser says:

    Thou shalt not murder covers abortion pretty well IMO

  379. thedeti says:

    “if you don’t engage in sexual release then you have a fruitless life.”

    Most men are not built for a life of celibacy. Most men are built to look forward to at least some period of sexual union with a wife. For most men, celibacy is unnatural. It’s not what God intends for most men, yet that’s where our society is headed.

  380. earl says:

    again sex immorality involves others

    What are you basing that on other than trying to get around the masturbation issue? St. Paul states specifically sexual sins are sins against one’s own body.

  381. MKT says:

    Minesweeper says:
    August 11, 2017 at 11:51 am
    MKT, “if you think jerkin off is sinful, then that speaks volumes”

    What I think is irrelevant. Your argument is with the Scripture. Again, outside of marital sex, Paul and other writers ALWAYS tell Christians to “flee,” “abstain,” “put to death,” etc. all forms of sexual temptation. Unless you’re really dense…or trying to justify a sin you’re enslaved to (I suspect the latter), you can’t read the entire Bible and walk away thinking “I’m doing to turn on the pron tube and wank away…God is fine with that kind of stuff.” Here’s just a sampling of what you’re up against:
    https://www.openbible.info/topics/sexual_purity

  382. earl says:

    Thou shalt not murder covers abortion pretty well IMO

    And masturbation/porn is covered under ‘thou shall not commit adultery’. However both are not specifically cited in Scripture…and that’s what’s tripping up some people.

  383. Boxer says:

    Dear Minesweeper:

    @boxer – wtf ? for a guy who bangs broads on a regular basis im suprised you want a dog in this fight. Im still going to take you up on your offer you made me a while ago via IM, you still in NO ? I will be travelling over shortly, hope you are keeping those guns oiled. I have shot before but not for a long time.

    I have an interest in the text of the bible because I like living in an advanced industrial society. If the new atheists took over tomorrow, we’d soon be living in mud huts, in a matriarchal shithole.

    Off Topic but most atheists are just feminists at this point, thanks to people like PZ Myers and his horsefaced disciple, Jen McCreight. I have more in common with you guys. I’m guessing this is why Anon and some of the rest of the agnostic types are here too.

    Sadly, I’m not in New Orleans. I’ve been in the northwest US/ southwest Canada for the last month. I should get back there in a couple weeks, though. Catch me in email and we’ll go have coffee and talk shit. Dalrock in Meatspace sounds fun.

    Best,

    Boxer

  384. earl says:

    It’s not what God intends for most men, yet that’s where our society is headed.

    Which is funny…we are several years into the ‘sexual revolution/liberation’ and it’s leading a lot of people into forced celibacy. How’s that for irony.

  385. feministhater says:

    How is masturbation covered under adultery. Who is a man committing it with?

  386. Minesweeper says:

    @pod, you can see where the madness goes and where it starts.

    all of you who think jerkin off is sinful and deserving of eternal punishment I hope when you go to the toilet you handle it with barbecue tongues , i mean there could be touching thats misconstrued.

    ys – your married for now, its long road, come back in 15 years and let us all know how that went. place your bets gentlemen 😀

  387. ys says:

    FH-
    Sorry bro, wouldn’t give their numbers to men who think lust isn’t a sin. Not to white-knight, but I have to have some care.
    Besides, I am not theirs, or your, match-making service. I thought MGTOW was going their own way. I didn’t know it was sit on your backside until someone finds a wife for you. You have to do some of the work you know.

  388. Minesweeper says:

    Box bro
    “Catch me in email and we’ll go have coffee and talk shit. Dalrock in Meatspace sounds fun.”

    will do!

  389. Mycroft Jones says:

    You guys are still banging on about masturbation? Read the Bible! Take a shower, and you can’t take communion or go to church for 12 hours. Leviticus chapter 15. Sheesh. It is simple. Quit complicating it.

  390. squid_hunt says:

    Minesweeper,

    I disagree. There is a very strong argument against masturbation and porn in the Bible. You won’t see it, though, if you want to play semantics. It directly ties in with the entire purpose of your life as a Christian. If you think God sent Christ to the cross just to save you to do what you like to fulfill your fleshly urges, it becomes a moot point.

  391. feministhater says:

    Sorry bro, wouldn’t give their numbers to men who think lust isn’t a sin. Not to white-knight, but I have to have some care.
    Besides, I am not theirs, or your, match-making service. I thought MGTOW was going their own way. I didn’t know it was sit on your backside until someone finds a wife for you. You have to do some of the work you know.

    Read what I said…. I’ll quote it so you can see that what you just wrote is a lie.

    Cool story bro, why don’t you give their numbers to the gents on this forum? Not me mind you.

    Do you see now? Retract.

  392. thedeti says:

    As is usually the case whenever this topic comes up, both sides have defensible points. The case against extramarital sexual conduct/fornication/adultery (leaving masturbation out of it) is that I Cor. 7 is clear that, at the very least, marriage is the only permissible venue in which sex can take place.

    The opposition points out, rightly, that current Western society has all but eviscerated and left for dead the one institution that can give most men a proper arena for sexual release. Sex, the sex drive, and sexual conduct is a part of the human condition. God put it there, and it’s there for a reason, and that reason was not to torture and injure His creation, but to fulfill the command to be fruitful and multiply, to bring enjoyment to His creation, and glory to Him. Our society’s sin and decimation of marriage has all but destroyed the ability of most men to live out God’s intent for them and for marriage.

    Where does that leave us?

    I think it leaves us in a pretty bleak state, really. The reality is that more and more men are not going to marry at all, ever. Most men are not attractive enough to attract and keep the attention of one woman for upwards of 3 decades. Most men just do not have what it takes even to get the attention of a woman, much less sexually attract her, much less lead her through the vicissitudes of life. The sexual attraction that does exist will not be anywhere close to enough to keep them together through the rough times that every marriage encounters (and those rough times are going to get even rougher in the coming decades). The reality is that in the current state, legal marriage has very little to recommend it.

    The men who do marry will do so much later well into their 30s, if they marry at all. They will marry women who aren’t sexually attracted to them and who are clearly settling for them, and who will lead very unsatisfying, unfulfilling lives with their “spouses”. Telling these men they will have to wait 10, 20, even 30 years to get married and remain chaste in the meantime is asking a lot. Most men, even devout Christian men, will sin, because the temptation is so great.

    And if they ever do get married, they will be marrying women who are sinners themselves through and through. They will have engaged in even more sexual sin than their hapless husbands. They will be completely unable and unwilling to bond to their new husbands, unwilling to have sex with them as wives should, and, really, unable to be wives to those men in any real sense of the word. You can’t even really call what these men and women will be doing “marriage”. It isn’t marriage in any sense of the word (and hasn’t been for decades now).

  393. Gunner Q says:

    feministhater @ 11:19 am:
    “For the vast majority of Christians, you need to be honest and open with them and tell them they will need to learn to live life as an a-sexual person.”

    Yes.

    Red Pill Latecomer @ 11:09 am:
    “I’ve met many Evangelical Christians who deny that they are Protestant.”

    Really? Sure, they’re not Protestant but they don’t usually admit it. This is an improvement, like the churches in my area that no longer display the Cross. I don’t care to be associated with Churchians any more than the RCC does.

    I’m curious what their theological foundation is if it’s neither Sola Scriptura nor Church Traditions. “We follow Christ but not the teachings of Christ or His apostles” makes no sense unless they’re receiving new, divine revelations that contradict everything that came before.

  394. earl says:

    How is masturbation covered under adultery. Who is a man committing it with?

    Sexual sins are all lumped into the sixth commandment when it comes to the Catholic church and tradition. It is considered an offense against chastity.

    ‘The tradition of the Church has understood the sixth commandment as encompassing the whole of human sexuality.’

    http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm

  395. thedeti says:

    “And masturbation/porn is covered under ‘thou shall not commit adultery’.”

    Wait. Masturbation is adultery?

    You do realize you’re playing right into the hands of every stupid Prot minister who claims that when a man whacks it to porn, he’s committed adultery and given his wife grounds for divorce?

  396. feministhater says:

    Pretty much deti. Earl loves giving women such loaded guns, lol! Oh man, I love it! Moar please!

  397. earl says:

    ‘You do realize you’re playing right into the hands of every stupid Prot minister who claims that when a man whacks it to porn, he’s committed adultery and given his wife grounds for divorce?’

    Hey if a Prot minister wants to come into the Catholic church so be it. But I didn’t take it from a stupid Prot minister’s reasoning…it’s from the tradition of the Catholic Church that states:

    ‘The tradition of the Church has understood the sixth commandment as encompassing the whole of human sexuality.’

    Besides a Prot minister using Catholic teaching as reasoning…they’d run him out as a heretic.

  398. Novaseeker says:

    Wait. Masturbation is adultery?

    You do realize you’re playing right into the hands of every stupid Prot minister who claims that when a man whacks it to porn, he’s committed adultery and given his wife grounds for divorce?

    Catholics categorize it as a sin against sexual chastity, together with adultery. The ‘adultery’ issue isn’t the huge issue that it is in Protestant Christianity, because adultery isn’t a get out jail free card for marriage — Catholics don’t view it that way. Catholics can get an annulment not based on adultery, but based on whether the couple had the proper consent (informed consent) at the time of the marriage (in terms of understanding what a Catholic marriage is, what is and isn’t permitted, the permissibility of divorce and so on). Adultery isn’t the core foundational issue for marital dissolution among Catholics, from the ecclesial/canonical point of view, that it is for Protestants.

  399. feministhater says:

    Yet that are earl, that’s exactly where it comes from. Where do you think the Catholic Church got the idea to lump all sexual sins with the commandment not to commit adultery? By using the same Scripture as the Prots use to bash husbands and men daily. Yay!

  400. MKT says:

    In addition to the clear teaching in the Bible, it’s interesting to see how many non-Christians (particularly in the manosphere) have stopped wanking (or at least try). From a huge Reddit no fap movement, to many blogs like BoldandDetermind, men have realized that it makes them shame-filled, shy and weak. I posted this article earlier, but it’s worth giving the link again:
    http://www.anarchointrovert.com/why-introverts-must-stop-masturbating/

    God knows what he’s doing.

    And for the record, while I believe fapping is a sin, I don’t believe it (or porn) = physical adultery = easy divorce for the woman. That’s a different issue, but it’s way too nuanced to be discussed with the Minesweeper and AT types…or the SJW Christian Feminist Lites who promote it. They’re two sides of the same coin.

  401. squid_hunt says:

    “Sexual sins are all lumped into the sixth commandment when it comes to the Catholic church and tradition. It is considered an offense against chastity.”

    Sorry, Earl. This Baptist doesn’t agree with that interpretation. Words have meaning.

  402. ys says:

    FH-
    I meant you all, plural. You don’t wan to get married, fine. Don’t. Just quit being a whiny, little pussy who doesn’t like what the commands of scripture say, so he rationalizes them. Seriously. It’s bad for you.
    Another tip: Don’t try to sell you life. You insist that everyone wants you to get married, but you really don’t want most men to get married. You want them to be MGTOW like you. Further evidence that you are not content with your life, is that you said cool story bro to me knowing good Christian women. That was a snarky way to dismiss the truth of my statement that I, do, indeed know them.
    If you are really content to be unmarried, then why would you care if there 10, or 10,000, virgin Christian women? You wouldn’t. But you are not content. You are whiny, bitter and angry that others have what you don’t.

  403. earl says:

    Earl loves giving women such loaded guns, lol! Oh man, I love it! Moar please!

    Where did I say a woman could divorce him when this happens? The church puts adultery and divorce as two offenses against the dignity of marriage. Prot ministers seem to enjoy tearing up marriages rather than trying to keep the dignity of it.

    http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_P87.HTM

  404. thedeti says:

    Femhater:

    I don’t think it’s Earl that’s the issue here. I think what’s going on here is a very broad reading of “Thou shalt not commit adultery” as “thou shalt not commit any kind of sexual sins whatsoever” and including masturbation in there. Whether masturbation is not a sin has been the subject of a lot of controversy at least in the Prot churches. (And if masturbation and birth control are sinful, I can tell you right now that even most American Catholics don’t live by it. Every Catholic girl I knew in college was on the pill and sexually active; and even after college and before marriage. As for young Catholic men, well, let’s just say they’re young men and have all the drives attendant to being young men.)

    The point that you’ve made, repeatedly and with various levels of eloquence, is that if you’re going to deprive men of proper marriages AND tell them no sexual sin AND tell them no masturbation, most of those men will sin.

    Just as with women, when we unleash their sexuality and remove all restraints on it, most of those women will sin. As they currently are.

  405. Novaseeker says:

    Where did I say a woman could divorce him when this happens?

    Right, but we both know that Protestants (most of them at least) believe divorce is permitted in case of adultery, so for them the “whether it counts as adultery or not” is a huge, monumental issue. It gives them the right to divorce in their tradition. Not in the Catholic/Orthodox view, but that’s why it can be hard to discuss this across traditions I think.

  406. earl says:

    By using the same Scripture as the Prots use to bash husbands and men daily. Yay!

    No…the Church also uses tradition and the Magisterium. That’s two things the Prots don’t have and thus don’t have proper context. And it’s not meant to bash men…it’s meant to show the offenses against chastity.

    Look I’ll agree with you 100% that Prot ministers like to AMOG and feed deceit into wives to destroy marriages…but I have to take a stand when people try to rationalize sin.

  407. thedeti says:

    Nova:

    “Catholics categorize [masturbation] as a sin against sexual chastity, together with adultery.”

    I’m learning that. A couple of things:

    It seems to me that if God was clear in the words He used: “Thou shalt not commit adultery”. If He had wanted the commandment to be “Thou shalt not commit any kind of sexual sin whatsoever, including masturbation”, He could have said it that way. But He was very clear: The commandment forbids ADULTERY: Married people having sex with people not their spouses.

    And, I’m also learning that I Cor. 7 restricts sex to marriage. I’ve tried hard to leave masturbation out of this, but query whether I Cor. 7 also forbids masturbation. You could read it that way, as Paul said each person is to have a spouse to avoid temptation. You could read it differently, as Paul is clearly concerned with people having sex WITH EACH OTHER outside of marriage, not with people masturbating (which isn’t stated).

  408. feministhater says:

    I meant you all, plural. You don’t wan to get married, fine. Don’t. Just quit being a whiny, little pussy who doesn’t like what the commands of scripture say, so he rationalizes them. Seriously. It’s bad for you.

    Let it out, my man! Wow! Now there’s the pious self-righteous man we’ve all waiting to see! Wow, told hold back, scold me some more! You still lied! Little fibber.

    I am probably one of the few MGTOW on here, you were talking to me or otherwise you would have stated something completely different and not included me as looking for a wife, which you plainly did.

    Besides, I am not theirs, or your, match-making service. I thought MGTOW was going their own way. I didn’t know it was sit on your backside until someone finds a wife for you. You have to do some of the work you know.

    Yep, they should be MGTOW like me cause there is no way you’re going to help them. Haha!

    I only care if there are more Christian women who are virgins because it either means things are improving or getting worse. I can sell whatever I like, the men can take it or leave it.

    I said cool story bro because you launched into a diatribe of more anecdotes which do nothing to change the reality of anyone else.

  409. earl says:

    Right, but we both know that Protestants (most of them at least) believe divorce is permitted in case of adultery, so for them the “whether it counts as adultery or not” is a huge, monumental issue. It gives them the right to divorce in their tradition. Not in the Catholic/Orthodox view, but that’s why it can be hard to discuss this across traditions I think.

    I agree. I have had my eyes opened in this blog to just how bad it has got in many Prot denominations when it comes to marriage, promoting divorce, and deceitful pastors.

  410. Minesweeper says:

    @MKT says: “In addition to the clear teaching in the Bible, it’s interesting to see how many non-Christians (particularly in the manosphere) have stopped wanking (or at least try). ”

    go on SHOW the verse that mentions masturbating, OR your complete heretic.

    “And for the record, while I believe fapping is a sin, I don’t believe it (or porn) = physical adultery = easy divorce for the woman. That’s a different issue, but it’s way too nuanced to be discussed with the Minesweeper and AT types…or the SJW Christian Feminist Lites who promote it. They’re two sides of the same coin.”

    You know as much about me as you do about God, which is apparently as much as you could fit on a stamp. What kind of denomination\church would you say you attend ?

  411. squid_hunt says:

    “Let it out, my man! Wow! Now there’s the pious self-righteous man we’ve all waiting to see! Wow, told hold back, scold me some more! You still lied! Little fibber.”

    FH, you’re so full of it. What a riot.

  412. feministhater says:

    Look I’ll agree with you 100% that Prot ministers like to AMOG and feed deceit into wives to destroy marriages…but I have to take a stand when people try to rationalize sin.

    Oh, you’ve done that alright, you’ve given them all the ammo they require. I’ve stated I think porn and masturbation are sin but by lumping them in with adultery, it’s the kiss of death, 100% divorce rate sought of thing. Really good though, love it, give us some more please.

  413. ys says:

    FH-
    You know, as Christians we should be joined to fight for the cause of Christ. I didn’t lie. If my anecdotes are irrelevant, then your whining about you and the men in your position are also anecdotes, and, therefore, irrelevant. But that’s the thing. You think your situation deserves special care and attention that other people don’t need.
    What makes you think I am self-righteous?

  414. feministhater says:

    Thanks squid, I try. He puts the shaming tactic into full gear and I just love it and what more. What can I say.

  415. Minesweeper says:

    so to earl, squiddy, MTK,ys – all the fapping is a sin guys – so you guys are telling me you have never ever done that ? even with\by your spouse ? even when you started puberty ?

    also would you guys say being uncircumcised is a sin also ?

  416. feministhater says:

    Yes, ys, all irrelevant. We should just leave things as they stand now. It’s better this way.

  417. Minesweeper says:

    @deti, it appears we have some weird puritanical cult has descended on the board en masse. Never seen these guys before are they new ?

  418. MKT says:

    Minesweeper
    August 11, 2017 at 12:54 pm
    “go on SHOW the verse that mentions masturbating, OR your complete heretic (SIC)

    You know as much about me as you do about God, which is apparently as much as you could fit on a stamp. What kind of denomination\church would you say you attend ?”

    Wow, another prissy-sissy-hissy fit, MS?

    I’ve given you tons of verses about sexual thoughts, actions, desires, purity, etc. For the third time, they all tell you to flee/abstain/put to death EVERYTHING outside of marital sex. Anyone honest person (i.e., not trying to justify something they shouldn’t) can see that wanking isn’t part of the Biblical plan. You’re asking for a specific verse is a grammar school move. There’s no verse that says you shouldn’t have bisexual threesomes every Tuesday night, either.

    The idea that a lone gunner, I-know-how-to-interpet-the-Bible-better-than-the-church-for-2000 years “Christian” thinks I’m a heretic and wants to know my denomination is as crazy at it is laughable. And your misspelling, grammar and poor reading comp are telling, too…I wouldn’t let my kids get away with that kind of sloppy thinking.

    Again, you’re nothing but the flip side of some pink-haired, bi-curious “Christian” feminist blogger.

  419. thedeti says:

    Bottom line, guys:

    It’s bad for men now. It’s really bad. And it’s only going to get worse.

    If you’re married now, half of you will be divorced before you die. If you’re not married now, the odds of you marrying decrease with each passing year. The odds of you actually finding someone suitable to be married to are declining even faster. The odds of you yourself not being “suitable” for marriage are also quite low – mostly because, well, to be honest, you’re not sexually attractive enough. And sexual attraction is all that matters now when women select for marriage, and most of what keeps a woman with a man now.

    Most of you are not going to get married. Most of you are going to commit sexual sins, because you won’t be able to marry.

  420. MKT says:

    “so to earl, squiddy, MTK,ys – all the fapping is a sin guys – so you guys are telling me you have never ever done that ? even with\by your spouse ? even when you started puberty ?”

    I never said that. I’ve had my share of sins. Another bad assumption.

  421. SirHamster says:

    @SJB

    @SirHamster: But out of curiousity: Are multiple children one flesh, or multiple fleshes?

    […]
    Your question is a non-sequitur; you may as well pose yourself “am I one flesh or many fleshes?”

    I am obviously one flesh. But my question is relevant because you contested my citation of Genesis:

    … Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. ”

    Obviously “one flesh” refers to the child of that joining.

    Since a couple can produce multiple children, are those multiple children one flesh or multiple fleshes?

  422. feministhater says:

    Most of you are not going to get married. Most of you are going to commit sexual sins, because you won’t be able to marry.

    Hey man, I tried this approach before, you can’t whine, you must just keep silent. Men are not allowed to speak out about this problem, that’s being a whiny little bitch. Keep quiet.

  423. Minesweeper says:

    @MKT “says: August 11, 2017 at 1:07 pm Minesweeper August 11, 2017 at 12:54 pm
    “go on SHOW the verse that mentions masturbating, OR your complete heretic (SIC)

    You know as much about me as you do about God, which is apparently as much as you could fit on a stamp. What kind of denomination\church would you say you attend ?”

    Wow, another prissy-sissy-hissy fit, MS?”

    heretic. oh boo hoo, you cant actually find ANYTHING, well good to know , so what God or religious system do you follow again ? obviously its not biblically based or you would be able to back up your belief with verses.

    see this is what happens when that weird cult in the woods where you marry your cousin finally gets satellite broadband in the compound.

  424. thedeti says:

    Femhater:

    Yeah I know. And you’ve got great points.

    I’m just concerned about what your realization of these points is doing to YOU. It’s hurting you, very, very badly. It’s embittering you. Do you have a good reason to be bitter and hurt? Damn right you do. But keeping it and holding onto it is injuring you. At some point we all have to accept our lots and do the best we can, knowing that we’ll stumble and sin along the way, and give up caring about what other people say about the decisions we have had to make, and find some happiness or at least contentment among all the shit our parents and grandparents saw fit to dump us into.

    Think about it.

  425. MKT says:

    Minesweeper says:
    August 11, 2017 at 1:17 pm
    “heretic. oh boo hoo, you cant actually find ANYTHING, well good to know , so what God or religious system do you follow again ? obviously its not biblically based or you would be able to back up your belief with verses.

    see this is what happens when that weird cult in the woods where you marry your cousin finally gets satellite broadband in the compound.”

    Projection much, boy? You sound all of about 13. I doubt you’re old enough to shoot guns with Boxer, and I sure hope he fist bumps you instead of shaking hands…

    And again, you and AT are the ones who sound like an incestuous backwoods cult with your own, self-suited interpretations.

    I hope you grow up and stop jerking off. Seriously.

  426. squid_hunt says:

    “so you guys are telling me you have never ever done that ?”

    Minesweeper,

    1. Asked and answered.
    2. Not relevant to the discussion of what is sin unless you are stating you’ve never sinned other than fapping, which you argue is not sin.

  427. SirHamster says:

    @ Derek Ramsey

    @SirHamster – “Note how the woman is the man’s wife before they become one flesh.” and “You said God defined marriage as PIV, period. That definition does not exist. But as Genesis says, a woman becomes a man’s wife even before they become one flesh. You are refuted.

    I hate to give the appearance of defending AT’s extreme views, but this is hardly a refutation. In explaining Genesis 2:24, Jesus says in Luke 10 that divorce is wrong because man should not separate what God has brought together. God brings all couples together, not just Adam and Eve. It is an unjustified leaping inference to say that God acted as Eve’s father to make her Adam’s wife, when he does this for all couples (and not just the woman!). When does God bring a married couple together if not during sex? Is there any other identifying moment when this can occur

    What do you mean by “bring a married couple together”? If they’re a married couple at the point in time they come together for sex, the existence of their marriage clearly preceded the sexual act!

    In fact, every marriage ceremony testifies that the marriage exists outside the sex act. When the minister proclaims the couple husband and wife, they are actually husband and wife at that moment. The status change does not wait until that night, or for the legal documents to be signed.

    But the sex act does confirm the status, much like a handshake confirms an agreement.

  428. Minesweeper says:

    @MKT, think im prob alot older than you are, in physical age and maturity with the Lord.

    Are you spiritually gifted at all or are all the spiritual gifts dead to you ?

    Also when did you arrive at Dalrocks ?

  429. Anonymous Reader says:

    deti to feministhater
    I’m just concerned about what your realization of these points is doing to YOU.

    He looks to be very deeply stuck in the anger phase of unplugging. Gunner_Q used to be that way but is working his way out of it. The anger phase inevitable for almost every man, but being stuck it it is not a good situation. The bitterness that sets in can take a toll on mental and even physical health. More than one man who lurks or comments in the androsphere can verify that from his own personal experience.

    The way out in practical terms requires working on the self both mentally and physically, and part of that is to stop caring what women think, say or do as a general rule. It also requires a man to give up being butthurt, which can be quite difficult when the resentment stems from real, verifible, wrongdoing. But it still has to be given up.

    Femisthater, you’re not harming anyone but yourself with this mindset. Stop hurting yourself.

  430. Anonymous Reader says:

    By the way, what’s the consensus? Has Artisanal Toad proven his point, or not? Do we need a little poll-box script to determine that?

  431. feministhater says:

    deti, it’s not the problem of lust for me, it’s actually the acute awareness that there are those who truly do not care to help, nor solve the problem of male sexual frustration at all. They don’t care that this will lead men to sin, they don’t care that these men will be tempted and have no moral means to achieve release. They only care that these men are fully aware that not only are the laws of marriage stacked against them, not only are they only going to get married much later in life, not only is their wife going to be cold and distant, but that if they look at another woman, or fap or look at porn, they are guilty of adultery. Not only that they are guilty of the sin of adultery in their hearts but the wife now has full rights to divorce him for sexual immorality and is given cover by the church and those who would bash him over the head.

    It’s not worth getting angry over though, the consequences of their foolishness will be there for all to see.

  432. feministhater says:

    Yeah I know ANR. I’ll let you more mild mannered people sort it out.

  433. SirHamster says:

    AT continues the clown show:

    @Hamster

    “I called you a false witness and one who leads others astray. “

    Cite it, chapter and verse. Make your argument. This is your opportunity to shine. Quote me from my blog, quote me from other verifiable sources. Make your argument, cite the relevant Scripture. This is your opportunity to show everyone that you actually know what you’re talking about.

    AT reads the first sentence and becomes too triggered to continue reading the post that contained the argument he demanded. AT was invited to fight out his position, but he has chosen to retreat into a delusion where the arguments laid out against him do not exist.

    Such a Brave Bible Warrior, fleeing from a hamster.

    @ Boxer:

    In any event, I only argue with people who are worthy of my time. For example: you don’t see me stooping to quarrel with SirHamster, do you? What on earth could he teach me? Incidentally, why do you bother with him? Isn’t it a little like a screaming match with the homeless wino, down at the subway station?

    [Artisanal Toad] argues well and always debates the real issues.

    The contrast between your compliments to AT and what he did in this thread would be baffling if you hadn’t already revealed your character as a lying Gamma. But it does make sense that a heretic sex fanatic and an ex-Mormon have common cause against Christ and Truth.

  434. Zippy says:

    Novaseeker:

    Right, there is one and only one thing that ends a valid, sacramental marriage: death. (That’s why Henry VIII kept killing his wives).

    Adultery is a more serious sin than masturbation, but they are both mortally sinful offenses against chastity. So yeah, Catholics don’t treat adultery as some sort of get-out-of-marriage card, and therefore naturally have a different attitude about it. It isn’t that other things can end a valid marriage: it is that nothing short of death actually does end a valid marriage. So any subsequent “marriage” while one’s valid spouse lives is itself adultery.

    Modern people are slaves to their appetites (a.k.a. they don’t have “hang ups”), so this is incomprehensible to most of them.

  435. Minesweeper says:

    @MKT says:
    August 11, 2017 at 1:23 pm
    Minesweeper says:
    August 11, 2017 at 1:17 pm
    “heretic. oh boo hoo, you cant actually find ANYTHING, well good to know , so what God or religious system do you follow again ? obviously its not biblically based or you would be able to back up your belief with verses.

    see this is what happens when that weird cult in the woods where you marry your cousin finally gets satellite broadband in the compound.”

    Projection much, boy? You sound all of about 13. I doubt you’re old enough to shoot guns with Boxer, and I sure hope he fist bumps you instead of shaking hands…

    And again, you and AT are the ones who sound like an incestuous backwoods cult with your own, self-suited interpretations.

    I hope you grow up and stop jerking off. Seriously”

    tell your wife who is also your cousin I said “Hi”.

  436. Ben says:

    ” The odds of you yourself not being “suitable” for marriage are also quite low – mostly because, well, to be honest, you’re not sexually attractive enough. And sexual attraction is all that matters now when women select for marriage, and most of what keeps a woman with a man now.”

    As a mid-30’s introvert currently working a dead end job, this observation hits like a ton of bricks. I’d like to have a wife and kids, but I’m becoming aware this may never happen for me.

  437. earlthomas786 says:

    “so to earl, squiddy, MTK,ys – all the fapping is a sin guys – so you guys are telling me you have never ever done that ? even with\by your spouse ? even when you started puberty ?”

    I never said that. This isn’t to promote self-righteousness…I can tell you it does damage chastity. I had to go to confession quite often because I was depressed and gave in…so I get it’s not easy. But I can’t rationalize the sin either because of how marriage is or I have these urges. God’s grace is big when it comes to self control.

  438. SirHamster says:

    @thedeti

    Wait. Masturbation is adultery?

    You do realize you’re playing right into the hands of every stupid Prot minister who claims that when a man whacks it to porn, he’s committed adultery and given his wife grounds for divorce?

    Masturbation adulterates the man. That is an adultery, though not in the sense that most people use the word for.

    The heresy is not in calling masturbation adultery; it is taking Jesus’ prohibition of divorce in virtually all cases and making excuses for man to split apart what God had joined together. Our hearts are hard.

  439. Minesweeper says:

    @Zippy says: August 11, 2017 at 11:57 am
    “Minesweeper:
    Boyfriend Jesus tells you that you should do whatever makes you haaaaaaaapppy.”

    thats rich coming from a man who probably still prays to his earthly mother ? does she make you happy? i’d rather take jesus is my boyfriend than mary is my conduit to God, not that either apply to me.

  440. earlthomas786 says:

    ”Oh, you’ve done that alright, you’ve given them all the ammo they require.’

    Ok if a Prot minister cites Catholic Magisterium teaching as his reasoning…he’ll be run out as a heretic before a divorce happens. This isn’t about giving feminist Prot ministers ammo…it’s about pointing out these sins are against chastity.

  441. Anonymous Reader says:

    Novaseeker
    Catholics can get an annulment not based on adultery, but based on whether the couple had the proper consent (informed consent) at the time of the marriage (in terms of understanding what a Catholic marriage is, what is and isn’t permitted, the permissibility of divorce and so on).

    Just for clarification, you are writing in the ideal terms, that is what ought to be the case, correct? Because in the real world we both know some number of Roman Catholic men whose wives frivorced them in the court system, then took that filing to a bishop – maybe shopped around a bit – and bought an annulment. “Proper consent” being a fig leaf to cover up the actual facts in such cases: frivorce by an unhaaaapy woman.

    The “ought’ should not be confused with the “is” in men’s minds, because real men suffer real consequences when they get those two things mixed up.

  442. earlthomas786 says:

    But I can understand Prots apprehension to this because their corrupt ministers try to find any excuse to give the wife justification for a divorce. Justification that doesn’t come from God by the way. For Catholics a lawful marriage only ends with death…not sexual sin.

  443. thedeti says:

    “For Catholics a lawful marriage only ends with death…not sexual sin.”

    What about the Pauline exception at I Cor. 7:15:

    “But if the unbeliever departs, let him depart; a brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases.”

    What does “not under bondage” mean, if not “free to remarry” meaning the marriage to the unbelieving spouse is ended?

  444. earlthomas786 says:

    ‘Because in the real world we both know some number of Roman Catholic men whose wives frivorced them in the court system, then took that filing to a bishop – maybe shopped around a bit – and bought an annulment.’

    While I don’t doubt that can happen…Ive also talked to a person in the diocese whose specialty is to investigate the lawful validity of the marriage…and he says it’s a long process. His goal is to keep the marriage together rather than find8ng loopholes. I’ve also known a co-worker who got a civil divorce but was denied an annulment.

  445. Damn Crackers says:

    Can we all agree that sin just means missing the mark of approaching God?

    If that is the case, then jerking off or whoring doesn’t get you closer to God.

    Consult your own denomination on how serious the sin is, but yes – these things are still sins. I personally don’t beat myself up about it and just ask forgiveness. I mean, I still get pissed off at people, which is sinful too.

  446. earlthomas786 says:

    @deti

    Well I learned something new about Canon law…it has to be a specific set of circumstances for Pauline privilege. Both are unbaptized before getting married…one gets baptized during marriage…and the unbaptized one leaves.

    Better explaining here:

    http://canonlawmadeeasy.com/2013/04/04/what-is-the-pauline-privilege/

  447. SJB says:

    @SirHamster: Your question is not relevant as it does not change the 1 gamete + 1 gamete = 1 conception equation. In fact, pursuing your question will lead you to Heraclitus’ paradox (the doctrine of flux).

  448. thedeti says:

    Earl:

    Yeah, the Pauline privilege is much, much more liberally applied in Prot denominations – as you might expect.

    Assume a valid marriage between two baptized Christians.

    If one spouse renounces his faith and leaves – Pauline privilege applies.

    If one spouse has an affair and won’t return to the marriage, the cheating spouse is deemed an “unbeliever”, and Pauline privilege applies.

    If one spouse is engaged in some kind of sin/entrapped in substance abuse, the addicted/sinning spouse is an “unbeliever”, and Pauline privilege applies.

    If at any point one spouse is deemed to be “not Christian enough”, the “not Christian enough” spouse is an “unbeliever”, and Pauline privilege applies.

  449. SirHamster says:

    @SJB

    @SirHamster: Your question is not relevant as it does not change the 1 gamete + 1 gamete = 1 conception equation. In fact, pursuing your question will lead you to Heraclitus’ paradox (the doctrine of flux).

    Your interpretation of Biblical “one flesh” referring to children does not make sense.

    The promise to Abraham wasn’t that he would get One Flesh. It is that he would have many offspring who would become many nations.

    It’s an odd error on your part, and I’m curious what is driving it. The inappropriate scientific references are a clue.

  450. Anonymous Reader says:

    Earl
    Ive also talked to a person in the diocese whose specialty is to investigate the lawful validity of the marriage…and he says it’s a long process.

    In that one subdivision of the RC hierarchy. Not all parts of your church are like that. As men can testify, from first person or second person experience.

    Elusive Wapiti isn’t around much anymore, but he could provide you with a first-person account, including “bishop shopping” by his “till death do us part”. There are men I have worked with or known via my social circle with similar accounts, in every case they were stunned with a “deer in the headlights” look for a time. They didn’t see it coming, and in one case a man refused to belive it was possible because he was wrapped up in “ought” rather than seeing “is”.

    It is hardly a secret that more annullments are granted by US bishops than the rest of the RCC combined. That fact is true, even though it ought not to be. Roman Catholic men who decide that their wife cannot ever divorce and annulment them should be aware of this fact, it is simply a risk factor to take into account. “That can’t happen to ME” is not risk management, nor leadership, it is dangerous self delusion. Hence my clarifying remark riffing off of Novaseeker.

  451. Damn Crackers says:

    Interesting Catholic Catechism 2355: “Prostitution does injury to the dignity of the person who engages in it, reducing the person to an instrument of sexual pleasure. The one who pays sins gravely against himself: he violates the chastity to which his Baptism pledged him and defiles his body, the temple of the Holy Spirit.140 Prostitution is a social scourge. It usually involves women, but also men, children, and adolescents (The latter two cases involve the added sin of scandal.). While it is always gravely sinful to engage in prostitution, the imputability of the offense can be attenuated by destitution, blackmail, or social pressure.”

    The imputability of the offense should easily be attenuated for men in this age.

  452. Zippy says:

    thedeti:

    The Pauline privilege only applies when the divorcing spouse has never been baptized. In such a case the Church (but not the state, and not the individuals themselves) has the power to dissolve the marriage and free the baptized spouse because the marriage is merely “natural”, which is to say, is not a sacrament. Marriages between pagans are merely natural; marriages between baptized Christians are sacramental and therefore indissoluble.

    I cite sources here:

    https://zippycatholic.wordpress.com/2013/03/08/the-curious-case-of-matthew-199/

  453. Zippy says:

    Anonymous Reader is correct that Catholic doctrine and boots on the ground practice are radically different. But the doctrine remains, accusing all of those who abuse it.

  454. thedeti says:

    “But the doctrine remains, accusing all of those who abuse it.”

    Including your Church’s ordained clergy, all the way up to the cardinate – the very men charged with defending and keeping that doctrine.

  455. SJB says:

    @SirHamster: having “one flesh” refer to coitus does not make sense as male and female are not obviated during the act (PIV does not make one anymore than another’s finger in your ear makes you one with the other). Likewise, “one flesh” referring to some sort of non-sexual coupling of male and female does not make sense: flesh is real, can be seen, touched, etc. A marriage brings no new flesh in and of itself–the couple must couple. The only thing that makes sense is a child. Thus we read stories of the sadness of barren couples, the joys of fruitful couples, and the Lord God making unexpectedly fertile.

    Your reference to Abram: he did leave his mother and father (eventually) and did hold fast to his wife. They, however, were not fertile until made such by the Lord God. Abram’s story is more than interesting: he was a very clever man but the Lord was more clever.

  456. thedeti says:

    “marriages between baptized Christians are sacramental and therefore indissoluble.”

    Which seems to support a “once saved, always saved” doctrine. If two baptized Christians are married, and one renounces his/her faith, then according to you and your sources, the baptized Christian is still sacramentally married. The renouncer cannot validly renounce his faith and therefore become an “unbeliever”. So if the renouncer expressly renounces faith and leaves the marriage, the remaining believer is forever tethered to the unbelieving spouse.

  457. Zippy says:

    thedeti:

    There is a long tradition in observing that clerics suffer from all the foibles of the communities from which they are drawn.

    “I do not think there are many among Bishops that will be saved, but many more that perish.” St. John Chrysostom, Homily III on Acts 1:12

  458. Mycroft Jones says:

    Toad hasn’t answered Dalrock adequately. Toad has no need to address the Hamster, who has shown himself guilty in this thread and the previous vilefacelessminion thread of the debating tactics that he accuses Toad of. Trying to defeat Toad with rhetoric isn’t going to work; stop trying.

    @Hamster, leave off the “one flesh” thing. The conception of children is indeed a valid understanding of “one flesh”, but you are correct that there is more to it, and conception of children isn’t the entirety of the matter.

  459. Mycroft Jones says:

    Masturbation. Leviticus 15 people. Read it carefully. The Bible does speak about masturbation. It isn’t adultery. Choose this day, between the Word, and between your Church magisterium.

  460. SirHamster says:

    @SirHamster: having “one flesh” refer to coitus does not make sense as male and female are not obviated during the act (PIV does not make one anymore than another’s finger in your ear makes you one with the other).

    I see, you cannot reconcile Biblical “one flesh” with there being two separate people. Yet the marriage bond is more than just two people hanging out and putting tab into slot.

    Likewise, “one flesh” referring to some sort of non-sexual coupling of male and female does not make sense: flesh is real, can be seen, touched, etc.

    We are agreed that “one flesh” involves flesh.

    A marriage brings no new flesh in and of itself–the couple must couple. The only thing that makes sense is a child.

    This is our disagreement. The union of man and woman is a different thing than man and woman taken individually. While I am not married, I consider my parents one unit, and my greatest childhood grief was when the word divorce was flung between the two in heated argument.

    There is a mystery to marriage that you gloss over when you compare sex to a wet willy.

  461. BillyS says:

    Boxer,

    AT was calling someone else an idiot (which is what I quoted). I should have said “throw” there BTW.

    He is not the brightest bulb in the shed from what I have read, in spite of his many words. Perhaps that is just me, but I don’t think so. However, my point was that him throwing out “idiot” is not very bright on his part. I was not addressing his latest arguments as I tend to not bother reading them at all since I have yet to see value in the many I have read.

    Hope that makes more sense.

  462. Zippy says:

    thedeti:

    Which seems to support a “once saved, always saved” doctrine. If two baptized Christians are married, and one renounces his/her faith, then according to you and your sources, the baptized Christian is still sacramentally married. The renouncer cannot validly renounce his faith and therefore become an “unbeliever”.

    It isn’t “once saved always saved”. It is “once baptized always baptized”. Baptized Christians can certainly go to Hell.

    Marriage between baptized Christians cannot be undone, any more than baptism can be undone. It does not follow that someone who is baptized cannot go to Hell.

  463. BillyS says:

    If sex prior to marriage is perfectly fine, why would the unmarried Paul speaks of need to marry to have a proper outlet for their passion?

    [1Co 7:8-9 NKJV] 8 But I say to the unmarried and to the widows: It is good for them if they remain even as I am; 9 but if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to burn [with passion].

    Or is that just meaning something more hidden? How much sex means they don’t have self-control?

    FH,

    Yeah, the situation sucks since humans have messed up the modern marriage situation so much, but that doesn’t make the goal any worse.

    Would you argue against attending a godly church service as a Biblical good just because someone lives in a society that doesn’t allow that? They may be unable to fulfill it, but it would still be the proper goal. So any kind of sexual activity should be in marriage, though it may not in today’s environment because the well is so poisoned.

    Putting off sexual moral sexual activity until a man is really old is ludicrous, but it is the situation we are in.

  464. SJB says:

    @SirHamster: thank you for being clear. To me the mystery of conception is grand: the “directed randomness” involved in the generation of the gametes is incredible and I’m fill with awe when pondering it.

    Coitus is just coitus; the sole purpose is to get gametes together. The hormonal aftermath, what the Catholics call the unitive function, is also incredibly complex and, may I say, well designed toward the intent of keeping male and female willing to facilitate the survival and growth of the new human.

    I assure you of my reverence to the Author of that system and regard for those who operating that system in Love.

  465. SirHamster says:

    Toad has no need to address the Hamster, who has shown himself guilty in this thread and the previous vilefacelessminion thread of the debating tactics that he accuses Toad of. Trying to defeat Toad with rhetoric isn’t going to work; stop trying.

    False summary. I am not accusing Toad of debating tactics. I am calling him a liar and charlatan who mishandles Scripture to justify his own lusts and to lead others to follow his own path of damnation. I am attacking his values and his credibility, not his tactics.

    You are mistaken to think I care if AT addresses me. I do not respect his intellect or his opinion.

    But as Jesus loves his soul, so must I hope his humiliation leads to his repentance.

    The mix of rhetoric is chosen because reason was tried and failed. Any reason used with respect to AT is only for the benefit of observers. That was the only reasonable thing left to do.

  466. BillyS says:

    I have not read much of Luther’s writings, but I was under the impression he advocated vigorous sex INSIDE marriage, not outside it. Does anyone have pointers to something that says OUTSIDE marriage is fine for that, per Luther?

  467. BillyS says:

    Ys,

    Unicorns. Again, I am married to a woman who loves God and tries to honor Him. I know at least 7 wives of friends who are the same. I know several (4-5) single women who are the same. They are out there. And even if they weren’t, that doesn’t excuse sin.

    I thought my ex-wife was the same. I knew she had some very rough edges, but I thought she really put God first place in her life. It turned out she puts herself first place in her life. (She can be quite the hypocrite about it too, such as telling others “God hates divorce” with a straight face while not considering her own actions.)

    The mines are not always clear and some don’t trigger for many years.

    I agree the modern situation is very broken, but I also agree that our society’s brokenness doesn’t negate the ideal target.

  468. thedeti says:

    “Well the vast majority of Christians do marry, still. It isn’t the case that the vast majority do not marry. Now, they may be in dead bedroom marriages, which is of course a problem,”

    Given a choice between no marriage and a dead bedroom marriage, the rational man must choose no marriage. The dead bedroom marriage is no marriage at all. No sex, no marriage.

  469. SirHamster says:

    @SJB

    @SirHamster: thank you for being clear.

    Appreciate the engagement and clarification.

  470. BillyS says:

    Earl,

    Look I’ll agree with you 100% that Prot ministers like to AMOG and feed deceit into wives to destroy marriages…but I have to take a stand when people try to rationalize sin.

    It is not necessarily AMOGing. It is applying their basis, the Scriptures. You do the same with your traditions, the basis used is just different. I am not sure saying “masturbation is adultery” is even consistent with RCC doctrine. It is a sin and gets lumped into the same large bin, but it is not the same sin. Though my knowledge of RCC doctrine is very rusty, at best.

    I agree. I have had my eyes opened in this blog to just how bad it has got in many Prot denominations when it comes to marriage, promoting divorce, and deceitful pastors.

    The same could be said of many in the RCC. How many legislators voted in favor of abortion, for example, but could still take communion? The RCC has its own huge flaws, even now.

    AR,

    It also requires a man to give up being butthurt

    That is the part I am really working on now. I am trying to focus on the good, not just who did wrong in the past (or who continues to do wrong now). That is harder than it seems, but letting anger, even if it has a righteous component, eat you up is not helpful, let alone healthy.

    Hopefully my grounding in the Word is sufficient to ultimately keep me focused well, but only time will tell that.

    By the way, what’s the consensus? Has Artisanal Toad proven his point, or not? Do we need a little poll-box script to determine that?

    I haven’t seen too much agreement with him here, so I would say “no” in answer to your question.

  471. ys says:

    BillyS-
    We would be essentially in agreement. Difficulty of present cirucmstances is no justification for sin.

  472. BillyS says:

    Zippy,

    I was baptized in the RCC as an infant. I married in a Protestant church. No children. Almost 30 years of marriage. A wife who filed for divorce and refuses any attempt at restoration.

    Would I be considered married in the RCC now? Would I even need to seek an annulment if I wanted that? (This is more for my curiosity than reality since I could not return to the RCC and be consistent with what I see in the Scriptures.

    Deti,

    I am beginning to see the whole marriage issue in the same light as the Sabbath: Marriage was made for man, not man for marriage. Taking Jesus specific answer about a man divorcing his wife “for any reason” and applying it in a blanket way to all possible permutations begins to look like prohibiting the healed man from carrying his bed because it was doing “work on the Sabbath”.

    I wish the Scriptures went into a whole lot more details, but we would likely confuse them even if they did.

  473. Son of Liberty says:

    Carlotta says:
    August 10, 2017 at 10:28 am
    Not to intrude, Son of Liberty if you have a blog I would like to read it. You brought up many things I have been tracking for years re: genetics and chimeras and diet.
    Thanks.

    For diet, thesupermandiet.com should get you started, it is a testimony from someone who’s well versed into that.

  474. ys says:

    FH-
    ” it’s actually the acute awareness that there are those who truly do not care to help, nor solve the problem of male sexual frustration at all. They don’t care that this will lead men to sin, they don’t care that these men will be tempted and have no moral means to achieve release.”

    Despite our sword fencing, nothing could be more untrue. I do care, and that’s why I am concerned that people not get led to the path to sin. Without trolling or insulting in any way, question: What would someone helping, or caring to solve the problem, look like to you?

  475. BillyS says:

    I would note a general agreement with FH on being frustrated when I hear preachers rant against sins of men, including porn, and say nothing (or almost nothing) about the sins of women. They are not dealing with the proper problem at all. Their ranting is completely unproductive and will drive many away from salvation.

    Fix sexless marriages, women gaining 100 pounds soon after marriage, women putting marriageo off to be sexually loose in their younger years, and other such things and you then could rant about the sins of men.

    The men who may fall under these rants don’t listen to them, so they are just false accusations as they are put forth in almost all cases.

  476. @Dalrock.

    You deflected nicely, so let’s see if we can get back to the point. Paul plainly said that sin is a violation of the Law. Where there is no Law, there is no violation, where there is no violation there is no sin imputed. Your comments on rebellion are well stated, but the point remains that sin (for everyone) is a violation of God’s Law. For Christians, there are also violations of the conscience (c.f. Romans 14:23 and James 4:17), which is sinful for the individual, but not everyone. That which is not of faith is sin, but the problem there is the individual’s problem because of their lack of faith. Romans 14 is pretty clear on it.

    And, as usual, not one of the interlocutors has attempted any sort of exegetical analysis of the point that I made, choosing to focus instead on ad hominem attacks. Which is to be expected, given the quality of Christians these days. I effectively told every man here that if he didn’t get his woman’s virginity, she (in almost all cases) isn’t his wife. Which means they are living in adultery. I explained it and linked to the post where it’s explained in detail.

    That should have provoked a firestorm, but it got left alone. The elephant in the room that nobody wants to notice. I have specifically called out a few to back their assertions and cite their proof, chapter and verse. The response? *Crickets*

    Interestingly, in reading over the comments, it appears that somehow I have been painted as opposing the idea that marriage is the place to have sex. That isn’t true. I very much believe that marriage is the place where sex belongs, by definition. But I’ve been pointing out that y’all have no idea what God actually said about the details and evidently nobody likes that.

    * All women are virgins when they first marry and the exceptions merely prove the rule.

    * It is not a sin to marry, not something that can be “laid on the alter” and left behind once it’s done.

    * Every man after the one who got her virginity is not a case of “premarital sex” but rather adultery. Because she is a married woman.

    * Throwing a party with a white dress, exchanging vows before witnesses and eating cake does not make a married woman somehow married to a new man, it institutionalizes her adultery.

    Given that according to the CDC only about 5% of women are virgins when they have their official wedding and according to the Southern Baptists only about 20% of women in “highly religious” groups are virgins when they have their official wedding, it’s safe to say that the church is filled with adultery.

    And believe it or not, the Bible has solutions to deal with this problem. Several of them. I’ve written about it at length, but the fact remains that the church is responsible for teaching the lies that caused this problem. The tragedy? No-one wants to admit their guilt and do what has to be done.

    Now, having said that, I will address your point about 1st Corinthians 7 in a moment, but first, we need to deal with this:

    “This wasn’t saying that all we have to do is follow the Law.”

    I have never said that, what I have said is that sexual immorality is specifically prohibited in the Law and also includes the New Testament instruction forbidding Christian men from having sex with prostitutes.

    “Yet you want to do the same, disregarding NT instruction and only following the Law.”

    This is a lie. I do not disregard any New Testament instruction, not do I recommend doing so, nor have I ever taught that. What I have said is that the instruction in the New Testament that talks about sin, specifically sexual immorality, is defined by the Law. Sexual immorality consists of those things of a sexual nature that are prohibited in the Law, because sexual immorality (that which is immoral, a sin for everyone) is a sin.

    Masturbation is not forbidden and I cannot claim it is a sin for you or anyone else. I might believe it is a sin for me, but even if I do, I cannot claim it’s a sin for anyone else. I could say it’s a bad idea and point to biochemical changes in the brain… but I can’t claim it’s a sin for everyone because God did not do so. In addition to that, Deuteronomy 4:2 and 12:32 specifically states that the Law is sealed. Nobody gets to add to it or subtract from it. It’s perfect and complete. So, if anyone claims that something is a sin for everyone when God didn’t say it was a sin, they are in violation of God’s Law, which is a sin.

  477. Hose_B says:

    Wow….What a thread. Good work Dalrock.

    Couple of personal beliefs I will throw out as my current understanding.

    1. Marriage is “from the beginning” and as such the civil authority is irrelevant.

    To “take as a wife”, or “to be Married” is the covenant between the husband, wife and God.

    If you have sex with a woman who isn’t the wife of another man, the covenant is EXPECTED by God. You may have as many wives as you wish, but the covenant applies to them all. (polygany was allowed by God and God does not change) (Prov 5:15 has plural streams and the word “own” is used to translate different words in Corinthians)

    The covenant can be given first, then consummated by sex…..or sex can create the expectation of the covenant by God. Accepting the expected covenant would cover what would otherwise be fornication.

    The father who did not give his consent can overrule his daughters covenant on the day he hears of it. It would also be a massive disrespect to the father AND the daughter to take his daughter without his permission.

    Adultery is having sex with another mans wife.

    Fornication is having sex without the covenant expected by God.

    Sex outside of a bond is not God’s plan.

    Both Jesus and Paul assert that Marriage will bring you troubles and you’d be better off if you could avoid it, but that some who burn with passion should enter it.

    The two shall become one flesh is referring to the sharing of DNA, diseases, etc that go along with intercourse. Very similar so sharing blood between two people. Which is why this applies to prostitutes. (interesting reading about the deflowering male imprinting his DNA into the female. Offspring from subsequent fathers showing traits from the “first” father.”

    As to the OP………..of course marriage isnt the CAUSE of sexual immorality. our burning passions Marriage is the prescription to avoid it.

  478. earlthomas786 says:

    Choose this day, between the Word, and between your Church magisterium.

    They don’t oppose each other. Hence the problem with Luther.

  479. Mycroft Jones says:

    @earl wasn’t it you who equated masturbation with adultery? That contradicts Leviticus 15, which equates it with the common cold.

  480. earlthomas786 says:

    Besides you just proved in Lev 15…that masturbation is a sin. If you want to argue semantics that it isn’t exactly like your definition of adultery so be it…but I gave the reason before why the church included it under the sixth commandment. The bigger issue before was people trying to say it isn’t sinful.

    ‘Then on the eighth day he shall take for himself two turtledoves or two young pigeons, and come before the Lord to the doorway of the tent of meeting and give them to the priest; and the priest shall offer them, one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering. So the priest shall make atonement on his behalf before the Lord because of his discharge.’ Lev 15:14-15

  481. Zippy says:

    BillyS:

    I’ll tell you my understanding of things, though I would emphasize that I’m just a layman.

    I was baptized in the RCC as an infant. I married in a Protestant church. No children. Almost 30 years of marriage. A wife who filed for divorce and refuses any attempt at restoration.

    Would I be considered married in the RCC now?

    No. But see my answer to your annulment question below.

    Yours would be what is called a “defect of form” case. Baptized Catholics are required to follow the form of marriage prescribed in Canon Law – or be explicitly dispensed from it by the local bishop – in order for their marriages to be valid.

    (It doesn’t matter whether you agreed to it or not; it just matters that you were baptized Catholic, and not for example in a Protestant denomination. Protestant baptism is valid, assuming it is done with water and in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Anyone can baptize, actually, even a non-Christian).

    In fact all baptized Christians are required to follow Canon Law but, interestingly, Canon Law specifically permits baptized Protestants to marry validly under the rules/form of their own denomination. In other words, Protestants are automatically dispensed from the requirement to follow Canonical form. Valid marriage does assume that the denomination actually means by “marriage” what the Church means by it, which includes openness to children, indissolubility and sexual fidelity. Absent any of the essentials of marriage in the consent of the parties, the marriage is not valid. Anyone can stand up and say that they agree to be “married”, but there are obviously limits — a guy can’t marry a guy, etc. The thing you have to be actually agreeing to is marriage, not just any old thing that you happen to call “marriage”. I wrote about this here:

    https://zippycatholic.wordpress.com/2013/03/03/marriage-ideas-have-marriage-consequences/

    So Protestants do (at least potentially) have two valid sacraments: baptism and matrimony. But the situation is fraught.

    Would I even need to seek an annulment if I wanted that?

    Yes. No Christian has the personal authority to juridically declare his own prima facie marriage null. Only the Church has this authority to declare nullity, and no baptized Christian can validly marry when there are prima facie impediments to marriage (e.g. the existence of a previous marriage, the validity of which must be judged by a duly instituted Church tribunal).

    So in my understanding of things it is not possible for you to marry at all without first getting an annulment of your “marriage’; but the granting of that annulment is a virtual certainty, because defect of form cases are really a straightforward matter of confirming your baptism in a Catholic church and the fact that your ‘marriage’ did not follow canonical form and was not explicitly dispensed from doing so — just a matter of paperwork, really.

  482. necroking48 says:

    Lol this is too funny. The self righteous pharisee moralizers are not able to refute my comments on Matthew 5, so now they are trying to condemn masturbation as a mortal sin

    When I get time I’ll be back in here to refute your nonsense

  483. earlthomas786 says:

    ‘ wasn’t it you who equated masturbation with adultery?’

    No it is the Catholic church that brings this up…It says ‘the tradition of the Church has understood the sixth commandment as encompassing the whole of human sexuality.”

    …and they don’t make them equal offenses either.

    The masturbation part is listed under the offenses against chastity…whereas adultery is listed under the offenses against marriage. Look through the list yourself.

    http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm

  484. Hose_B says:

    Maybe someone can help me find a verse….I believe its Peter or Paul and he briefly mentions masturbation but I don’t know the terms used. Basically it was this small snippet where he says “I won’t say you can or cant, but that you should keep your mind free of immoral thoughts” (paraphrased) I’ve been searching for it and havent yet……maybe it rings a bell with someone else.

  485. earlthomas786 says:

    I would note a general agreement with FH on being frustrated when I hear preachers rant against sins of men, including porn, and say nothing (or almost nothing) about the sins of women. They are not dealing with the proper problem at all. Their ranting is completely unproductive and will drive many away from salvation.

    Well that’s a different issue…the errors of feminism if you will worming into the churches. Basically making everything women do as saintly and everything men do as evil. Turning gender into the basis for good and evil is something I’d call a heresy. Sin is sin no matter which gender is committing it.

  486. BillyS says:

    Thanks for the answer Zippy. I was both baptized in the RCC as an infant and later as a believer (outside the RCC).

    I suspect RCC doctrine would proclaim I should stay single the rest of my life. I may very well do that, but I do not see it as a Biblical commandment, even if I once might have.

  487. Zippy says:

    BillyS:

    I suspect RCC doctrine would proclaim I should stay single the rest of my life.

    Actually no. With a manifest defect of form case in your ‘marriage’ you could easily obtain an annulment and then be free to marry. I am basically certain that your marriage was not valid.

    But because you were baptized Catholic (“second baptisms” have no effect) you’d have to follow canonical form or get a dispensation from the bishop. (My guess is that most bishops would give you one, if only for the novelty and the ecumenical respect that it shows).

  488. earlthomas786 says:

    It is hardly a secret that more annullments are granted by US bishops than the rest of the RCC combined. That fact is true, even though it ought not to be.

    I agree it’s true…I don’t shy away from the fact there are certainly some corrupt bishops in the US…and abuse their authority for profit. They will have a lot to answer for when they are judged because they are also promoting offenses against marriage. I’m pointing out it’s not as easy as a preacher telling a wife to go to the court house and make it so…like I suspect many on here have encountered.

  489. earlthomas786 says:

    @ deti

    If at any point one spouse is deemed to be “not Christian enough”, the “not Christian enough” spouse is an “unbeliever”, and Pauline privilege applies.

    Yeah that’s the danger when a preacher starts taking Scripture into his own hands. Where Paul had a narrow definition of what it meant (I suspect because he was preaching to Gentile pagans where many were unbaptized who were married and some were becoming baptized)…Prots seem to think they can get around the whole baptism thing.

    I’ll put it this way…Catholic Church Canon law formed way back when based off Scripture and tradition certainly does protect us a lot from this type of crazy modern thought.

  490. Don Quixote says:

    Damn Crackers says:
    August 11, 2017 at 8:07 am

    @Don Quixote – If sex before marriage is fornication, then can’t anyone divorce their wife who didn’t marry a virgin according to Matt. 19:9?

    Thanks for your response but I disagree.
    The 3 examples shown in scripture show that it depends on the expectation of the groom.

    Example 1] Deut.22:13-21 The groom had been sold a virgin, but on the wedding night he discovered he had been sold a lemon [deception]. The blood stained sheet was the fathers receipt, and a better witness than a room full of friends and family. He must raise his concerns at the time, not years later.

    Example 2] Joseph was betrothed to marry Mary on the basis of her being a virgin. When Joe found out she was pregnant, he was getting out at that point in time because he was a righteous man. Fortunately an angel intervened.

    Example 3] New Testament 2Cor.11:2 … for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.

    This is a reflection of our covenant with Christ, if His expectations are not met there will be no marriage for a betrothed bride if she is unfaithful during the betrothal. Think about that… if a girl cannot contain herself during her betrothal, what kind of wife will she be?

    All adultery is fornication, but not all fornication is adultery.

    I admit this is a grey area for most folks. But I am convinced they are correct. If you’re interested please click my name.

  491. Gunner Q says:

    Hose_B @ 5:04 pm:
    “Maybe someone can help me find a verse…Basically it was this small snippet where he says “I won’t say you can or cant, but that you should keep your mind free of immoral thoughts”

    Perhaps 1 Cor. 6:12-13?

    “All things are lawful for me, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be mastered by anything. Food is for the stomach and the stomach is for food, but God will do away with both of them. Yet the body is not for immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord is for the body.”

  492. Anonymous Reader says:

    Earl
    I’m pointing out it’s not as easy as a preacher telling a wife to go to the court house and make it so…

    You still don’t quite get it, that’s the reverse of the standard sequence. You assume a rebellious wife is somehow obeying a preacher? What actually happens much more often is unhaaaapy wife gets divorce then demands that the church accept her decision. Which is a reasonable demand, since pastors / preachers / priests will generally do so. That’s why for Roman Catholic men the danger must be spotted long before she goes bishop shopping, because by then it’s too late.

    Earl, women have agency. They are capable of doing things all by themselves, they don’t need some man telling them to behave badly. You should know this by now, but you keep writing text that clearly shows otherwise. In Bible terms, who told Eve what to do? Who did she obey?

  493. Sammy says:

    Good Evening Dalrock,
    Thank you for this excellent and Biblically backed and packed commentary. There are simply no arguments to counter your stance nor will there ever will be. Because you speak pure truth here. Truth is spiritual and yes eternal. Lies are carnal and thankfully passing.
    God bless.

  494. 1st Corinthians 7:1-2 (NASB) “Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch a woman. But because of (pornea), each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband.”

    Let’s look at what the text actually says. A straight translation from the Greek goes something like this:

    “Because of sexual immorality and idolatry, each is to have his own wife and each is to have her own husband.”

    If a man has “his own” wife he is a husband, so we should say “each husband” instead of “each man”. And if a woman has a husband, she is a wife and we should say “each wife” instead of “each woman.” Otherwise, we are changing the meaning of the text to imply two things. First, that a man should only have one wife and second, that because of temptation men and women should marry.

    But, what is the thrust of Paul’s instruction? The context is the temptation of sexual immorality, so the best reading of the text would be this:

    Because of the temptation of porneia around us, each husband is to have his own wife (rather than the wife of another man- which is porneia) and each wife have the husband belonging to her (and not any other man, which is porneia).

    Keep in mind that Paul was a Pharisee who was well trained in the Law and he knew what sexual immorality was… as well as what it wasn’t. He was also well aware of the prohibition on adding to the Law. As he phrased this, it is correct in terms of the Law and he is not adding any new restriction to Christians.

    However, there is no requirement to marry in that passage because it’s immediately followed by verses 3-5 as a continuous instruction to the married. Because of the rampant sexual immorality and idolatry that provides temptation, the husband is told to focus on his own wife and the wife is told to focus on her own husband and that instruction is followed by an explanation of how it’s done:

    “The husband must fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. But this I say by way of concession, not of command. Yet I wish that all men were even as I myself am. However, each man has his own gift from God, one in this manner, and another in that.”

    This is not instruction requiring marriage, if anything, Paul is advising not to get married.

    Finally we get to verse 8-9

    “But I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I. But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.”

    Paul says it is better to marry than to burn, but that is in no way a command to marry and nothing has changed. A virgin is still married with the act of intercourse. The unmarried (eligible to marry) and the widow are married when they decide to marry and sex won’t make them married until they agree to marry. Note that I take that phrase “to the unmarried and to widows” to mean the non-virgin women who are eligible to marry. Paul knew that men needed no authorization to marry and now that he just forbid them from using whores in the previous chapter they’ll have the motivation to do so.

    Having said that, take note of the phrase “let them marry”. The form of that word is imperative and the implication was the church was preventing women who desired marriage from marrying. Paul is telling the church that if the women who are not under a man’s authority desire to marry to let them marry. Consider the instruction a bit later to the father of the virgin (who has no agency) that he does well if he allows her to marry and does better if he refuses to allow her to marry. Paul does not have the authority to tell the father what to do with his daughter, but he does have the authority to tell the church to let (allow, not hinder) the eligible women who desire to marry to marry.

    You said:

    “What the Apostle Paul explains repeatedly in this passage is that marriage is the solution to sexual temptation. If you don’t desire sex, do not marry. But if you desire sex, the only licit way to pursue it is to marry. And once married, you don’t have the right to refuse sex to your spouse because this would create temptation for sexual immorality.

    Would you believe that, more or less, I agree with you?

    However, that is completely irrelevant to the rather narrow, nuanced point I have made in the past and continue to make. Your conclusion was this:

    “The text is clear. Marriage is the only permitted path to sex. That we have done great violence to marriage doesn’t (and can’t) change this. However, the fact that we are thwarting God’s plan by destroying marriage should be deeply humbling and convicting. Divorce, child support, and even the subversion of headship are all questions of sexual immorality.”

    This is where it gets nuanced. Marriage is NOT the only *permitted* path to sex, it is the *repository* of sex. Take that as the statement of a theologian and consider it.

    Consider the widow. If she has to have a “test drive” prior to saying “I do” to the man, is she in sin? According to the Bible, she is NOT. Should she be doing that merely for pleasure? No, but the decision is up to her. But if it were leading to marriage, is she in sin? That isn’t the question, she isn’t in sin if she’d doing it for pleasure or not, the point is she *should* only be doing such a thing within the path of getting married.

    Under God’s design, a woman is born and grows up in her father’s house. Then she is married and goes to lie with her husband. After that are the exceptions, because this means either a woman is a virgin waiting to be married, a married woman or a woman who has been married.

    Should men and women be married when they have sex? Consider that when the man penetrates a woman, he is committing to marriage to her. Every single time. Every time a man has sex with his wife, he is re-affirming his commitment to their marriage. The only way a man and an eligible woman are not married when they have sex is if she’s not a virgin and not married. At that point she has a choice. She could choose to be a whore… or she could choose to have sex with a man before she marries him. It’s her choice. And it isn’t a sin.

    The idea that I’m promoting a “free love” atmosphere is incorrect. All I’ve done is point out what the rules actually are. Can they be abused? Absolutely. So can the rules for just about anything.

    What is the central point? That the virgin is married to the man who takes her virginity. Everything after that is details.

  495. Gary Eden says:

    Besides you just proved in Lev 15…that masturbation is a sin.

    Congrats, you just proved its sinful to be a fertile woman. Maybe you aught to rethink your understanding of scripture.

  496. Gary Eden says:

    @Dalrock

    they could exert an immense amount of social/moral pressure that would cut divorce rates at least in half.

    Do we have any actual evidence for this or is it just wishful thinking?

  497. Derek Ramsey says:

    @SirHamster – “What do you mean by “bring a married couple together”? If they’re a married couple at the point in time they come together for sex, the existence of their marriage clearly preceded the sexual act! and “But as Genesis says, a woman becomes a man’s wife even before they become one flesh.”

    Examine Mark 10. v6: God created male and female (Genesis 1:27). v7-8: Man leaves his parents and becomes one flesh with his wife (Genesis 2:24). v9: Therefore: man should not separate what God has joined together. Jesus explains Genesis 2:24 by saying that it is God joining a man and woman together. Now the language of Genesis 2:24 is sexual language, so it follows then that God joins a man and woman together through sex. Paul also quotes this in the context of prostitution, referring to sex (1 Cor 6). Both Paul and Jesus presume that Genesis 2:24 pertains to everyone, both virgins and non-virgins alike. Thus we arrive at the conclusion: all sex is [a presumption of] marriage, so all non-marital sex is wrong.

    Jesus equated becoming one flesh with marriage by stating that a divorce (the ending of a marriage) is a forbidden attempted reversal of the sexual act of becoming one flesh. She may be a statuatory (covenental) wife prior to sex, but they are not one-flesh. At what point would they become joined together by God if not sex? Upon bethrothal? No, that did not always occur. Look at the various ways that AT listed for ways that a man can acquire a wife. There is no common point at which they are joined together other than sex. The vast majority of biblical marriages were consummated. Those that were not (like David and Abishag) were treated as aberrations. It has always been assumed that a proper marriage would be consummated. Why make a big deal about consummating a marriage if it didn’t initiate the marriage proper?

    @Hose_B – “If you have sex with a woman who isn’t the wife of another man, the covenant is EXPECTED by God.”

    Yes! Sex always creates an expectation of marriage because they become one-flesh. If it does not lead to marriage it is, as you say, fornication. While I have a few minor quibbles with what you said, you’ve summarized the biblical view better than anyone so far.

    @Artisanal Toad – “I effectively told every man here that if he didn’t get his woman’s virginity, she (in almost all cases) isn’t his wife…That should have provoked a firestorm, but it got left alone.”

    I suspect that quite a bit more than 5% of us did it the right way and don’t find this to be a particularly provocative point worthy of debate.

  498. Boxer says:

    SirHamster whines:

    False summary. I am not accusing Toad of debating tactics. I am calling him a liar and charlatan who mishandles Scripture to justify his own lusts and to lead others to follow his own path of damnation. I am attacking his values and his credibility, not his tactics.

    There is indeed a liar in this conversation. Granted, he’s harmless, and no one of consequence takes him seriously. Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you the kook SirHamster…

    https://v5k2c2.wordpress.com/2017/03/24/boxer-his-stable-of-kooks/

    So glad to see this looney back, too. He was gone for a while. He’s back to dance for his elders and betters, and he intends to amuse and entertain. A good thing, since it is really the only thing he’s capable of doing.

    Regards,

    Boxer

  499. Boxer says:

    My Nigga Toad:

    Are you still suffering from your lesbian porn addiction? Should I start linking? You chose to go head to head with me years ago and you lost. In fact, you were just a side-kick to Simple Tim. You are a tool. Nothing more. Save yourself the embarrassment and go away.

    Oh LOLOLOL! An affinity for dyke pr0n fits his personality. I’m sure I’d enjoy a link to another example of SirHamster’s personal problems, tactlessly spewed across the internet in said temper tantrum. Feel free to get at me in e-mail if it’s more convenient.

    Regards,

    Boxer

  500. Boxer says:

    Dear Billy:

    AT was calling someone else an idiot (which is what I quoted).

    He called SirHamster an idiot. Guess what, SirHamster is an idiot, by any standard you want to apply. He has brought absolutely nothing thoughtful to the table in this conversation. He’s personalized and sexualized his opponents rather than making an argument. As near as I remember, that’s all he’s ever done.

    I think it’s a waste of time to entertain SirHamster. He’s a masochist who finds his self-worth by indulging in hostile banter on the internet (poor soul), but Toad ain’t lying.

    He is not the brightest bulb in the shed from what I have read, in spite of his many words.

    You really ought to pay attention to what he’s doing. He’s making valid arguments (they aren’t sound, because he starts with a false premise, but they’re valid).

    If I had to guess, I’d pin My Nigga Toad as being an attorney, a philosophy professor, or a professional writer of commercial advertisements. He’s persuasive, he knows logic, and he has a pretty good vocabulary.

    You should thank Dalrock, because he’s taking the time to do what none of the rest of you guys usually do, which is to debate him at an appropriately high level. (To be fair, most of the rest of us probably don’t have what it takes to keep up – I know I don’t.)

    Best,

    Boxer

  501. Dale says:

    Paniym said:
    So when the church figures out a way to have marriages without the State polluting it with it’s policies then lets start a conversation. Otherwise all conversation is meaningless.

    Absolutely. Most states are pretty adamant that they will intrude on your private marriage. Alberta “might” not; they allow a couple to create their own “Adult Interdependent Partnership”, where I think you can create your own rules, PLUS be explicitly denying that you have an “official” marriage.

    Just recently divorced after a 40 year marriage

    Condolences. May God heal your mind, heart and spirit.

    @squid_hunt:
    But the standard is 1. not to engage in impure thoughts and 2. not to engage in lascivious or licentious behavior. Masturbation and pornography fail on both counts.

    You are wrong about masturbation being a sin. Read all of Lev 15. Decide whether the term “unclean” means that it is a sin for a woman to be in the act of menstruating, or for a man to have sex with his own wife. Then apply your decision to the paragraph at verse 16 re emission of semen.
    And if you decide that it is a sin for a woman to menstruate, read 1 Cor 10:12-13. Since a woman cannot choose to not menstruate, and since it is (supposedly) a sin for her to do so, these facts show that God is a liar, as demonstrated by his false promise in 1 Cor 10, right? Please explain this supposed contradiction. Also read James 1:13-15, and deal with the (supposed) lie there too.
    If you decide that it is a sin for a man to have sex with his wife, read the 1 Cor 10:12-13 passage, plus 1 Cor 7:1-5, and explain the (supposed) contradiction. And also James 1:13-15, per above.

    Personally, I think the “uncleanness” parts of the law are meant to make absolutely clear that ALL men are incapable of being perfect and acceptable to God, on their own merits. Even the man who perfectly fulfills the 10 commandments will still have regular occurrences of “uncleanness”. Lev 15 makes this impossible to avoid, both for men (emissions of semen) and for women (menstruation). Gee, this just happens to line up with the rest of Scripture… Rom 10:1-13, Matt 5:48, Titus 3:3-8 (not by righteous things we have done), Eph 2:8-10, etc.

    Mycroft Jones at least partially did the exercise, and his response at 11:48 would lead us to conclude that sex with your own wife is a sin. It’s right there in the text at verse 18.
    Earl, you should read the related passages, as your response to Lev 15 also shows problems with your first response. I encourage you to read the whole chapter, plus the related passages I gave.

    You (squid_hunt) are possibly wrong on pornography. A person could covet, or fantasize about sex with, the woman in the picture. They could also do that for any person they see on the street.
    Or the perso may choose to not permit covetous or adulterous thoughts. Note that some people will not be able to refrain from going into the sin of covetous/adulterous thought; Matt 5:29-30 and Rom 14:14-15 would be relevant, if you are willing to read them. However, just because I am too weak to refrain from going into the sin of covetous/adulterous thought does not mean every other person would, given the same situation. Again, if you are willing, read Rom 14:1-4. I should not condemn the man who does not have the same weaknesses that I have.

    feministhater spouted the lack of society support or even church support leads me to believe you are all full of shit

    +1

    Earl: I’m still waiting on the specific verse in Scripture that says ‘by Bible/Scripture alone’.

    I gave you a couple a the prior thread. See https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2017/08/04/moving-beyond-the-nuclear-family/#comment-241484

    ys said it reveals much to me about their social circle, which matters, because we tend to group ourselves around our spiritual equals.

    Do you think at all? I want to find a decent church. The best I can do is to attend immigrant churches, which I do. Even these however, are immigrant congregations in Canada. The ones in Ukraine had drastically less open rebellion.
    As for English churches, even the so-called pastors show they take unworthy women into their house (Josh 24:14-15), thus showing which God they follow. Useless for marital training, the entire lot of them. I regret that this is true.

    ive met this kind of idiocy before and there is no end to the rules they want to add to the bible.
    … almost makes one think of Jesus’ words in Matt 23, eh?

    MKT: you read at a 3rd grade level
    Well, can you do any better? Do the Lev 15 exercise above, and let us know.

    @Earl: I’d like to see where it says in Scripture specifically it says it is evil or immoral to have an abortion.
    Easy. Ex 20:13, and if you need clarification, try Psa 139:13.
    Your attempt to equate masturbation with adultery, similar to murder with killing a child, is unwise. Murdering a child is murder, so of course they are the same.

    MKT: Paul and other writers ALWAYS tell Christians to “flee,” “abstain,” “put to death,” etc. all forms of sexual temptation.
    Yup. And if you want to know what is “sexual temptation”, then read the Scriptures. You seem to have a problem with wanting to add your own ideas about “sexual temptation” to what God said. Pretty ballsy. Stupid and blasphemous, but ballsy.

    Boxer: I’ve been in the northwest US/ southwest Canada

    Are you going through Vancouver? If so, let me know. I’ll buy you a steak 🙂

  502. Boxer says:

    Dear Dale:

    Are you going through Vancouver? If so, let me know. I’ll buy you a steak 🙂

    Thanks Dale! I was actually in Surrey for a couple weeks in July. I went back up to BC (Cranbrook this time) last week. I’ve been in North Idaho since.

    The whole province is on fire. I’m still coughing up the remnants of my visit.

    I think Dalrock in Meatspace would be a fun idea. The problem is security. If I went and posted a date/time/location, some fat bluehaired women would likely crash the party, to beg for the D and show us all their armpit hair. I might have to think about the possibility of coordinating something open but defensible…

    Best,

    Boxer

  503. Derek Ramsey says:

    @Boxer – “He’s making valid arguments ..He’s persuasive, he knows logic”

    AT’s overall thesis is a huge, intricate, intertwined, internally consistent, logically valid, circular argument. And it is not logically sound. But I’ve also found a number of flaws in some of his sub-arguments (on his site, not here) rendering them logically invalid. I’ve yet to see him refute those objections with anything more than a restatement of his original claim or an ‘argument from spam’. So you give a bit too much credit. That said, I’d rather debate with AT than 99.9% of anyone else on the internet because at least he makes you think hard.

    @Artisanal Toad – “Consider that when the man penetrates a woman, he is committing to marriage to her. Every single time….The only way a man and an eligible woman are not married when they have sex is if she’s not a virgin and not married. At that point she has a choice….And it isn’t a sin….The idea that I’m promoting a “free love” atmosphere is incorrect.”

    If you had just stopped at the first sentence you would have been fine. PIV creates an expectation of marriage (in the eyes of God) because it is a one-flesh joining. There is no acceptable alternative that is not a violation of God’s expectation. Whoring is not okay (and there is no such thing as a righteous prostitute), so when you are accused of setting a ‘free love atmosphere’, it is because you fail to condemn whoring when it is clearly counter to God’s intended plan: it is sex without an expectation of marriage.

  504. Boxer says:

    Dear Derek:

    AT’s overall thesis is a huge, intricate, intertwined, internally consistent, logically valid, circular argument. And it is not logically sound.

    Often times his arguments aren’t merely circular. He also starts from a false premise or two. To be fair, I don’t think Toad consciously knows he’s lying (if he did, he’d have to feel guilty for breaking those commandments… so much easier to play jiggery pokery and selectively read some redefined words into the bible and make everything seem cool.)

    I also don’t know if I could pin down an overall thesis to Toad’s work. When you use this term, what do you mean?

    There seem to be a couple of mutually exclusive things he argues for. His constellation of polygamy arguments suggest a specific thesis, but then this often explodes upon examination, to very broad claims about intuitionism in interpreting the text, which is a much more general claim, with the potential to overturn everything else. (I mean, really, if your intuition overrides the words of the bible, why cite it at all?) He also writes some mild literary erotica about spanking and S&M that’s a little weird. I can’t tell if he’s actually arguing for this, or just messing with his readers. (If you can’t troll your own blog, you may as well not have one.) Much of his game stuff is pretty good. I’d suggest a trip to Toad’s Hall for anyone who is interested in any of this stuff.

    Ah well… I wish Toad the best as he tries to manage multiple wives. He alludes to them being hotter than the average Mormon polygamist chick… I believe him, but even so, it’s better him than me.

    Best,

    Boxer

  505. ys says:

    Dale-
    I am no idiot. What kind of church are you looking for? Haven’t you boasted on here before about fornicating with women 30 years younger than you?
    Anyway, I am amazed that you, and others, are being so submissive to the church’s leadership. That is admirable, considering the problems of the 21st century church. You are submitting, and saying that until the church does something on your behalf, like fix marriage for you, your hands are tied. That is trust, to place your life so securely in another as you do when you trust their leadership.

  506. Cautiously Pessimistic says:

    Report from the trenches:
    I don’t know that masterbation is a sin, but it is not ideal. It progresses like sin, and I fast from it to try and keep it under control.
    I tried marriage to avoid sexual sin, but crapped out on a sexless marriage. Woe is me. So I avoid sexual sin that involves others, and keep it to myself. And I advise single men to avoid marriage 2.0 like the plague. It offers nothing but occasion for sin. And you can get that while single. If you don’t burn, you’ve got no business marrying. If you burn, marriage will not help you.
    I don’t reckon masterbation is a good thing. I look at it as a replacement good that prevents sin with greater impact. When my burning dies down with age, I will be glad to leave the practice behind. Be aware that marriage is not an answer to the problem, and merely adds burden to your life.
    You are better off single.

  507. Dale says:

    ys:
    I asked if you thought, because you were making assumptions about a guy’s spiritual character based on his church. You did not provide a defense of the reasoning behind your accusation. As I tried to point out, there are barely any decent churches that I have seen in Canada; a man’s chose to choose the best of a bad lot should not be seen as a poor reflection on a man’s character.

    As for my supposed fornicating, you may have me confused with the other Dale. I noticed within the last few days that another poster with the exact same handle posted. This has happened previously as well. Sorry for the confusion, but I am not interested in using a full name to disambiguate. And if I were to fornicate with women 30 years younger than me, that would supposedly be child abuse 🙂 I ain’t that old yet 🙂

    I do not submit to false church leaders. I do think it is fair to ask why the supposed leaders do not lead their flock into obedience however.
    I do admit I would like to see some leaders work on a legal solution for our corrupt laws. This is because, while I am willing to contribute, I do not feel like funding the full effort that would likely be required. This is one of the reasons for any group; we can do more together than individually.
    I fear however that Dalrock’s comments about there being no legal solution for marriage are correct. (Above he wrote: “The problem isn’t so much divorce laws (assets/alimony) as child support. ” I think that in Canada, a pre-nup cannot set out an agreement for future child support. The family court judge has the right to steal 10k a month from you if he wants; it is for “the benefit of the child”.)

  508. MKT says:

    Dale:
    “Yup. And if you want to know what is “sexual temptation”, then read the Scriptures. You seem to have a problem with wanting to add your own ideas about “sexual temptation” to what God said. Pretty ballsy. Stupid and blasphemous, but ballsy.”

    No, there’s absolutely no problem. From sexual thoughts to abstaining from fleshly desires to possessing your vessel in sanctification, the teachings and implications are all there. But like the Pharisees and others in the Bible, you’d rather look for loopholes are argue about what “is” really is.

  509. ys says:

    Dale-
    Understand on the name confusion. If not for anonymity, few of us would be here, I venture.
    I know many pastors get the current setup wrong. There are also some, I know 2 at least, who see it for what it is. What are they to do? Preach and teach their people the truth, I imagine. Not likely to solve that one any other way. No different than gay marriage, which is now legal here in the U.S. Not good, but not the fault of the church. It is comparable to marriage in that way.
    Not been to Canada much, but I know the situation is worse up there. You have my sympathies.

  510. Cane Caldo says:

    The trouble with Christians using the Old Testament (Old Covenant) for rules is that Christians are under the New Testament (New Covenant). The Old Testament writings are instructive, but they are not instructions.

    Another way to think about: The NT reveals what was hidden in the OT. So you don’t read the OT to find out what is meant in the NT, but vice-versa. That’s what revelation is, and Christianity is a religion of revelation. It is not a philosophy. This particular one of the “freedom of Christians to bang sluts” is just a particularly bad, particularly inane, case of sophistry.

  511. SirHamster says:

    @Boxer
    I don’t reciprocate your feelings. If I had a blog, I wouldn’t dedicate any posts to you. I’d rather you stick to the truth, but your determined lying and rewriting the past is a compliment of sorts.

    I recently finished an archive binge of Cane Caldo’s blog, and I find it interesting how you were acting respectful and chummy to him in his comments in 2013.

    https://canecaldo.wordpress.com/2013/12/04/dont-shut-your-eyes-when-i-turn-on-the-lights/#comment-5254

    But ever since he agreed that you lied, you now dedicate posts to character assassinating him as a Fake Christian. Sad. Especially the part where you play the victim and cry that you’re being silenced because criticism. It was pretty strange for your fans to plead to Dalrock to unban you. Who gave them that mistaken notion?

  512. Mycroft Jones says:

    For health reasons, I no longer have the energy to write long, detailed, and well supported comments like I did before I adopted the moniker Mycroft Jones. So I’m grateful to those who followed up when I mentioned Leviticus 15 and connected the Scriptural dots as I hoped they would.

    That said, if there ever is a Dalrock in Meatspace in the Lower Mainland, please count me in.

  513. Mycroft Jones says:

    Dale in Vancouver: piano tuner and musician?

  514. Dale says:

    Mycroft: Nope. It would drive me bonkers to tune an entire piano. 🙂 One of only many examples of how we benefit from God’s decision to not make us all the same, but rather as unique individuals, each with different strengths and desires. Even when this thread shows some of the conflicts that can arise from such differences 🙂 🙂 🙂
    Praise God for his creativity, wisdom and mercy!

  515. Mycroft Jones says:

    @Dale Amen and amen. Conflict is fine, and fun, if it is the iron sharpens iron variety.

    @Boxer I’ve also wondered if Toad was consciously lying. His writing style reminds me of Jack Kruse. I understand about pushing the Overton Window, but his “sex makes a marriage” concept throws the father’s role right out the window. The penalty for the promiscuous woman is one thing; the penalty for the man who seduces a virgin isn’t like the penalty for adultery; it is like the penalty for theft. When you pay restitution for a stolen item, that doesn’t mean the item is now yours and that you legitimately “bought” it. If you kill the cow or eat the food or enjoy the virginity, that is gone forever. Your penalty is double. Look at the penalty price of the virgin; it is double the rate for women normally. A lot of people miss that.

  516. earlthomas786 says:

    Congrats, you just proved its sinful to be a fertile woman. Maybe you aught to rethink your understanding of scripture.

    Read it again…the important part is when there is the need for the sin offerning.

  517. earlthomas786 says:

    Earl, women have agency. They are capable of doing things all by themselves, they don’t need some man telling them to behave badly.

    Sure they can instigage a divorce by themselves…however they have to find a bishop who declares the marriage wasn’t lawful or never happened to get an annulment.

  518. feministhater says:

    Besides you just proved in Lev 15…that masturbation is a sin. If you want to argue semantics that it isn’t exactly like your definition of adultery so be it…but I gave the reason before why the church included it under the sixth commandment. The bigger issue before was people trying to say it isn’t sinful.

    It also equates nocturnal emissions as sin and menstruation as well. It’s obvious that that sin is being unclean and thus the atonement for this is becoming clean. No longer necessary to wait 7 days though as we both have readily available fresh water and soap. The atonement is covered under Christ dying on the cross for our sins so the sacrifice of the birds is not needed anymore.

    Look at the wording. Any bodily discharge that is unclean. Any. Thus nocturnal emissions are considered the same sin as masturbation.

  519. feministhater says:

    Quite honestly, Lev 15 reads like a health manual of the OT on how to remain clean so as not to become diseased and unhealthy. It’s like the equivalent of a TV advert of an anti-bacterial soap.

  520. feministhater says:

    The masturbation part is listed under the offenses against chastity…whereas adultery is listed under the offenses against marriage. Look through the list yourself.

    Thank you for this, that clarifies quite a bit and makes far more sense.

  521. MKT says:

    Cane Caldo
    August 12, 2017 at 12:04 am
    “The trouble with Christians using the Old Testament (Old Covenant) for rules is that Christians are under the New Testament (New Covenant). The Old Testament writings are instructive, but they are not instructions.

    Another way to think about: The NT reveals what was hidden in the OT. So you don’t read the OT to find out what is meant in the NT, but vice-versa. That’s what revelation is, and Christianity is a religion of revelation. It is not a philosophy. This particular one of the “freedom of Christians to bang sluts” is just a particularly bad, particularly inane, case of sophistry”

    Amen. The problem is the porn/wanking/bang-sluts crowd knows next to nothing about hermeneutics. The OT is filled with symbolism and types that were fulfilled through Christ in the NT. Like you said, they’re trying to derive their sexual ethics by working backwards. You start with the principles taught in the NT (which absolutely condemn fapping to porn…or sleeping with anyone besides your wife). The Old Covenant laws can then be understood and helpful, but you don’t just through a list in Leviticus and then say “see…it’s not in there…so I can do X, Y and z. Yippee!”

  522. Kevin says:

    @necroking48

    Calling me a churchian. That’s pretty funny.

    I never referenced porn but have previously and agree with you that it is over emphasized. You should still quit it. It takes you away from God.

  523. earl says:

    For further clarification since I brought up the church’s stance on offenses against chastity…here’s what it states chastity is:

    ‘Chastity means the successful integration of sexuality within the person and thus the inner unity of man in his bodily and spiritual being. Sexuality, in which man’s belonging to the bodily and biological world is expressed, becomes personal and truly human when it is integrated into the relationship of one person to another, in the complete and lifelong mutual gift of a man and a woman.’

    ‘Chastity is a moral virtue. It is also a gift from God, a grace, a fruit of spiritual effort. The Holy Spirit enables one whom the water of Baptism has regenerated to imitate the purity of Christ.’

    ‘All the baptized are called to chastity. The Christian has “put on Christ,” the model for all chastity. All Christ’s faithful are called to lead a chaste life in keeping with their particular states of life. At the moment of his Baptism, the Christian is pledged to lead his affective life in chastity.’

    Offenses against it are lust, masturbation, fornication, porn, prostitution, rape, and homosexual acts.

    Then later it states the offenses against the dignity of marriage…adultery, divorce, polygamy, incest, free-union, and ‘trial marriage’ which from what I understand is a fancy term for cohabitation.

    http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm

  524. earl says:

    The text is clear. Marriage is the only permitted path to sex. That we have done great violence to marriage doesn’t (and can’t) change this. However, the fact that we are thwarting God’s plan by destroying marriage should be deeply humbling and convicting. Divorce, child support, and even the subversion of headship are all questions of sexual immorality.

    Perhaps you can explain why those three things are questions of sexual immorality.
    From what I can gather divorce is an offense against the dignity of marriage, child support is a legal result of an offense against the dignity of marriage, and subversion of headship is an act of rebellion against God (which may or may not be the result of sexual immorality).

    Just from my small amount of investigation there seems to be two different offenses when it comes to human sexuality…offenses against chastity and offenses against the dignity of marriage. We as a society have certainly done a lot since the sexual revolution to bring about many offenses against both.

  525. SkylerWurden says:

    @feministhater

    Since you quoted me (out of context) at the beginning of this comment thread I’m gonna ask you something I asked in the last thread:

    You said: “it’s actually the acute awareness that there are those who truly do not care to help, nor solve the problem of male sexual frustration at all.”

    1: How are we supposed to solve that problem?
    2: Why is it our job to solve that problem?

    If God is the one who made those rules then your complaint is with Him or if you don’t like bad women then your complaint is with them. In no way can you complain to us for telling you the rules and whine that those rules aren’t fair and we are meany-heads for communicating them. I’m not responsible for fixing women or for providing “other” young men great women to marry. Also, I’m not responsible for telling women how to act, though if any ever bother to ask me I will give them the same basic advice I tried to give you: marry or be celibate or risk Hell. But I’m not God, so those aren’t my rules. You can whine at me for telling you them as a proxy for God, but that won’t do you any good. Nor will threatening me (again as a proxy for God) with immorality unless the rules are changed.

    Holy crap, but the histrionics and whining because you (oh sorry “other men”) might have to go without sex is ridiculous. Did you see Dunkirk? All those kids drowning amd hpw many of them were virgins? So no sex ever and then they f***ing drowned. A life of suffering for the Lord’s sake is supposed to make you joyful. I know its a hard doctrine, but we are literally called to rejoice in suffering for the Lord and rather die than sin even once. Embrace the suck, man. It helps, I’m serious, it really helps.

  526. feministhater says:

    It wasn’t out of context. It was merely to show that Matthew 5:28 is always quoted in almost all threads relating to Christian sexual relations. In that particular instance, it really wasn’t about your content of the quote, just the fact that you brought up Matthew 5:28 which was in response to deti.

    I don’t want your help. Stop your shaming. Fuck off.

  527. earl says:

    A life of suffering for the Lord’s sake is supposed to make you joyful. I know its a hard doctrine, but we are literally called to rejoice in suffering for the Lord and rather die than sin even once. Embrace the suck, man. It helps, I’m serious, it really helps.

    True…we are all going to suffer at some point for various reasons. It’s a lot better to unite it to our Lord’s cross and suffering than to be bitter about it or trying to avoid it.

  528. heatherjo86 says:

    The Bible clearly shows God’s view of sex and marriage. He is the originator of marriage and the creator of sexual desire and attraction. These things were only meant for our marriage mate. At Matthew 19:8 Jesus says something that is profound. After mentioning Moses allowing divorce he said, “but that has not been the case from the beginning.” Jesus shows that the way people thought of divorce, adultery and marriage, even at that time was incorrect and needed to be adjusted. Adam had one wife, Eve. That was the way it was supposed to be. Multiple wives is adultery. Matthew 19:4,5 shows that the original way God created mankind was for one man and one woman to be joined in marriage to become one flesh. Anything outside of that arrangement is sin. 1 Corinthians 6:9,10 outlines that fornicators, adulterers, etc. “will not inherit the kingdom”. It would be crazy to assume you can be a single man, have sex with a prostitute and not think that that action falls into the categories listed in that scripture. There are no loop holes in the Bible. There’s no way around it. Sex outside of the marriage between a man and a woman is sinful. It’s up to us to decide if we want to comply with that principle. God has given us free will to make whatever decision we want but He will not shield us from the consequences of our actions.

  529. Dale says:

    Earl: Read it again…the important part is when there is the need for the sin offerning.

    Oi, some of you are so stubborn. You refuse to read the entire chapter, and do so with an open mind to see what it actually says.
    Did you actually read all of Lev 15, and the related passages (e.g. 1 Cor 10) that I listed above?

    Since you refuse to do the small amount of reading I suggested, I will follow your suggestion that you gave (quote above). There are two parts of Lev 15 that require an offering. The first is contained in verse 14-15.

    13 “‘When a man is cleansed from his discharge, he is to count off seven days for his ceremonial cleansing; he must wash his clothes and bathe himself with fresh water, and he will be clean. 14 On the eighth day he must take two doves or two young pigeons and come before the Lord to the entrance to the tent of meeting and give them to the priest. 15 The priest is to sacrifice them, the one for a sin offering[a] and the other for a burnt offering. In this way he will make atonement before the Lord for the man because of his discharge.
    16 “‘When a man has an emission of semen, he must bathe his whole body with water, and he will be unclean till evening. 17 Any clothing or leather that has semen on it must be washed with water, and it will be unclean till evening. 18 When a man has sexual relations with a woman and there is an emission of semen, both of them must bathe with water, and they will be unclean till evening.

    Well, looky here. Verses 13 to 15 are dealing with a “discharge”. This “discharge” requires the sacrifices.
    Verses 16-18, by contrast, deal with an emission of semen. These verses on semen require…. no sacrifice at all. Hmmm…. that is interesting.
    So we see that a discharge requires a sacrifice and that an emission of semen does not. Hmmm…. Well, at the very least, since you are focusing on the sacrifice, we see that the emission of semen is not a sin, just the discharge is. Gee, I thought you believed Lev 15 showed emission of semen was a sin — do you see what happens when we read more than 2 verses before deciding we know what a passage is teaching?
    So what is the “discharge”? Given the second passage for women below, it appears to be blood, or maybe pus, incontinence, or some other medical problem. That really sucks, since God now apparently considers it a sin to be sick. Plus, God designed our bodies to respond with bleeding, pus, and various other remedial actions in response to various medical issues such as cuts to our skin, infections, etc. So God apparently forces us to sin. If you had read the passages I listed above, you might see why this is obviously an incorrect interpretation.

    And the second passage that requires a sacrifice:
    25 “‘When a woman has a discharge of blood for many days at a time other than her monthly period or has a discharge that continues beyond her period, she will be unclean as long as she has the discharge, just as in the days of her period. 26 Any bed she lies on while her discharge continues will be unclean, as is her bed during her monthly period, and anything she sits on will be unclean, as during her period. 27 Anyone who touches them will be unclean; they must wash their clothes and bathe with water, and they will be unclean till evening.
    28 “‘When she is cleansed from her discharge, she must count off seven days, and after that she will be ceremonially clean. 29 On the eighth day she must take two doves or two young pigeons and bring them to the priest at the entrance to the tent of meeting. 30 The priest is to sacrifice one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering. In this way he will make atonement for her before the Lord for the uncleanness of her discharge.

    Ok, so the part in verse 25 makes clear that the “discharge” in question is not just her regular menstruation.
    And, as far as I am aware, women cannot ejaculate semen, so this “discharge” is obviously not the result of masturbation. Since the same word is used in the first passage above, this reaffirms that the emission of semen and the “discharge” are not the same thing.
    So the discharge might be continual bleeding from her womb, as the result of some medical issue, or perhaps one of the other medical issues I suggested above (pus, etc.). So, in this case where a woman is sick due to some medical issue, she has sinned, according your your view, because a sacrifice is required.
    Again, this kind of sucks, as we do not choose to become sick. (Well, normal people do not.) So, God is calling sin something that we cannot avoid. Which is a problem due to the 1 Cor 10 verse I listed above that I suspect you did not read.

    So, to answer your question, Lev 15 shows twice that being sick is sinful, but having an emission of semen is not.
    Now your turn. Read the entire chapter, plus the verses I listed above.

    The only thing difficult about this, is a stubborn unwillingness to submit your attitudes to what the Bible actually says, rather than what you have been taught it says or feel it should say. At least Earl has a partial excuse in this area… his religion teaches that their traditions are the basis for faith, rather than the Bible. The “sola scriptura” crowd does not have that excuse.

  530. earl says:

    At least Earl has a partial excuse in this area… his religion teaches that their traditions are the basis for faith, rather than the Bible.

    No you are ignorant about my faith…it teaches Scripture, tradition, and Magisterium are the basis for the faith, not just ‘trad alone’. They don’t pit against each other.

    However you are correct about what Lev 15 says.

  531. Minesweeper says:

    @Dale, yes its insane anyone could read Lev15 and think it calls jerkin off sinful. But we seem to be dealing with people who cannot learn anything that alters their current faulty belief system in any way.

    You do wonder, if they get so easily understandable and basic stuff wrong, how far does their twisted theology go ?

    there really is no point debating them any further. unless it comes from the pulpit forget it. I’m surprised they are here reading tbh.

    Jesus would call them “stiff necked whitewashed tombs”.

    They think we are looking for loopholes in scripture, the irony is that Jesus was closing one with Mat5:28. Can I condemn their thinking? only as far it goes with them influencing others, you will notice a distinct lack of grace with them. But if a mans junk only springs into life when the marriage document is signed I cant argue with that and if they never find women sexually attractive or never dwell on it I cant argue with that either. Lucky them ! But then there is no need for marriage in that situation either.

  532. Dale says:

    @Earl:
    No you are ignorant about my faith…
    Agreed. Not as ignorant as you may think, but still, I am ignorant about it, compared to you. My comment was meant to criticize those who do not submit to Scripture. I was trying to admit that you at least have a partial excuse for not doing so.
    But yes, you are of course correct. The RCC claims to also submit to Scripture. As you said, the RCC teaches:

    Scripture, tradition, and Magisterium are the basis for the faith, not just ‘trad alone’. They don’t pit against each other.
    I guess you will disagree, but it appears to me, based on your past comments, that if the Bible says one thing, or does not say it, but your traditions go against or add to Scripture, you frequently go with the traditions. I must admit it would be a massively false and unfair accusation to claim you do not at all submit to Scripture however; your final comment, re Lev 15, appears to show that you changed your mind to do exactly that.
    You are simply trying to simultaneously obey all three items you listed above. I do not envy your position. Jesus talks about trying to obey only two masters in Matt 6:19-24, and shows in that example that it cannot be done.

    To be fair, the Ukrainian Orthodox religion describes their traditions as explanations of God’s word. So these are seen as fuller explanations that are themselves based on God in some way, helping people understand how to correctly obey God in their daily life. I assume the RCC presents their traditions and orders from their Magesterium similarly.

  533. Boxer says:

    @Boxer I’ve also wondered if Toad was consciously lying. His writing style reminds me of Jack Kruse.

    I had to look up Jack Kruse to find out who he was, and I’ve never read any material he authored, but I think this is a good jumping-off point for some general observations.

    Toad isn’t a genius, but he is very bright (his vocabulary, combined with the speed at which he types a coherent rant, is a strong indication). It seems to me that people who are in this range have a number of unique difficulties. They tend to be isolated intellectually (few of their peers can really understand the details of the points they make, so they quit trying to make them in public). This leads to increased atomization. They have the ability to go through unique steps to make inferences. Since they become accustomed to holding large quantities of information in their heads, and since they have few peers to review the implications of their thoughts, they are ironically subject to error at least as much as the average dummox (like ya boy Boxer).

    Guys like Daniel Dennett and Michael Shermer talk about this stuff. Smart people tend to be uniquely susceptible to weird conspiracy theories, and you can often find very bright people in The $cient0l0gysts or the Mutual UFO Network. This is not really a coincidence.

    I understand about pushing the Overton Window, but his “sex makes a marriage” concept throws the father’s role right out the window.

    Toad has actually revised this position at least once, since I’ve been reading his work. For example:

    https://artisanaltoadshall.wordpress.com/2017/03/29/theology-for-men-of-the-west-one-flesh/

    This suggests, to me, that Toad is smart enough to accept criticism and self-aware enough to regularly re-evaluate his positions. I’m hopeful that the author of Dalrock blog will inspire him to moderate his more extreme views. This original article here was excellent, as were many of the comments.

    The penalty for the promiscuous woman is one thing; the penalty for the man who seduces a virgin isn’t like the penalty for adultery; it is like the penalty for theft. When you pay restitution for a stolen item, that doesn’t mean the item is now yours and that you legitimately “bought” it. If you kill the cow or eat the food or enjoy the virginity, that is gone forever. Your penalty is double. Look at the penalty price of the virgin; it is double the rate for women normally. A lot of people miss that.

    This is a really good, salient point, that I have never caught before. In the old days, when Pater Familias was part of the social order, raping a virgin girl often meant that the girl would be honor killed by relatives. At the very least, she probably wouldn’t get married, because the physical intactness was the only way to prove virginity (and hence to provide a safeguard to the husband’s family that she wasn’t already knocked up by some wandering playa). Thus when the girl was raped, she’d be a burden not only to her parents, but to the entire community: a useless eater, or perhaps a harlot who encouraged vice and social problems in others.

    Best,

    Boxer

  534. @all

    All of you, pay attention for a moment. Yes, that includes a few or you who are hiding in the shadows. I’m right here. No need to refer to me in the third person… or in veiled references.

    I made a point which you have all completely overlooked. Are you cowards?

    Can you actually pick up your Bible and study it for a moment?

    The most interesting thing is those who should have said something have not. Where are the theological heroes? No… where is anyone?

  535. @Boxer

    Let me know when you’ll be in the NOLA area. The girls would like an opportunity to take you to task. Your safety is assured, I’ll be present.

  536. earlthomas786 says:

    ‘You are simply trying to simultaneously obey all three items you listed above. I do not envy your position. Jesus talks about trying to obey only two masters in Matt 6:19-24, and shows in that example that it cannot be done.’

    Except in that example…the two masters are God and wealth. Like I said…they don’t oppose or put against each other so it is not serving different masters.

  537. earlthomas786 says:

    And Jesus addressed what defiles a person…Moses I think had an incomplete understanding.

  538. Gunner Q says:

    Artisanal Toad @ 1:48 pm:
    “All of you, pay attention for a moment. Yes, that includes a few or you who are hiding in the shadows. I’m right here. No need to refer to me in the third person… or in veiled references.

    “I made a point which you have all completely overlooked. Are you cowards?
    “Can you actually pick up your Bible and study it for a moment?”

    Do you enjoy losing to me enough to call me out? Very well, grab your ankles while I pick up my Bible….

    [ORBITAL CANNON READY. BRACKETING TARGET]

    Artisanal Toad @ August 11, 2017 at 8:27 pm:
    “What is the central point? That the virgin is married to the man who takes her virginity. Everything after that is details.”

    [FIRE FOR EFFECT]

    Deut. 22:23-24: “If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death… the man because he violated another man’s wife.”

    There you have it. The OT calls a virgin pledged to be married a wife. Marriage without sex. Everything after that is details.

    [SECOND PASS]

    Matt. 1:18-19: “This is how the birth of Jesus the Messiah came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit. Because Joseph her husband was faithful to the law, and yet did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly.”

    [RECHARGING]

  539. Minesweeper says:

    @AT, well since you have laid down the gauntlet

    if PIV =marriage then explain
    OT: Lot having sex with his daughters = not marriage
    OT: father in law having sex with daughter in law unknown to him was masquerading as a hooker = not marriage
    OT: onan having sex with sister in law =not marriage
    NT: Paul saying expel the immoral believer as he was having sex with stepmom =not marriage
    NT:Jesus saying to the woman at the well “Jesus said to her, “You are right when you say you have no husband. 18 The fact is, you have had five husbands, and the man you now have is not your husband. What you have just said is quite true.”” =not marriage

  540. MarcusD says:

    A Millennial talks about his parents’ divorce. (Xantippe and BlueEyedLady make their usual, ‘insightful’ comments)
    https://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=1060864

    An Account: Catholic Marriage: When Marriage Is from God, a Source of Divine Grace for Husband and Wife.
    https://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=1061217

    Dating & age gaps… old subject, I know!
    https://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=1061249

  541. Hmm says:

    Having finally read to the bottom of the meta, I have a few comments:

    1. Some Christians falsely consider adultery through lust to be equivalent to physical adultery. Evangelical feminists have been quick to grab onto this interpretation of Matthew 5:28. One commentator noted that Jesus was attempting to show by this that none of his listeners were free from breaking the commandment – they all had lusted after a woman – with which I agree. But lust in the head – like covetousness itself – is not actionable because it is not visible. None of us reads minds, so none of us can tell what someone was thinking when he saw that woman or that picture. So to attempt to use this expansion of the law to bring a man under charges for adultery assumes a godlike knowledge of a person’s mind and motives. Only God and I know whether that look was sinful.

    To those who cling to the equivalence interpretation, ask them if they would interpret Matthew 5:22, couched in the same kind of language, to allow us to bring the death penalty against hatred: should we kill the child or the girlfriend who says “I hate you!”?

    Of course not. In these passages, it is God who judges. After all, none of us can condemn anyone to the fires of hell.

    2. On masturbation. When I was a young Christian in the 70’s I read all kinds of evangelical viewpoints on the subject. Some teachers (even James Dobson) said it was no big deal, as long as no lust was involved. That would mean no porn, no visualizing women nude, etc. But they considered masturbation without lust as a relief valve in the age of delayed marriage.

    Others said no, God has provided such relief through our sleeping nocturnal emissions, for which we need to feel no guilt.

    None, to my recollection, went in the other direction, allowing the use of pornographic images as an aid to the act. They all considered it to some degree to involve the women so pictured, and damaging to them or to our other relationships.

    But I heard all kinds of rationalizations from guys in my men’s small groups at the time: The women who have their pictures taken for the magazines or in the movies aren’t believers and are going to hell anyway. I can masturbate to stories or drawings of fictional women, because I am not lusting after “a woman”. And I confess, I bought into those ideas myself once in awhile. But somehow my own thoughts would never stay there…

    What strikes me at present is the openness with which guys discuss it – and are proud of it. “Fap culture” indeed. Not so in my youth, where we all knew that we all did it, but we never talked about it, except once in awhile in the men’s group when some preacher bore down hard on us.

  542. Irony: the passage from Proverbs about drinking water from your own cistern that Dalrock quoted is indeed about not committing adultery.
    For the lips of the adulterous woman drip honey,
    and her speech is smoother than oil;
    4 but in the end she is bitter as gall,

  543. @Minesweeper

    Before I begin, please take note that I did not say PIV=marriage, that is only true in the case of the eligible virgin. Emphasis on the word ‘eligible’. Please refer to Deut. 22:28-29 on how far that goes, as well as the fact that sex is the act of marriage. The unstated part that most simply cannot comprehend is the man is making his commitment to marry with the act of penetrating the woman. Every. Single. Time.

    Minesweeper, it’s the act of sex with an eligible VIRGIN that creates a marriage. Incest doesn’t count. So…

    OT: Lot having sex with his daughters = not marriage
    That was a forbidden relationship. Fathers are forbidden to have sex with their daughters, meaning they cannot marry them.

    OT: father in law having sex with daughter in law unknown to him was masquerading as a hooker = not marriage
    Another case of a forbidden relationship

    OT: onan having sex with sister in law =not marriage
    Wrong, completely wrong. Onan was married to her under the law of the Levirate marriage. His sin was trying to avoid getting her pregnant. He was her husband.

    NT: Paul saying expel the immoral believer as he was having sex with stepmom =not marriage

    The relationship was forbidden at least 4 times and cursed as well. The father was still alive so it was also a case of adultery.

    NT:Jesus saying to the woman at the well “Jesus said to her, “You are right when you say you have no husband. 18 The fact is, you have had five husbands, and the man you now have is not your husband. What you have just said is quite true.”” =not marriage

    Please explain the meaning of the word “had” and we can go from there. Were they her husbands, or were they another woman’s husband? Was Christ saying she had legitimately been married 5 times? We don’t know. What we do know is that the man she currently had is NOT her husband. And guess what? She obviously was NOT a virgin.

    When the eligible virgin (meaning, eligible to marry that man, the relationship is not forbidden) has sex she is married to the man who gets her virginity. How far does that go? Take a look at Deut. 22:28-29.

  544. Boxer says:

    Let me know when you’ll be in the NOLA area. The girls would like an opportunity to take you to task. Your safety is assured, I’ll be present.

    I would not pass up the chance to have a coffee (or a good single malt scotch) with the Notorious T.O.A.D., and I’m sure your wives are very nice.

    In about a week-and-a-half my life I will be back on the third coast, full time. Send me an email home boy. We’ll do it at some point.

    Boxer

  545. Minesweeper says:

    @AT,misunderstood your reasoning, if its just penetrating a virgin = auto marriage unless dad disapproves, there is certainly a lot of evidence for that. So what else are you going on about ? I havnt been following what your discussing and the history behind it.

    So Onan was an automatic husband even without a ceremony. But what about Gen 38:18 when she conceived a child by Judah which would have been adultery. This is so interesting, as I did a search on Zara her 1st born from Judah and it seems her descendants ended up 1st migrating to Spain, then Scotland and Ireland.This is absolutely amazing.

    Explain “had” : Jesus uses a slightly different meaning of the same word to describe past husbands and the current unmarried one. Past and current tense with the same word as far as I can tell.
    _____Strongs_____
    G2192 echo ekh’-o, including an alternate form scheo skheh’-o; (used in certain tenses only)
    a primary verb;
    to hold (used in very various applications, literally or figuratively, direct or remote; such as possession; ability, contiuity, relation, or condition).
    KJV: be (able, X hold, possessed with), accompany, + begin to amend, can(+ -not), X conceive, count, diseased, do + eat, + enjoy, + fear, following, have, hold, keep, + lack, + go to law, lie, + must needs, + of necessity, + need, next, + recover, + reign, + rest, + return, X sick, take for, + tremble, + uncircumcised, use.

    Im learning alot from this, thank you. I dont tend to dive into the OT much, not get into history.

  546. Minesweeper says:

    @AT
    Also are you missing the caveat in Deut. 22:28-29. in that they have to be discovered ? So a quickie round the back of the cow shed that no one finds out about dosnt apply ? According to that one anyway, im sure there a many more similar verses and Im sure you know them all.

  547. MKT says:

    Artisanal Toad:
    “Let me know when you’ll be in the NOLA area. The girls would like an opportunity to take you to task. Your safety is assured, I’ll be present”.

    AT and his “girls” in NOLA with guaranteed safety. What could go wrong? Maybe they can break bread and serve the Lord together in a strip joint. Hallelujah!

  548. Hose_B says:

    @Hmmm
    “So to attempt to use this expansion of the law to bring a man under charges for adultery”

    This statement is crucial about what Jesus meant with Matt 5:28. We tend to see others sins and want to prosecute them for it. He is essentially saying the same as when he saved the woman caught in adultery “Let those who have not sinned cast the first stone.”

    The OT Law was given so that by continually failing it, we would see that would NEVER be able to keep it. Which is then why Jesus was sent to take the penalty (New covenant, If we trust in him) He did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. We are still expected to wholeheartedly try to follow God’s laws (which you must read the OT to understand), Knowing we will fail but that Jesus will forgive our failures if we are earnestly striving for Gods will.

    OT lays down the law. NT saves us from it and tells us not to take the job of punishing those who break it. Punishment is Gods job.

  549. Hose_B says:

    @MKT

    “AT and his “girls” in NOLA with guaranteed safety. What could go wrong? Maybe they can break bread and serve the Lord together in a strip joint. Hallelujah!”

    NOLA is more than just “strip joints” and to reduce the entire city down to that is shows an incredible lack of insight. Its actually an amazing city with an

    The part about AT and his “girls” just shows disrespect. As long as Toad believes they are his wives and he is willing to stand before God and present them as his “radiant church”, then so be it. He is certainly not telling you that you should have one, two or zero wives.

  550. MKT says:

    Hose_B:
    A little sensitive, aren’t we? I’ve been to NOLA many times and used to live near there. There’s a nice, historical side of the city I enjoy visiting, but it’s been seedy for decades. Read “A Confederacy of Dunces” (written in the 1960s). Also, the wealthier, more cultured families have been leaving the city for some time, and it accelerated after Katrina. (Speaking of which, look how your “amazing” city’s barbarians behaved then…for shame.)

    I am disrespectful towards AT and make no qualms about it. He’s a false teacher, wannabe cult leader in the proud tradition of Koresh, Warren Jeffs , etc. Plenty of heretics believe they can stand before God…and many of them try to justify their beliefs/lifestyle by torturing Scripture. AT is no exception.

  551. Gary Eden says:

    This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. – Matt 15:8-9

    Just because your tradition is old, doesn’t make it true.

    God gave us the law to teach us what is sin (Rom 7:7-12, 15:4). If the OT does not condemn it, its not sin and you are adding to the law to say otherwise. It’s that simple.

    Thats why all of you who would condemn masturbation, porn, sex acts you don’t like, or sex outside of marriage keep avoiding OT scripture in favor of misconstruing NT verses. You haven’t a leg to stand on.

    But we see through the gas-lighting and hypocrisy and so does everyone else, thats why you lost the culture war.

    And since you haven’t learned from that failure, you’ll loose the next one too.

  552. Minesweeper says:

    @AT,”But what about Gen 38:18 when she conceived a child by Judah which would have been adultery.” – now I think about it, how could it have been adultery, both were widowed.

  553. MKT says:

    Gary Eden:
    “Thats why all of you who would condemn masturbation, porn, sex acts you don’t like, or sex outside of marriage keep avoiding OT scripture in favor of misconstruing NT verses…thats why you lost the culture war.”

    Only if “misconstruing” = reading and having a mature understanding. BTW, we lost the culture war because you and your type were too busy beating their meat and mainlining porn.”

  554. @MKT

    Two of my wives are capable of taking you down and making you beg for your life without any help from anyone. The other one would simply kill you with kindness. They will all cheerfully agree that they were misfits and misguided until they found their way into my life… but now they are part of my life. And if Jacob was married to his wives, then I’m married to mine. Whether that bothers you or not is irrelevant. As far as we are concerned, we are married.

    Given what Boxer has said about me, they are all pretty pissed off with him. Boxer should understand that, knowing what he has said. I thought it reasonable to guarantee his safety under the circumstances. They are lovable, but they’re also lethal.

    In a past life, I developed some friendships with a few frogs after I got tasked with working with them. They are a rather tight group but decided I was a dry land member of their community, which is how I came to be known as the Toad. As in, not a member of the frog community, but quite nice to have around when things go sideways. Something of cousin. I’m also considered to be an artist of sorts… so they overlooked my obvious shortcomings and appreciated me for what I do well. I overlooked the fact they were squids and we got along. I should point out that I was no longer in service and was in fact working on the other side of the fence when I got to know these creatures. We didn’t let that bother us, we got along. It helped immensely that half of us were Southrons. Blood will tell.

    So, yes, I’m a Toad. And nothing you (or anyone else) can throw at me will stick.

  555. MKT says:

    @AT: “Two of my wives are capable of taking you down and making you beg for your life without any help from anyone.”

    The rest of what you wrote was cryptic and kind of interesting…some military references for sure. But I seriously doubt that first sentence. In his mid-to-late 40s, Vox Day said he could take Ronda Rousey, and it’s the same with me and your wives (not that I have any desire to fight women). I’m a fit/strong guy for my age and trained in a bit in MMA back when it was called NHB (no holds barred).

  556. @MKT

    You’re an idiot. You’d never see the stiletto until after the work was done. You would not survive the result. I know my wives. They’d smile while they stabbed you in the liver

  557. MKT says:

    @AT
    Didn’t realize we’re talking weapons and the element of surprise. These don’t exactly sound like Proverbs 31 or I Timothy 2 women, though. Once again, it sounds like you’ve let your porn/action movie/D&D/etc. fantasy world dictate the lens of how you handle Scripture. Shameful.

  558. SirHamster says:

    @ Derek

    Jesus repeats Genesis 1 to say that God created male and female. He repeats Genesis 2 to say that a man leaves his parents to be joined to his wife.

    But the language here is that he is joined to his wife. It does not say he is joined to an eligible virgin/woman. Thus, the wife has the status of wife before any sexual union of one flesh occurs. You can also see this concept in action in the OT law. GunnerQ in a recent post notes that in Deuteronomy law a pledged virgin who is violated has the status of a wife for the purpose of punishing the man involved.

    Why make a big deal about consummating a marriage if it didn’t initiate the marriage proper?

    Definition of consummation:

    “to complete (the union of a marriage) by the first marital sexual intercourse.”

    What completes is by definition something different than what initiates. If an action both initiates and consummates, both of those words are inapplicable because the action is atomic.

  559. SirHamster says:

    @ Gunner Q

    A pleasure to watch the haughty brought low. For all the bluster and the walls of text, he has no understanding of the Bible he pretends to revere.

  560. necroking48 says:

    @Earl, @MKT and the rest of you godless, depraved Roman Catholics can take your popery, marilolatry, works righteousness, pagan foolishness garbage and take a flying leap and join Jerome and Augustine and the rest of these sick depraved ascetics and join them in hell
    What makes you pharisees worse than feminists with their shaming tactics, belittling men for their sex drives, and pious condemnation of male sexuality is that we know where we stand with feminists but you cloak your ascetic garbage under the guise of Christianity

  561. Snowy says:

    ys says, “I did not have sex before marriage. Difficult? Very. But I did it.”

    I notice you didn’t say, “I did not pull my pud before marriage. Difficult? Very. But I did it.”
    Wouldn’t be very self-righteous, would you? I could practically guarantee you were not a virgin before marriage in the strictest sense: never had sex AND never wanked. You’re so full of it.

  562. Dave says:

    AT is like the undead. You can shoot him, stomp him, crush him, or burn him…..he keeps coming towards you with his uneven gait, and bloody, disfigured face. He never dies. And he never tires of peddling his arrant nonsense and damnable heresies everywhere he goes.

    This man is so deep in false teachings, only the special grace of God can deliver him. Like Simon, AT is “in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity”, and does not realize that he holds lies in his right hand.

    Throughout Christendom, it was a settled belief that the Christian faith did not encourage polygyny in any way, and no one on record during the NT period, practiced polygyny, except those who had done so before they became Christians.
    AT believes he understood the Scriptures more than all the Apostles combined. He married more than one wife.

    And he also came up with this obsolete law, stating that sex with “an eligible virgin” equals marriage. He conveniently forgot the other verses close to the ones he liked to quote:

    Exodus 22:
    16 And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife. 17 If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.

    If the above verses apply to us today, then the following verses apply to us as well:

    18 Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.
    19 Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death.
    20 He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed.

    So, if AT would be consistent, he should start executing witches and those who worship other gods, and the sexual perverts.

    Even the passage made it clear that sex with a virgin did not equal marriage, otherwise, there would be no further need to “endow her to be his wife”, as the sex act would have achieved that purpose.

    (Exodus 22:16 talked about a man seducing a virgin; Deuteronomy 22:28 talked about a man raping a virgin; the punishment was the same: marry the woman and never divorce her).

    When you examine the law however, you quickly realize that God’s mandate to the seducer/rapist to marry the virgin woman she had sex with was the most humane thing to do.

    In Israel in those days, a woman who was found not to be a virgin on her wedding night would be stoned to death (Deuteronomy 22:13-21). Moreover, once it was known that a woman had lost her virginity without being married, she became unmarriageable to most men, young or old.

    Thus, the next best thing to save the seduced/raped woman from a life sentence of loneliness and shame was to force the man responsible for her predicament to marry her for life. It was like the “China shop rule”: you break it; you buy it.

    Virginity was so valuable in Israel in those days that if a man falsely accused a virgin of not being a virgin, he would pay a fine (See Deut 22:19).

    It must be stated, again, that the entire OT laws (including AT’s favorite “rape a virgin if you want her” law) have been done away in Christ. We are not obligated to obey any laws in the OT, unless such laws have been made part of the New Covenant. Anyone who subjects themselves to any OT laws is obligated to keep ALL the OT laws, and those who do so are still in their sins.

    Galatians 3:

    23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
    24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
    25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster

  563. earlthomas786 says:

    What makes you pharisees worse than feminists with their shaming tactics, belittling men for their sex drives, and pious condemnation of male sexuality is that we know where we stand with feminists but you cloak your ascetic garbage under the guise of Christianity

    Feminists only shame and claim morality based off gender, which is the route you are going…it’s a matter of sin. I wouldn’t condone women committing sexual sins either.

  564. necroking48 says:

    Actually on the contrary I’m not differentiating based upon gender….I’m attacking the anti-sexual asceticism, prevalent in early church fathers like Augustine, who wanted to chop his own dick off, that now infects Roman Catholicism and anti-sexual zealots today

    There’s nothing wrong in condemning sexual sins, that are mentioned in scripture….where I take issue, is with any idiot, who decides to add to scripture, and call things “sin” that are not sins

    “sin is a transgression of the LAW” Romans 4:15, 1st John 3:4, and where no LAW exists, there is NO transgression of that law
    That’s God’s definition, of what constitutes sin…..anyone, including YOU, who rejects that definition, is rejecting the plain counsel of GOD almighty himself….so therefore, if a man calls something a sin, especially something sexual, then you had better find some scripture to back it up, unless you want to be accused by God as going beyond what the scriptures say, and adding YOUR OWN SINS to what God has already decreed

    Starting from that foundation, we learn, that:
    1: Masturbation/fapping is NOWHERE mentioned in the bible, not one time, so it can not be a sin
    2: Those who masturbate, are now being singled out as the litmus test on what constitutes “true Christians” or not
    3: Anti-sexual ascetics, like those found in this thread, are obsessed with sexual sins, to the exclusion of EVERYTHING else….To them, that is the be all, end all of one’s entire existence
    4: And most importantly, they are Christ rejecting, works righteousness zealots, who reject the cross and God’s salvation of grace, and are attempting through their self denial of the flesh, to earn their salvation and redemption through obedience to the LAW
    This is why you find them, predominantly in the gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are under the Old Covenant), and the Old Testament
    They reject the notion that ALL have sinned, and are now obsessed with earning God’s favor by obedience to the LAW
    Paul calls them, the “concision”, and “dogs”, and preaching a false gospel, that will see them burn in hell forever….They are in fact under a curse,……….”Gal 3:10  For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them”

  565. Dave says:

    Masturbation/fapping is NOWHERE mentioned in the bible, not one time, so it can not be a sin

    Really?
    How about meth? Cocaine? Weed? It musat be OK for Christians to use those substances, because, by your logic, they were not mentioned ANYWHERE in the Bible, and therefore, their use cannot be sinful.

    Have you never read that “you are not your own, but you are bought with a price; therefore glorify God in your body, and in your mind, which are God’s”?

    How does fapping glorify God in your body, again? Can you go before the church on Sunday morning, and tell it as a testimony that God is being glorified through your masturbation?
    Better yet, can you, with a straight face, recommend masturbation to a new Christian, as a method of glorifying God?

    Any honest Christian must agree that masturbation is, at the very least, questionable.
    If you have doubts about any action, and you go ahead and engage in such an action, you are condemned, because doubtful actions are sinful. The Scripture is clear on that:

    “He that doubteth is damned…because whatsoever is not of faith is sin”.
    Romans 14:23

  566. Snowy says:

    Minesweeper says, “Can I condemn their thinking? only as far it goes with them influencing others, you will notice a distinct lack of grace with them.”

    Indeed. Lack of grace. Stubbornness. Self-righteousness. Arrogance. Pride. Staunchness. Etc.

    Dale says, “I guess you will disagree, but it appears to me, based on your past comments, that if the Bible says one thing, or does not say it, but your traditions go against or add to Scripture, you frequently go with the traditions.” And, “You are simply trying to simultaneously obey all three items you listed above. I do not envy your position. Jesus talks about trying to obey only two masters in Matt 6:19-24, and shows in that example that it cannot be done.”

    That’s right. Very eloquently put. Couldn’t have said it better myself. Well done.

  567. earl says:

    That’s God’s definition, of what constitutes sin…..anyone, including YOU, who rejects that definition, is rejecting the plain counsel of GOD almighty himself….so therefore, if a man calls something a sin, especially something sexual, then you had better find some scripture to back it up, unless you want to be accused by God as going beyond what the scriptures say, and adding YOUR OWN SINS to what God has already decreed.

    If you can prove to me that masturbation isn’t a form of sexual immorality or impurity by using Scripture, I’ll concede. Fleeing sexual immorality and sexual immorality are considered acts of the flesh is certainly in Scripture.

  568. earl says:

    And I have no idea where the thought that Augustine would recommend that came from (I imagine it doesn’t exist unless someone can provide proof)

    But St. Paul mentions to ‘put to death’ these things of our earthly nature…because of the wrath of God. The only argument being used is that fapping isn’t specifically mentioned in Scripture…but I’d like to know how it isn’t considered sexually immoral or at the very least an act of the earthly flesh that can lead to impurity.

    Colossians 3:5-7

    Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry. Because of these, the wrath of God is coming. You used to walk in these ways, in the life you once lived.

  569. necroking48 says:

    It is impossible to prove a negative….This axiom fits all frames of experience, NOT just moral issues, so if you’re looking at it from that point of view, It will be impossible for me to prove to you that masturbating is NOT a sin.

    Also, your term “sexual immorality” is NOT a term found in the bible, that is a man made term, the actual term is “FORNICATION”…..in order for you to decide if masturbation fits under the umbrella of fornication, you will have to do a word search and see it it fits…..let me assure you, IT DOESN’T

    Also your term “impurity” is not mentioned in the bible either, it is a man made term, and it is tainted and tinged with “sex”…..i.e sexual purity, but the bible NEVER uses the term “pure” in regards to sexuality, not 1 damn friggin time, on the contrary, it is the anti-sexual ascetics who have added to the word of God and reinterpreted that term to fit their agenda

    If you don’t believe me, do a word search with a concordance, and look at every occurrence of the word “pure” in the bible

    The bible never tells a man to “flee from sexual immorality”…..it tells him to flee from fornication

    The lying deceived apostates in this comments section, have continually expanded Matthew 5’s specific term ADULTERY to mean fornication when it does no such thing……ascetics NEED Matthew 5 changed because it destroys their anti-sexual/no fapping, no wanking agenda, if Christ is talking about a violation of a particular law, for e.g looking at/wanking over/desiring a single, un-married woman doesn’t constitute committing the sin of ADULTERY in God’s eyes, so therefore it’s impossible for these ascetics to charge mankind with sin when they wank……solution?, just change Christ’s words in Matthew 5, and pretend he’s talking about women in general, and THEN you can accuse men for sinning when they wank, in other words, when the bible doesn’t support your view point, just change the bible!!!

    The lying, deceived apostates interpret falsely the word “lust” to mean sexual desire/fantasy/fapping……..These idiots of course run into huge problems with Luke 22:15 where Jesus Himself lusted, and where Paul tells people to lust in 1st Timothy 3:1 when they desire, ἐπιθυμέω the office of a Bishop

    This continual obsession to charge something that occurs totally in a man’s mind, and that harms no one, i.e wanking, and that occurs NOWHERE in the bible, shows me how utterly un balanced these ascetics in here really are. It surely is the greatest proof of special pleading, and grasping at straws, and the fruit of a Devilish inspired sexual neurosis that is mind boggling to behold….Like I said, Sigmund Freud would have a field day analysing these people

    Going by their deluded thinking, every time a man watches the news, and gets angry, he is “sinning” and committing murder

  570. earl says:

    Also, your term “sexual immorality” is NOT a term found in the bible

    Keep dancing around with ‘man made terms’…you sound like atheists who state the Bible is just a bunch of texts written by man rather than the inspired Word of God.

    http://www.biblestudytools.com/topical-verses/bible-verses-about-sex/

  571. necroking48 says:

    “How about meth? Cocaine? Weed? It musat be OK for Christians to use those substances, because, by your logic, they were not mentioned ANYWHERE in the Bible”…..end quote

    Stop taking my words out of context, I didn’t say, if it’s not found in the bible, it must be ok,….. i said in order for something to fall under the category of ‘sin” there must be a LAW forbidding the practice

    So does taking Meth, Cocaine, weed constitute sin?, nope, I don’t believe it does, because there is NO LAW condemning the use of those products…HOWEVER, they could fall under the umbrella of “drunkenness” which is a sin

    *”How does fapping glorify God in your body?”*…….end quote

    How does going to the toilet glorify God?, how does taking your wife, and fucking her hard, fast and deep glorify God?, how does driving your car glorify God?
    Once again, you ascetics reinterpret the phrase “Glorify God” in an anti-sexual framework….Do a word search, and see that the term “Glorify God” is never used in that manner
    Once you start with the assumption that fapping is wrong and sinful, you interpret everything around that

    *”Better yet, can you, with a straight face, recommend masturbation to a new Christian, as a method of glorifying God?”*….end quote

    Absolutely I could, in fact I would tell a new Christian, that God in fact gave him masturbation as a gift and a safety valve to release sexual tension while he’s waiting to find a wife to meet his sexual needs….I would also tell him that 99% of all wives will rebel against God, and sin against God by denying that man sexual release in marriage…she will continue to make excuses and not give her man sex, so God gave him masturbation as an outlet, so he continue to meet his sexual needs, without fear of betraying his wife

    *”Any honest Christian must agree that masturbation is, at the very least, questionable.
    If you have doubts about any action, and you go ahead and engage in such an action, you are condemned, because doubtful actions are sinful.”*….end quote

    I certainly WILL NOT admit masturbation is questionable, without clear scriptural support to the contrary
    Why would I or others have any doubt about an action?…..My conscience is clear and doesn’t condemn me
    If on the other hand YOU believe fapping is wrong, then it would violate only YOUR conscience, so it would be sinful for YOU to fap….It’s not “sinful” in God’s eyes, but because you don’t have that advance knowledge, it will sinful for YOU only….just like those new Christians who felt it was sin to eat food offered to idols, it wasn’t really a sin, but it did violate their consciences because they were weak in the faith….same analogy applies to masturbation

  572. Minesweeper says:

    @necroking48 says: August 13, 2017 at 7:57 am
    “How about meth? Cocaine? Weed? It musat be OK for Christians to use those substances, because, by your logic, they were not mentioned ANYWHERE in the Bible”…

    not to mention these things were not around during biblical times, where as masturbation and naked scantily clad women\paintings\statues (heck half naked hookers on every corner in places) certainly were.

    fleeing from sexual immorality was to stay away from half naked hookers hanging out at the pagan temple. I know I would have to flee in that situation. I find prostitution disgusting but I would still have to leg it away.

  573. Minesweeper says:

    @necro, like Joseph fleeing his masters wife (who then falsely accused him of rape leading to jail). Its that kind of fleeing. its a physical act. not a mental act.

    G5343 pheugo fyoo’-go
    apparently a primary verb;
    to run away (literally or figuratively); by implication, to shun; by analogy, to vanish.
    KJV: escape, flee (away).

  574. Mad_kalak says:

    What I do not understand, is why the OT laws for keeping kosher and other thing were done away with by Christ, but all the OT stuff about marrying a virgin just by having sex with her is somehow still relevant. Christ specifically supported the 10 commandments, so we carry over those, and he rejected the clean/unclean food distinction, and the no work on the Sabbath stuff as he healed people on it…but he still supports the commandments.

    So, why is some OT relevant and some isn’t and why?

  575. necroking48 says:

    Yes, unbelievable but true nevertheless, that Augustine wished he was castrated as a young man to relieve himself of the guilt and torture of sexuality…..of course all during that time, Augustine the tortured hypocrite was banging his lover

    If you look at any of the lists of sins mentioned like Colossians 3, Galatians 5, ist Corinthians 6 etc, you will see roughly a 30/70 split between sexual sins and “other” sins of the flesh…..guess what portion is devoted to the sexual sins?, if you said it constitutes 70% you would be wrong, it is only around 30%….so my question is why does ascetics castigate others for violating ONLY the sexual sins but plays down the other sins of the flesh like idolatry, drunkenness, thieves, wrath, envy etc??

  576. earl says:

    Yes, unbelievable but true nevertheless, that Augustine wished he was castrated as a young man to relieve himself of the guilt and torture of sexuality…..of course all during that time, Augustine the tortured hypocrite was banging his lover

    What specific text does he say in regards to that?

  577. Minesweeper says:

    @necro, correct, the blue pill\feminised church is OBSESSED with sexual sins committed by MEN only. Everything else can basically be thrown out at this point. Porn is the only “sin” I have heard repeatedly mentioned at church and then only for men.

    They may as well throw away the entire bible and just say it outright “if a man watches porn or looks with lust at a female he has committed adultery in heart and deserves to be divorced, thrown out of church and denied access to his kids – cause he is obviously utterly deviant and could corrupt them”

    It is essentially a new religion, that dosnt focus on God at all, but on the false sins of men.

  578. MKT says:

    necroking48 says:
    August 13, 2017 at 12:56 am
    “@Earl, @MKT and the rest of you godless, depraved Roman Catholics”

    I’m not a Roman Catholic. Sheesh, that’s like the 20th false assumption from the Church of the Circle Jerkers. It’s no wonder you’re such a bunch of modern-day Pharisees who refuse to interpret your Bibles correctly. You ignore the dozens of NT principles (fleeing sexual immorality, honoring your vessel, putting sexual desires to death, making no provision for the flesh, etc.) which are, as Christ said, the “weightier matters” of the law. Instead, you go searching through the Pentateuch for a single verse about fapping and porn.

    I pray you’ll learn what the Christian life is truly about (Word, sacraments, prayer, serving) and not gratifying your flesh (wanking, porn, whores, swinging). You’ve completely missed the point so far. Those enslaved to fapping/porn will never be effective in building the kingdom–and I speak from experience. If you don’t think you’re enslaved, try giving them up for a year (or even a month). By the way, “slavery” to sin is the Biblical term for your activities, not “addicted” or “inclined to” or “enjoy because AT says it’s okay.” Read Romans 6 and other passages.

  579. necroking48 says:

    I’m being serious….there is NO such term in the bible as “sexual immorality”, and it’s not my attempt to evade what the scriptures says
    You got the term “sexual immorality” from the wicked perversions of God’s word, they use dynamic equivalence based upon interpretation, instead of translation….The KJV uses the term “fornication”

  580. necroking48 says:

    That’s an extremely powerful point you make, which the ascetics avoid….the term fleeing is physical, not a mental act at all

  581. earl says:

    So, why is some OT relevant and some isn’t and why?

    This may give some insight…

    “After Jesus called the crowd to Him, He said to them, “Hear and understand. It is not what enters into the mouth that defiles the man, but what proceeds out of the mouth, this defiles the man.”

    “Peter said to Him, “Explain the parable to us.” Jesus said, “Are you still lacking in understanding also? Do you not understand that everything that goes into the mouth passes into the stomach, and is eliminated? But the things that proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and those defile the man. For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, slanders. These are the things which defile the man; but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile the man.”

    A lot of the laws in the OT also had to do with outward cleanliness of a person as well as sin. Jesus basically with this statement said the important thing that defiles a person is sin. That’s why things like leprosy and birth defects were considered ‘sins’ by the Jewish culture…when in reality they weren’t. The things relevant from the OT to the NT are what causes sin.

    https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+15

  582. MKT says:

    Minesweeper:
    “the blue pill\feminised church is OBSESSED with sexual sins committed by MEN only… Porn is the only “sin” I have heard repeatedly mentioned at church and then only for men.”

    For the record, I agree with this. That’s why I posted a link to a horrible article (by a lady churchian) in Dalrock’s previous post. But that doesn’t mean porn is okay. It should be preached against, along with female porn (romance novels), contentious wives (Proverbs), wives who won’t submit or show respect to husbands, spouses who refuse to have sex, adultery, fornication and other issues. Singling porn/men out and denying the sins of women/wives is a grave error of the modern church. I’m not debating that.

  583. earl says:

    They may as well throw away the entire bible and just say it outright “if a man watches porn or looks with lust at a female he has committed adultery in heart and deserves to be divorced, thrown out of church and denied access to his kids – cause he is obviously utterly deviant and could corrupt them”

    I still don’t know where the justification of divorce from that comes from…even the verse where divorce from sexual immorality comes from (Matt 5:32) it is the husband divorcing the wife. There is no claim anywhere in Scripture that I know of that gives a wife the right to divorce a husband. Only our civil laws and backwards thinking pastors give them that idea…and with the majority of initiation of divorce being women, they are certainly looking to the state rather than God’s word.

  584. necroking48 says:

    @Minesweeper, You are absolutely correct, it’s actually a new religion, based on blue pill, feminist, anti-sexual celibacy rhetoric cloaked behind a veneer of Christianity

    I mean I can destroy, and have done so in here, their entire misguided philosophy, but I haven’t dealt with FEMALE MASTURBATION on purpose….i wonder how these sex hating ascetics handle women who fap?, lol, women in general frig off with NO porn, or sexual images at all, haha, Are these women lusting then?
    But wait!!! only men can lust, and only men can sin *facepalm*

  585. earl says:

    i wonder how these sex hating ascetics handle women who fap?

    Did you not see my post about not condoning sexual sins by women either? Women are guilty of committing sexual sins just like men. Quit turning this into a gender thing like feminists do…this is about sin.

  586. necroking48 says:

    @MKT

    *”You ignore the dozens of NT principles (fleeing sexual immorality, honoring your vessel, putting sexual desires to death, making no provision for the flesh, etc.)”*…..end quote

    1: I have already dealt with the term “sexual immorality”, it occurs NOWHERE in the bible, and is in fact a horrible dynamic equivalence, it’s NOT a translation of the term πορνεια at all
    2: the term “possess his vessel” occurs only 1 time in the bible, in 1st Thessalonians 4:4, and deals with sanctification and HONOR…..no mention of fapping implied or otherwise
    3: Not 1 time does the bible say to put “sexual desires” to death….you LIED, you reinterpreted the bible to suit your godless, pagan, anti-sexuality garbage
    4: the phrase “make no provision for the flesh” deals with NON-SEXUAL sins as well, in fact they constitute the majority of sins mentioned….once again, fapping is NOT mentioned
    5: the weightier matter of the law ARE NOT about “making no provision for the flesh”….YOU LIED, they are according to Jesus himself they are judgment, mercy and faith

    I think you need to quit your garbage as you clearly lost this round

  587. Boxer says:

    Dear Necroking:

    It is impossible to prove a negative….This axiom fits all frames of experience, NOT just moral issues, so if you’re looking at it from that point of view, It will be impossible for me to prove to you that masturbating is NOT a sin.

    I can prove a negative right now. Check it…

    Theorem: ~A
    Proof:
    1. A -> B
    2. ~B
    … ~A
    QED

    Of course, Toad’s an intuitionist, so LEM is out the window, and he won’t accept that without a few more lines. (little joke for the mathy types.)

    the rest of you godless, depraved Roman Catholics can take your popery, marilolatry, works righteousness, pagan foolishness garbage and take a flying leap and join Jerome and Augustine and the rest of these sick depraved ascetics and join them in hell

    That wasn’t very nice. Serious question: If the author of Dalrock purged all the non-protestants from the comments section here, where would the married Catholic bros go to talk about the feminist problem in their church.

    (hint: “Catholic Answers” is incorrect)

    Catholics care about marriage and a healthy society, too. Most of the issues discussed here are directly relevant to them.

    Actually on the contrary I’m not differentiating based upon gender….I’m attacking the anti-sexual asceticism, prevalent in early church fathers like Augustine, who wanted to chop his own dick off, that now infects Roman Catholicism and anti-sexual zealots today

    I think you might be talking about Origen. You’re right that reading commentary is tricky. Some of the smartest peeps in history were also prone to tail chasing and self-destruction. I mentioned that upthread.

    Reading early church fathers is a little like reading the Talmud. Nothing these guys say is definitive. You have the benefit of getting all the smartest people in western civilization, and they all give their take on the text, so it’s very valuable. Occasionally you’ll realize that one of them must have been having a bad day, or maybe this other one had some psychological problems… In the end they’re smart people, but they’re just people.

    Best,

    Boxer

  588. necroking48 says:

    I am NOT turning this into a “gender” thing…Of course women are guilty of sexual sin as well, but you have automatically assumed, without scriptural warrant, I might add, that fapping is sin, which obviously include women.

    The thing is though, no looking, no lusting, generally, is involved when a woman masturbates, so how on earth do you ascetics charge women with sin, when they’re clearly not lusting, or looking at anything when they fap?

    Don’t bother answering, as it is a rhetorical and stupid question because I believe no sin is involved when a woman masturbates…..this is the un holy hell hole you god forsaken ascetics get into when you try to make the bible say something is a sin when it’s silent on a particular topic
    First you condemn all men for the sin of masturbation BECAUSE it involves looking/lusting at something….YET you still have the temerity to condemn women for masturbation, even though there is NO LOOKING AND NO LUSTING….the tortured semantics you devils employ to justify your anti-sexual beliefs is staggering to say the least

  589. Boxer says:

    SirHamster Blathers:

    @ Gunner Q

    A pleasure to watch the haughty brought low. For all the bluster and the walls of text, he has no understanding of the Bible he pretends to revere.

    Folks, there is no force on earth that can still the tragic flap-flap-flapping of SirHamsters dirty maw. Gawdhelpus, there’s just no stopping it. It is a vile horn of plenty, spewing an endless bounty of rotten fruit and offal, not dissimilar from an aged steer, which has been force-fed a diet of old prunes and Ex-Lax.

    Man may someday cap volcanoes, dam up the Amazon, or build an escalator to the moon, but verily, I say unto you that nothing can be done to alleviate the suffering of those who are forced to wade through SirHamster’s sputterances. Nothing.

    Galaxies collide in spectacular showers of stellar wreckage. Ten billion stars burst open to immediately collapse. The citizens of countless civilizations cry out in anguish as they’re pulled beyond the event horizon… but SirHamster blusters on. He blathers his idiotic fabrications here, he vomits up some baseless accusations there. He walls up comments sections while accosting helpless innocents with his mindless ponderings. You can see the eternal question in the pleading, saucer-eyes of Dalrock readers daily. Why, oh why, has this tragedy befallen us?

    T’was a cruelty of fate that saw fit to miswire poor SirHamster’s skullstuffing, resulting in the non-stop kookfest that we’ve all enjoyed these past few years.

    It seems that SirHamster will himself never understand that sanity hasn’t merely escaped him. He’s blasted the concept into a trillion microscopic cinders beneath the launch thrusters of a homosexual penis shaped Saturn V rocket. SirHamster rides it, spiralling wildly beyond the edge of reality, into the cold black depths of interstellar kookery. Those of us who occasionally tune in to his gibberings can only laugh hysterically, or perhaps stand agog in open-mouthed amazement, as his feeble, static-filled transmissions carry his last broken, desperate ravings…

    “crackle crackle… you LIED… crackle… false teacher… crackle crackle… BOXER… crackle crackle… I KNEW….”

    We can only hope, and pray to whatever god or gods we each hold dear, that his journey away from sanity carries him out of transmission range soon, as he continues to recede into the distant night of nutcase obscurity.

    Regards,

    Boxer

  590. earl says:

    The thing is though, no looking, no lusting, generally, is involved when a woman masturbates, so how on earth do you ascetics charge women with sin, when they’re clearly not lusting, or looking at anything when they fap?

    Are you really making that claim that a woman deliberately stimulating her genitals doesn’t have anything to do with lust?

  591. necroking48 says:

    @Boxer

    *”Catholics care about marriage and a healthy society, too. Most of the issues discussed here are directly relevant to them”*

    AGREED

    *”I think you might be talking about Origen”*……..end quote

    According to my sources, Augustine was so anti-sex that he WISHED to castrate himself, whereas Origin, was stupid enough to actually go ahead and do it…Ouch!

  592. necroking48 says:

    @earl

    *”Are you really making that claim that a woman deliberately stimulating her genitals doesn’t have anything to do with lust?”*……end quote

    Yes, absolutely I am making that claim….the reason why you find that so hard to understand, is because EVERY time you see the word “lust” you think it means sexual desire/feelings

    The bible will define it’s own terms and lust is defined in Romans 7:7 as to Covet, and coveting contains no sexual connotation at all….It is the ascetics who like to enshrine the word lust with sexual desire

    A woman who masturbates is relieving the sexual tension and build up of her naturally occurring and God given sex urge to copulate and her need to feel a penis inside her….Like with all things, a penis might not be available, so masturbation takes place…..Once again I iterate, if God felt it was a grave sin, He would have mentioned it somewhere in the bible, but he doesn’t

  593. Boxer says:

    Dear Necro King:

    According to my sources, Augustine was so anti-sex that he WISHED to castrate himself, whereas Origin, was stupid enough to actually go ahead and do it…Ouch!

    I’m sure you’re right, in hindsight. I read City of God a long time ago. Recently, Toad suggested I crack Augustine again, but I have yet to do so (such a mediocre student). I ought to grab his work when my job starts back up.

    Augustine was a reformed playa, and he probably had the same sort of zeal that an Alcoholics Anonymous member has. Something worked for him, and his life improved, and he just had to push it in the faces of his readers.

    More generally, a lot of these guys tried to integrate a philosophical school called neoplatonism into the doctrine of the early church. That’s a fancy term for believing a set of propositions, one of which was a sort of matter/spirit duality. Those who got zealous about that would probably tell you that material things (like sex) are not conducive to a good spiritual life. St. Paul never went overboard in the text, but there are foreshadowings of this in the New Testament, so you can trace the idea back. Even so, you’re right that they tended to err on the side of an ideal purity (at the expense of the reality most of us live in).

    Best,

    Boxer

  594. earl says:

    The bible will define it’s own terms and lust is defined in Romans 7:7 as to Covet, and coveting contains no sexual connotation at all.

    So you believe coveting a neighbor’s wife has no sexual connotation at all? Or lust of the flesh and eyes have no sexual connotation at all? If you believe that, you are very deceived…and I can understand why you would fight so hard against this.

    1 John 2:16 King James Version (KJV)

    For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.

  595. earl says:

    Augustine was a reformed playa, and he probably had the same sort of zeal that an Alcoholics Anonymous member has. Something worked for him, and his life improved, and he just had to push it in the faces of his readers.

    I think a lot of credit from his conversion from what I know about Catholic saints went to his mother…St. Monica for constantly praying for him.

    http://www.catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=1

    Interesting sidenote I didn’t know…she married a Roman pagan who was said to have a violent temper. Rather than divorcing she prayed for him and he eventually converted as well.

  596. earl says:

    I do find it interesting that in the ‘bad old days̵