Righteous prostitutes, spreading their legs free of sin.

We are at over 750 comments in the discussion of Is marriage the cause of sexual immorality?  and I assume that most readers (like myself), have not carefully read all 750+ of the comments.  With this in mind, I offer an update of sorts, with a Artisanal Toad’s description of righteous Christian prostitutes:

That’s the “loophole” that allows prostitutes. Righteous prostitutes who are not in sin when they spread their legs for paying customers.

That makes modern churchians scream in outrage, but the fact is, God knew all about women when He gave His Law, and He chose not to forbid ordinary payment-for-sex prostitution. He did choose to ban cult prostitutes, which points to the fact He didn’t have anything to say about ordinary non-idolatry prostitutes. And the Lord could easily have had one of the Apostles state a prohibition on Christian women working as whores, but He did not, which means He chose not to.

You can see the original comment here, but will have to read through 1843* words in the comment before you get to this bit, as one doesn’t merely blurt out such absurd claims upfront.  You have to slowly ease people into this kind of nonsense, even when they are eager to accept it.

However, there is a loophole that closes the loophole. Christian men aren’t allowed to have sex with prostitutes:

There is nothing in Scripture that forbids a man from having sex with a woman he is eligible to marry. Because sex is how marriage begins. The only exception to that is Christian men are forbidden to have sex with prostitutes.

In a later comment Toad reiterates that prostitutes are righteous:

Prostitution isn’t even an offense and you know that… otherwise you’d have cited chapter and verse. Prostitution is the same as farming, it’s a regulated way of earning a living. And if a farmer can be righteous, so can being a prostitute.

*This makes the wall of text preceding this statement longer than my original post, which was only 1,229 words (including Scripture). And the 1843 words are just the wall of text preceding the absurd claim in that specific comment. This does not count the multiple walls of text which came before in his previous comments.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Rationalization Hamster, Rebellion, You can't make this stuff up. Bookmark the permalink.

794 Responses to Righteous prostitutes, spreading their legs free of sin.

  1. I see we’re in goalpost moving from “Polygamy isn’t a sin” to “Polygamy isn’t a bad idea” to “Polygamy is expected” right up to banging whores! (For the record, it’s not a Sin; just a really terrible idea. Like shooting yourself in the foot.)

    AT would make a good Shia Muslim. They’ve actually used logic like this to make prostitution legal there. (It’s a chunk of the reason that, while they’ll use terror tactics, they don’t use suicide attacks.)

  2. Darth Curmudgeon says:

    “Marriage begins with sex.”

    No, sex begins with marriage.
    C’mon Artisanal Toad, you’re smarter than this.

  3. GW says:

    Dalrock, love the blog but why do you let the comments section descend into the depths it does?

  4. earl says:

    Prostitution is the same as farming, it’s a regulated way of earning a living. And if a farmer can be righteous, so can being a prostitute.

    Yeah this is a person who doesn’t understand what sex entails at all…trying to reduce it and justify it to a mere economic transaction and taking everything else out. Suddenly it can be righteous because there are economic transactions that are righteous. It’s along the same lines of people saying that animals have homosexual sex so it should be fine for humans too.

  5. Pingback: Righteous prostitutes, spreading their legs free of sin. | @the_arv

  6. Ryder says:

    Just saw the new post, so I’m moving my comment here to keep up with the discussion.

    Someone may have already addressed this in the previous thread, but even if the arguments of the pro-prostitution camp held water, I would expect to find a precedent for this teaching in church history.

    I’m not making a tradition vs. scripture argument. I just mean that if one cannot find a shred of evidence that anyone of any credibility in the 2,000-year history of Christianity has espoused a similar position, it should give one pause to reconsider one’s own interpretation. Surely every Christian thinker of all time wasn’t foolishly waiting in chastity for the great and wise Artisanal Toad to enlighten us on the proper way to get our rocks off.

  7. Pete M says:

    I’ve enjoyed these posts, and agree 100% with your commentary Dalrock. But there is one loophole which would allow a man to have sex with multiple women without committing fornication or adultery and it’s this:
    – marry a woman of questionable morals that doesn’t want to stay married (maybe Vegas?)
    – wait for her to commit adultery
    – divorce her
    – repeat
    You’ve breached the spirit of the scriptures and 1 Corinthians 7:39, but you haven’t committed fornication.

  8. MKT says:

    Ryder:
    “Surely every Christian thinker of all time wasn’t foolishly waiting in chastity for the great and wise Artisanal Toad to enlighten us on the proper way to get our rocks off.”

    But how many of those Christian thinkers over the last 2000 years had wives like AT’s? Former mercenaries who could take out a Seal team without blinking an eye..but are ever-loyal to Toad. Oh, and I’m sure they look like super models, too.

    Or maybe those thinkers just lack AT’s rich fantasy life.

  9. Anchorman says:

    He didn’t have anything to say about ordinary non-idolatry prostitutes.

    So, back to God needing to spell out every single angle/situation/possibility, else “no sin!”

    I think I heard something like that before.

    Genesis 3:1: Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God actually say, ‘You shall not eat of any tree in the garden’?”

  10. Damn Crackers says:

    If anything it’s the complete opposite. Jewish or Christian prostitution was strictly forbidden in the OT/NT. True, OT figures being with prostitutes didn’t appear to receive too much opprobrium.

    Remember the context of St. Paul in Corinthians. The early Corinthian church had elements of proto-Gnosticism in it. Certain members thought marriage was bad since Jesus was returning. Also if you believed in Jesus, you could go to any temple feast/orgy with prostitutes and it wouldn’t matter according to them.

    The other thing St. Paul was upset at was bringing loose women (i.e. harlots, prostitutes, hos) around the Christian community (read 1 Corinthians 5 about the woman shared by father and son).

    Look, I don’t understand St. Paul’s argument of fornication a sin of defiling the body. The best arguments against prostitution are found in the Wisdom books, written close to the time St. Paul was writing. The books of Wisdom and Sirach, when discussing prostitutes, just mention how stupid it is to waste money or time dealing with them. Why be foolish and spend money on whores when you can have your own “vessel?”

    Also, we look at prostitution as a sin against a poor naïve woman being abused in an unfortunate circumstance. The authors of the OT and NT, with possibly the exception of Jesus, found prostitutes to be dirty, polluted women you don’t want around.

  11. Ben Sake says:

    If “ordinary” prostitution can be righteous, so can “ordinary” assassination.

  12. thedeti says:

    I don’t know how to square AT’s argument with:

    I Cor. 6:9: Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

    or

    I Cor 6:15-17: Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never! 16 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.”[b]

  13. Pingback: More SirHamster Whining – v5k2c2

  14. MKT says:

    Ben Sakes:
    “If “ordinary” prostitution can be righteous, so can “ordinary” assassination.”

    I’m sure AT and his mercenary wives will figure that one out, too.

  15. earl says:

    I don’t know how to square AT’s argument with:

    He’s the classic case of an ‘eel’…unless it states that (Bible of the Book, Chapter Number, Verse Number) ‘women who are baptized can’t be prostitutes’ then God must somehow be okay with it. When you present the verses which clearly imply that Christian women being prostitutes won’t inherit the kingdom of God…he’ll come back by saying it doesn’t directly state that.

  16. earl says:

    If “ordinary” prostitution can be righteous, so can “ordinary” assassination.

    Yeah that’s what I call a weapons grade rationalization. Just say the sin is ordinary and suddenly it can be righteous.

    If AT’s wives are lurking…they might consider an ordinary divorce where they can go to the judge and ordinary slander him and they will be granted the ability to ordinarily confiscate his funds.

  17. thedeti says:

    is the argument that it’s ok to be a prostitute as long as you’re not baptized, with the intent to confess later and repent? Isn’t that the sin of presumption?

    Is the argument that it’s ok to use prostitutes as long as the prostitutes youre paying to have sex with you are not baptized Christian women?

  18. thedeti says:

    Isn’t St. Paul saying here that baptized men aren’t to have sex with prostitutes whether or not they are Christians?

    I really just want to understand what the argument is, because I just don’t see it.

  19. RecoveringBeta says:

    And we talk about the female rationalization hamster…

  20. Boxer says:

    Dear Deti:

    I don’t know how to square AT’s argument with [the new testament]

    I don’t either. A number of quick questions arise when I try to understand Toad’s point of view, e.g.:

    1. What did Jesus mean when he told that woman to “go and sin no more”? What was her sin, if not illicit sex?
    2. Why does St. Paul constantly use the phrase “prostitutes and tax collectors” when he invokes the lowest common denominator?

    There are others, but my point is to demonstrate that even a theological neophyte seems to know, intuitively, that prostitution isn’t consistent with the letter or spirit of the text.

    I’m also open to the fact that prostitutes (like alcohol) was a sort of structural consequence of urbanization and an agrarian society, which presented a problem that was difficult to deal with. Even so, the practice of banging strange women for money (or getting wasted drunk) is not in line with anything written in the new testament.

    Best,

    Boxer

  21. Dalrock says:

    @Deti

    I really just want to understand what the argument is, because I just don’t see it.

    This is the fundamental problem. Not enough words have been trucked out to allow for this to happen. We need at least another 700 comments, and tens of thousands of more words from AT before we merely get the next nugget.

  22. feministhater says:

    Dalrock, love the blog but why do you let the comments section descend into the depths it does?

    Ah yes, the forbidden idea of just letting people speak their minds.

  23. earl says:

    No, sex begins with marriage.
    C’mon Artisanal Toad, you’re smarter than this.

    He’s been trying to get around the vow part by stating just the act makes it a marriage. Even in the OT the man had to give shekels to the father of the former virgin he deflowered as the vow.

  24. Damn Crackers says:

    @Boxer

    I thought the woman in John who Christ told to sin no more was an adulteress, not a prostitute. I didn’t think they stoned prostitutes (also, the Jews weren’t to stone anyone. Capital punishment was only performed by the Romans. This stoning would have had to been a “mob” action).

  25. SJB says:

    Dalrock: want to make the case that bride price / dowry is not a transaction regarding sexual access to a female? That is, I’m curious where you are drawing the line.

  26. earl says:

    I thought the dowry was more of the marital access to a female…I mean it even says it in the definition.

  27. Dalrock says:

    @SJB

    Dalrock: want to make the case that bride price / dowry is not a transaction regarding sexual access to a female? That is, I’m curious where you are drawing the line.

    You are asking if wives are prostitutes? They are not. Marriage is for life. As the saying goes, you pay a prostitute to leave.

    One thing I didn’t see in the previous discussion thread is the question of paternity. Fathers aren’t important to modern Christians, but they are extremely important in the Bible. I believe it is in the Book of Ezra that returning Israelites are rejected after Babylonian captivity if they can’t show their paternal lineage. On a practical level sex is about making children, and marriage is about making sure the child has a father. Sometimes father’s die, and sometimes the family is torn apart via sin. But God’s plan includes a father for every child. Except in Toad’s theology, where widows can bang men out of wedlock without sinning, and prostitutes are righteous so long as they are our prostitutes.

  28. Random Angeleno says:

    Good thing I didn’t have to read 700+ comments to find out AT’s comments don’t hold water.
    I must be as dumb as deti cuz I don’t get it either.

  29. RedPillPaul says:

    AT and his views are nothing new. It is a modern day Nicolaitanism, promotion the sin of Balam on those who try to live and believe in the way

  30. SJB says:

    Dalrock: thank you and I do understand your answer. My response: a man always pays. The 2nd wave feminists (I think) declared that marriage is legalized prostitution. I would agree as, again, the man always pays. The difference, then, is the difference between a consumable (an orgasm for the sake of an orgasm) and an investment (children).

    There is a prostitute in every woman rather than just those who demand cash on the barrel head.

  31. rugby11 says:

    Dalrock
    “and prostitutes are righteous so long as they are our prostitutes.”

  32. thedeti says:

    I’m sorry; I just don’t understand how prostitution is OK. I just don’t see how God sanctions prostitution.

    I get that men use prostitutes. I get that some women are or were prostitutes. I get that no matter how much we legislate and preach against it, some men will use hookers and some women will be hookers. And, a few men will be gigolos and a few very wealthy women will use them.

    If prostitution were a good thing or at least a not-bad thing, a helluva lot more men would use them, and a helluva lot more women would charge money for their “services”. Because men would pay for it, and women would want the money. A lot of men would consider it money well spent, and a lot of women would consider it a lucrative (if quite difficult) way to earn a living.

    But none of that makes prostitution acceptable in God’s sight. People know it’s wrong but do it anyway, like all other sins.

  33. thedeti says:

    Having said all this though, there must be some argument that prostitution is OK, or at least is not prohibited.

  34. Darth Curmudgeon says:

    Dowries did not always work the same way, but in a sense it’s a kind of an insurance policy. If the husband dies young, it’s savings for the wife so she is not destitute. If she runs off on him, he gets to keep it and she does not ever get to have it, so it’s incentive for her to stay. Today we do the opposite, we pay women to leave rather than to stay.

    To reduce marriage to pure money is deliberately myopic. It’s like saying I bought my car with money, therefore I only bought it to stimulate the economy. No, I bought a car because I wanted a car. And yes money is what I traded for it. But the mechanical underpinnings of the transaction is not the purpose or the essence of the transaction. Money isn’t the point of marriage, even though it is a factor. I would die without my lungs, but I don’t exist solely for the sake of them either.

  35. thedeti says:

    Darth:

    I thought dowries were to help the young couple with nothing to their names get off to a decent start. Some money for start up costs, to get an apartment, to have a little furniture, and start their lives together. When I got married my wife brought with her all of her furniture, much of which her parents gave her; and I brought some too but not as much. Her parents also gave us some money as a wedding gift.

  36. Darwinian Arminian says:

    So if I have Toad’s argument right, then both of the following are true:

    A) Prostitution is an acceptable and God-ordained way for a even a Christian woman to make money for herself.

    B) Men who follow Christ are forbidden under penalty of damnation from using the services of prostitutes, even though it is completely licit for Christian women to offer him such services.

    I’m probably not the only one here who finds that to be a colossally hypocritical double standard, but one thing is worth pointing out: This isn’t terribly different from how a lot of modern government and law enforcement agencies choose to deal with prostitution. When you hear about anti-prostitution efforts today they usually tend to focus on hunting down and locking up prospective “johns” while also letting the prostitutes themselves off with not much more than a slap on the wrist, usually under the rationale that the women selling the sex are “victims” of the sex industry and need to be treated with care and rehabilitation rather than punishment. If that seems lopsided in favor of the woman, there’s also some precedent for it in the way abortion gets handled. During the 2016 election when there was a big flap about Trump raising the possibility of criminally charging women for illegal abortions I remember at least one writer over at The Gospel Coalition who pretty much boasted that prior to Roe v. Wade it was considered standard U.S. legal policy to charge and punish men who provided and aided those seeking abortion while also regarding the woman who’d received the procedure to be innocent of any crime. Modern government, it seems, is very much like the modern church in that it is deeply uncomfortable with the idea of holding women accountable.

    I’m not quite sure how one can make any logic out of freely allowing someone to sell something while also condemning all those who might possibly buy it, but if that allows the government to avoid using the criminal justice system to punish women at all then it looks like that’s how it’s going to be. While I can’t approve of Toad’s reasoning here, I may have to give him credit for this: He’s the first person I’ve seen try to establish a theological case for why the church should be handling sexual sins in favor of the women in a way that modern government already does. Don’t be too surprised if in the next few years some bigwig in the SBC introduces similar reasoning before proposing that the church should no longer consider it a sin for women to engage in prostitution.

  37. Damn Crackers says:

    Regardless of what AT has to say, I’ll give him one thing. Although I agree with Dalrock and the others here about the inherent sinfulness of prostitution, I find it relatively MUCH more moral compared to the sodomy, pederasty, broken families, and soft harams that celebrated today.

  38. SirHamster says:

    C’mon Artisanal Toad, you’re smarter than this.

    The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. All this loophole seeking? That is lack of fear of the Lord.

    As if God said all the words he did just so we can find the best way to cheat the rules in pursuit of pleasure.

  39. Per Desteen says:

    @Darth

    You can actually reduce it to resources. Physically that’s what marriage is about. The religious aspect was added later. Please gather that I’m not a Creationist, and there’s been non-Christian civilizations that have marriage around for a lot longer than Christianity or Old Testament religions.

    This may be why “the circle can’t be squared” and why the ideas of “loopholes” exist. It also demonstrates why the Old Testament type religions have become so rule based, in that faith and adherence to the principal coupled with traditions that police social behavior must be transmitted to each successive generation intact; when large scale disruptions or bottleneck events occur much of that is lost and therefore reliance on a rules based system becomes the means of transmission.

    Looking at the historical patterns of Old Testament religions this explains much of how they work. It also explains why Christianity took such a foothold among European peoples. They had the creative capacity to transmit Christianity beyond rule based systems using principal and tradition.

  40. SirHamster says:

    So if I have Toad’s argument right, then both of the following are true:

    A) Prostitution is an acceptable and God-ordained way for a even a Christian woman to make money for herself.

    B) Men who follow Christ are forbidden under penalty of damnation from using the services of prostitutes, even though it is completely licit for Christian women to offer him such services.

    Toad has in the past also made the following arguments:

    C) What is specifically forbidden of Christian men is only for men. Eg: May not be forbidden for Christian women.

    So since he was so specific about it being Christian MEN in point B, and AT only values what is explicit: B.1) Women who follow Christ are not forbidden under penalty of damnation from using the services of prostitutes.

    I really don’t care to find out if AT will argue Christian women can righteously use righteous Christian woman prostitutes, but if he backs off that, at least he has a tiny shred of conscience left.

  41. Ted says:

    I apologize if someone brought this up before but I’m having trouble reconciling the admission that a virgin having sex constitutes marriage, and asserting prostitution is not sinful. If marriage begins at her first sexual penetration, doesn’t any sexual encounter with another man afterwards constitute adultery?

  42. Dalrock says:

    @Darwinian Arminian

    I’m probably not the only one here who finds that to be a colossally hypocritical double standard

    The double standard isn’t a problem. God does after all give different instructions at times to men and women. But there is no way that a “righteous” Christian prostitute could ply her trade without leading men into sin.

    I’m sure there is a kooky backstory involving 1 Corinthians 8 and a long (and I mean looong) drawn out walk through the OT that will explain why in this case leading others into sin isn’t really leading them into sin. But you will have to stand by, with the utmost patience, to get that particular rationalization. You can’t just blurt this kind of thing out. It ruins the magic.

  43. Boxer says:

    Dear Damn Crackers:

    I thought the woman in John who Christ told to sin no more was an adulteress, not a prostitute. I didn’t think they stoned prostitutes (also, the Jews weren’t to stone anyone. Capital punishment was only performed by the Romans. This stoning would have had to been a “mob” action).

    The point is that the text seems to be consistent about the proper place for sexual congress: exclusively with your spouse. People who claim to follow the discipline of Christianity need to take the text at face value. Those who can not do so, ought to call their new religion something else.

    Regardless of what AT has to say, I’ll give him one thing. Although I agree with Dalrock and the others here about the inherent sinfulness of prostitution, I find it relatively MUCH more moral compared to the sodomy, pederasty, broken families, and soft harams that celebrated today.

    I don’t really think the text would rank the benefits of banging a prostitute, who was technically married to someone else, in favor of banging any other married woman. I’ve never seen any such thing in there, anyway.

    Behold, I say unto you, that it is better to pay a married woman for sex, than merely to sex her up for your own amusement, for prostitution is superior to common fornication… thus saith the LORD

    I could see that verse in Toad’s new book of scripture, but it really doesn’t sound like Saul of Tarsus.

    Best,

    Boxer

  44. Damn Crackers says:

    @Boxer “I don’t really think the text would rank the benefits of banging a prostitute, who was technically married to someone else, in favor of banging any other married woman. I’ve never seen any such thing in there, anyway.”

    I’m curious. Do you agree with AT’s statement that everyone is married to the first person they have sex with?

  45. earl says:

    Righteous prostitutes who are not in sin when they spread their legs for paying customers.

    The one story in the Bible about ‘a prostitute with a heart of gold’ was Rahab. And her virtue didn’t come by doing what prostitutes do, but by helping Joshua’s spies.

  46. earl says:

    I apologize if someone brought this up before but I’m having trouble reconciling the admission that a virgin having sex constitutes marriage, and asserting prostitution is not sinful.

    As you should…because both statements are incorrect.

  47. Boxer says:

    Dear Ted:

    I apologize if someone brought this up before but I’m having trouble reconciling the admission that a virgin having sex constitutes marriage, and asserting prostitution is not sinful. If marriage begins at her first sexual penetration, doesn’t any sexual encounter with another man afterwards constitute adultery?

    BANG! You got it. I read that into the subtext of Dalrock’s responses to The Toad, and saw the contradiction also.

    Had I taken the time to read the entire thread, I’d have simply cited you in my response to Damn Crackers. I’ll do so after the fact, since you said it better than I.

    Now, my Artisanal brother owes us a bit of reconciliation. How do these seemingly contradictory commands in his new religion cohere together?

    Toad?

    Best,

    Boxer

  48. Damn Crackers says:

    @Boxer – I understand your point about the married prostitute now. Your last post cleared it up. Thanks.

  49. Boxer says:

    Dear Damn Crackers:

    I’m curious. Do you agree with AT’s statement that everyone is married to the first person they have sex with?

    Irrelevant. I’m merely pointing out what Ted did (before I did, and more succinctly).

    Toad is creating a structure with contradictory rules embedded therein. Dalrock hinted at it, and Ted illustrated it. Now Toad needs to come forward and reconcile.

    The process of starting a new religion (or any consistent ideological system) is probably pretty difficult… a trial-and-error process. I’m appropriately grateful for this opportunity to witness the birth of the Church of Toad, firsthand.

    Best,

    Boxer

  50. Boxer says:

    @Boxer – I understand your point about the married prostitute now. Your last post cleared it up. Thanks.

    You fellas are just too fast for me. HAHA!

    Best,

    Boxer

  51. Pingback: Righteous prostitutes, spreading their legs free of sin. | Reaction Times

  52. earl says:

    I’m appropriately grateful for this opportunity to witness the birth of the Church of Toad, firsthand.

    I’d like to know if Toad thinks fornication is even possible…if first time is automatic marriage and anything after is adultery. I mean it is in the Bible after all.

  53. earl says:

    I mean it is in the Bible after all.

    Fornication that is.

  54. Cane Caldo says:

    Here is what marriage is really about, from Eph. 5:

    31 “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” 32 This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church.

    That is where a Christian starts from in his thinking about marriage and sex. St. Paul’s words are either a revelation of God, or they are not. And you either believe those words, or you don’t. You don’t start with money, resources, sharing, payment, pre-Christian marriage traditions, or even children. This makes loads of sense in light of what Jesus Himself said when questioned about divorce in Mat. 19.

    4 He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”

    So Jesus, talking about earthly marriage, didn’t solely speak of earthly marriage. Again, this makes sense because he is rebuking religious leaders who were not only divorcing and remarrying in earthly marriages, but also–by laws and hardness of heart–divorcing God’s people from God. They were stumbling blocks to those God had called and who were to be Christ’s people, His Church.

    Anybody who speaks or practices sex and marriage in anyway which is not one man leaving his father and mother to hold fast to his wife and the two becoming one flesh is not just in error, but is speaking and acting against the plan for Christ’s perfect, holy, and eternal communion with his Church. He speaks against salvation itself. If you believe that Christ will save us, wash us, and keep us for eternity then you should live out sex and marriage in a way that reflects that belief. You should not make excuse for alternative sexual or marital relations as “not specifically condemned” because there is only ONE way to God, and that is through the mystery of communion with Christ Jesus, and marriage is that one way’s representation on Earth.

  55. Caspar Reyes says:

    @Boxer:

    Behold, I say unto you, that it is better to pay a married woman for sex, than merely to sex her up for your own amusement, for prostitution is superior to common fornication… thus saith the LORD

    Here is God speaking to Israel, Ezekiel 16:
    How weak is thine heart, saith the Lord GOD, seeing thou doest all these things, the work of an imperious whorish woman; In that thou buildest thine eminent place in the head of every way, and makest thine high place in every street; and hast not been as an harlot, in that thou scornest hire; But as a wife that committeth adultery, which taketh strangers instead of her husband! 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. And the contrary is in thee from other women in thy whoredoms, whereas none followeth thee to commit whoredoms: and in that thou givest a reward, and no reward is given unto thee, therefore thou art contrary.

    It would seem God accords more honor to a common prostitute, who puts a value on her wares, than to an adulterous wife, who essentially pays her lovers.

  56. Dalrock says:

    @Ted

    I apologize if someone brought this up before but I’m having trouble reconciling the admission that a virgin having sex constitutes marriage, and asserting prostitution is not sinful. If marriage begins at her first sexual penetration, doesn’t any sexual encounter with another man afterwards constitute adultery?

    Here is my understanding of AT’s argument: Marriage occurs when a virgin has sex, but in some cases marriages can be nullified or otherwise ended. Since they are now both 1) not virgins and 2) unmarried, these women are then (again, according to AT) free to have sex out of wedlock with an unlimited number of men. He says these women are mostly widows, but includes women who lived in their father’s house and the father countermanded the woman’s “vow” (sex) once he heard about it. I presume he would include a Christian woman whose non-believing husband left her as well.

  57. Gary Eden says:

    I’m sorry; I just don’t understand how prostitution is OK. I just don’t see how God sanctions prostitution.

    You work from the presupposition that things you don’t like are condemned unless God somewhere says its ok. I personally hate cauliflower. God never sanctioned its consumption so it must be a sin!

    That is the problem with this whole comment thread. You are all starting from the belief/tradition that prostitution is wrong; rather than going to scripture to determine what the opinion of God is on the matter. More interested in shaming AT than dealing with the truth.

    Its no surprise Dalrock choose to highlight the issue of prostitution in his follow up thread. In light of 1 Cor 6 he actually has an argument to make that seems right (though probably isn’t) and few use prostitutes (fewer still admit to it because its seen as shameful).

    But he ignores the matters which were discussed more, such as masturbation or porn. Most people do those and the condemnations are patently ridiculous. Not to mention the condemners haven’t a leg to stand on scripturally.

    No, rather than seek out the truth, we’ll associate all these arguments with prostitution in order to shame them and mock them for trying to reason things out.

  58. Damn Crackers says:

    More importantly, is AT’s religion tax-exempt? I’d like to go to a service.

  59. OKRickety says:

    “Dalrock said on August 15, 2017 at 1:19 pm

    Here is my understanding of AT’s argument: Marriage occurs when a virgin has sex, but in some cases marriages can be nullified or otherwise ended. Since they are now both 1) virgins and 2) unmarried, these women are ….”

    Shouldn’t “1) virgins” be “1) deflowered” (or some equivalent)? Or the statement rephrased to something like “Since they are 1) no longer virgins but 2) still unmarried, these women are ….”?

    [D: Ah. Yes. Typo. I’ll fix that.]

  60. earlthomas786 says:

    But he ignores the matters which were discussed more, such as masturbation or porn. Most people do those and the condemnations are patently ridiculous. Not to mention the condemners haven’t a leg to stand on scripturally.

    They are offenses against chastity. The only defense others have against that is it isnt explicitly stated in Scripture. I have yet to see refute against the claim the church makes about both…or justifying using Scripture how they are on equal parring morally with the only licit way God made the sexual act.

  61. Derek Ramsey says:

    @Gary Eden – “You are all starting from the belief/tradition that prostitution is wrong; rather than going to scripture to determine what the opinion of God is on the matter.”

    So I went to scripture (Genesis 2:24; Luke 10; 1 Cor. 6-7) and learned that sex creates an expectation of marriage. From this, all non-marital sex is illicit.[1] That means prostitution is wrong. Straightforward logical deduction that starts from scripture and arrives at the conclusion. You imply that it is the other way around. It is not.

    But this is not the only option available in making the determination. Let’s say that you want to derive whether or not prostitution is right or wrong based on explicit mentions of prostitution. So we look throughout all of scripture to find a single example praising prostitution. Are there any? No, not a single one. The most righteous of all prostitutes, Rahab, was not praised for her prostitution. But there are many mentions of specific instances of prostitution that were condemned. The complete lack of any approval for prostitution combined with the strong disapproval of some kinds of it implies quite strongly that all prostitution is wrong.

    If you don’t like that argument, try the linguistic one. The language used in both the OT (zanah) and NT (pornea) to describe “whoring” is very generally applicable. It’s a bit of a catch-all word to include various forms of sexual immorality and is used both generally and specifically. As such, the language used makes it very difficult to make assertions that the Bible did not mention prostitution when it almost certainly did in the general case. For example, Tamar, a non-virgin widow, is found to be pregnant. She is accused of being a whore (zanah) and they want to execute her for that crime.

    [1] Dalrock and others have a different way to arrive at the conclusion that “all non-marital sex is illicit”, so even this argument is not the only possible one based on scripture.

  62. tsotha says:

    Wow. And to think the church got it wrong all these years.

  63. Damn Crackers says:

    @Derek – Why didn’t King Solomon kill both prostitutes from 1 Kings 3:16-28?

  64. MKT says:

    “Damn Crackers:

    “More importantly, is AT’s religion tax-exempt? I’d like to go to a service.”

    I shudder to think.

    “And now for our offertory, Candy and Bambi will walk up to the striper’s pole.”

  65. Gunner Q says:

    Damn Crackers @ 1:44 pm:
    “More importantly, is AT’s religion tax-exempt? I’d like to go to a service.”

    Stay away from the Blackwater Brides of Death.

  66. Derek Ramsey says:

    @Damn Crackers – “Why didn’t King Solomon kill both prostitutes from 1 Kings 3:16-28?”

    You might as well ask why he was so barbaric that gave the command to chop up a baby and give its divided bloody corpse to a pair of prostitutes (i.e. “have you stopped beating your wife yet”). These loaded questions are beside the point, as we are not given the reason for his actions (or lack of action). I cannot make an assumption or moral judgment based purely on an argument from silence. I can however note that Hebrew word used for prostitute and refer back to the linguistic argument.

  67. Dalrock says:

    @Gary Eden

    I’m sorry; I just don’t understand how prostitution is OK. I just don’t see how God sanctions prostitution.

    You work from the presupposition that things you don’t like are condemned unless God somewhere says its ok. I personally hate cauliflower. God never sanctioned its consumption so it must be a sin!

    That is the problem with this whole comment thread. You are all starting from the belief/tradition that prostitution is wrong; rather than going to scripture to determine what the opinion of God is on the matter. More interested in shaming AT than dealing with the truth.

    Except you are overlooking the places where Scripture says that prostitution is sin, that you and AT handwaved away. Moreover, as I wrote in the original post in the series, 1 Cor 7 instructs us in the moral context to have sex. Don’t follow the instruction if you wish, but don’t pretend that you aren’t in rebellion. As Boxer says regarding AT, be upfront about this new religion you are creating.

  68. Damn Crackers says:

    @Derek – “I cannot make an assumption or moral judgment based purely on an argument from silence.”

    True, but it shows that being a prostitute wasn’t always a death sentence like you supposed from the story or Tamar.

  69. Joules says:

    Here are the verses regarding prostitution I cited in my post on the last thread

    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. There’s reason to believe that the use of prostitution extends beyond the mere institution to just sleeping around.

  70. Anonymous Reader says:

    Dalrock, not sure how new this religion of A Toad’s really is. But one certainly wouldn’t want to use the word “cult” too casually.

    https://infogalactic.com/info/Family_International
    Look for the term “flirty fishing”. Which isn’t necessarily prostitution…

  71. @Dalrock

    Still waiting for you to address the point from the previous thread, to recap, here it is:

    (To save you the trouble of checking, it’s 620 words)

    _________________________________

    The eligible virgin is married when she has sex. Because that’s what Genesis 2;24 says. God provided us with three judgments that explain this.

    1) The first judgement is found at Exodus 22:16-17, the case of the virgin who is not betrothed (meaning she’s eligible to be married) who is seduced (she agreed to have sex) and the question is whether her father forbids her agreement to marry the guy. According to Numbers 30, as her father he has the authority to forbid any vow or agreement she makes in the day he hears of it. In the day he hears of it he can either say nothing and she’s bound by that vow or agreement, or he can forbid it. Exodus 22:16-17 explains how it works in either case. In verse 16 the father says nothing, they are married and her husband has to pay the bride price for his wife. In verse 17, the father forbids her agreement to marry, refusing to give her to the man who seduced her. They are not married and he has to pay the price for virgins.

    2) The second judgment is found in Deuteronomy 22:23-27 and it concerns the case of the betrothed virgin who has sex. Because she is not an eligible virgin (she’s betrothed), sex with her does not create a marriage and the man who does it gets put to death for the crime of adultery. She may or may not be put to death depending on the circumstances.

    3) The third judgment, found a bit later at verses 28-29, is the case of the eligible virgin (she is not betrothed) who is raped. If the rape is discovered (meaning it really was rape), she obviously didn’t make any agreement her father can forbid so she’s married to the man who took her virginity. Even though he raped her. Because when the eligible virgin has sex, she’s married to the man who got her virginity and quite obviously, her consent is not necessary.

    Therefore, the correct exegesis of Genesis 2:24 is simple: the eligible virgin is married when she has sex, with or without her consent.

    Which means that if a man puts a wedding ring on a woman but did not get her virginity, almost assuredly she is a married woman and he’s joined himself to another man’s wife. That’s adultery. According to the surveys by the Southern Baptists, at best only about 20% of the women in the church give their virginity to the man who gives them a ring, which means that 80% of the so-called “marriages” in the church today are adulterous unions.

    You claim that is an “outlandish” statement and that I’ve been refuted. Then the thread devolved into a discussion of fapping.

    You cannot “refute” the fact that a man marries a woman with the act of sex and the virgin’s consent is not required for her to be married. Scripture clearly states that a virgin can be raped into marriage, so the claim that consent is required in order to create a marriage is obviously not true. Whether she agrees or not, whether she knows she’s being married or not, the sex will make her married if she’s eligible for that man to marry.

    The prior permission of the father, an appropriate engagement period followed by the party with the dress, the vows and exchange of rings… followed by getting naked and lots of sex… there’s nothing wrong with any of that and arguably doing it that way is best. However, all of that stuff prior to the sex is by voluntary agreement and it does not actually marry the woman. A man marries a woman with the act of sexual intercourse.

    _____________________

    Rather than address that issue, you respond with a post in which you deliberately went off-topic and seem shocked that I stated the obvious: according to the Bible, prostitution is not a sin. Apparently you’re just trying to find anything to focus on rather than the issue I just described, but I’ll play along.

    If you believe I’m wrong and prostitution is a sin, please cite chapter and verse in the Law where God forbid it. If God did not forbid prostitution, please explain how it became a sin when God chose not to forbid it.

    Consider Proverbs 6:24-29, which contrasts the adulteress with the prostitute. In fact, it’s the only mention of prostitutes in that section, which is chapters 5-7.

    keeping you from your neighbor’s wife,
    from the smooth talk of a wayward woman.
    Do not lust in your heart after her beauty
    or let her captivate you with her eyes.
    For a prostitute can be had for a loaf of bread,
    but another man’s wife preys on your very life.

    Can a man scoop fire into his lap
    without his clothes being burned?
    Can a man walk on hot coals
    without his feet being scorched?
    So is he who sleeps with another man’s wife;
    no one who touches her will go unpunished.

    The lesson? Keep away from the adulteress, no-one who touches her will go unpunished and she could cost you your life. Prostitutes are cheap in comparison to that.

    Consider the context as well. Proverbs 5 has a long warning about adultery, followed by instruction to be satisfied with your own wife. Chapter 6 has the further instruction to stay away from married women but makes the point that spending the money on prostitutes is better than running the risk of committing adultery. Then chapter 7 is another long warning about the danger of adultery.

    So three chapters that over and over again tell the young man to stay away from married women, rejoice in the wife of your youth instead… but there’s that one little point that basically says “if you have to get laid, prostitutes may cost money, but that “free” married woman might cost you your wealth, your reputation and even your life.”

    There is no prohibition on prostitutes here, not even a condemnation. Proverbs 29:3 says that the companion of prostitutes squanders his wealth, so again we see the point that prostitutes cost money, but there is no prohibition. It’s just as true to say that a television set squanders a man’s time, but that doesn’t mean watching television is a sin.

  72. Dalrock says:

    @Gary Eden

    But he ignores the matters which were discussed more, such as masturbation or porn. Most people do those and the condemnations are patently ridiculous. Not to mention the condemners haven’t a leg to stand on scripturally.

    This is a lie. I have not ignored the issue of masturbation and porn. See this comment, this comment and (less directly) this comment in the Friend Zone post. See also this comment in the post on whether marriage causes sexual immorality.

    No, rather than seek out the truth, we’ll associate all these arguments with prostitution in order to shame them and mock them for trying to reason things out.

    But this is the real problem with your claim. I don’t have to do anything other than quote AT to make him look foolish. He carefully buries the nutty stuff deep inside a wall of text. When you take it out and shine a light on it, it will always look nutty. This isn’t just regarding his assertion of holy Christian hookers. For example, take this nugget:

    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.

    See. No holy hookers involved, but he still looks nutty, because he is writing nutty things.

    My question to you is: Did you not notice these nutty things and are defending them in error? Or did you notice the nutty things and like them, which is why you are defending them?

  73. Dalrock says:

    @AT

    Still waiting for you to address the point from the previous thread, to recap, here it is:

    (To save you the trouble of checking, it’s 620 words)

    _________________________________

    The eligible virgin is married when she has sex. Because that’s what Genesis 2;24 says.

    You always dive immediately back in the weeds, because that is the only place your claims can survive, in murky water. But you are wrong here. Sex does not create marriage. What is confusing you is that until very recently, there was a presumption that sex should only occur within marriage. A harlot is already a harlot, so one more act of sex doesn’t change her fundamental status (but it is still sin). But a virgin risks becoming a harlot if she doesn’t marry the man she has sex with.

    Marriage is a public status. As for how a man and woman go about publicly establishing that they are married, they might invite the community to witness them make a public declaration (a wedding), or they might merely live together publicly as man and wife (see the legal history of common-law marriage). That the Bible doesn’t tell us a specific ceremony doesn’t change this. Moreover, intercourse is the one thing they won’t do in public, so it can’t be the defining factor of marriage. Fornication and adultery are done in secrecy, unless the actors are shameless. Marital sex is done in private, with no shame, yet the couple is out in the open about the fact that they are (or should be) having sex.

  74. Damn Crackers says:

    @Joules – “There’s reason to believe that the use of prostitution extends beyond the mere institution to just sleeping around.”

    I agree with this statement. I think most of the posters here think “prostitute” means some woman in fishnets standing under a street lamp. But the term may have had multiple meanings, much like the term “ho” can mean a woman who takes money for sex or a gold digger or a trampy slut.

  75. Anonymous Reader says:

    SJB
    Dalrock: thank you and I do understand your answer. My response: a man always pays. The 2nd wave feminists (I think) declared that marriage is legalized prostitution. I would agree as, again, the man always pays. The difference, then, is the difference between a consumable (an orgasm for the sake of an orgasm) and an investment (children).

    At the basic, biological level women want sperm to make babies and resources to raise them. Hypergamy pushes them in the direction of men who are perceived to be of high value.
    That’s the basic level. Housewife, career YouGoGirll, single mother, serial-babymomma, that’s the basic level. In purely secular terms, any culture above the grass hut level requires more. But at the basic level All Women Are Like That. Also, all women are potential “war brides”, because that’s what the basic, hindbrain level, programming does. I’m sure I’ve offended any number of conservative, churchgoing feminists of both sexes with this ugly truth. But there it is. Women pass gas, too.

    This didn’t used to matter a few centuries back when men were not blinded to these facts. Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales has a few literary mentions such as the Tale of the Wife of Bath regarding “what women want”. It’s only in the last 150 years or so, with the arrival of Victorianism (“women do not enjoy sex, they merely undergo it for the sake of children”) that Western men became blinded to the basic, feral programming of women.

    None of this is relevant to Toad’s fantasies, I just want to point out the facts: women have an animal side just as men do. To deny that reality is really stupid and can be dangerous.

    Now, back to A. Toad’s “Letters to Penthouse” fantasy world.

  76. thedeti says:

    Well I keep returning to this thread to see more lines of inquiry.

    Dalrock, I don’t see that you’ve addressed masturbation in the other comments. You’ve addressed porn, but not masturbation from what I can see. Maybe it’s there but I’m just missing it.

    So can we conclude that I Cor. 7 says by implication that masturbation is illicit sex, because the only licit sex is intercourse between a man and a woman married to each other? That this one enumerated circumstance in which sex is permissible thus prohibits masturbation?

  77. Damn Crackers says:

    Sirach 9:1-9

    1 Do not be jealous of the wife you love, do not teach her lessons in how to harm you.

    2 Do not put yourself in a woman’s hands or she may come to dominate you completely.

    3 Do not keep company with a prostitute, in case you get entangled in her snares.

    4 Do not dally with a singing girl, in case you get caught by her wiles.

    5 Do not stare at a pretty girl, in case you and she incur the same punishment.

    6 Do not give your heart to whores, or you will ruin your inheritance.

    7 Keep your eyes to yourself in the streets of a town, do not prowl about its unfrequented quarters.

    8 Turn your eyes away from a handsome woman, do not stare at a beauty belonging to someone else. Because of a woman’s beauty, many have been undone; this makes passion flare up like a fire.

    9 Never sit down with a married woman, or sit at table with her drinking wine, in case you let your heart succumb to her and you lose all self-control and slide to disaster.

  78. Anonymous Reader says:

    Deti, Dalrock has undertaken to parse A. Toad’s wall-of-text, that’s fully within his stated premise for the existence of this blog: marriage issues in a Christian context. Asking Dalrock to pursue every rabbit trail that someone drags in…is a bit too much. He’s not a pope, after all.

  79. Dalrock says:

    @Deti

    Dalrock, I don’t see that you’ve addressed masturbation in the other comments. You’ve addressed porn, but not masturbation from what I can see. Maybe it’s there but I’m just missing it.

    So can we conclude that I Cor. 7 says by implication that masturbation is illicit sex, because the only licit sex is intercourse between a man and a woman married to each other? That this one enumerated circumstance in which sex is permissible thus prohibits masturbation?

    I lumped porn and masturbation in together because I see both as involving the nurture of desire for illicit sex (sin emanating from the heart). You might be talking about a married man masturbating while thinking about licit sex with his own wife, but I don’t think this is where the heat and noise around porn and masturbation are coming from. To be fair, I haven’t given that particular corner case much thought. But even here, if you wanted to make a corner case, marriage to the woman being imagined would be required.

  80. SJB says:

    Dalrock: Det. 23:18-19 contain a cultic prostitution prohibition as well as an implication that a prostitute might make the correct offering. Perhaps there was (is) such a thing as a righteous prostitute. Very interesting.

  81. SJB says:

    Anonymous Reader: cosign your comment — the middle / late Modernist era wrecked a number of things. We still feel the waves.

  82. shammahworm says:

    Great posts Dalrock and great citations of scripture. A lot of the naysayers fail to realize Paul is an apostle and God gives commandments through the epistles too.

    1) Sin existed before the Mosaic law was given and God judged peoples and nations(Sodom and Gomorrah, etc).
    2) The fact that someone isn’t automatically executed for premarital sex in the OT in no way means it isn’t sin.
    3) Deut. 22: 21 gives “whoring” as the reason for execution which makes number 2 a moot point.

    As other posters have pointed out,
    Fornication = All manner of sexual sin.
    Adultery = A type of fornication.
    Whoring = Another type of fornication.

    All the naysayers who like to bring up Greek words need to check 1 Cor 5: 1 and notice how incestuous adultery is called fornication(porneia). Then they need to go through the NT and see how numerous other specific forms of fornication(whoring, homosexuality, etc.) are called fornication(porneia) instead of their specific words.

    This means NO SEXUAL ACTS OUTSIDE OF MARRIAGE in word or dead are licit.

  83. shammahworm says:

    Now it needs to be said once again, AT is a liar, a heretic and a demonic false teacher.

    Here’s the list of AT’s heresies with links directly to his comments. Note that these are false teachings to both Protestants and Catholics.

    AT has falsely claimed in the past:
    1) The Pharisees were “in authority” over Jesus. https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2016/01/06/a-fresh-start-for-naghmeh/#comment-198646
    “In Matthew 19, Jesus, the man in His earthly ministry, is speaking to the Pharisees who are in authority over Him (c.f. Matthew 23:1-3). In 1st Corinthians 7, Christ the Risen Lord is speaking to His servants in the church, speaking in authority as their Master.”
    2) Deuteronomy was just a “judicial ruling” and not the command of God(good for him if he changed his mind on this). https://shammahworm.wordpress.com/2014/05/22/yes-there-is-biblical-divorce-and-remarriage/#comment-4
    3) Lesbianism is biblical if it’s between two women married to the same man. https://web.archive.org/web/20150919153953/https://artisanaltoadshall.wordpress.com/
    Matthew 19: 4-5 shows why lesbianism IN ANY FORM is sin.
    4) AT claims some forms of premarital sex aren’t sin. This is false for the reasons stated in the thread and other reasons which I don’t have enough energy to quantify. 1 Corinthians 7: 8-9 is one such scripture. https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2016/01/06/a-fresh-start-for-naghmeh/#comment-198567
    5) AT has called prostitutes “righteous” https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2017/08/09/is-marriage-the-cause-of-sexual-immorality/#comment-242532

  84. thedeti says:

    Anon Reader:

    Fair enough, but the question came up in the context of what is and is not licit sex under I Cor 7 both in a reading of the text and Christian tradition. (We can say what we want about Roman Catholic doctrine and catechism, but at least they’ve been consistent on this point.) Plus, I’m sure catechism covers it – there’s no way I’m the first person who ever conceived that specific question.

    Having my question answered, I’m content to sit back and lurk.

  85. Robert What? says:

    I can’t say I’m following all this righteous prostitute stuff. But as an aside, given the nature of the modern sexless American marriage, if it wasn’t for prostitution, millions of married men would have no sex at all, ever.

  86. dpmonahan says:

    Christian solipsism: not just for women any more.

  87. Gunner Q says:

    Dalrock @ 3:22 pm:
    “I lumped porn and masturbation in together because I see both as involving the nurture of desire for illicit sex (sin emanating from the heart).”

    I go a step further and claim that humans were sinful even before the Fall. We simply couldn’t express the sin because there was no ability to do so, like a marooned thief. Only when God gave Adam & Eve a breakable command was evil able to surface and be recognized.

    That’s why God allowed the Fall to happen. It was the only way we could confront the darkness inside us.

  88. Evan Turner says:

    Dalrock i enjoy reading your blog from time to time as you expose the false teachings and teachers that lead many astray. However, here i can’t agree with you. The mistake you are making is common among Christians and that is you don’t define what fornication or sexual immortality is biblically.

    I have written a book on God’s law in relation to sex which can be downloaded for free it is exhaustive and compares scripture to scripture.

    I respectfully challenge you or anyone else to point out with scripture where my conclusions are wrong. The name of my book is called SEX IN THE BIBLE THE UNTOLD TRUTH. Again it’s worth mentioning that you can download it for free.

    Yours in Christ
    Evan Turner

  89. Stephan says:

    I follow Artisanal Toads thoughts partly.

    Sex with a (unbetrothed) virgin equals marriage. You are then expected to marry her (Exodus 22:15+16 or Deuteronomy 22:28+29). If her father refuses the marriage, she can’t marry someone other. Her father can’t give her to another man. In the old Israel she could be stoned (Deuteronomy 22:13-21).

    But sex with an nonvirgin is adultry – exept widows. In the book of Ruth they tried to get Boas into marriage (Ruth 3:3+4). What do you think Naomi expected, when she said “… wait till he has finished eating and drinking … uncover his feet and lie down … do as he says…”?

    For now I see two parts for a biblical marriage: 1.) the vow and 2.) convert the virgin to your woman (except widows). If I start with 2. I have to catch up 1. and don’t complain about a shotgun wedding.

    I relate fornication with unlawful sexual relations (Leviticus 18) – adultery includet.

    Stephan

  90. @theDeti

    “I don’t know how to square AT’s argument with:

    I Cor. 6:9: Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

    or

    I Cor 6:15-17: Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never! 16 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.”[b]

    I can do that for you, no problem.

    In 1st Corinthians 6:9, Paul provides a laundry-list of the sorts of people who will not inherit the Kingdom of God. This really needs to be laid side-by-side with his list in Galatians 5:19-21

    Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

    The Corinthians passage was people, the Galatians passage was acts, and when you match them up it gets clear. Interestingly, prostitution is not listed on either side of the aisle. So, one might say prostitution falls under the heading of “sexually immoral” but as I’ve pointed out over and over again, sexual immorality is the set of offenses listed in the Law, plus Christian men having sex with prostitutes.

    Female prostitution is not one of the offenses listed in the Law (although there is Deut. 23:17-18 that forbids cult prostitution), nor is it forbidden in the NT for Christians. Therefore, prostitution is not sexual immorality. To put it another way, there is no prohibition anywhere in Scripture that forbids a woman from having sex with any man she is eligible to marry, whether she charges for it or gives it away for free. If she’s married she can only have sex with her husband or it’s adultery, but adultery is sin whether she was charging for it or giving it away for free.

    1st Corinthians 6:15-16 forbids the use of prostitutes by Christian men and says nothing about the women. That prohibition is actually no different from the 2nd Corinthians 6:14 prohibition on marrying an unbeliever, which doesn’t concern the unbeliever, it commands the believer not to marry them.

    I just noticed that Dalrock finally took a stand, so I’ll now go deal with that.

  91. earlthomas786 says:

    The prior permission of the father, an appropriate engagement period followed by the party with the dress, the vows and exchange of rings… followed by getting naked and lots of sex… there’s nothing wrong with any of that and arguably doing it that way is best. However, all of that stuff prior to the sex is by voluntary agreement and it does not actually marry the woman. A man marries a woman with the act of sexual intercourse.

    Again you keep making the mistake that consumation as the only legit thing that makes a marriage. It is a ratification and consumation. If there is no ratification at the time of the act…it’s called fornication (assuming both partners are not married). You can’t rationalize away fornication by suddenly saying she’s your wife because of intercourse only.

  92. earlthomas786 says:

    But as an aside, given the nature of the modern sexless American marriage, if it wasn’t for prostitution, millions of married men would have no sex at all, ever.

    That’s probably the bigger issue…not only prostitution but men are rationalizing porn, jerking off, adultery, etc. because wives aren’t fulfilling their marital duty. St. Paul was obviously correct when depriving each other gives Satan an in for temptation.

  93. Son of Liberty says:

    and I assume that most readers (like myself), have not carefully read all 750+ of the comments.

    It would be much easier to implement Disqus comments system, than the current one, which is linear and hard to reply appropriately.

  94. Son of Liberty says:

    Ted says:
    August 15, 2017 at 12:06 pm

    I apologize if someone brought this up before but I’m having trouble reconciling the admission that a virgin having sex constitutes marriage, and asserting prostitution is not sinful. If marriage begins at her first sexual penetration, doesn’t any sexual encounter with another man afterwards constitute adultery?

    It is what I said in that 750+ post :)….

    Is marriage the cause of sexual immorality? (comment #241651)

    But it seems that all of them were busy justifying their pump and dump excuses.

  95. Anonymous Reader says:

    It would be much easier to implement Disqus comments system,

    No. Just no. Most of Dalrock’s comment threads do not go this long (“Are women done with men after 50” is the exceptional gift that keeps on giving). WordPress has its limits. Other sites have comment threads that go for pages. Disqus is not a solution.

  96. Son of Liberty says:


    Artisanal Toad says:
    August 15, 2017 at 2:46 pm

    Uhm, no…
    Your ideology MIGHT hold water if the prostitute’s 1000+ men happened to be ALL non married, abstinent, celibate men who lost their virginity to that same prostitute. But yet again.. the prostitute literally married her first penetration for the rest of her life… So whether the prostitute had 1000 men or the adulteress had 1 man… fornication was committed, period. And adultery/harlotry (not roman catholic spiritual harlotry :)), or prostitution… all fall below fornication. You a coadjutor for the Society of Gesu infiltrating the (fundamental/originalist/classical protestant) Christian Dalrock site? lol.

  97. Son of Liberty says:

    It would be much easier to implement Disqus comments system,

    No. Just no. Most of Dalrock’s comment threads do not go this long (“Are women done with men after 50” is the exceptional gift that keeps on giving). WordPress has its limits. Other sites have comment threads that go for pages. Disqus is not a solution.

    Well I’m open to anything as alternative. Current one is linear and there’s no sub commenting right below the preferred reply of choice, it’s endless scrolling and copy and pasting to have some sort of formal organization.

  98. Spike says:

    After my mother died, may father remarried. It wasn’t a match made in heaven. He had a lot of conflict, culminating with her leaving him for about 3 weeks. She eventually returned and all was sorted out.
    Later, my father rang me to tell me he was passing blood. I sent him to a doctor, who referred him to a urinary tract oncologist. Tests ensued, to no avail. Was it his prostate? More tests, no it wasn’t. Then some doctor thought about testing him for an STI. Sure enough, there it was. “Mr Spike Snr, you’ve been a naughty boy. Who have you been with?” His answer: No one.
    It was her, all along.She had an affair, came back infected.
    A messy divorce ensued. My father was up to give her half of his life’s earnings, ridiculous when it was considered he married her after he had retired.It was only a very cunning lawyer that made her settle for a quarter, allowing my father to not be destitute.
    So, my father decided to get another woman in his life. This time, he didn’t marry her. He stayed with her until he died. He wasn’t even cold in the ground when she stripped his house of all the internal furniture, and demanded a third of his life’s earnings. Fortunately he had won a lottery and my sister and I gave her the cash, basically paying her to leave.

    What has this to do with Artisanal Toad? Well, I for one think he has a point, at least from a secular, but not a biblical one.
    If my father simply lived alone and visited prostitutes when he had an urge, he would have kept the family wealth intact, lived his life in greater dignity and maintained the continuity of the family wealth, instead of squandering it on, well, very expensive prostitutes. In doing so, he probably would have fulfilled more of a biblical role than he did.

  99. Mycroft Jones says:

    Well I’m open to anything as alternative. Current one is linear and there’s no sub commenting right below the preferred reply of choice, it’s endless scrolling and copy and pasting to have some sort of formal organization.

    Perhaps that is a feature, not a bug. Slows down the tide of comments to something more reasonable. I do wish there was a “preview comment” button though. And also, wish there was some link so I could see how do I quote other peoples posts, do I just insert raw HTML? No hint or clue anywhere on this.

  100. Son of Liberty says:

    @Spike

    Sorry about your family. I would say prostitution wasn’t stopping your Dad from passing blood though, spiritual health is more important than money or physical wealth… Artisanal Toad should just admit that rubbing it off is 100% biblical, as long as your mind is blank to prevent the “looketh” verse violation. No different from flexing muscles and mentally “lookething” a women. Limb is a limb.

  101. SirHamster says:

    @ Mycroft

    To quote other people’s posts in the indented format, use the blockquote html tag.

    EX: [blockquote] TEXT [/blockquote], but use the angle brackets instead of square ones.

    TEXT

  102. Els says:

    AT’s theology is not new. The basic gist of it -my husband has been heavily propagandized with it in real life- is that men cannot commit sexual sin UNLESS they have sex with another man’s wife.

    Of course, if said wife isn’t really even married to her “husband” because he didn’t get there first, then…

    It’s a theology been gaining decent traction for at least a decade now. Complete with voluminous Scripture quoting and twisting to cover up the glaring contradictions.

  103. @Dalrock

    Sex does not create marriage. What is confusing you is that until very recently, there was a presumption that sex should only occur within marriage. A harlot is already a harlot, so one more act of sex doesn’t change her fundamental status (but it is still sin). But a virgin risks becoming a harlot if she doesn’t marry the man she has sex with.”

    You lead with ad hominem and follow with a bald assertion that contradicts what Genesis 2:24 says. The Hebrew word “dabaq” that is translated into English as “cleave” or “join to” means sexual intercourse. We know this because Genesis 2:24 was translated into Greek and the word “kollao” was used to translate “dabaq”. Then, the Apostle Paul used the same word, within the context of Genesis 2:24, to mean sex. That’s the apostolic translation, not the one Jerome came up with.

    You claim I’m confused, but you’re the one claiming that a harlot is already a harlot. I guess it’s harlots all the way down? Obviously you’ve created a new doctrine of harlot fairies.

    Under God’s design, at some point the virgin woman gets penetrated by the man who takes her virginity. According to Genesis 2;24, with that act she is married to him, assuming he’s eligible to marry her. From that point on, she only gets to have sex with her husband. When he dies, divorces her for her adultery or refuses to live with her, (assuming the harlot fairy isn’t a Christian) she’s no longer bound.

    At what point in the arc of this story did she become a harlot? You say she’s always been a harlot because she has to be careful to marry the man who takes her virginity but you can’t tell us what it is that she has to do to marry him? You can’t tell us what irrevocable act will make them married? Not breaking her hymen and taking her virginity, no, you claim that won’t do it, it has to be something else.

    I try to avoid the virgin bride, shed blood – covenant marriage argument for reasons having to do with the definition of one flesh, but covenants are initiated by men with the shedding of blood and then God seals the covenant. Which is another way to read Genesis 2:24… or do you not know what creates a covenant marriage either?

    You claim sex does not create marriage and follow that with a meaningless social conventions argument. Marriage is a social construct now? Maybe adultery is just a social construct as well? After all, how can you know that a man and woman are married… so you can’t possibly know if she’s committing adultery. Reminds me of a neighbor of mine who was a follower of the Easter Bunny. After a big party with a dress, rings and vows followed by lots of sex, 14 years and 6 kids later their bishop declared that they were never married. Must have been a social construct.

    Then you make another bald assertion that again contradicts what Scripture says:

    “Marriage is a public status. As for how a man and woman go about publicly establishing that they are married, they might invite the community to witness them make a public declaration (a wedding), or they might merely live together publicly as man and wife (see the legal history of common-law marriage). That the Bible doesn’t tell us a specific ceremony doesn’t change this.”

    That is a lie, the specific ceremony of marriage is when the man has sexual intercourse with a woman he is eligible to marry. That is the ceremony Genesis 2;24 describes, so that’s the wedding ceremony. Because God said so. When the woman is a virgin, that ceremony is sufficient to marry her, which is why the eligible virgin can be raped into marriage (Deut 22:28-29).

    If, as you claim, sex does not create marriage, then how are they married? What act marries a man and woman before God, in all places at all times? We know what Genesis 2:24 says and what it means. We have the judgments that further explain/modify that. What we don’t have is *anything* on the other side to support your claim that Genesis 2:24 is incorrect.

    Adam, Eve and God were the only ones in the Garden. They had sex, God made them one flesh. They were married. You claim that sex does not make a person married, so how were they married? If the answer is God’s presence and His act of making them one flesh, then you support the point that all it takes is sex. Because God is always there with everyone.

    Or, you’re saying that Adam and Eve were not married.

    Jesus cited (and quoted) Genesis 2:24 as the authority for marriage. Are you claiming He got it wrong? Please explain. Jesus quoted it, pointing out that the man has sex with his wife and God makes them one flesh. They are no longer two, but one flesh and what God has joined together let no man separate. Because they were married and you have to be married to get divorced. Paul described the one-flesh union as a spiritual union that was similar to that of being one body with Christ. God makes the two one flesh and it’s a spiritual union, so obviously it is not the act of having sex. We’ve already established that the “cleave” part of Genesis 2:24 is where they have sex.

    Why are you claiming that a man and woman are not married when they perform the ceremony that God’s Word says makes them married? You are claiming some sort of special sauce is required to make them married, but can’t describe what’s in it or who gets to decide what it is?

    Dalrock, you already know that once you throw out what God said, all you have left is opinions and yours is no better than anyone elses.

    Then you double down on this lunacy.

    Moreover, intercourse is the one thing they won’t do in public, so it can’t be the defining factor of marriage. Fornication and adultery are done in secrecy, unless the actors are shameless. Marital sex is done in private, with no shame, yet the couple is out in the open about the fact that they are (or should be) having sex.

    So Jesus got it wrong and Genesis 2:24 is not the authority for marriage that establishes when a man and woman are married, because fornication, but you can’t cite any authority on that claim, you cannot provide some other act that makes a man and woman married every single time and your claim contradicts what Genesis 2:24 actually says.

    Tell me more about the harlot fairy.

  104. earlthomas786 says:

    Women commiting perceived worse sins doesn’t justify men committing perceived lesser sins and vice versa. That’s why objective morality isn’t based on gender. Today’s relative morality in which one part is based on which gender is good and evil is a huge modern day heresy.

  105. SnapperTrx says:

    Serious question:

    AT has provided several verses that indicate that sex with a virgin = marriage, but I have yet to see any verses which outline marriage as being part of a ceremony which requires a priest/pastor and witnesses. If said ceremony were intended to create a marriage, or even some type of vow between man and woman, where is it in the bible? God saw fit to put A TON of step-by-step instructions in the OT on ceremonies, sacrifices, etc., yet there are no instructions on a “marriage ceremony”. Marriage has been from the beginning, it is a creation of God and not of man. How, then, did man figure out the ‘steps’, so to speak? I certainly don’t see God just leaving it up to us to figure out, yet it is not documented.

  106. Evan Turner says:

    I can’t believe so many people here believe that sex equals marriage. Not only was prostitution legal under certain circumstances but so was concubinage. This churchian belief doesn’t have a leg to stand on.

  107. Dalrock says:

    I had nested comments enabled when I first started the blog. All it would take to reimplement it would be checking a box. It worked great until the comment threads got over 100 or so. The challenge is finding new responses when they are responding to an old comment, especially if the comments are coming in quickly (so you can’t see the recent comment on the side).

  108. Mountain Man says:

    I do not support A.Toad’s position or arguments. But here is another wrinkle to add to the discussion.

    It’s my understanding that during the middle ages, the Catholic church set up, ran, and profited from brothels. I doubt this was common, but it did happen. Did they use a “prostitution is not sin” argument in doing so? I doubt it. It was probably more along the lines of ” a husband shouldn’t have passionate sex with his wife” argument. So perhaps they set up the brothels so men could have passionate sex with prostitutes rather than “defiling” their wives. Evidently, they thought the only sex you are supposed to have with your wife is (infrequent) passionless duty sex for procreation.

    I’m just guessing here. Someone more familiar with medieval church literature may be able to enlighten us all as to the arguments use to support church-run brothels.

  109. SirHamster says:

    @ Mountain Man

    Another possibility – “they’re going to be prostitutes anyways, let’s at least be a better pimp than what they’d otherwise get”.

    And well … “Let’s make sure the girls are doing it right.”

  110. Novaseeker says:

    Cane’s comment at 12:44 is on point and well stated.

  111. Dalrock says:

    @AT

    You lead with ad hominem and follow with a bald assertion that contradicts what Genesis 2:24 says. The Hebrew word “dabaq” that is translated into English as “cleave” or “join to” means sexual intercourse. We know this because Genesis 2:24 was translated into Greek and the word “kollao” was used to translate “dabaq”. Then, the Apostle Paul used the same word, within the context of Genesis 2:24, to mean sex. That’s the apostolic translation, not the one Jerome came up with.

    When you have sex, you become one flesh, but it doesn’t make you married. As you noted, Paul used the same term. Sometimes he was talking about marriage, but in 1 Cor 6:15 he used the term to describe sex with a prostitute:

    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.”

    If it is as you say, that Gen 2:24 means that having sex creates marriage because of this word, then the prostitute would be married to every man she had sex with. But this would fly in the face of your holy Christian hooker theology, so it can’t be. So you’ve created a special circumstance from deduction. By squinting at the text in a certain way, you are sure Gen 2:24 means sex creates marriage with virgins if the man is eligible:

    Under God’s design, at some point the virgin woman gets penetrated by the man who takes her virginity. According to Genesis 2;24, with that act she is married to him, assuming he’s eligible to marry her.

    But why is it only eligible men who enter into marriage? You tell us that sex creates marriage, but only if the woman is a virgin. If she isn’t a virgin, and she isn’t married, you tell us she can have all the sex she wants and it doesn’t create marriage:

    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 those special circumstances (again strictly by your deduction), a widow can only marry by making a public declaration.

    But this can’t be either, because you mock the very idea that a public declaration creates a marriage, because only sex can make someone married. A public declaration would make marriage, in your words, a social construct:

    You claim sex does not create marriage and follow that with a meaningless social conventions argument. Marriage is a social construct now? Maybe adultery is just a social construct as well? After all, how can you know that a man and woman are married… so you can’t possibly know if she’s committing adultery.

    But again, your strategy is to offer rationalizations long enough, and with enough verbosity that you will eventually tire everyone out. You think this is clever, but it is not. The men reading who are fooled by this are not fooled by your cleverness, but by their own desires. They want to be fooled, and you are merely giving them something, anything, to grasp onto. Paul was clear in 1 Cor 7 about the right way to pursue sex. Any kooky theory that doesn’t line up with his instructions simply isn’t right.

  112. Spike says:

    Son of Liberty says:
    August 15, 2017 at 6:38 pm
    @Spike

    Sorry about your family. I would say prostitution wasn’t stopping your Dad from passing blood though, spiritual health is more important than money or physical wealth… Artisanal Toad should just admit that rubbing it off is 100% biblical, as long as your mind is blank to prevent the “looketh” verse violation. No different from flexing muscles and mentally “lookething” a women. Limb is a limb.

    Thanks, SoL. I understand that spiritual health is our highest priority, and I did speak in jest, taking a swipe at the despicable behavior of the modern woman, viz: She doesn’t play by the rules, so we shouldn’t either. I for one run my life along strictly biblical lines. Always will.

  113. SnapperTrx says:

    Oh, just saw both ATs and Dalrocks posts above. Please ignore.

  114. Evan Turner says:

    @AT
    You repeatedly state that sex with a virgin female equals marriage but this is easily disproven. The law of the captive woman (erroneously called by many wife) states that a man can take a woman in battle have sex with her and send her away for any reason.

    Obviously this means that in the case of the Medianites/Moabites the Isrealite men kept the virgins meaning after they had sex with them they could legally send her away for ANY REASON. This can only mean that that sex with a virgin female does not equal marriage.

    @dalrock
    You state that sex outside of marriage is sin but this law refutes your belif. As they aren’t married which is why he can let her go for ANY REASON.

  115. Bart says:

    Marriage is the only proper place for sex.

    Toad is wrong about non-married non-virgins whoring around.

    That said, I believe that Ruth’s conduct was morally upright (though risky) in going to Boaz at the threshing floor. The two of them could have marred right then and there, and physically consummated the union. No priest, government official, or external witnesses were necessarily required for a legitimate marriage to occur.

    Boaz was free to take a wife. Ruth was free to marry, and as a widow was not under a father’s authority (plus she was following Naomi’s instruction). Were Ruth a virgin rather than a widow, her father’s authorization would have been required.

    Boaz could have said “I take you as my wife”, Ruth consented to be his wife, and then engage in intercourse. Married!

    Of course, first thing in the morning, the newlyweds would have had to get up and immediately go tell everyone that they were now man and wife (no secret hidden marriage).

    Boaz, Ruth, and Naomi are all regarded us upright God fearers, and that seems to be the way they understood the law of marriage.

    Boaz however chose not to take that path. He wanted to follow the law of the kinsman redeemer, under which the closer relative had first responsibility for helping Naomi/Ruth.

    Boaz knew that Ruth was proposing proper marriage on the threshing floor, not just a Artisnal Toad style hookup.

  116. Bart says:

    Evan Turner,

    I’d argue that the time for sending away the captive woman was prior to the consummation of the union. Remember that they were kind of betrothed during her period of Bald headed mourning.

    It doesn’t say “you can bang her, and then cast her off”. You break her virginity, you bought it.

  117. Dale says:

    @thedeti asked So can we conclude that I Cor. 7 says by implication that masturbation is illicit sex
    and part of Dalrock’s answer was marriage to the woman being imagined would be required

    Masturbation, or at least, the act leading to an emission of semen, is clearly not a sin. See my two comments on Lev 15 in the prior thread. Five minutes of reading the listed passages from Scripture, plus two minutes of thinking will prove it. Since the act that leads to the emission of semen is not specified, it could be argued this is referring not to any act that gives an emission of semen (e.g. masturbation, nocturnal emissions, sex with wife), but only to nocturnal emissions. Two problems with that limitation:
    1) The limitation is not in the text; we are adding our words to put in the limitation we want.
    2) The requirement to wait until evening does not make too much sense then, as the act already occurs during the night. Unless this means that the person is in a state of being ceremonially unclean for the entire day (possibly the correct interpretation).

    Dalrock has an important point, although he is conflating it with a second idea. If a man fantasizes about sex with a married woman, that seems very clearly to fall in the “any man who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart” situation from Matt 5:27-28, unless the woman in question is his own wife. I do not see how anyone could contest this.
    Some men may find masturbation impossible, without having accompanying adulterous thoughts. So for them, they had better not masturbate ever, which yields the cessation of nocturnal emissions, or ever marry a wife who thinks she can refuse, as he will have big problems in either case. Matt 5:29-30 would be relevant here (avoid what causes you to sin — in this case masturbation).
    Some men however may not find it impossible to masturbate without adulterous thoughts/coveting. I have no business accusing you of sharing the same weaknesses I have. Rom 14:1-4, 14-15 and 22 are relevant. The fact I can not identify whether you will go into sin in a given situation does nothing to change the fact that you absolutely will, given your own past experiences.

    For the sake of avoiding confusion: No, I see no “righteousness” in prostitution, adultery, coveting another man’s wife, etc.

    @GunnerQ: humans were sinful even before the Fall… Only when God gave Adam & Eve a breakable command was evil able to surface and be recognized.

    Interesting idea, but this comes close to saying God created evil.
    Not saying you are wrong, but it is not what I see in the text.

    It would be much easier to implement Disqus comments system, than the current one, which is linear and hard to reply appropriately.

    NO!!! That format makes sense for a closed comment thread. Few are going to scroll back and forth to search for whether someone has replied to the comments in which they are interested.

  118. Evan Turner says:

    Dalrock I’ve also read your defense of porn being a sin and found it weak. Damn crackers and Gary pretty much have it right. And i find it ironic that we get criticized for actually bringing God’s law into what’s sin and what’s allowed. It smacks of a churchian mindset.
    Your argument that marriage is licit therefore everything else is illicit is appallingly bad. Using this logic means that having children is licit therefore not having children is sin. Plus it ignores God’s laws regarding sex. That you keep ignoring.

  119. Dale says:

    Evan Turner: The law of the captive woman

    This was marriage. “mourn her father and mother a full month; and after that you may go in to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife” Deut 21:10-14

    He could send her away because God permitted divorce. Matt 19 indicates that was because their hearts were hard. Note that Jesus upped the expectations; similar to Matt 5:21-48, 1 Cor 7 does that with the permanence of marriage for followers of Christ.

  120. Derek Ramsey says:

    @Dale – “The requirement to wait until evening does not make too much sense then, as the act already occurs during the night. Unless this means that the person is in a state of being ceremonially unclean for the entire day (possibly the correct interpretation).”

    Small nitpick: Waiting until evening means waiting for the next day since the new day begins at sunset. So the ceremonial uncleanliness lasts until the next day, no matter when the activity that that caused the uncleanliness happened in the previous day. You can’t infer anything about the time that the person became unclean from this passage. The best explanation is “unclean until the next day.”

  121. Damn Crackers says:

    @Mountain Man

    You are correct. The Medieval Church did maintain brothels for money and keeping prostitutes away from certain areas of towns.

    “Prostitution was a vice that was considered a necessary evil in the Middle Ages because it was a means to curb “men’s lust”. Ecclesiastics felt that if brothels weren’t available to men in cities, they would find other inappropriate outlets for their entertainment and endanger the virtue of innocent women. In an effort to prevent potential problems, civic officials permitted prostitution to function within the city walls so long as it was regulated and turned a profit.”

    http://www.medievalists.net/2015/07/prostitution-in-the-medieval-city/

    It was Luther and the Reformation (not to mention the rise of STDs) that brought the end of the Church sanctioned brothels.

  122. @Evan Turner

    Status differences count.

    There is a difference between a wife and a concubine and from what historical documentation I can find (which matches up with Scripture), a wife was a free woman and a concubine was a slave.

    The first indicator of this is Exodus 21:7-10, which says that when the owner/husband takes more than one concubine he is treat the girls equally and if he doesn’t give here equal food, clothing and conjugal rights she is to be freed. That is within the context of the father selling his daughter into slavery, BTW.

    Then we see the passage in Deuteronomy 21:10-14 on the woman captured in battle.

    You said:

    “The law of the captive woman (erroneously called by many wife) states that a man can take a woman in battle have sex with her and send her away for any reason. “

    And what that passage actually says is:

    10“When you go out to battle against your enemies, and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take them away captive, 11and see among the captives a beautiful woman, and have a desire for her and would take her as a wife for yourself, 12then you shall bring her home to your house, and she shall shave her head and trim her nails. 13“She shall also remove the clothes of her captivity and shall remain in your house, and mourn her father and mother a full month; and after that you may go in to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. 14“It shall be, if you are not pleased with her, then you shall let her go wherever she wishes; but you shall certainly not sell her for money, you shall not mistreat her, because you have humbled her.

    The passage does not say what you think it says. The point is she’s still a slave, even though she’s a wife. And the rules for these women were different from free women: Observe Leviticus 19:20-22

    “20‘Now if a man lies carnally with a woman who is a slave acquired for another man, but who has in no way been redeemed nor given her freedom, there shall be punishment; they shall not, however, be put to death, because she was not free. 21‘He shall bring his guilt offering to the LORD to the doorway of the tent of meeting, a ram for a guilt offering. 22‘The priest shall also make atonement for him with the ram of the guilt offering before the LORD for his sin which he has committed, and the sin which he has committed will be forgiven him.”

    Because she’s not free, the death-penalty for adultery doesn’t apply.

  123. Boxer says:

    Dear Mountain Man:

    Evidently, they thought the only sex you are supposed to have with your wife is (infrequent) passionless duty sex for procreation.

    I find this to be a pretty good summary of Catholic teaching:
    http://www.catechism.cc/articles/QA.htm

    As to your historical query about the church running brothels, I would ask for a source. I have no doubt that it happened occasionally. I sorta doubt that it was ever the policy of the church to do so (though I’m open to being shown otherwise).

    In general, when groups of people form a community or closed society (be it the Catholic Church or the FBI or the freemasons) there are going to be all sorts of members. Some will be evil, some will be good, most will be in the middle of the bell curve. What all organizations do, without fail, is close ranks to protect their own. This is often where the trouble lies.

    Most of the people in the Catholic Church have been decent people, but they’re still people, and when the evil outliers have implicated the church in bad stuff, they have historically followed their instincts to protect the organization. Sometimes this is the best course of action, and sometimes history shows it to be a mistake.

    Best,

    Boxer

  124. Damn Crackers says:

    Most of Christendom, until about 100 years ago, believed women of marrying age belonged to one of three categories: mothers and brides, nuns, or prostitutes.

    Now, all women are all three of these categories at the same time – an unholy trinity indeed.

  125. Boxer says:

    Damn Crackers is the man who answers my questions as soon as I ask them.

  126. Evan Turner says:

    @bart
    You state that the captive woman is betrothed and that he can only send her away before consummation. But scripture teaches that to be betrothed is to be married. Remember a man who rapes a betrothed woman is put to death. And as i have already stated he can send her away for any reason. This was not a marriage.

    Even if i were to concede you that it was how would you explain concubines?

  127. Damn Crackers says:

    Ha! We’ll have to share steaks and scotch at the meetup. I wanna see Toad’s girls anyway!

  128. Bart says:

    Evan,
    Good point. I suppose it is a type of betrothal/marriage divorce similar to what Joseph considered.

  129. Zippy says:

    I just want to reassure my Protestant friends that at least some of us papists aren’t going to rashly judge protestantism as a whole based on the ridonkulous antics of the Wankers for Jesus and Hookers for Christ brigades. I thought I saw something in there about multiple chickboxing ninja wives as a just reward for walls of jabberwocky text too. (That almost sounds like real justice, actually).

    But glass houses and all: it wouldn’t be fair to judge Rome by her ample supply of heretics and nutbars, so that’s a two way street.

  130. Zippy says:

    Boxer:

    (Sorry if I’ve missed anything, I’ve only skimmed comments).

    The Catholic “sex is just for procreation” business is often spun to mean something far more prudish than it actually means. It doesn’t mean that sex shouldn’t be enjoyed. It just means that licit completed sexual acts should conclude, unimpeded, in the place nature designed them to conclude.

  131. necroking48 says:

    @Evan Turner

    *”Dalrock I’ve also read your defense of porn being a sin and found it weak. Damn crackers and Gary pretty much have it right. And i find it ironic that we get criticized for actually bringing God’s law into what’s sin and what’s allowed. It smacks of a churchian mindset”*………………end quote

    Nailed it right there

  132. @Damn Crackers:

    Schrodinger’s Whores? 🙂

  133. Evan Turner says:

    @Dale @AT
    You both make the same mistake by thinking a captive woman and a concubine are wives when they are not. Remember that the Hebrew word for woman can also mean wife so you have to pay attention to the context to determine if it means wife or woman.

    The captive woman can go free and cannot be sold. It goes without saying that a wife can’t be sold a concubine can also be sold. This is because a captive woman and a concubine aren’t wives but slaves.

    You contradict yourself by saying that a concubine is a slave which she is but later saying she is also a wife. As for the passage in Leviticus that you mentioned i already know that it’s proof that she isn’t a wife as adulterers were put to death.

    Returning back to the captive woman, no divorce is mentioned, you are committing eisegesis. The passage does not mention giving her a bill of divorcement she simply leaves much like the concubine in Leviticus.

    I discuss all this and more in my book SEX IN THE BIBLE THE UNTOLD TRUTH. You can download it for free at Amazon or other online sites.

  134. Son of Liberty says:

    Zippy says:
    August 15, 2017 at 9:51 pm

    I just want to reassure my Protestant friends that at least some of us papists aren’t going to rashly judge protestantism as a whole based on the ridonkulous antics of the Wankers for Jesus and Hookers for Christ brigades. I thought I saw something in there about multiple chickboxing ninja wives as a just reward for walls of jabberwocky text too. (That almost sounds like real justice, actually).

    But glass houses and all: it wouldn’t be fair to judge Rome by her ample supply of heretics and nutbars, so that’s a two way street.

    You aren’t calling God’s prophecy of the 1500’s a waste?

    Revelation 14 – Protestant Reformation Harvest

    It was prophesied 1500 years ago before it happened, even before Constantine’s apostate Mother Harlot institution of Rome in 313AD. Harlot as in spiritual fornication of the Beast of Daniel, not sexual fornication, 🙂

    Husband = God
    Bride of Christ true “Church” = Evangelicals, fundamentalists, Bible-believers around the world, etc, No official title of identification. No institution, denomination, location, physical building, garbs, costumes, Sunday pagan day instead of Sabbath. etc
    Great Whore, Harlot Spiritual Fornicator/Idolatry= Babylon, Religions (Catholic, Judaism, Islam and a million others), Institutions, Sects.

    It isn’t a denomination, branch-off, sect.. It’s simple the revival what was lost during the dark ages inquisition, which was also prophesied throughout the 1260 year tribulation , 538-1798

  135. Cane Caldo says:

    For the record: This is two posts about Artisanal Toad’s fantasies, and more of the loons keep coming out of the woodwork.

    Titus 3:9 But avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless. 10 As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him, 11 knowing that such a person is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned.

    And from 2 Tim. 2

    22 So flee youthful passions and pursue righteousness, faith, love, and peace, along with those who call on the Lord from a pure heart. 23 Have nothing to do with foolish, ignorant controversies; you know that they breed quarrels. 24 And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, 25 correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, 26 and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will.

    So it is not argument which might win over those dedicated to quarrel over the law, but (perhaps) their self-condemned service to Satan after they are cast out.

  136. Gary Eden says:

    @Dalrock

    This is a lie.

    I meant in this post, which was true. Sorry for the confusion.

    Except you are overlooking the places where Scripture says that prostitution is sin, that you and AT handwaved away. Moreover, as I wrote in the original post in the series, 1 Cor 7 instructs us in the moral context to have sex.

    If there is a place OT scripture specifically condemns prostitution, please do share. There is 1 Cor 6, but its not conclusive; its likely talking about temple prostitutes. Your 1 Cor 7 argument I debunked in the last thread, but you either missed it or like everyone else studiously ignored it. We can certainly discuss that over there, or here if you want me to repost it.

    Nutty things? Lots of people are saying lots of nutty things, I care not. I have exactly ZERO interest in having sex with prostitutes. My interest is in the truth, regardless of what anyone thinks of it. I care not for the Puritanical traditions of man or self righteous preaning.

    I lumped porn and masturbation in together because I see both as involving the nurture of desire for illicit sex

    To the contrary. There are couples who use porn as a marital help. Or husbands who keep naked pictures of the wife to masterbate to while away on trips.

    ‘Nurting the desire for illicit sex’ would be watching a porn featuring adultery or homosexuality; clearly thats a bad idea. But thats not all porn.

  137. Gary Eden says:

    @Joules

    Leviticus 19:29 God spoke against pimping your daughter, why did He not just prohibit prostitution? Why was that left out?

    If prostitution is as wicked as you say, where was it condemned? What was the sin offering for the repentant women to be given for it or the punishment to be bore?

    Hosea 4:13-14 as quoted is talking about temple prostitution. No argument here, thats very wrong.

    Ezekiel 16:33 Jerusalem had a husband, God. For a wife, she’s only allowed sex within the marriage bond. None other. This is adultery and wrong, whether she’s paid for it or not.

    Deuteronomy 22:20 Was this because she had sex or because she was deceptively married off under the claim she was a virgin? Its clear the husband was deceived and not happy about it.

    God never specifically condemns prostitution, but there is a VERY strong punishment for a non-virgin marrying. Do Christians stand opposed to non-virgin marriage as much as prostitution, porn or masturbation? Judged by the shame thrown around, not really.

  138. Anonymous Reader says:

    Dalrock
    I had nested comments enabled when I first started the blog.

    It was a major pain, because new comments could pop up anywhere in the string, requiring scrolling up/down.
    The current ‘last in, last out” means that scrolling to the bottom shows latest comments.
    People who wish to criticize Dalrock’s choices should read older postings. They might learn the reasons behind some decisions.

  139. Anonymous Reader says:

    Earl
    Women commiting perceived worse sins doesn’t justify men committing perceived lesser sins and vice versa. That’s why objective morality isn’t based on sex. Today’s relative morality in which one part is based on which sex is good and evil is a huge modern day heresy.

    Fixed that for you. Earl, “gender” properly refers to language – French, Spanish, Italian and other Latin based languages have gendered objects such as La Mesa. German has three genders; der (masculine), die (feminine and plural), das (neuter, such as Das Fische). Humans come in two sexes; if I recall correctly Genesis mentions this. The feminists have chosen to use the term gender to replace sex because it serves their political and social purposes. When you use feminist words, you tend to think in feminist terms. So don’t use feminist words. Don’t write or say “gender” when what you really mean is “sex”. Don’t be confused by the feminists.

  140. Evan Turner says:

    @Gary
    You’re right God’s law regulates prostitution sex with a cult prostitute was forbidden. God forbade woman from the tribe of Levi from being prostitutes, of course this is because God didn’t want anyone worshipping him through sex like the pagans did with their gods. Also take note that the women in the other eleven tribes were allowed to be prostitutes. God also forbade a father from pimping his daughter out, this is significant when you consider that the father’s rule in the family is absolute, however here God makes an exception.

    You are also correct with the parallel Paul makes in Corinthians, he mentions the thousands that God killed because of cult prostitution (aka sexual idolatry). Paul is not talking about common prostitution. Why do you think the two prostitutes could come before Solomon in the famous split the baby instance? And for the churchians out there that disagree. What was the penalty for common prostitution?

  141. Anonymous Reader says:

    Els
    It’s a theology been gaining decent traction for at least a decade now. Complete with voluminous Scripture quoting and twisting to cover up the glaring contradictions.

    Please point to this theology in some place other than A. Toad. Thanks.

  142. Evan Turner says:

    Just to add to my last comment. Paul is referring to the Midianites/Moabites, this is why Moses was angry and said kill them all except the virgins. Because the virgins were the reason why they (the Israelites) sinned and of course God killed the guilty the parallel here is undeniable. Common prostitution is perfectly legal under God’s law whether or not the man is married. Yes that’s right a lot of guys still haven’t taken the red pill. God’s law makes it clear that adultery is a man who has sex with a married woman or a man who divorces his wife and marries another woman. So a married man who has sex with a prostitute is not sinning. I’m not surprised that a lot of Christian men who claimed to be redpilled don’t won’t to go all the way in speaking truth.

  143. Robert What? says:

    @EarlThomas786,

    “…because wives aren’t fulfilling their marital duty. St. Paul was obviously correct when depriving each other gives Satan an in for temptation.”

    The idea that wives have any responsibility to their husbands for anything is today considered a sign of oppression. Of course husbands still are expected to live up to their historical responsibilities. Young women are being raised in the new millennium. Young men are being raised as if it’s still the 1950s.

  144. Gary Eden says:

    @AT

    The first indicator of this is Exodus 21:7-10, which says that when the owner/husband takes more than one concubine he is treat the girls equally and if he doesn’t give here equal food, clothing and conjugal rights she is to be freed. That is within the context of the father selling his daughter into slavery, BTW.

    Exodus 21:7-10 never uses the Hebrew word for concubine, but the word for female slave. Many translations also insert wife and marriage into v10, but the Hebrew doesn’t justify that.

    Do we have another text equating concubines with female slaves? I know thats a common conception. If this is about concubines it would certainly help flesh out our understanding.

    My research on concubine indicates this was basically a mistress and this was true in all ancient cultures. The main difference between cultures is the amount of respect and whether or not they live in the house with him.

    Slaves seem to be a different thing. So we have the law accepting three different in house sexual liaisons: wives, concubines, and slaves. Then there are the captive women; need study on that yet.

    But I could very well be wrong here, the scriptures don’t go into a great deal of specificity on concubines.

    But they clearly didn’t have a problem with concubines, yet another example of sex with someone not your wife being ok.

  145. Cane Caldo says:

    @Gary Eden

    If there is a place OT scripture

    The OT isn’t the repository of The Law. The OT is the repository of, among other things, the law given to the Israelites. The Law is bigger than what is contained in the OT.

    People keep saying something like “If it’s not explicitly forbidden in the OT, then it is not sin. That’s just wrong. St. James 4:17 says

    So whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin.

    Even if it is not against the OT law it is sin.

    St. Paul says in Romans 2

    12 For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. 14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness,

    So the law is in every human heart, and one can sin without the law of the Israelites.

    And after explaining that it is no sin in-and-of-itself to eat food sacrificed, he says in 1 Corinthians 8

    11 And so by your knowledge this weak person is destroyed, the brother for whom Christ died. 12 Thus, sinning against your brothers and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ.

    So doing something against the OT is not sin, but even so it can yet be sin against your brother and even sin against Christ.

    Which is to say that: Anyone demanding an OT refutation of NT Christian sexual morality is an ignorant slave to the flesh, and to the law engraved on his heart. Anyone crowing about OT license to bang prostitutes/sluts, or who encourage sexual immorality–which is any any deviation from the mystery of Christ and His Church (which is marriage and sex within it alone) stands altogether condemned because he sins against his brother and against Christ; as it is not the OT law which binds or looses Christ’s own, but Him alone.

    I will say that this “debate” has shown clearly the inability of the OT law to save, and our need for our savior, Jesus Christ.

  146. Gary Eden says:

    @evan

    God forbade woman from the tribe of Levi from being prostitutes

    Citation on that? I couldn’t find it.

    It is very notable that God specifically calls out TEMPLE prostitution, but never speaks directly to ordinary sex for hire.

    Had he a problem with the latter he’d have said so. He didn’t. If God had a problem with all prostitution, he could have condemned that without need to call out the sub-case of temple prostitution. Had He simply a problem will all sex outside of marriage, he wouldn’t have needed bother condemning a particular kind of prostitution, or even prostitution in general; that would have been lumped in will all other kinds of sex outside of marriage (paid or not).

  147. Evan Turner says:

    @Gary Eden
    Concubines were clearly slaves, you have to pay attention to the context a concubine didn’t have a choice in who she had sex with, it was up to her master (Rachel and Leah’s slaves which would become Jacob’s concubines come to mind). The concubine and the Levite is an excellent example of this. Also having sex with a slave without her owners permission was a sin but did not require death because she wasn’t married so it wasn’t adultery. Why do you think David took his wives when Absalom plotted to takeover but not his concubines? Why do you think David didn’t put them to death when he returned? It’s not like there weren’t any witnesses as Absalom wanted all of Israel to know that he was the new king by having sex publicly. The fact is David couldn’t put them to death because the were concubines/slaves and they didn’t commit adultery because they weren’t his wives. To repeat again David too his wives with him when he fled.

  148. Cane Caldo says:

    @Gary Eden

    Had he a problem with the latter he’d have said so. He didn’t.

    This is just dumb. Parents all the time do not tell their children when they do something wrong. That’s not because parents don’t recognize the wrong, it’s because parents prudentially choose not to impute guilt of the wrongdoing onto children because children are ignorant and stupid. Just because God the Father chose not to impute some sins against the tribe of Israel does not mean that those sins are acceptable to God. It just means that they are not yet mature enough to be held accountable. Christians are.

  149. Evan Turner says:

    @Gary
    Leviticus 21:9

  150. Evan Turner says:

    @Cane Caldo
    “The OT isn’t the repository of The Law.”
    It is actually, remember that Jesus explicitly said he came not to end the law (Matt 5:17).
    Do you know better than Christ?

  151. Gary Eden says:

    @cane

    Paul made very clear that the OT law teaches us what is sin (Rom 7:7-12, 15:4). You can’t get away from that, just as Jesus also affirmed the law. All this debate shows is the stubbornness of Christians to cling to their traditions of man. No different than Jesus’s day.

    You are horribly taking Rom 2 out of context.

    James 4:17 talks about doing the ‘right thing’ or ‘good’. This is non-specific, what is the ‘right thing’. Am I a slave to whatever someone claims is the right thing? Thats ridiculous. ‘to him it is sin’ it says. This has to do with following ones conscience.

    This passage from James is akin to Paul’s teachings in Rom 14 about following your conscience.

    You also misuse 1 Cor 8 to condemn our honest inquiry into God’s will on this matter; I sense a pattern. Rom 14 is very clear how we ought to act:

    One person has faith that he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats vegetables only. The one who eats is not to regard with contempt the one who does not eat, and the one who does not eat is not to judge the one who eats, for God has accepted him. Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls; and he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.
    One person regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind. He who observes the day, observes it for the Lord, and he who eats, does so for the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who eats not, for the Lord he does not eat, and gives thanks to God. For not one of us lives for himself, and not one dies for himself; for if we live, we live for the Lord, or if we die, we die for the Lord; therefore whether we live or die, we are the Lord’s. For to this end Christ died and lived again, that He might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.
    But you, why do you judge your brother? Or you again, why do you regard your brother with contempt? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God.

  152. Joules says:

    @Gary Eden
    >Leviticus 19:29 God spoke against pimping your daughter, why did He not just prohibit prostitution? Why was that left out?
    Prostitution is noted as leading the land to wickedness, if it’s neutral why would the land turning to whoredom bring its downfall? The land is brought to wickedness because it turns to whoredom, it turns to whoredom because people pimp out or fail to prevent the pimping out of its daughters, there’s nothing in there that makes prostitution sound otherwise okay seeing as the land being embroiled in whoredom is a bad state to be in thus fathers are warned to prevent/disallow it.

    >Hosea 4:13-14 as quoted is talking about temple prostitution. No argument here, thats very wrong.
    Complete nonsense, is the adultery temple adultery too? There’s nothing there that limits the whoredom and adultery to the temple.

    >This is adultery and wrong, whether she’s paid for it or not.
    Yes and not the point, her depravity is INCREASED because she’s so desperate she isn’t paid for it but pays her lovers, whoredom/prostitution is used as the example here which is evidence of the loose use of prostitution in the bible.

    >Deuteronomy 22:20 Was this because she had sex or because she was deceptively married off under the claim she was a virgin? Its clear the husband was deceived and not happy about it.

    It doesn’t matter, it’s another example of the loose use of whoredom/prostitution there’s every reason to believe she just slept with a guy she really liked and then pretended to be a virgin but she’s stoned for playing the whore in her fathers house.

    >God never specifically condemns prostitution
    Yes he does, right there in leviticus it takes enormous mental gymnastics to say that “Don’t pimp your daughters lest the land turn to whoredom/prostitution and be filled with wickedness” means that prostitution is okay so long as the daughter does it of her own volition.
    IF we employ such tactics here why not extend it to the garden of eden? Obviously God was in error when he ejected eve from the garden of eden he had only told adam not to eat of the fruit AND to compound on that when eve partakes of the fruit her husband is there and says nothing giving tacit approval, it seems a great wrong has been done to poor eve!

    There’s a bit of common sense interpretation to all of this, consider my post from before:

    “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.

    Deutoronomy 24 gives specific instructions on a valid/moral means of divorce and Jesus invalidates it not with a specific line saying it’s false but a common sense interpretation of Genesis/Adam & Eve, if God made this union it is holy and should not be broken unless it’s defiled regardless of what moses said.

  153. Cane Caldo says:

    @Evan Turner

    It is actually, remember that Jesus explicitly said he came not to end the law (Matt 5:17).
    Do you know better than Christ?

    What I wrote is not in conflict with what Christ said about the law. The Law (capitalized for clarification) is more than the laws written in the OT. So the question isn’t whether I know better than Christ on The Law. I don’t. There are at least two questions though:

    1) Whether others can accept that The Law (concerning marriage and sex) is: Sex within permanent marriage alone; as shown in creation, reaffirmed by Christ, and taught by His apostles.

    2) Whether others can repent of their abuse of the OT for self-justification.

  154. @Dalrock

    You quoted 1 Cor 6:16 and point out that Paul said men were having sex with prostitutes and becoming one flesh with them, and they were not married. Then you claim:

    “When you have sex, you become one flesh, but it doesn’t make you married.”

    If you are correct, then Adam and Eve were not married and Genesis 2:24 is a lie, because they had sex and God made them one flesh and they were married.

    There is a status difference between the virgin and the woman who is not a virgin and not married and I’ve proved that repeatedly from Scripture. The eligible virgin is married with the act of sex but the woman who is not a virgin must agree to be married before the act of sex makes her married. Prostitutes are, by definition, not virgins. If they are not married, they cannot be committing adultery.

    Yes, Paul made the point that the men were having sex with and becoming one flesh with the prostitutes, but at the same time they were not married to them. The reason is the prostitute must consent to marry before the sex makes her married. Prostitutes are in the rental business, not the marriage business, so they don’t consent to marry. Which is why the men were visiting them in the first place: they got sex without the possibility of getting a wife in the process.

    “If it is as you say, that Gen 2:24 means that having sex creates marriage because of this word, then the prostitute would be married to every man she had sex with. But this would fly in the face of your holy Christian hooker theology, so it can’t be.”

    It is as I’ve claimed, because that’s what the word means. However, as I explain below, your deductive conclusion is incorrect. Because status.

    “By squinting at the text in a certain way, you are sure Gen 2:24 means sex creates marriage with virgins if the man is eligible:”

    Yes, but it does not require squinting to see that Eve was a virgin and in all three of the judgments I cited, they ONLY concerned virgins and each time the eligibility status of the virgin (either betrothed or not betrothed) was specifically stated. Status is important.

    “But why is it only eligible men who enter into marriage?”

    Because if a man is not eligible to marry a woman they cannot be married and the sex won’t make them married. Her close relatives are ineligible and the sex is incest, not marriage. A man her father forbids her to marry is not eligible because her father forbid it. If she is betrothed, all men are ineligible except for her betrothed.

    “You tell us that sex creates marriage, but only if the woman is a virgin.”

    No. The man consents and commits to marriage every time he puts his penis in a woman’s vagina, because that is the act of marriage, the Genesis 2;24 ceremony of marriage. Every woman that gets married is married by a man with the act of sex, but not all women have the same status:

    1) If the woman is a virgin, sex alone will marry her because her consent is not required.
    2) If the woman is not a virgin and not married, her consent is required in addition to sex.

    This Biblical marriage ceremony is the same, for all people for all time. God even provided virgins with a tamper-proof seal on their vaginas. Break it and she’s yours.

    If she isn’t a virgin, and she isn’t married, you tell us she can have all the sex she wants and it doesn’t create marriage:”

    Almost correct, because her consent is required in addition to sex in order for her to be married. If she does not consent to marriage the sex will not make her married and it’s not a sin. So, all the sex she can get and it doesn’t create marriage until she consents to marriage. Then it does.

    Scripture states that women who are no longer bound have agency. See Numbers 30:9 generally and 1st Corinthians 7:39 specifically with respect to marriage. The woman who is no longer bound has the right to choose whom she marries, thus she cannot be raped into marriage. Her right to choose means that unlike a virgin, her consent is required.

    “Under those special circumstances (again strictly by your deduction), a widow can only marry by making a public declaration.

    But this can’t be either, because you mock the very idea that a public declaration creates a marriage, because only sex can make someone married. A public declaration would make marriage, in your words, a social construct:”

    I did not say “public declaration”, I said consent. Stop claiming I said something that I didn’t. The agreement to marry does not need to be a public declaration in order for her to be married because the Bible contains no requirement for public declarations in order for a man and woman to be married.

    “Paul was clear in 1 Cor 7 about the right way to pursue sex.”

    Paul said nothing in 1 Cor 7 about how marriage is created, which is what we are discussing.

    Your “Scriptural” response (sex + one flesh ≠ marriage) is contradicted by Genesis 2:24 and proven incorrect… because Adam and Eve were married. In fact, you’ve thrown Genesis 2:24 right out the window with this one in favor of social construct.

    Genesis 2:24 says

    For this cause a man shall leave his father and his mother, have sex with his wife and the two shall become one flesh.

    There’s nothing in there about consent, witnesses or public declarations; but I can certainly see sex and becoming one flesh. And… Adam and Eve were married.

    Which means we’re back to your opinion that sex does not make the eligible virgin married, but you can’t explain exactly how they are married because marriage is a social construct?

  155. For this cause a man shall leave his father and his mother, have sex with his wife and the two shall become one flesh.

    This statement speaks of the man having sex with his wife and the one flesh union in the future tense (“a man *shall*…have sex with his wife and the two *shall* become one flesh”) and yet the statement also is already calling her his wife. The statement itself is calling the woman a wife prior to the sex act which you claim makes the woman his wife. It doesn’t say “a man shall leave his father and mother, have sex with an eligible version, and the two shall become one flesh;” it specifically says he *will* do this and *will* create a one flesh union with someone already being called his wife.

  156. Cane Caldo says:

    @Gary Eden

    First of all: You are obtuse to the fact that what I showed were several cases where a Christian is bounded by sin (which is powered by The Law [the law beyond the OT law]), yet not bounded by the OT law.

    Secondly, yes, you and I are slaves to whatever someone claims is the right thing; depending on the person and the thing.

    Finally, you wrote this:

    You also misuse 1 Cor 8 to condemn our honest inquiry into God’s will on this matter; I sense a pattern. Rom 14 is very clear how we ought to act:

    Yes, St. Paul was clear. You are not. Here’s a thought exercise for you: Let’s replace all the mundane works St. Paul mentions in Rom. 14 with the sexual deviancies on display here and see how it reads. For clarity’s sake, I’ll make a list, and then we’ll replace them and see if it works. Here’s the list of sexually deviant works (works that are sex, but are not sex within
    permanent marriage) which have been championed here.

    Banging whores
    Banging widows
    Banging sluts
    Jerking off

    And here’s Roman 14:5-6 with the works of observing the day and eating replaced. Since there are four works, I did it twice and substituted them respectively.

    He who bangs a whore, bangs her for the Lord, and he who bangs a widow, does so for the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who bangs a widow not, for the Lord he does not bang a widow, and gives thanks to God.

    He who bangs a slut, bangs her for the Lord, and he who jerks off, does so for the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who jerks off not, for the Lord he does not jerk off, and gives thanks to God.

    If it makes you feel better you can substitute the word “masturbation” for “jerking off”. Either way, you made a moronic case.

  157. Don Quixote says:

    Anonymous Reader says:
    August 16, 2017 at 1:07 am

    Els
    It’s a theology been gaining decent traction for at least a decade now. Complete with voluminous Scripture quoting and twisting to cover up the glaring contradictions.

    Please point to this theology in some place other than A. Toad. Thanks.

    I know your question wasn’t directed to me but I would like to mention [again] that ‘marriage-by-consummation’ is detailed extensively in Martin Madan’s 3 Volume set over 230 years old:

    Thelyphthora or A Treatise on Female Ruin available on Amazon.

    I would hasten to add that Madan doesn’t make the ridiculous claims that AT does, i.e Rightous prostitution, lesbianism, etc.
    In Volume 2 he does contrast ‘marriage-by-civil-contract’ with ‘marriage-by-consummation’ and highlights problems with both the Marriage Act of 1753 [Protestant] and the Council of Trent [Catholic].

    If I could critique his work I would say he doesn’t discuss the weakness[es] of his position. Having said that I might be wrong because I am only half way through volume 2. Great reading but with old English. I intend to put a review of volume 2 on Amazon later this year. So far I would give it a 4/5 stars.

    Here it is on Amazon:
    https://www.amazon.com/Thelyphthora-Treatise-Female-Ruin-Consequences/dp/0982537506/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1502870945&sr=8-2&keywords=Martin+Madan

  158. Cane Caldo says:

    @Artisinal Toad

    I did not say “public declaration”, I said consent. Stop claiming I said something that I didn’t. The agreement to marry does not need to be a public declaration in order for her to be married because the Bible contains no requirement for public declarations in order for a man and woman to be married.

    Actually, Dalrock accused you of holding that a public declaration of marriage was merely a social construct; which is true. That is what you have consistently wrote. So you misread the text, just as you misread Genesis 2:24; which doesn’t even say that Adam and Eve had sex. It says they will have sex. Genesis 4 starts “Now Adam knew Eve his wife…” which was after their expulsion from Eden. Maybe that wasn’t the first time, but it’s the first mention of a fulfillment of a one flesh union.

    So we have established that you frequently misread, and repeatedly on the same words.

    If you are correct, then Adam and Eve were not married and Genesis 2:24 is a lie, because they had sex and God made them one flesh and they were married.

    As he put down the ax, grisly with blood and bone and bits of flesh, Artisanal Toad remembered that he had wanted to know what a man really was; what it was that makes a man a man. The man had been standing in front of him…he was pretty sure it had been a man. That was what he had meant to find out when he picked up the ax and swung it down on the manlike thing’s head; to get a good look inside and see what it really was that made up a man and know what a man really is, and which parts made up the thing into a man.

    But the mess the ax caused left more doubt than when Artisanal Toad had started. What he looked at now wasn’t a man. A man had two arms and this thing had none! Though there was an arm over here and over there, neither was the man’s arm. Where was the man to claim them? Where was the man to whom they should be attached? Everyone knows men have arms, but whatever this thing in front of Artisanal Toad was, it certainly did not have arms…or a head for that matter.

    Frustrated, he picked it up by the hair to look at the thing’s face. Blood poured from the ragged neck and onto Artisanal Toad’s shoes. Men aren’t supposed to do that, either, he grumbled. Holding it out from him, a hand on either ear, he looked into the slack face and tried to see manness. He sighed in resignation. Every time Artisanal Toad dissected a man into parts to find out what a man really is, the man ceased to exist.

    Artisanal Toad dropped the head, frowned at the chunks of congealing meat, and decided. No, that had not been a real man after all.

    Marriage is a matter of religion, not science.

  159. necroking48 says:

    @Cane Caldo

    *”People keep saying something like “If it’s not explicitly forbidden in the OT, then it is not sin. That’s just wrong”*………..end quote

    Absolute garbage…..even the texts you mentioned refute your position
    The law says to love thy neighbor, so if you see a Samaritan, for e.g lying bleeding on the roadside, you know it is the right thing to do, to help him if you can, so this is what James is talking about, “knowing the right thing to do and refusing to do it”
    Every possible moral dilemma a believer could face today has a corollary commandment/instruction in the OT

    *”So the law is in every human heart, and one can sin without the law of the Israelites”*…………..end quote

    You got the first part right, but bungled entirely your exegesis in the last half of your sentence…….the bible explicitly told you ALREADY that sin is NOT imputed when there is no law….it makes no difference whether you knew the law or not, it’s written on your conscience, so that God will be righteous when He judges mankind’s adherence to said law

    *”So doing something against the OT is not sin, but even so it can yet be sin against your brother and even sin against Christ”*…….end quote

    WRONG, WRONG, WRONG……..How can you sin against your brother in Christ, if there is no corresponding law?….simple, Paul expounds that LOVE is the fulfillment of the law, so by not acting charitably you’re breaking the key cornerstone of the law which is “love thy neighbor as thyself”

    *” Anyone demanding an OT refutation of NT Christian sexual morality is an ignorant slave to the flesh”*…………………end quote

    Rubbish…..Name me 1 sin contained in the New Testament on sexual morality, that I couldn’t find in 10 seconds in the Old Testament……If there’s sins of sexual morality, I guarantee you I can find them referenced in the OT

  160. Hose_B says:

    @AT
    The man consents and commits to marriage every time he puts his penis in a woman’s vagina, because that is the act of marriage, the Genesis 2;24 ceremony of marriage.

    Toad, clarification on your meaning here……………does the above mean that if a man has sex with a nonvirgin, it’s a proposal of marriage? It’s now up to the woman. If she wants, she can agree and they are married or not agree and she is still single?
    If my understanding of your view is correct, why doesn’t the woman consent and commit to marriage every time she allows a man to put his penis in her vagina?

  161. earlthomas786 says:

    To the contrary. There are couples who use porn as a marital help. Or husbands who keep naked pictures of the wife to masterbate to while away on trips.

    ‘Nurting the desire for illicit sex’ would be watching a porn featuring adultery or homosexuality; clearly thats a bad idea. But thats not all porn.

    Talk about another rationalization for sin. Thank goodness the Catholic church says they are grave offenses against chastity…and there are no loopholes in them.

    Masturbating to pictures of your wife isn’t a one flesh union with her…it’s with your hand. Stimulating your mind with sexually with actors who aren’t your spouse (and it doesn’t matter what their marital status is) is taking it away from your spouse.

  162. feministhater says:

    Masturbating to pictures of your wife isn’t a one flesh union with her…it’s with your hand. Stimulating your mind with sexually with actors who aren’t your spouse (and it doesn’t matter what their marital status is) is taking it away from your spouse.

    Okay, now when is the Catholic Church going to call on the grave sin of wives taking away from their spouses?

    You’re making my point for me. Your Catholic Marriage is no better than the slavery contract known as modern day marriage. They both condemn you to a celibate life. I’ll just live a celibate life instead. Thanks.

  163. El says:

    Els
    It’s a theology been gaining decent traction for at least a decade now. Complete with voluminous Scripture quoting and twisting to cover up the glaring contradictions.

    Please point to this theology in some place other than A. Toad. Thanks.

    I would have to ask my husband for all the links to all the YouTube videos that have been texted to him by a guy who actually lives the lifestyle and has a bit of a small local following.

    But if/when I get them and permission to share them, I will. It is contentious enough already -that happens when you openly condemn someone’s deeply held belief- so he might decline my request.

  164. Bart says:

    Don Quite,
    Thanks for bringing up Martin Madan’s books again. They are a a hard read, but are extremely helpful.

    Also, I do not believe Toad is a regenerate believer, while Madam certainly seems to have been a true follower of Christ. Toad tells some truths, but they are mixed up with a bunch of error.

    Marriage is the only proper place for sex, and David’s multiple wives/marriages were legitimate wives/marriages.

  165. Lost Patrol says:

    2) Whether others can repent of their abuse of the OT for self-justification.

    Not any time soon, it appears. Human beings (I include myself in that category) are readily drawn towards seemingly viable options that will provide cover for doing what they want to do. I always know when I’m faking it. Others can probably see that too.

    “Every way of a man is right in his own eyes, but the LORD weighs the heart.” – Proverbs 21:2

  166. Bruce says:

    We have no idea if Adam and Eve made vows with consent of the will – absence of this in the text doesn’t mean it didn’t happen – being Catholic or Orthodox helps here in that they are less likely to assume everything that matters HAS to be contained in scripture in explicit terms.

  167. thedeti says:

    I’m with FemHater on this:

    “when is the Catholic Church going to call on the grave sin of wives taking away from their spouses?”

    All of you in the Roman Catholic Church, lay and clergy, and all Prot denominations, lay and clergy, must, MUST start calling out women directly, forcefully and unapologetically on their sins:

    — marrying for any and all reasons other than her willingly joining herself to her husband in all ways

    –refusing to become one flesh with her husband

    –having all manner of premarital sex (including Christian women)

    –having bastard children

    –refusing sex to their husbands

    –waiting until the last possible minute to marry, then marrying men they’re not sexually attracted to

    –divorcing and abandoning their marriages

    It is mostly women’s fault here, and women need to be confronted in no uncertain terms. We need to stop enabling them, excusing them, and looking the other way. No more.

  168. Bruce says:

    @ Zippy
    “The Catholic “sex is just for procreation” business is often spun to mean something far more prudish than it actually means. It doesn’t mean that sex shouldn’t be enjoyed. It just means that licit completed sexual acts should conclude, unimpeded, in the place nature designed them to conclude.”
    I appreciate your attempt to defend the Church from charges of prudery (maybe you’ll change some minds), but if you’re going to roll things back to the point where we do away with usury, then, while we’re at it, we should also roll thing back to the point where husbands don’t put their schlongs into their wives other orifices (statements from the U.S. Catholic Bishops notwithstanding). This is what it sounds like you’re implicitly defending – maybe not your intention – but that’s what it sounds like.

  169. Bruce says:

    “when is the Catholic Church going to call on the grave sin of wives taking away from their spouses?”

    Well they do, but not nearly enough and not nearly enough of the clergy. The answer to your question is probably “when clergy are drawn from a much smaller, much more devout pool of Catholic laymen” which we probably will see in a couple of generations.

  170. Evan Turner says:

    As for people mentioning Leviticus 19:29 and turning the land to wickedness God is referring to forced prostitution, not consensual prostitution. Could you imagine what would’ve happened had God not made this law, every father could force his daughter into prostitution for money against her will this is the wickedness that God is talking about.

    My book

  171. SJB says:

    @Zippy: married life is low on the totem pole of the good-better-best continuum; the Church’s demonstrated values: ordained celibate life > consecrated celibate life > single celibate life > married life > no self-control life.

    Prudish is not necessarily the message relayed.

  172. Evan Turner says:

    I also see that no one has been able to refute the fact that scripture does not teach that sex with a virgin equals marriage. No one has addressed the examples I gave of concubines and the captive woman by actually using scripture. Instead of hand waving show me from scripture that sex with a virgin equals marriage. Yet God’s word is clear, sex with a virgin did not equal marriage which is why the father had the right to refuse, female slaves also weren’t married and could be virgins when they were bought by their first master. Common prostitution was perfectly legal in ancient Israel provided it didn’t violate any of God’s regulations of it. David clearly took his wives with him when he fled from his son Absalom but left his concubine/slaves in the palace. In terms of marriage it is simply a vow, a vow that God holds the people involved accountable to. This is why a marriage is for life and can never be broken only violated. But divorce and remarriage is a topic for another time.

  173. earlthomas786 says:

    You’re making my point for me. Your Catholic Marriage is no better than the slavery contract known as modern day marriage. They both condemn you to a celibate life.

    The Sacrament of Matrimony requires the marital act. I do agree women who withhold that (without the conditions St.Paul required) are sinning.

  174. Bruce says:

    By the way, the U.S. Catholic Bishops have denounced both the use male-oriented pornography (what’s commonly called “pornography” these days) and female-oriented romance pornography.

  175. Bruce says:

    Yes, if you’re a Catholic, “marry at your own risk” in the sense that you should be prepared to make yourself a eunuch for the kingdom of heaven if your wife screws you over. Not surprising. A key part of Christianity is that we participate in Christ’s divinity when we suffer in obedience to Him (we don’t seek out suffering for its own sake-we’re not masochists). If you don’t want to risk suffering in this way, then don’t marry.

  176. Emperor Constantine says:

    Bruce says:
    August 16, 2017 at 9:25 am
    “Yes, if you’re a Catholic, “marry at your own risk” in the sense that you should be prepared to make yourself a eunuch for the kingdom of heaven if your wife screws you over. Not surprising.”

    I disagree. This is cowardly surrender to matriarchy, precisely what the priesthood has done, which has resulted in widespread misery and despair. This has nothing to do with the Kingdom of God, and instead helps establish the kingdom of Satan.

  177. Emperor Constantine says:

    I’m copying and pasting thedeti’s post because it reinforces mine:

    “thedeti says:
    August 16, 2017 at 8:03 am
    I’m with FemHater on this:

    “when is the Catholic Church going to call on the grave sin of wives taking away from their spouses?”

    All of you in the Roman Catholic Church, lay and clergy, and all Prot denominations, lay and clergy, must, MUST start calling out women directly, forcefully and unapologetically on their sins:
    — marrying for any and all reasons other than her willingly joining herself to her husband in all ways
    –refusing to become one flesh with her husband
    –having all manner of premarital sex (including Christian women)
    –having bastard children
    –refusing sex to their husbands
    –waiting until the last possible minute to marry, then marrying men they’re not sexually attracted to
    –divorcing and abandoning their marriages
    It is mostly women’s fault here, and women need to be confronted in no uncertain terms. We need to stop enabling them, excusing them, and looking the other way. No more.”

    Let’s stop suffering in silence and pretending this isn’t a terrible evil stalking the land. Families are being murdered, children are being devastated, and we’re just supposed to sit here and accept it? Doing nothing in the face of injustice and evil isn’t Christian behavior, it’s cowardice.

  178. Minesweeper says:

    @Evan Turner says: “The name of my book is called SEX IN THE BIBLE THE UNTOLD TRUTH. Again it’s worth mentioning that you can download it for free.”

    where ? on amazon via kindle its not free unless you are in the monthly book club, which I aint. I would like to read you book. If its got some good points then I will buy the paperback 😀

  179. Anonymous Reader says:

    Previously:
    Els
    It’s a theology been gaining decent traction for at least a decade now. Complete with voluminous Scripture quoting and twisting to cover up the glaring contradictions.

    I asked
    Please point to this theology in some place other than A. Toad. Thanks.

    El
    I would have to ask my husband for all the links to all the YouTube videos that have been texted to him by a guy who actually lives the lifestyle and has a bit of a small local following.

    “Decent traction” and “small local following” don’t go well together. Off and on for years I’ve been told by various people that some cultish group they were worried about was “taking off” or “gaining power” or “going mainstream”. In every case the most casual investigation revealed some small group, often fewer than 100, in an out of the way location, some small town, etc.. The Fundamentalist LDS. Westboro Baptist. That sort of thing. Often one church, in one town, run by one preacher with a handful of families. That doesn’t make the situation for those families “no big deal”, but it also isn’t evidence of anything out of the ordinary in America. For example, there was a series of “prophets” in the 19th century who predicted the end of the world right down to the day and even the time. Big crowds for a short time, then a tiny handful of followers after.

    But if/when I get them and permission to share them, I will. It is contentious enough already -that happens when you openly condemn someone’s deeply held belief- so he might decline my request.

    Then just point to a name. YouTube accounts have a name attached to them.
    Frankly, I’m skeptical. Cult-leader-wannabes are not that uncommon, there’s at least a couple who have posted on Dalrock threads recently. A web presence is not “decent traction” per se, it could be more like some odd man trying to hand out tracts in front of the public library.

  180. Minesweeper says:

    @ET, got it on kobo thanks.

  181. Gunner Q says:

    Zippy @ August 15, 2017 at 9:51 pm:
    “I just want to reassure my Protestant friends that at least some of us papists aren’t going to rashly judge protestantism as a whole based on the ridonkulous antics of the Wankers for Jesus and Hookers for Christ brigades.”

    Much appreciated. This is the third positive statement from a Catholic about Protestantism I’ve heard in my lifetime… I’ve been counting. The other two are Cane Caldo calling Luther a whistleblower and I think Orthosphere saying Protestantism made some theological advances that might not have been possible in the Vatican bureaucracy.

    In California at least, most Catholics put up signs on their homes warning Protestants to stay away.

    Dale @ 8:33 pm:
    “Interesting idea, but this comes close to saying God created evil.”

    Evil has existed for as long as God has existed because evil is whatever God doesn’t want. Humans were created with free will which by definition allows us to choose something other than what God wants. The Fall was inevitable.

    In our current forgiven state, we can freely choose what God wants and proclaim that His way is the best way, without being forced to do so and while being presented with endless alternatives. This appears to be of great value to God.

    Gary Eden 1:41 am:
    “It is very notable that God specifically calls out TEMPLE prostitution, but never speaks directly to ordinary sex for hire.”

    That’s like saying God hates porn but not Internet porn.

  182. Damn Crackers says:

    From what I see, gluttony has been a bigger problem/sin than prostitution or pornography is destroying marriage.

  183. @Evan Turner

    “I also see that no one has been able to refute the fact that scripture does not teach that sex with a virgin equals marriage. No one has addressed the examples I gave of concubines and the captive woman by actually using scripture.”

    Actually, I did, and I specifically responded with the passage you referenced and quoted it to demonstrate you were and are wrong. You might want to read the entire comment first.

    https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2017/08/15/righteous-prostitutes-spreading-their-legs-free-of-sin/#comment-242730

    The point is that status counts, which wrecks your argument as well as Dalrocks.

    Dalrock tries to equate prostitutes with virgins. Fail.
    You try to equate slave women with free women. Fail

  184. @Gunner Q

    “Gary Eden 1:41 am, said:
    “It is very notable that God specifically calls out TEMPLE prostitution, but never speaks directly to ordinary sex for hire.”

    That’s like saying God hates porn but not Internet porn.”

    No.

    It’s like saying God hates sex with the wrong wife (adultery) but not sex with the correct wife (your wife).

    Have you stopped committing adultery with your wife?

  185. Cane Caldo says:

    @GunnerQ

    The other two are Cane Caldo calling Luther a whistleblower

    For the record: I’m a Protestant, always have been, and probably always will be without some major shift or reconciliation which is above my head. As I see it, my job isn’t to find the right church but to speak the truth in my church, when necessary, as humbly as possible, and to obey whenever possible, but never when I am convinced the order is wrong; all while still submitting myself to authority. As an example, whenever my Anglo-Catholic priest speaks of the perpetual virginity of St. Mary or say “Hail Marys”, I just keep my mouth shut. If the priest were to come off the dais and demand I recite it, or refuse me communion until I do, then I’d speak my mind. Until then, Hail Marys only rise to the level of bad advice which I am free to ignore.

    Some people mistake me for a Roman Catholic when I defend some things the RCC has rightly held; such as the need for hierarchy, and no remarriage after divorce. I was convinced of those things after my experiences and observations of some of the fruits of Protestantism.

  186. Cane Caldo says:

    @GunnerQ

    The term Anglo-Catholic can be confusing, too. It’s a conservative wing of the Church of England; which is a Protestant denomination overall.

  187. Zippy says:

    Bruce:

    we should also roll thing back to the point where husbands don’t put their schlongs into their wives other orifices

    Good clarification, sex has a certain natural design, and perverting that design in concrete acts is always wrong. Don’t be a pervert. My only point was that the idea that “don’t enjoy sex” is The Official Catholic View [tm]” is nonsense.

    Yes, if you’re a Catholic, “marry at your own risk” in the sense that you should be prepared to make yourself a eunuch for the kingdom of heaven if your wife screws you over.

    I’d eliminate the “if you’re a Catholic” qualifier, and I’d point out that “if your wife screws you over” is just one of many not just possible but very likely situations where jibbling your jimmies has to become low priority to nonexistent.

    Modern Christians want a guarantee from Heaven that sex is a toy they can always play with, in some way or other. The fundamental outrage is over the fact that sex acts are only licit in a certain context and done in the natural way, and the continual availability of even that context at all times through all stages of life is not guaranteed.

    The modern cesspool has certainly aggravated the situation, and is indeed driven by feminism and the behavior of women; but this has always and everywhere been true in general of sex and marriage.

  188. Zippy says:

    GunnerQ:

    In California at least, most Catholics put up signs on their homes warning Protestants to stay away.

    I lived in the San Jose area for ten years and never saw such a thing.

  189. Boxer says:

    Dear Fellas:

    First of all, thanks to everyone who is a part of this vigorous debate on the nature of marriage. It’s very productive. Everyone is making points vigorously and with good humor. Definitely the best of the ‘sphere rat cheer.

    Bruce sez:

    we should also roll thing back to the point where husbands don’t put their schlongs into their wives other orifices

    Then Zippy sez:

    Good clarification, sex has a certain natural design, and perverting that design in concrete acts is always wrong. Don’t be a pervert. My only point was that the idea that “don’t enjoy sex” is The Official Catholic View [tm]” is nonsense.

    I recently scoffed at the idea of digestive-tract sex (a/k/a anal and oral), and I was amazed at the number of people here who got so upset, so quickly. The horror of the hoi polloi far surpassed that day when I came out as a committed cultural marxist, and proud member of the Frankfurt school.

    No one has yet convinced me that their wives have a duty to choke on their schlongs, or to get anal fissures, simply because they like doing freaky stuff — but a fair number of gents around here seem to feel entitled to this sort of thing. I should probably pop corn now. You two are about to get inundated with walls of justificationtext.

    Regards,

    Boxer

  190. Damn Crackers says:

    @Boxer-

    You may be the only member of the Frankfurt school to be on the record to oppose sodomy.

  191. SJB says:

    @Zippy: Good clarification, sex has a certain natural design, and perverting that design in concrete acts is always wrong.

    Careful there — part of the natural design is a flood of hormones which decrease resistance to pair-bonding such that a gestation and subsequent birth may result in a viable offspring. You’d not want appear to be edging toward the Toad by implying the sex makes the pair-bond rather than the pair-bond is made by [some process] and coitus ensues . . .

  192. SJB says:

    @Boxer: I may misremember but there was a DeNiro movie where the character played by that actor explains his mistress performing fellatio via “my wife — she kisses my children with that mouth.” Quite amusing.

  193. Boxer says:

    Dear DC:

    I guess we’re at 200 replies, so I don’t feel so guilty about my derailing of this interesting thread.

    You may be the only member of the Frankfurt school to be on the record to oppose sodomy.

    You’re not only wrong, but I think the opposite is generally true.

    Adorno and Horkheimer generally thought that perverted sexual practices were the result of harmful bourgeois decadence. They were pretty close to classical Marx in this regard, though their work concentrated on the pressure of capital to create a culture industry.

    My Uncle Herb (Marcuse) wrote a whole chapter on what he called repressive desublimation. The Freudian promise of releasing people from their sexual hangups was being channeled, he asserted, into things like advertising. Rather than giving people freedom, the realization of the sex drive was used to enslave people.

    All these guys took at face value certain Marxist premises. The most obviously false one is that people are generally good, and that once the structure is repaired, they’ll realize their inherent goodness, marriages will become automatically faithful and happy, there will be no crime or poverty, etc. I’ve come to suspect that the bible has human nature pegged a bit more accurately, and that Hobbes was more correct than anyone.

    https://www.ttu.ee/public/m/mart-murdvee/EconPsy/6/Hobbes_Thomas_1660_The_Leviathan.pdf

    Best,

    Boxer

  194. Gunner Q says:

    Zippy @ 11:16 am:
    None of these?

    They’re everywhere from San Diego to Sacramento. Maybe it’s just a Latino thing but still, the RCC shouldn’t tolerate this. Well, this is off-topic anyway.

  195. Evan Turner says:

    @AT

    I in fact did address your points in an earlier comment but I think you must’ve overlooked it because of all the other comments on here.

    Here it is
    https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2017/08/15/righteous-prostitutes-spreading-their-legs-free-of-sin/#comment-242747

  196. thedeti says:

    GunnerQ:

    The first part of that roughly translates to

    THIS HOUSE IS CATHOLIC

    We do not accept propaganda from Protestants or from other sects.

    Long Live Christ the King!

    Long Live the Holy Virgin Mary and St. John (can’t get the rest.
    ________

    Looks to me like one of those “no solicitors” signs to discourage tract-waving fundies and Jehovah’s Witnesses. But I could be wrong.

  197. Bruce says:

    @ Gunnar, My Spanish is pretty bad but why shouldn’t the Catholic Church tolerate that? Why should a Catholic father want e.g. a Calvinist showing up at his door to teach his “non-believer” wife and children when he believes the Catholic Church is the pillar of truth founded by Christ (independent of the truth of that claim)?

    Not to get into the C. vs. P thing but Catholics at least recognize Protestants as Christian. Most conservative evangelicals that I know (who are generally Calvinists) refer to Catholics as non-believers and don’t think they’re Christian. Many of them think Arminians aren’t Christians or “barely Christian.”

  198. Bruce says:

    @ Boxer – in my opinion, Christians and especially Catholics should be at least as prudish as John Derbyshire:

    http://www.johnderbyshire.com/Opinions/Culture/fellatio.html

  199. feministhater says:

    Looks to me like one of those “no solicitors” signs to discourage tract-waving fundies and Jehovah’s Witnesses. But I could be wrong.

    The fact that they use the word ‘Propaganda’ kind of makes that reasoning fall flat. If they used the word ‘teaching’ it might make more sense but propaganda means they think anyone else is spreading the false word. Can’t pigeon your way out of that hole.

  200. earlthomas786 says:

    ‘I recently scoffed at the idea of digestive-tract sex (a/k/a anal and oral), and I was amazed at the number of people here who got so upset, so quickly. The horror of the hoi polloi far surpassed that day when I came out as a committed cultural marxist, and proud member of the Frankfurt school.’

    I did something similar in the past saying the reproductive organs arent meant to be used with the digestive organs. There is quite many who would think otherwise which is pretty telling how most people regard sex today.

  201. Gunner Q says:

    “Looks to me like one of those “no solicitors” signs to discourage tract-waving fundies and Jehovah’s Witnesses. But I could be wrong.”

    What fundies? I’ve spent my working life walking California’s streets from San Diego to San Jose and I’ve never seen a Prot solicitor. JWs, Mormons and Church of Christ, yes, but who ever heard of a door-to-door Baptist? All the Prot “outreaches” I’ve ever seen have based around family events and charitable works. If there are pushy Prots going around annoying people in their homes then I want to know so I can stop blaming Catholics for refusing to differentiate between Protestants and unbelievers.

  202. feeriker says:

    thedeti says:
    August 16, 2017 at 8:03 am

    Add mine to the 100 percent concurrence list.

    Unfortunately, it will be a frosty day in Hell before the cowardly coven that is both the RCC and the various Protestant denominations here in the Western World hold their women to account for ANYTHING.

  203. thedeti says:

    Feeriker:

    As far as I’m concerned, whoever isn’t directly calling out women on their sins is part of the problem.

  204. Evan Turner says:

    @at
    There’s also the story of Dinah who was humbled by Shechem yet despite this they weren’t married. Further disproving your claim.

  205. earlthomas786 says:

    FWIW at least in my experiences when it came to homilies about bringing up sin and reconciliation…sex (as in man/woman) wasnt even part of the discussion. I have yet in my experience ever had a priest specifically call out or shame a certain sex with a certain sin.

  206. SJB says:

    @Earl: your observation withstanding, the second half of Proverbs 5:3 may be a reference to fellatio.

  207. Bruce says:

    I’ve only had one Protestant come to my house in my lifetime to witness – a fat Baptist guy who broke my rocking chair. In general, they seem to be going to Latin America and Africa to witness.

  208. El says:

    @ AR:

    You would be correct that our…acquaintance has fewer than 100 followers who gather each week to hear him teach.

    That said, surely you don’t need to be educated on the havoc 50 men who have Bible based support for their harems can produce?

    I know that the teaching we’ve heard has been fairly well bastardized to accommodate the community in which it is being taught, but the foundation sprang from the teachings of these men:

    https://www.dotwministries.org/israelite-communities

  209. MKT says:

    Cane Caldo says:
    “The term Anglo-Catholic can be confusing, too. It’s a conservative wing of the Church of England; which is a Protestant denomination overall.”

    In addition, most conservative Anglicans (including many Anglo-Catholics) in the U.S. aren’t really tied to the CoE. Many are under more conservative bishops in Africa who cut ties to Canterbury over gay priests and other issues. They’re definitely not part of the rather hideous American mainline Episcopal church either.

  210. Bruce says:

    The word propaganda, originally had a Catholic meaning:

    “Propaganda is today most often used in reference to political statements, but the word comes to our language through its use in a religious context. The Congregatio de propaganda fide (“Congregation for propagating the faith”) was an organization established in 1622 by Pope Gregory XV as a means of furthering Catholic missionary activity. The word propaganda is from the ablative singular feminine of propogandus, which is the gerundive of the Latin propagare, meaning “to propagate.” The first use of the word propaganda (without the rest of the Latin title) in English was in reference to this Catholic organization. It was not until the beginning of the 19th century that it began to be used as a term denoting ideas or information that are of questionable accuracy as a means of advancing a cause.”

    I would say that the content of a Protestant’s teaching (from a Catholic perspective) is either incomplete or of questionable accuracy. Note this is true independent of the truth of Catholicism.

  211. Bruce says:

    I’m most familiar with the conservative Continuuing Anglicans. In general, they split from the Episcopal Church in the late 1970s and are under U.S. Bishops. You could say some of them think of themselves as “Western Orthodox.” Some recognize the Pope as Patriarch of the West but don’t submit to him.

  212. Opus says:

    Adorno (like other central europeans of the tribe – e.g. Hans Keller) never really got over the fact that people preferred Jazz to String Quartets. I sympathise; but I don’t go round talking of an evil culture industry intent on turning the populace into Borgs when given half-a-chance classical musicians would and sometimes are (e.g. the late Big Lucy) as well paid as Elvis. Gay Mafia, Jewish Mafia: classical musicians are the bitchiest and most avaricious. Adorno (a composer himself – a pupil of Alban Berg no less) was someone who as we say in England was too clever-by-half. Frankly had he not voluntarily returned to Frankfurt, you should have cancelled his green card for crimes against American sensibility.

    Are Anglicans really Protestants? They recite the Nicene creed wherein they avow that they are Catholic though obviously not of the Romish kind (that just goes without saying). The Anglicans are the government at prayer which is another way of saying that behind their sanctimoniousness they are cultural marxists in the centre of the Overton window – believers of all those other things I disbelieve.

    I could (but won’t) relate anecdote showing that earlier generations were, shall we say, less sexually adventurous than people nowadays. I fear that I am now out-of-date as to what a young woman might expect – on a first date. It is my thesis (supported by the notion of sexual blandness in earlier generations) that Homosexuality was far less prevalent in past times. Will matters regress or will the envelope of the accepted and expected continue to expand? Wouldn’t want to be a phobe would one.

    My own feeling about Prostitution is that working-girls are firstly too expensive and secondly far too much like hard-work. The other problem as with any woman is that should one acquire as some men do a regular, one begins to fall for them but one-itis for a whore – of any stripe – is not a good idea.

  213. Anonymous Reader says:

    That said, surely you don’t need to be educated on the havoc 50 men who have Bible based support for their harems can produce?

    You just confirmed my hunch. This is yet another small time cult, in a long line of such things. Now, I’m sure that some very bad things can be done by 50 men with such ideas. But the damage will be localized, because there’s only so much that even 50 men can do without calling attention to themselves from various civil authorities. If you want to tell us about this havoc, certainly do so.

    Then shall we compare that havoc with what ordinary, every day, garden variety frivorce by women who are not haaaapy has done week after week, year after year for the last 30+ years – usually with the backing of a church? The lives of children damaged? The men betrayed, killing themselves with monotonous regularity? The mountains of money wasted on the divorce industry? The women who wind up too late realizing they did a foolish and harmful thing?

    The havoc wrought by the divorce industry, with the collusion of many, many churches, is staggering. You have my sympathy. But I’m not alarmed.

  214. El says:

    Oh, no sympathy needed for me, AR

    Well, only in so much as a woman I care about has suffered a great deal, which hurts. But our marriage, family, and church are fine. Regular churchian stuff, LOL.

    Have a good afternoon.

  215. Bruce says:

    Are Anglicans Protestants? Strictly speaking, Lutherans are Protestants (protested the imperial diet). As the term is currently used, I’d say Anglicans are ‘tweeners’ to various degrees depending on the flavor. They kept the threefold ministry and claim apostolic succession (call themselves “Catholic” as do the Eastern Orthodox). At the same time, the 39 articles are quite Protestant in content – 13 of 39 are almost identical to Augsburg articles I think. The Anglican Catholics tend to interpret the 39 articles in “the most Catholic way possible.”
    I guess they are Protestant in the sense of being Western Church and not in communion with Rome.

  216. podethelesser says:

    I’ve watched this argument, several before it, and had a few with Toad over on his blog for the past 2+ years. I have not found any of the counterarguments convincing, including several I’ve put to him myself. He has proven to my satisfaction that Jewish or pagan women can be fee-for service prostitutes without sin, and that Jewish or pagan men can hire them, likewise without sin. To my knowledge he has never argued that Christian men are allowed to use prostitutes. I’m not convinced this quote is true though: “To put it another way, there is no prohibition anywhere in Scripture that forbids a woman from having sex with any man she is eligible to marry,…”

    There’s not a negative Thou shalt not command, but there is a positive command that Christian unmarried women 1: be chaste 2: be reconciled to their husbands 3: if their husbands prove to be unbelievers by refusing reconciliation (unlike Christ’s love for the church), they choose who to marry, only in the Lord. I would argue that the order implies a chain of Godly preference, and that the last step restricts her choice to men who treat sex as their vow of lifetime indissoluble marriage that the Lord will require of them should she accept it. The idea that she can sample the goods first, or collect fee for service from nonbelievers, doesn’t seem defensible. She has the church to care for her, she’s not on her own like the pagan would be.

  217. Gary Eden says:

    Song of Solomon has some beautiful, very thinly veiled, references to oral sex. The marriage bed is undefiled. No where in scripture has God ever given indication he cared two wits about how a couple expressed themselves sexually.

    Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather resolve this, not to put a stumbling block or a cause to fall in our brother’s way. I know and am convinced by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself.

  218. Cane Caldo says:

    @Bruce & Opus

    I guess they are Protestant in the sense of being Western Church and not in communion with Rome.

    Yes, this is what I meant. More specifically: rejection of the false claim of the headship over the whole Church by the Roman bishop.

  219. @Hose_B

    @AT
    The man consents and commits to marriage every time he puts his penis in a woman’s vagina, because that is the act of marriage, the Genesis 2;24 ceremony of marriage.

    “Toad, clarification on your meaning here……………does the above mean that if a man has sex with a nonvirgin, it’s a proposal of marriage? It’s now up to the woman. If she wants, she can agree and they are married or not agree and she is still single?”

    Yes, but allow me to explicate:

    The man commits to marriage with the act of sexual penetration because a man marries a woman with the act of sexual penetration. The act is not a proposal of marriage, it is the act of the man marrying her. Notice the word “marry” is being used as a verb here. Marrying a woman is a specific act, by a man. Women don’t marry a man, they are married by a man.

    Status Matters:

    The virgin has no agency and her consent/commitment to be married is not required. Therefore, assuming the man is eligible to marry her, she’s married to the man based on his commitment, which he makes with the irrevocable act of penetrating her. This is why she can be raped into marriage (c.f. Deut 22:28-29). It’s not a proposal, it’s an irrevocable act.

    The woman not bound (c.f. 1 Cor 7:39, Numbers 30:9) has the right to choose who marries her, which means she must consent/commit to the marriage in order to be married. The man can penetrate her, which is his act of commitment to marriage, but if she does not consent then they are not married. Which is why the woman not bound cannot be raped into marriage. Yes, the man is making an irrevocable act, but absent her consent his act alone cannot marry her.

    “why doesn’t the woman consent and commit to marriage every time she allows a man to put his penis in her vagina?”

    The simple answer is because God did not require it, the woman has the right to choose. How do we know this?

    Dalrock helpfully made the point that men can have sex with prostitutes and become one flesh with them but are not married to them. Why? Because prostitutes (by definition) don’t consent to marriage with their customers and as a woman with agency, she has to consent before the man’s act of marriage makes her married. Which is why the men used prostitutes. Prior to Paul’s prohibition, the Christian men could have sex with a legitimate prostitute, not be committing adultery and not run the risk of being married.

    All through the Old Testament, sex with a legitimate prostitute (not a married woman, not a cult prostitute) was not a sin. It wasn’t wise (according to Proverbs), but it wasn’t a sin. Then Paul comes along and tells the men of the church “no sex with whores.” Prior to that it wasn’t a sin, but now it’s a sin because Christ is forbidding His male servants from banging whores.

    Then, in the next chapter (that Dalrock also points to), 1st Corinthians 7, Paul states that because of all the sexual immorality, each wife is to have sex with her own husband and each husband is to have sex with his own wife. Then he goes on to explain that sex is to be on-demand within marriage: if he wants it, he gets it and if she wants it, she gets it. Unless they decide by mutual consent to set aside a time for fasting and prayer. And when they’re done with their period of abstinence, they’re to go back to having sex.

    All of which is a re-statement of Proverbs 5-7, without the whores. Get your sexual needs met with your wife, don’t commit sexual immorality (which now includes banging whores).

    And I agree with that, we just can’t seem to agree on the details of when a virgin is married or by what act, much less the messy parts of marrying a woman who has already been around the block.

    The State of the Argument

    Dalrock claims that marriage is the only place sex is legitimately allowed, but he cannot explain when a woman is actually married. Which is a real problem.

    Is the eligible virgin married when she has sex? I claim she is and back it up with Scripture.

    Dalrock claims that even if the eligible virgin and the man have sex and become one flesh, they aren’t married because there’s a special sauce that has to be added. But he can’t explain exactly what that special sauce is or who gets to decide what it is, but he’s sure something extra is required. Something not in the Bible, something God did not require.

    That argument is contradicted by even the most trad-con reading of Genesis 2:24 and is a claim that Adam and Eve were not married. In other words, it’s a ridiculous opinion.

    What does the Bible actually say?

    Whether she knows it or not, whether she consents or not, the eligible virgin is married to the man who takes her virginity (Genesis 2:24). Yes, even in cases of rape (c.f. Deut 22:28-29). After that, as a married woman, if she has sex with any other man she commits adultery (c.f. Romans 7:2-3). After he binds her in marriage by taking her virginity, a married woman has to be un-bound before she can marry another man and there are only a few ways that can happen:

    *Daddy forbids the marriage (if she was under his authority when it happened)
    *Death of her husband
    *Divorce by the unbelieving husband for her adultery
    *Disenfranchisement when her unbelieving husband refuses to live with her.

    .
    A married woman does NOT become un-bound from her husband by having a party with some other dude, wearing a special dress, making vows before witnesses and exchanging rings with him. No amount of hand-waving and claims of special sauce will change the fact she is a married woman, ineligible to marry another man. The “wedding” is a fraud because she was already married to another man.

    So, according to Paul’s instruction in 1st Corinthians 7, at least 80% of the men and women in the church are committing adultery because the man does not have his own wife, he has another man’s wife. How do we know who her husband really is? Unless she was unbound, he’s the man who got her virginity.

    THAT is what all the hysterics are about, because to admit the problem is to take responsibility for it. That means admitting the teachers and pastors have lied, teaching the false doctrine of “special sauce” that created this crisis of systemic adultery. They got away with the lies for centuries, but then women got suffrage, feminism took over and we entered the age of unrestrained hypergamy.

    The lies combined with the hypergamy and gave us a massive crisis of adultery within the modern church. That impacts all the hypocrites because

    Adulterers are to be thrown out of the congregation and shunned.
    Adulterers will not enter into the Kingdom of heaven.

    All of this requires understanding when that virgin was married, so the question is who gets to decide when the virgin is married?

    God created marriage and He explained in Genesis 2:24 exactly how marriage begins. He explained some details on that with His 3 judgments concerning virgins and marriage. In Leviticus 18 He forbid certain marriage relationships. Later, Jesus explained even more about marriage in Matthew 19:3-9. After quoting Genesis 2:24 as the authority on marriage, He stated that God is the one who makes the two one flesh, Moses permitted divorce only for adultery, but from the beginning there was no divorce. Then Paul defined the key terms of Genesis 2:24. In 1st Corinthians 6:16 he showed us that the word “dabaq” means sex and in Ephesians 5:28-32 he showed us that the husband and wife are one body, joined by God in the one flesh union that is similar to becoming one body with Christ. Which means “one flesh” is not the act of sex, it is the result of sex.

    Those are the key passages that teach us about how marriage begins. The big takeaway?

    Eligible virgin + sex = marriage.

    Which means we have an epidemic of adultery within the church. God said not to commit adultery, so don’t do it. If you’re doing it, stop.

    So, do the Christian men admit the lies, take responsibility for their sin and work to stop the adultery epidemic, or do they choose to go with Dalrock’s non-Biblical and completely imaginary Special Sauce™ requirement for marriage and claim there is no adultery and Toad is a very bad man. Because long comments.

    Judging from the responses, the answer is obvious.

  220. Gary Eden says:

    @gunner

    Gary Eden 1:41 am:
    “It is very notable that God specifically calls out TEMPLE prostitution, but never speaks directly to ordinary sex for hire.”

    That’s like saying God hates porn but not Internet porn.

    No its saying that idolatry is a sin but paying for sex isn’t. Or that God cares HOW he is worshiped.

    I tracked down the verse Evan referenced: Leviticus 21. The daughters of the Levites were forbidden to prostitute, on pain of death. No such command was given with respect to the other tribes.

    If you’re paying attention and trying to understand the mind of God revealed in the scriptures, as opposed to trying to justify human traditions, this is a big piece of the puzzle.

  221. Novaseeker says:

    The Anglicans are the government at prayer

    Here in the US it means something different. I think that the old-line Episcopal Church here *used* to be that, like 50-70 years ago, but that has long since not been the case. Anglicans in US parlance are basically very high church Episcopal or ex-Episcopal (it’s more commonly the case that churches in the US that actually use the name “Anglican” are not a part of the Episcopal Church, but there are numerous people who are members of the Episcopal Church who consider themselves to be Anglican or Anglo-Catholic.

    In Canada, it’s different because the Anglican Church was never renamed as it was in the US — so there it’s just the Anglican Church.

    Confused yet?

  222. Cane Caldo says:

    @Novaseeker

    Confused yet?

    Yeah, it’s embarrassing.

  223. Damn Crackers says:

    @Boxer @Opus – I’m not surprised those fellows blamed sodomy on Capitalism. Maybe I’m mixing up the Frankfurt School with Gyorgy Lukacs. I thought he was the one who introduced sex education and free love to Hungary in Bela Kun’s short-lived rule.

  224. Gunner Q says:

    Gary Eden @ 2:48 pm:
    “That’s like saying God hates porn but not Internet porn.”

    “No its saying that idolatry is a sin but paying for [idolatrous] sex isn’t.”

    FIFY. I’m trying to imagine Christ paying a whore and saying “I’m glad you aren’t doing this for me so you can do this for me.” Progress is slow.

  225. Gary Eden says:

    Hey Evan, thanks for answering my two questions. Missed them before.

  226. Bruce says:

    “The marriage bed is undefiled. Nowhere in scripture has God ever given indication he cared two wits about how a couple expressed themselves sexually.”
    If in the mouth, why not the rectum? I knew a couple from high school who got married – she put on a strap on and used it on his hiney (after they were married). Why not?
    It is evident from the nature of God’s creation that the tallywacker is meant for the va-jay-jay.
    Sola scriptura.

  227. MKT says:

    Cane Caldo says:
    “Yeah, it’s embarrassing.”

    True, Anglicans and all of the Prot denominations have embarrassing aspects. But so do the RCs with their scandals and SJW Pope…and the Orthodox with their SJW bishops (at least in the U.S). I know of Orthodox who became Anglo-Catholics because their churches/bishops refused to take a stand on any pro-life or LGBT issues.

    It sounds cliche, but we’re all sinners and there’s perfect church or denomination.

  228. Hose_B says:

    @AT
    I’m gonna ponder and pray on your explanation a bit before any other questions.

  229. Dalrock says:

    @podethelesser

    I’ve watched this argument, several before it, and had a few with Toad over on his blog for the past 2+ years. I have not found any of the counterarguments convincing, including several I’ve put to him myself. He has proven to my satisfaction that Jewish or pagan women can be fee-for service prostitutes without sin, and that Jewish or pagan men can hire them, likewise without sin.

    Like Toad, you must therefore be starting with the a whole host of hard assumptions. Just a few off the top of my head:

    1) Whenever Scripture references prostitution in a negative way, it is always talking about pagan/temple prostitution, even when it merely says prostitution. For example, 1 Cor 6 15 & 16 (just prostitution). Likewise, in Deut 23 verse 17 references ritual prostitution, but 18 references male and female prostitution (with no such modifier) as abominations:

    17 No Israelite man or woman is to become a shrine prostitute. 18 You must not bring the earnings of a female prostitute or of a male prostitute[d] into the house of the Lord your God to pay any vow, because the Lord your God detests them both.

    So you must be assuming Deut 23:17-18 are only condemning male ritual prostitution, right? Otherwise the idea that prostitution is a righteous line of work is shattered.

    2) You must assume that when Scripture says a man must marry a woman he raped, what it really means is when he raped her he married her. Deut 22:28-29:

    28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[c] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

    When it says for he has violated her, it must mean to you for he has married her. For how can he have violated his own wife?. Moreover, you must reject the more plain reading, that a man who violated a virgin (thereby greatly damaging her marriage value) was responsible to marry her as well as pay her father as restitution & punishment.

    3) God’s design for the family sometimes includes knowing who your father is, and sometimes doesn’t, and unwed motherhood is part of God’s plan. While Piper tells unwed mothers their family model is the model of the future, you believe it has been God’s model all along. Put another way, the idea that God’s model in the OT was a patriarchy is false, because God intends for families to sometimes be headed by a father, and sometimes headed by a single mother who doesn’t know who the fathers of her children are. Specifically, you must assume that the translations which use the word “bastard” in Deut 23:2 are in error, since bastards are part of God’s plan:

    A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD.

    To use Toad’s phrasing, bastardy must only be a social construct.

  230. @Gary Eden

    “I tracked down the verse Evan referenced: Leviticus 21. The daughters of the Levites were forbidden to prostitute, on pain of death. No such command was given with respect to the other tribes.”

    Actually…. No.

    Let’s start with the beginning of the passage, Leviticus 21:1. God told Moses to speak to the priests. Which priests? The sons of Aaron. The instruction is specific to the Aaronic priesthood, not generally to the sons of Levi, the Levitical priesthood. Only the sons of Aaron can become the High Priest. This would include the Phineas priesthood as well.

    The specific point you are referring to is Leviticus 21:9 and the word used is a form of “zanah”, which can be used to describe idolatry, adultery and ordinary prostitution. Let’s look at context for a moment, because in this case the context is very specific and critical. Leviticus 21:6-9:

    6They shall be holy to their God and not profane the name of their God, for they present the offerings by fire to the Lord, the food of their God; so they shall be holy. 7 They shall not take a woman who is profaned by harlotry, nor shall they take a woman divorced from her husband; for he is holy to his God. 8 You shall consecrate him, therefore, for he offers the food of your God; he shall be holy to you; for I the Lord, who sanctifies you, am holy. 9 Also the daughter of any priest, if she profanes herself by harlotry, she profanes her father; she shall be burned with fire.

    What does the daughter of the priest have to do with the priest’s consecration? The only other crime for which the penalty was being burned with fire was a man taking a mother and her daughter as wives. So, is this talking about priestly incest? No. Further context to this is found a bit later in verses 13-15:

    13 He shall take a wife in her virginity. 14 A widow, or a divorced woman, or one who is profaned by harlotry, these he may not take; but rather he is to marry a virgin of his own people, 15 so that he will not profane his offspring among his people; for I am the Lord who sanctifies him.’”

    Now we can see that the daughter of the priest is doing to him what he was commanded not to do, which is profaning his offspring among his people. But let’s dig a bit deeper.

    The word translated as “harlotry” in Leviticus 21:9 is the specific term “liz-nō-wṯ” and it has only 5 occurrences, which is a form of our old friend “zanah.” Because “zanah.” is a general term, the question is what “liz-nō-wṯ” means in context, so we first look at the other usages of the term and the five times “liz-nō-wṯ” is used are:

    1) Leviticus 20:5 (Defined in the text as Molech worship)
    2) Leviticus 20:6 (Defined in the text as using mediums and spiritists)
    3) Leviticus 21:9 (Contextually implied as being sexual idolatry and adultery)
    4) Numbers 25:1 (Defined in the text as Baal worship)
    5) Deuteronomy 22:21 (A woman found not to be a virgin on her wedding night)

    The priest’s daughter, living in his house, should be a virgin and thus eligible for marriage to any other priest as a woman who has not been profaned by idolatry, adultery or prostitution. Why? Because God commanded that the sons of Aaron take only a virgin as their wife in order that his offspring would not be profaned. Notice that the women forbidden to him (because they might profane his offspring) are widows, divorced women and women profaned by being prostitutes.

    In verse 14, the word used for “harlot” is zō·nāh and if you follow the links you’ll see that unlike the term “liz-nō-wṯ”, it refers almost exclusively for money-for-sex prostitution. Not adultery or sexual idolatry. The difference in word usage within the same passage indicates a difference in meaning, but they both get lumped into “harlotry” when translated into English.

    In all likelihood, what verse 9 is talking about is a daughter engaged in cult prostitution while living in her fathers house. Which means idolatry, adultery (because she was married with the first man and all the rest were adulteries) and prostitution. She not only profanes herself with idolatry, adultery and prostitution, but she’s doing this while passing herself off as a virgin who is eligible for marriage… who can then profane the offspring of the man who marries her. Her father would bear some guilt for this because he would be passing her off as a virgin.

    Which is what was described in Deuteronomy 22:13-21. Ordinarily a woman who does this is stoned to death on her fathers doorstep. As a daughter of an Aaronic priest who does this, she is to be burned with fire.

  231. Evan Turner says:

    @AT

    An Israelite man who takes a virgin woman from war and has sex with her are they married?

    An Israelite man gets a virgin woman for one of his slaves are the slave and the woman married?

  232. Opus says:

    Anglicans invented Brexit but that was in the 16th century: these days they love Islam, Feminism and Homosexuals but prefer ecumenicalism (Remaining) to separation (Leaving). My sister is one – Anglican I mean: when I suggested that global warming might not be all it is cracked up to be, her dismissive comment when I suggested that I was not the only doubter was ‘Who else? Donald Trump?’ as if that settled any argument. I hardly dared mention my awe for the god emperor and when I suggested that there was no biblical authority for female Bishops (Titus; as I learn at this blog) her response was that there was no mention of Bishops in the NT and that I must be a misogynist if that was what I thought and that women were just as capable of dressing-up as any mere man.

    She has some very important position or other at her local church so how can I argue.

  233. Evan Turner says:

    @dalrock

    The fact that the money of a prostitute was not allowed by God in no way proves that prostitution is a sin.

    God was explicit temple prostitutes were put to death. Where is the penalty for common prostitution?

    What were concubines as defined by the scriptures?

  234. SJB says:

    Dalrock: you #1 and #3 above contradict each other: to be excluded from the Temple was to be unable to be righteous. That is, you could not offer the appropriate cereal or animal as commanded. The prostitute, of a non-cultic kind, could enter the Temple but could not pay the Temple tax or purchase the offering the with the wages earned from their, ahem, trade.

  235. Evan Turner says:

    @AT
    Leviticus 21 9 says that a daughter of a priest can’t be a prostitute it didn’t matter if it was common or sacred prostitution. How can i say this? Because you couldn’t go to the temple after you had sex. God did not want Israelites thinking that he was like the pagan gods who were worshipped through sex. Could you imagine what would’ve happened had God allowed such a thing? You would have had all kinds of pagans coming to Israel to ‘worship’ the one true God by having sex with a priest’s daughter. What nonsense.

  236. necroking48 says:

    @earlthomas786

    *”The Sacrament of Matrimony requires the marital act”*……end quote

    Rank heretical RC nonsense…..Show me 1 verse in the bible that refers to “marriage” as a “sacrament”

  237. BuenaVista says:

    Dale:

    It would be much easier to implement Disqus comments system, than the current one, which is linear and hard to reply appropriately.

    “NO!!! That format makes sense for a closed comment thread. Few are going to scroll back and forth to search for whether someone has replied to the comments in which they are interested.”

    This is incorrect. Disqus does precisely what Dale says it doesn’t do, and it does so very well.

  238. Zippy says:

    Disqus is terrible, as are nested comments generally. Chronological order is the way to go, it is in Deuteronomy.

  239. podethelesser says:

    1 Cor 6 15 & 16 refer to making the body of Christ members with a prostitute. Are you asserting that Jews and pagans are members of the body of Christ?

    Your point on Deut 23:18 is a reasonable one, one of very few I’ve seen advanced, and I would like to see Toad respond to it. He might argue that the entire passage is about temple / cult prostitution and since male homosexuality is already a death penalty abomination regardless, it’s possible to read this as pointing out that no matter what your pagan neighbors say, temple prostitution is right out for both men and women. Men taking it in the ass for the glory of God

    Deut 22:28-29 is explaining that the rapist must carry out all the duties of husband now that he has forcibly and criminally made himself her husband without her father’s consent. Unless you want to argue that the act of marriage carries no other attendant duties, which will be an interesting Biblical case for you to make.

    God’s model is for a woman to give her virginity to a man who stays with and cares for her and their children for life. We’re debating the boundaries when circumstances or poor choices take people off model. Is it a good idea for a widow to become a prostitute? No, we all agree on that. Does it have serious negative consequences for her and for her kids? Absolutely, and you do a fine job of documenting the effects of the scourge of single mommery. Is it a permissible choice for a Christian woman? Toad may or may not argue so, I argue it’s not, in the second paragraph of my comment you quoted from the first paragraph of. Is it a choice that was permitted to Jewish women, possibly as a failsafe against the community’s failure to obey the laws about allowing gleaning of the fields? I think so. Not a good choice, not a recommended one, but tolerated.

    In any event, as we are neither Jews nor pagans, it’s academic. Unless Toad somehow manages to convince me I’m wrong in my argument that Christian women are prohibited from prostitution by the commandment to be chaste, reconciled, or marry in the Lord.

  240. SJB says:

    @Zippy: now that was funny. Well done & thank you.

  241. podethelesser says:

    Editing fail: Men taking it in the ass for the glory of God is abominable blasphemy twice over.

  242. BuenaVista says:

    In Genesis 38, Tamar (referenced by Derek Ramsey) uses sex to acquire material, social and family benefits: she disguises herself as a prostitute, lies to Judah, has sex with him, and becomes impregnated. She *is* in fact a prostitute, for she is trading sex for value.

    She did this freely, in her own agency, and successfully blackmails Judah subsequently into marriage.

    (Tamar is a favorite of the feminist set, for leaning in, knowing what she wanted, and going after it, and manipulating a foolish man into providing it to her.)

    Are we to assume that Tamar’s revenge on Judah is Judah’s punishment (for not delivering Son #3 for her conjugal benefit; she is a bit of a black widow). That’s not what the verse suggests in any way. Judah is neither condemned nor even characterized for his screwing a highway hooker in the dirt; it was just something he did. Are we to assume God is a feminist, and this is just so much you go grrrl table-setting?

  243. Gunner Q says:

    Now AT & friends are arguing that Christianity is the cause of sexual immorality, if temple prostitution is bad but ordinary prostitution is good. I suppose there’s truth to that: if God would stop judging us then we would stop being guilty.

    And if the Earth instantly stopped rotating then I’d be flung into outer space.

    Zippy @ 4:51 pm:
    “Disqus is terrible, as are nested comments generally. Chronological order is the way to go, it is in Deuteronomy.”

    I like this system, too. Simple and functional. There should be no complexity in communication.

  244. Hose_B says:

    Dalrock et al

    How does Judges 21 figure into all of this? “The men of Israel had taken an oath at Mizpah: “Not one of us will give his daughter in marriage to a Benjamite”. They then put to death everyone except the virgins of Jabesh Gilead and gave them to the Benjamites, but there wasn’t enough.

    (These were Israelite women whose fathers had just been killed by the other Israelites for not showing up at Mizpah)

    Judges 21:20
    20 Then they commanded the Benjaminites: “Go and hide in the vineyards. 21 Watch, and when you see the young women of Shiloh come out to perform the dances, each of you leave the vineyards and catch a wife for yourself from the young women of Shiloh, and go to the land of Benjamin. 22 When their fathers or brothers come to us and protest, we will tell them, ‘Show favor to them, since we did not get enough wives for each of them in the battle. You didn’t actually give the women to them, so you are not guilty of breaking your oath.’”

    23 The Benjaminites did this and took the number of women they needed from the dancers they caught. They went back to their own inheritance, rebuilt their cities, and lived in them. 24 At that time, each of the Israelites returned from there to his own tribe and family. Each returned from there to his own inheritance.

    So now they have stolen women. It seems these women are married…… Thoughts??

  245. necroking48 says:

    @Artisanal Toad

    *”So, according to Paul’s instruction in 1st Corinthians 7, at least 80% of the men and women in the church are committing adultery because the man does not have his own wife, he has another man’s wife”*………………….end quote

    The one fundamental error you make AT is your belief in the false premise known as “living in sin”, or “living in adultery”……..Those terms are not biblical, but you USE those terms to uphold your error that every man who is currently married to a woman who he didn’t get her virginity MUST divorce her, or be charged with the sin of “living in adultery”
    You are basically teaching a wicked doctrine that encourages break up of families and marriages that God hath put together

    You need to realize that 2 wrongs don’t make a right, and committing the sin of “divorce” to FIX an adulterous union is a sin as well…..In fact God calls it an abomination to go back to your first spouse………….. Deu 24:4  “Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD”
    So even if husbands divorced their present wives for “living in adultery” (your term), they have to remain in perpetual ,Limbo FOR EVER….so we would essentially have a situation where suddenly 80% of marriages have to be broken up, but no woman would be allowed to marry and be with a man unless she could prove she’s actually a virgin
    You would actually come under the stern condemnation of God in 1st Timothy 4:3 for teaching a doctrine of Devils, in forbidding marriage

    Any Greek professor can and will destroy your faulty premise that there’ such a thing as “living in adultery”, there is no continual present tense for committing sin, there is simply THE ACT……The notion that every time a man puts his penis in his wife’s vagina he commits adultery, is not only absurd, but shows a complete ignorance of how God defines sin

    You are not the only 1 here who teaches this errant nonsense of “living in adultery”, so I’m not just picking on you

    I actually agree with a lot of what you say in here, but in this regard, you are dead wrong

  246. Cane Caldo says:

    @Necroking

    Rank heretical RC nonsense…..Show me 1 verse in the bible that refers to “marriage” as a “sacrament”

    Sacrament means mystery; as when Paul writes that marriage is a mystery which refers to Christ and His Church.It is in fact the case that the concept of sacrament is modeled after Paul’s explicit use of it for marriage.

    So that verse is Eph. 5:32; which is in the Bible.

  247. earlthomas786 says:

    Unless Toad somehow manages to convince me I’m wrong in my argument that Christian women are prohibited from prostitution by the commandment to be chaste, reconciled, or marry in the Lord.

    His arguments seem to be trying to find some perceived loophole in Scripture to justify sexual sins.
    The danger is many might start to think like that and it takes them away from the Lord.

  248. earlthomas786 says:

    @Necroking

    What denomination are you?

  249. Dalrock says:

    @podethelesser

    1 Cor 6 15 & 16 refer to making the body of Christ members with a prostitute. Are you asserting that Jews and pagans are members of the body of Christ?

    No. Are you asserting it is not ok for the body of Christ to join with a prostitute, but it is ok for the body of Christ to be a prostitute? For there is no other way to read that passage as saying Christians can be prostitutes.

    Your point on Deut 23:18 is a reasonable one, one of very few I’ve seen advanced, and I would like to see Toad respond to it. He might argue that the entire passage is about temple / cult prostitution and since male homosexuality is already a death penalty abomination regardless, it’s possible to read this as pointing out that no matter what your pagan neighbors say, temple prostitution is right out for both men and women. Men taking it in the ass for the glory of God

    I have no doubt there will be a reason what seems on the face like an indictment of prostitution will turn out (according to Toad) to really be a wacky misunderstanding. I imagine he has an index card system for this, because the Bible is littered with similar passages that need to be explained away.

    Deut 22:28-29 is explaining that the rapist must carry out all the duties of husband now that he has forcibly and criminally made himself her husband without her father’s consent. Unless you want to argue that the act of marriage carries no other attendant duties, which will be an interesting Biblical case for you to make.

    Then it is as I said. When the Scripture says one thing, you assume it really means another.

    God’s model is for a woman to give her virginity to a man who stays with and cares for her and their children for life. We’re debating the boundaries when circumstances or poor choices take people off model. Is it a good idea for a widow to become a prostitute? No, we all agree on that. Does it have serious negative consequences for her and for her kids? Absolutely, and you do a fine job of documenting the effects of the scourge of single mommery. Is it a permissible choice for a Christian woman? Toad may or may not argue so, I argue it’s not, in the second paragraph of my comment you quoted from the first paragraph of. Is it a choice that was permitted to Jewish women, possibly as a failsafe against the community’s failure to obey the laws about allowing gleaning of the fields? I think so. Not a good choice, not a recommended one, but tolerated.

    Don’t get squeamish now, after following Toad all this way. You argued in your original comment that Toad was right, that God’s plan from the beginning included women being whores and that (except for certain kinds of “forbidden” whoredom) it was not sin. So this means single mothers (and bastards who didn’t know who their fathers were) were part of God’s original design. If you are going to argue that single motherhood was once God’s plan, why are you uncomfortable arguing as Toad does that it remains part of God’s plan? If it is good enough for God, why isn’t it good enough for you? Or do you think God thought better of it after He tried it? Unless, deep down, you know it really wasn’t ever part of God’s plan. Be bold. You’ve already accepted more than feminists accept (for even they know the OT was a patriarchy), not to mention what even John Piper would accept. Just take another small bite.

  250. SJB says:

    Cane Caldo: I have taken Eph. 5:32 to refer to the mystery of how God makes the Body of Christ fruitful as He makes male and female fruitful. The latter may be considered a tad less mysterious now that the aided eye can see smaller things yet there is no decrease in awe. At least on my part.

    Regardless of one’s profession it seems, on average, contemporary marriages–however defined, but at root male and female–in the former Christendom are quite unfruitful.

  251. To Toad and others who advance the argument that contracting a marriage only includes a man and virgin getting their P in V on, I ask this question:

    Was God Eve’s father?

  252. Pode says:

    No one has advanced that argument. Toad has always argued that the father has the authority to annul a daughter’s marriage in the day that he hears of it. God did not choose to do so when Adam married Eve.

  253. necroking48 says:

    @earlthomas786

    I belong to NO denomination….I see myself as a BIBLE BELIEVER, who holds that the bible is the supreme final authority in all matters of faith and practice

  254. necroking48 says:

    @Cane Caldo

    *”Sacrament means mystery”*………………..end quote

    No it doesn’t…….Don’t believe me, grab a concordance and look up every reference to the word “mystery” in the NT, and try and substitute the word “sacrament”, and you will see it simply will not fit
    The primary meaning of Sacrament is the Roman Catholics position on it, which consists of (baptism, confirmation, Eucharist, Reconciliation, Anointing of the sick, MARRIAGE and, Holy Orders)…..none of which can be substantiated by scripture, it’s an entirely man made system

    The closest that marriage could fall under is “covenant”, but certainly NOT a sacrament……and when I say covenant, I don’t mean the State sanctioned garbage, requiring a marriage certificate and a wedding…..Marriage is a private affair between 3 people, God, the husband and the wife, and is initiated by sex….no ceremony is required

  255. @Dalrock

    Translation of your comments to Pode: “You must have assumptions, so let me make some assumptions about what your assumptions are.”

    I can’t speak to what Pode has not said, but I will speak to your incorrect statements.

    “1) Whenever Scripture references prostitution in a negative way, it is always talking about pagan/temple prostitution, even when it merely says prostitution.”

    No, not at all. As I just pointed out in my comment to Gary Eden, ordinary prostitution is spoken of in a negative way, because marrying an ordinary prostitute could profane the children of the priest. That’s pretty negative. At the same time, the priest is not to marry a widow because having children with her could profane his offspring. So, while that’s pretty negative in terms of the widow, does that mean she’s in sin for being a widow? Are we back to harlots all the way down?

    How are the widow, the divorced woman and the prostitute all the same, in terms of profaning the children of the priest? Arguably, only one has sinned, but they all have a common characteristic: They all have agency and thus they’re like a box of chocolates, you never know what you’re going to get. And that passage does not say that his offspring *will* be profaned if he marries one of those women, but all those women are off limits because they *might* profane his offspring.

    The difference between the ordinary prostitute and the cult prostitute is that the cult prostitute was forbidden and the sex was idolatry, which is also forbidden; and possibly adultery. The ordinary prostitute might frequently be referred to negatively but she wasn’t engaged in a forbidden act and she wasn’t forbidden. And, as Paul said, where there is no violation there is no sin imputed. Hand waving about rebellion aside, one is forbidden, the other is not. Both get talked about negatively but only one is sinful activity. As to why the wages of the ordinary prostitute are the same as the wages of a male homosexual prostitute when it comes to paying vows in the Temple, God simply says they (both offerings) are an abomination.

    He didn’t say why.

    Pigs are were unclean, but they are not sinful. It’s not a sin to keep pigs or feed them. Pigs get talked about very negatively all over Scripture, but the only violation was using them for food. Ordinary prostitutes are talked about negatively, but apparently the only violation is using their earnings to pay their vows.

    “2) You must assume that when Scripture says a man must marry a woman he raped, what it really means is when he raped her he married her. Deut 22:28-29:”

    And you were *so* close.

    Without going into issues of version-shopping for an English text that supports your ideas, the text doesn’t say a man must marry a woman he raped, the text says “she shall become his wife.” You may want to compare the “shall become” of Deuteronomy 22:29 with the “shall become” of Genesis 2:24. Same verb (“hayah”) in the same context: eligible virgin has sex, God made them one flesh, they are married. Just like Adam and Eve. It occurred with the act of sex, no special sauce.

    You are obviously trying to read a conflict with Genesis 2;24 into the text but there is none. He didn’t damage her marriage value and now he must marry her and pay a high brideprice, he married her with the act of putting his penis in her vagina. Because Genesis 2:24 says sex is how a man marries a woman and the text is clear that she was an eligible virgin. He cannot divorce her all his days because he humbled her. He violated her. Do a word study on “‘in·nāh”. They are married, but it was a bad thing for him to do and there are consequences. Like paying a high bride price.

    However, the part you are either ignoring or don’t understand is verse 28 says there had to be witnesses (they had to be discovered). There is no question she was an eligible virgin and they had sex, so what does it matter whether they are discovered or not? This judgment answers the question of whether the father has the authority to forbid a marriage, as opposed to forbidding his daughter’s agreement to marry. The answer is no, Numbers 30:5 only authorizes him to forbid her agreements and vows. With witnesses proving it was a real rape (she obviously made no agreement or vow), Numbers 30:5 does not apply and they *are* married (present tense) according to Genesis 2:24. Her husband now has to pay a high bride price and he cannot divorce her all her days of his life.

    As to what happens if they were not discovered, refer to Exodus 22:16-17.

    “3) God’s design for the family sometimes includes knowing who your father is, and sometimes doesn’t, and unwed motherhood is part of God’s plan.”

    Complete ridiculousness. I certainly don’t believe that twaddle and I would be shocked if Pode admitted to such a thing.

  256. Helm says:

    Let’s cut to chase.

    If you’re married, do it. No sin.
    If you’re not married, don’t do it. Sin.

    Done.

  257. Zippy says:

    A sacrament is a mystery, inasmuch as some things can be known about it but not everything can be grasped about it. (Not all mysteries are sacraments). Sacraments come from the same place that the Bible comes from: the one, holy, apostolic Church established by Christ.

  258. Dalrock says:

    @Toad

    “3) God’s design for the family sometimes includes knowing who your father is, and sometimes doesn’t, and unwed motherhood is part of God’s plan.”

    Complete ridiculousness. I certainly don’t believe that twaddle and I would be shocked if Pode admitted to such a thing.

    Of course you do. You are arguing that God’s plan for the family sometimes involves righteous hookers for Jesus as dear old mom. Why is it twaddle? Are you claiming being the bastard child of a hooker is shameful? How? Hookers are according to you an honorable profession, just like farmers.

  259. In addition to all the other points about the theory that sex creates marriage, there is Matthew 1:24-25:

    when Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him; he took his wife, but he knew her not until she had borne a son; and he called his name Jesus.

    Don’t know if anyone already mentioned this particular passage.

  260. Dalrock says:

    @Toad

    No, not at all. As I just pointed out in my comment to Gary Eden, ordinary prostitution is spoken of in a negative way, because marrying an ordinary prostitute could profane the children of the priest. That’s pretty negative. At the same time, the priest is not to marry a widow because having children with her could profane his offspring. So, while that’s pretty negative in terms of the widow, does that mean she’s in sin for being a widow?

    Mark Driscoll says that unwed mothers are like widows, and you agree. But you go a step further and compare widows to hookers.

    Ordinary prostitutes are talked about negatively, but apparently the only violation is using their earnings to pay their vows.

    But why can’t they pay their vows with their earnings? “because the Lord your God detests them both.”

    They are an abomination, but you call them honorable and compare them to widows and farmers.

  261. Gary Eden says:

    How are the widow, the divorced woman and the prostitute all the same, in terms of profaning the children of the priest?

    The profane was a description of the divorsed/widow/prostitute. Are they all sinners? No. Look at the Hebrew word. Pierced. Its just a way of saying that their not being virgins makes them ceremonial unclean for a priest.

  262. earlthomas786 says:

    While I don’t think just P in V constitutes marriage…this is an interesting question:

    Was God Eve’s father?

    Scripture tells us ‘The Lord God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man.’

    So God created her…just like he created Adam. And Adam was called ‘Son of God’ (Luke 3:38). I’d say God is also her father…however we do know for sure He was her creator.

  263. earlthomas786 says:

    ‘Let’s cut to chase.

    If you’re married, do it [with your lawful spouse]. No sin.
    If you’re not married, don’t do it. Sin.

    Done.’

    /fixed

  264. Gary Eden says:

    You are arguing that God’s plan

    That right there is the rhetorical bait and switch. “God’s plan”, “wise course of action”, and “sinful” are three different things.

    I can confidently say it was God’s plan for most men to marry a virgin and be satisfied in marriage (by however many wives/concubines/slaves it takes).

    I can also say that visiting a prostitute is unwise and making that your career even less so.

    I can even say prostitutes are looked down upon with scorn.

    But what I can’t say is using them or being one is a sin (unless its a temple prostitute or you’re the daughter of a Levitical priest). God never said that. He never said ‘thou shalt not’, he never gave a sin offering for it, nor ever give a punishment for it.

    And that is the problem. The law was given to show us sin. You all wish to use human reasoning and tradition to speak where God did not speak, to call things sin He did not condemn.

    You add to the law. You teach as doctrine the commandments of men.

    I have no desire to use prostitutes and never have. I do not seek to excuse myself. I simply want to know the Truth and to exercise caution in judgment knowing that I will be judged as I judge others and that I mustn’t judge the servant of another.

  265. Mycroft Jones says:

    Genesis 2:22 shows that the marriage was when God gave Eve to Adam. Sex came later. I find it hard to believe that Toad didn’t see this, when he puts forward Genesis 2:24 as supporting P-in-V as marriage. If P-in-V makes a marriage, why didn’t Adam P-in-V until Genesis 4:1? That is a long time after Genesis 2:22.

  266. mrteebs says:

    I have always made a habit of skipping over AT’s comments after the misfortune of reading a few of his screeds early in my travels on this blog. His eisegetical tongs and blowtorch never tire of bending the scripture to his own ends, which always seem to entail the discovery of a sexual freedom that only he has been truly enlightened enough to unearth, allowing enjoyment without guilt.

    There are two concepts in scripture that summarize this. A seared conscience and deception.

    I applaud Dalrock for the takedown, but it should by now be apparent that it is an exercise in futility.

  267. infowarrior1 says:

    @Anchorman
    At the end of the day all sexual immorality are variants of adultery. If it is out of healthy holy wedlock its sin.

  268. infowarrior1 says:

    @Anchorman
    And then there is natural law. Given how human bodies function there are proper and improper uses of the human body. For example the anus is designed to expel faeces using it as a playground when it is not designed to be leads to negative consequences.

    There are other examples. But natural allows one to properly love ones neighbor.

  269. Cane Caldo says:

    @Necroking

    *”Sacrament means mystery”*………………..end quote

    No it doesn’t…….

    Yes it does. Sacrament literally means “holy (sacra) mystery (ment)”. Here’s what the Online Etymology Dictionary has to say:

    “outward and visible sign of inward and spiritual grace,” also “the eucharist,” c. 1200, from Old French sacrament “consecration; mystery” (12c., Modern French sacrement) and directly from Latin sacramentum “a consecrating” (also source of Spanish sacramento, German Sakrament, etc.), from sacrare “to consecrate” (see sacred); a Church Latin loan-translation of Greek mysterion (see mystery).

    Paul says in Ephesians 5:32 that marriage is a profound/great mystery, and that it concerns Christ and His Church; both of which are holy.

    Don’t believe me, grab a concordance and look up every reference to the word “mystery” in the NT, and try and substitute the word “sacrament”, and you will see it simply will not fit

    The fact that you have trouble understanding that the map is not the territory is not something I can deal with in a blog comment.

  270. infowarrior1 says:

    @Boxer
    Is classic Marx for Hierarchy, King and Country?

  271. Cane Caldo says:

    @Mycroft Jones

    Genesis 2:22 shows that the marriage was when God gave Eve to Adam. Sex came later. I find it hard to believe that Toad didn’t see this, when he puts forward Genesis 2:24 as supporting P-in-V as marriage. If P-in-V makes a marriage, why didn’t Adam P-in-V until Genesis 4:1? That is a long time after Genesis 2:22.

    I mentioned the same time lapse above. But another point is one I just noticed: That what Adam actually says is this:

    “This at last is bone of my bones
    and flesh of my flesh;
    she shall be called Woman,
    because she was taken out of Man.”

    They are one flesh already. She IS bone of his bone and she IS flesh of his flesh; right then; at the marriage and before they have sex. What follows is like an aside and the author or Genesis breaks the fourth wall to the reader saying:

    24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.

    I have heard some biblical scholars say that naked is sometimes used in the OT to mean sexual activity, and that the next line (“25 And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.”) actually means they had sex then and there. I haven’t done any research on that myself.

    Regardless, the point stands that there is a mysterious reenactment which happens in marriage, and sex is intrinsically part of that, but it is not that mystery all on its own. All the OT laws make sense from this perspective because each one is about how to move an act which is a mutilation of the mystery of marriage towards the holy mystery, or to avoid the mutilating acts, or to atone from them…generally how to repent from doing marriage wrong. The OT laws aren’t a riddle; not even big hairy complex one.

  272. Splashman says:

    @MrTeebs:

    I have always made a habit of skipping over AT’s comments after the misfortune of reading a few of his screeds early in my travels on this blog. His eisegetical tongs and blowtorch never tire of bending the scripture to his own ends, which always seem to entail the discovery of a sexual freedom that only he has been truly enlightened enough to unearth, allowing enjoyment without guilt.

    There are two concepts in scripture that summarize this. A seared conscience and deception.

    I applaud Dalrock for the takedown, but it should by now be apparent that it is an exercise in futility.

    +1 to every word of that, except for the last phrase. It should have been apparent a long time ago. What a waste.

  273. necroking48 says:

    @Cane Caldo

    *”Yes it does. Sacrament literally means “holy (sacra) mystery (ment)”. Here’s what the Online Etymology Dictionary has to say:

    “outward and visible sign of inward and spiritual grace,” also “the eucharist,” c. 1200, from Old French sacrament “consecration; mystery” (12c., Modern French sacrement) and directly from Latin sacramentum “a consecrating” (also source of Spanish sacramento, German Sakrament, etc.), from sacrare “to consecrate” (see sacred); a Church Latin loan-translation of Greek mysterion (see mystery).

    Paul says in Ephesians 5:32 that marriage is a profound/great mystery, and that it concerns Christ and His Church; both of which are holy”*………………………….end quote

    WRONG AGAIN!!!….you only quoted the definition of Sacrament PARTIALLY….here let me help you out:
    “A sacrament is a Christian RITE that is a symbol of God’s means by which HE enacts his grace upon people”….That is THE Catholic definition, and it is what they adhere to
    The scriptures don’t teach any such blasphemy…there is ONLY 1 method by which God imparts his Grace and that is by the substitutionary atonement of Jesus Christ on the cross……There are NO sacraments, they can more properly be seen as “ordinances” but never be seen as the MEANS by which God imparts His grace

    The word “Sacrament” is not even in the bible, the biblical word is “Mystery” and they are NOT the same thing.
    Yes I know the word “Trinity” is not in the bible, so don’t think you can outwit me ….the difference is which “word” is backed up by sound doctrine….Let me give you a hint, the word, “Sacrament” fails the test, whereas Trinity doesn’t

    By the way I was just playing semantic, etymological games with you….I don’t even care what the etymological root meaning of the word “Sacrament” means anyway……I don’t use secular sources to define God’s words in the bible….the scriptures are THE final authority and if the scriptures contradict the Magesterium, or the Canonical teachings, or the Pope’s decrees, or the Roman Catholics teachings then they can all take a flying leap into hell for all I care….The answer and firm foundation is “what saith the scriptures”….and in those scriptures, they refute the current doctrinal belief of the RCC on it’s definition of SACRAMENT

    You’re playing with the big boys now @Cane…best come prepared if you want to debate me

    Shame on you anyway, as you’re not even a RC, why would you defend their blasphemous garbage anyway??

  274. necroking48 says:

    @Cane Caldo

    Here it is straight from the horses mouth:

    The Catechism of the Catholic Church states: “The sacraments are efficacious signs of grace, instituted by Christ and entrusted to the Church, by which divine life is dispensed to us. the visible rites by which the sacraments are celebrated signify and make present the graces proper to each sacrament”……….Catechism of the Catholic Church, “Article 2 THE PASCHAL MYSTERY IN THE CHURCH’S SACRAMENTS: IN BRIEF,” Vatican, http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P35.HTM

    If you can’t see how BLASPHEMOUS that is, there is literally no hope for you.
    In fact I’m not even going to take time to refute such utter heretical garbage, as It’s self evident how sick that false doctrine of “Sacrament” really is

  275. SkylerWurden says:

    @necroking

    I belong to NO denomination….I see myself as a BIBLE BELIEVER, who holds that the bible is the supreme final authority in all matters of faith and practice

    The Bible as interpreted by you. This is a terribly silly position to hold because it pushes you into one of two equally absurd categories:

    1) Everyone in human history has had the Bible wrong to some varying degree until you came along with the official interpretation that is absolutely correct

    Or

    2) Every “honest” interpretation is morally “correct” so that the Catholics are correct insofar as they truthfully believe and the Protestant is equally correct and the feminist churchian and the biblocally ignorant are also equally correct, as long as their differences are “honest”. There is no such thing as error, because conscience dictates all moral lawgiving.

    Or you could set up an outside tribunal to determine the correct interpretation, but that would then just be a variation of number 1 and only mildly less absurd.

    Being a Catholic might be a slightly heavier burden, but it sure is simpler.

  276. SkylerWurden says:

    @feministhater

    Okay, now when is the Catholic Church going to call on the grave sin of wives taking away from their spouses?

    The Church has and still does. Perhaps not enough to your or my liking, but try to be open to the idea that at least some of that feeling on our part could be pride and hypocrisy. For one, it is not our concern who is corrected and when. For another, the sin of one is NEVER justification for the sin of another.

    You’re making my point for me. Your Catholic Marriage is no better than the slavery contract known as modern day marriage. They both condemn you to a celibate life. I’ll just live a celibate life instead. Thanks

    That is an incredible hyperbole. There are some marriages that are unhealthy and entirely void of sex. Those marriages need work, and both parties are usually to blame for the breach. Most people who find themselves in those marriages are guilty of marrying the wrong person, and whether they admit it or not, there were signs. Other marriages don’t include as much sex as one party would like, but few reach the level of “might as well be celibate”.

    One big difference in the Catholic Church from “modern day marriage” is both parties are married for life, no exceptions. If she leaves then you are both to remain celibate forever or risk eternal damnation. So there is that protection.

  277. BillyS says:

    Give it a rest Skyler. This is not the forum to argue for the RCC. Many here would rather follow the Scriptures than RCC traditions. Learn from Earl and quit shoving the RCC every time you can.

  278. SkylerWurden says:

    Give it a rest Skyler. This is not the forum to argue for the RCC. Many here would rather follow the Scriptures than RCC traditions. Learn from Earl and quit shoving the RCC every time you can.
    Not exactly fair when

    1) The Church is falsely accused and/or criticized
    And
    2) The debate concerns sexual ethics but any Catholic perspective is met with “Papist idolatry! I prefer the SCRIPTURE!!!1one”

    We’ve got one side who can’t decide if sexual immorality is everything they don’t like doing or just anything that will embarrass them to admit desiring, and the other side bending over backward to try to out-exegesis everyone else to show how no, see, they are the REAL authority on these things.

    Both of those sides generally admit Catholics exist but don’t particularly want to hear about them or their opinions. Which is fine, insofar as they accept this is really no different than an SJW safe-space.

    Though I see your point, it is somewhat (only somewhat) off-topic, but I again will point out the lack of condemnation for the myriad of anti-Catholic insults you chose not to call out. Ahh well, we all have our biases.

  279. feministhater says:

    One big difference in the Catholic Church from “modern day marriage” is both parties are married for life, no exceptions. If she leaves then you are both to remain celibate forever or risk eternal damnation. So there is that protection.

    Thanks for making the point for me again. I’d rather just live a celibate life than get into an institution that would force me into being a cuck if my wife decided to cheat or a forced celibate with all the responsibilities of marriage if my wife decided to be a cold witch.

    Just keep making that point.

  280. @Dalrock

    “You are arguing that God’s plan for the family sometimes involves righteous hookers for Jesus as dear old mom.”

    Family requires a husband, prostitution precludes having a husband.

    Legitimate prostitute: A woman who is not a virgin and not married or involved in idolatry, who provides men sexual access to her body in return for payment. She is legitimate because she is not in violation of God’s Law, thus her prostitution is not sexual immorality, it is not in sin. I’ll deal with your latest attempt to show me the Law forbids prostitution in just a moment.

    However, as I’ve previously stated, in addition to the Law, for Christians there are issues of conscience and a prostitute would be in sin if her conscience objected to selling her body (Romans 14:23). At the same time, if she was convinced it was the right thing to do she would be in sin if she didn’t sell her body (James 4:17). Neither of which situations is something that you or I have the right to judge, no matter how we might feel about it, because they are matters of conscience and we are forbidden to judge such things.

    “But why can’t they pay their vows with their earnings? “because the Lord your God detests them both.”

    You did it again.

    Similar to your assertion that sex does not make anyone married, you make another bald assertion without support. You have not made the case that God was talking about the individuals rather than the money that came from the sex-work. Look careful at the text. The subject is the wages of the female prostitute and male prostitute, not the people who produced the money. It is only for votive offerings that the wages of both the male and female prostitutes are not to be brought into the House of the Lord. Then came the reason. “for both of these are an abomination to the LORD your God.”

    Your claim that “both of these” refers to the individuals being the abomination is not supported by the text. Because once again, you only see what you want to see in Scripture and you leave things out. Like the part where God restricted that prohibition to the voluntary votive offerings but said nothing about all the required payments.

    However, that doesn’t answer your question. Hang on to your britches.

    In Leviticus 19:29, it is written:

    “Do not profane your daughter by making her a harlot, so that the land will not fall to harlotry and the land become full of lewdness.”

    Why didn’t God just forbid prostitution? Obviously, with the issue before Him that was something that He could do if He wanted to, but obviously He chose not to.

    Look carefully at Leviticus 19:29 and the reason given. Don’t make your daughter a prostitute (“zanah”) in order that the land might not fall (be overrun, be filled with) to prostitution and the land become filled with lewdness (wickedness, depravity). Why would making daughters prostitutes cause the land to be filled with prostitution and overrun with lewdness if such a thing were allowed?

    Obviously because at least some fathers would do it for the money, then more of them would do it and eventually the land would be filled with whores and overrun with lewdness. Because there’s money to be made with young, pretty prostitutes because men will pay more to have sex with them and do so more often.

    Economic incentives matter and this is an economic sanction to prevent the land from becoming filled with prostitution and lewdness. Ordinary prostitution is being regulated with this passage.

    Back to Deuteronomy 23:17-18

    In verse 17, God forbids both male and female cult-prostitutes. Why didn’t God just forbid all prostitution? The issue was before Him and He could have, but He chose not to.

    Male and female cult prostitutes (both are called “qadesh” are forbidden in the land in verse 17, but then in the next verse Moses uses the word “zanah” to describe the female prostitute and the calls the male prostitute a dog. Obviously he’s no longer referring to cult prostitutes, which are forbidden.

    Since there can be legitimate female prostitutes, perhaps there can be legitimate male prostitutes who only serviced widows or divorced women. The modern word is gigolo. He’s now referring to the prostitutes who are NOT forbidden. Are the prostitutes the abomination? Or is this referring to both sources of income? Could this be the first money laundering statute?

    Let’s look at the passage:

    “You shall not bring the hire of a harlot or the wages of a dog into the house of the LORD your God for any votive offering, for both of these are an abomination to the LORD your God.”

    Dalrock answers his own question and says:

    “But why can’t they pay their vows with their earnings? “because the Lord your God detests them both.”

    They are an abomination, but you call them honorable and compare them to widows and farmers.”

    Really? If the income from prostitution can’t be brought into the House of the Lord because God detests prostitutes, why did God only forbid income from prostitution for a votive offering? Does this mean God doesn’t detest them when they use their income for any other offering or temple tax? He only detests them when they try to pay votive offerings?

    Maybe only some male and female prostitutes want to use their wages to pay votive offerings and God says they’re an abomination. But other male and female prostitutes aren’t into making votive offerings, they only use their wages to pay the required payments, so they’re not an abomination.

    Twaddle was the word I used and it fits.

    If the income from prostitution could not be brought into the House of the Lord because prostitutes are an abomination, then God could not accept any prostitution income into His house. But that isn’t what He said. He restricted it specifically to votive offerings… which are… wait for it…

    voluntary payments.

    Dalrock, not only do you ignore the specificity of what God says in order to support your narrative, you’re trying to claim prostitution is a sin because (as you claim) prostitutes are an abomination.

    Even if you were correct (and you’re not) that raises the question. If God detests (hates) something, does that make it a sin? Surely, doing something that God says He hates would be rebellion against God, which is a sin. Right?

    Actually… No. If that were the case then divorce would be a sin.

    God said He hates divorce.
    God did not forbid divorce in the Law.
    God did regulate divorce in the Law.
    Divorce is not a sin.

    Your argument fails. Again.

    So, what is the answer if prostitutes are not an abomination?

    Given the Biblical record of the corruption of the ancient leaders of the Temple as well as the current record of corruption of the leaders of the church when it comes to financial issues, it very much appears God is forbidding any possibility that the Temple might become corrupted by the proceeds from prostitution. If that happened, the Temple would find itself promoting prostitution because it would have a financial incentive to do so.

    And, as a historical example, this is exactly what happened in the middle ages when the church became dependent on income from it’s brothels (which were officially set up in order to prevent homosexuality) and wound up being the largest owner of brothels in Europe (Brundage, “Law, Sex and Christian Society in Medieval Europe”)

    God did not forbid all proceeds from prostitution, so either God only detests prostitutes when they make voluntary payments and hypocritically doesn’t detest them when they pay their taxes, or Dalrock is wrong and it’s the votive offerings from the female prostitutes and the votive offerings from the male prostitutes that are the abomination. Most likely because of the potential for corruption, which would lead to the land becoming overrun with prostitution.

    But notice something else about that verse. It says the wages of a harlot and the hire of a dog… but it doesn’t say that it’s the prostitute making the offering. That leaves lots of room for pimps, panderers, corrupt officials and others who would have the prostitution income and might want to pay off the priests.

    What does Toad think Deuteronomy 23:18 means?

    The use of income from prostitution for making payments of (voluntary) votive offerings to the House of the Lord is prohibited. Income derived from either male or female prostitution is prohibited, both of these are an abomination.

    With that taken care of, let’s compare prostitution with farming.

    Prostitution
    God forbids fathers from making their daughters prostitutes.
    God forbids both male and female cult-prostitutes.
    God forbids the income from prostitution for votive offerings.
    God regulated prostitution in the Law.
    God does not regulate sin, He prohibits it.
    God did not prohibit prostitution.

    Prostitution is not a sin, it is a regulated activity.

    Farming
    God forbid farmers from plowing their fields with an ox and ass yoked together.
    God forbid farmers from mixing their seed.
    God commanded the farmers to give the land a Sabbath rest every 7 years.
    God regulated farming in the Law.
    God does not regulate sin, He prohibits it.
    God did not prohibit farming.

    Farming is not a sin, it is a regulated activity.

    If a farmer can be obedient to God and be a righteous farmer, a prostitute can be obedient to God and be a righteous prostitute.

    Are you claiming being the bastard child of a hooker is shameful? How? Hookers are according to you an honorable profession, just like farmers.

    Dalrock, are you claiming being the bastard child of a governor is shameful? How? According to God, governors are ministers of righteousness.

    Are farmers ministers of righteousness?
    What about bloggers?

    We could debate the meaning of the word bastard or discuss your conflation of the individual and their “profession” but you did ask about the bastard child of a prostitute.

    I’d have to say they’re not as shameful as the bastard child born of unknowing adultery after his mother and father were convinced by churchians teachers that virginity doesn’t matter so sex and becoming one flesh doesn’t make the eligible virgin married because there’s a Biblically non-existent requirement for some additional Special Sauce™ that must be met in order for God to consider a marriage to be valid.

    Who should bear the shame of that? Those who taught the lies and suppressed the truth, which allowed this situation to occur.

  281. earlthomas786 says:

    Give it a rest Skyler. This is not the forum to argue for the RCC. Many here would rather follow the Scriptures than RCC traditions. Learn from Earl and quit shoving the RCC every time you can.

    The problem is now many are following however they interpret Scripture as opposed to what Scripture actually says. Fore example the last two big threads: I never heard before that just intercourse was the only thing that constituted marriage. The part many outside the church (and probably some in the church) misunderstand is that Scripture and apostolic tradition aren’t pitted against each other.

  282. earlthomas786 says:

    I’d rather just live a celibate life than get into an institution that would force me into being a cuck if my wife decided to cheat or a forced celibate with all the responsibilities of marriage if my wife decided to be a cold witch.

    Just keep making that point.

    We get it…you don’t want to be married. Nobody here as far as I know has tried to convince you otherwise.

  283. Bruce says:

    @ infowarrior1 “And then there is natural law.”
    Traditionally, some Protestants used to base a great deal of their biblical exegesis on natural law. I know Lutherans did. Thought this was an interesting thing to point out.
    @ necroking48
    “the scriptures are THE final authority..”
    Scripture can’t be THE or even AN authority because an authority has to make decisions, enforce rules and laws, compel obedience, etc.
    “In fact I’m not even going to take time to refute such utter heretical garbage”
    Stop using “heresy”, “heretical”, etc. A Protestant (someone who, by definition, chooses instead of following Church authority), can’t charge others with heresy. “Heresy” is a Catholic term.

  284. feministhater says:

    We get it…you don’t want to be married. Nobody here as far as I know has tried to convince you otherwise.

    Lol earl, I know you get it but I’ll keep stating it just as an option to others out there. If the choice is celibacy but freedom from marriage or celibacy and the restriction of marriage. Hey man, just providing the alternative.

  285. infowarrior1 says:

    @Bruce
    Scripture is the final infallible rule of faith is the protestant position. Reformed my theology is currently is. Although I find concepts like sacraments and hierarchy perfectly biblical. As I do the office of bishop/overseer,elders and deacons.

    ”Traditionally, some Protestants used to base a great deal of their biblical exegesis on natural law. I know Lutherans did. Thought this was an interesting thing to point out.”

    I think those Lutherans are dead on. I think that perhaps Romans 1 help give a lot of justification of using natural law for biblical exegesis. But there could be better scripture passages to justify that.

  286. feministhater says:

    The word ‘Heresy’ has been around for ages. It’s not owned by any one group or religion. It’s quite simply the word used to describe those who don’t agree with or provide dissension to an in group custom, religion or culture.

  287. feministhater says:

    It means ‘to choose’ or more correctly, to choose to believe something else to what has already been provided.

  288. Bruce says:

    @ feministhater
    Peace – I suppose all Christians were/are heretics to Jews – you have to be heretical with respect to something. It just seemed odd to me when used in a Protestant context since there is so much choice in Protestantism.

  289. feministhater says:

    No worries Bruce. I’m a heretic to everyone lol! I’m an unsaved Christian who doesn’t belong to any such denomination of Church. I can only go on my faith alone and that causes me to basically question everything.

    In my own stubbornness, I will not enter into something I cannot fully understand or agree to. In the case of marriage. I can agree to basically everything Catholic’s say about marriage except that sexual immorality doesn’t include adultery and thus I must stay with an adulterous wife. I cannot do that and so will honestly say why and choose not to get married instead.

    My reading of the Bible convinces me that adultery is an act against the marriage to the point that the offending party has defiled it and destroyed it, leaving the marriage contract voidable by the innocent party. They can choose to either leave or stay but I cannot agree with being forced to stay in such a contract when the other party has basically destroyed it outright.

    Thus I’m a heretic to Catholics. Hey, I’m fine with that.

  290. Bruce says:

    @ feministhater
    Not to nitpick or be contentious, but it’s not Catholic teaching that sexual immorality doesn’t include adultery or that you must stay with an adulterous wife. The Catholic position is that Christian marriage is indissoluble. Separation from bed and board (divorce “quoad thorum”) is allowed for extraordinary circumstances, including adultery, real abuse (not Churchian “abuse”). But you can’t marry again because you’re already married. Just want to state the Catholic position accurately fwiw. There’s also no requirement for Catholics to marry. Your reaction to the current state of marriage is understandable.
    Also fwiw, I believe your reading of the Bible on divorce (your position is the traditional Protestant reading on Matt 9) is a good faith attempt at interpreting scripture whether I agree with it or not.

  291. Cane Caldo says:

    @Gunner Q

    In California at least, most Catholics put up signs on their homes warning Protestants to stay away.

    Do you know that I, a Texan, had never heard of these signs until you mentioned it yesterday? But then last night I went to a house which had one! It was slightly different from the one pictured above, but the same message. “This is a Catholic house…no Protestant propaganda…” etc.

    The English of the Hispanic teenager who answered the door was very poor; so I guess they are a family of Obama era illegals. That makes me think the door hangers are part of a specific “mission” (presumably some constituent of the RCC) that protects and supports the recent surge of invaders under the disguise of Catholic charity. That would explain why Zippy never saw one years ago, but you see them everywhere.

  292. Zippy says:

    Bruce:

    Feministhater’s reaction to his own correct grasp of the nature of marriage is the same reaction that the Apostles had:

    His disciples say unto him: If the case of a man with his wife be so, it is not expedient to marry.”
    [Matthew 19:10]

    A completely continent, chaste, unmarried life is certainly one acceptable option, if one does not find the nature of sacramental marriage to one’s liking.

    But of course within marriage is the only licit place for non-digestive-tract sexual acts (digestive tract and other unnatural sexual acts being always illicit — thanks to Boxer for the accurate descriptive term).

    Also, although people talk about various forms of marriage being “licit for pagans”, and this may be technically true, pagans qua pagan are going to Hell. (Even a case of invincible ignorance involves a ‘baptism of desire’ which implies that we aren’t dealing with a pagan strictly speaking — whatever one thinks of the theology-of-ignorance).

    So “licit marriage” is the least of a pagan’s moral concerns, and baptism / entry into the Christian faith is a top priority — at which point all the pagan/natural marriage stuff becomes moot.

  293. SJB says:

    @Zippy: Go further: the Church reads Mt 19:11 as a plug for celibacy rather than the grant of what it defines as a sacramental marriage.

    Thus the good-better-best continuum is maintained by making (in English) “[this] word” refer to the disciples exclamation rather than the Word.

    Sophistry. Plain sophistry.

  294. earlthomas786 says:

    If the choice is celibacy but freedom from marriage or celibacy and the restriction of marriage. Hey man, just providing the alternative.

    I understand, one is a choice of your own free will…the other is often forced upon or not the situation Paul gave allowance to not do it for a while.

  295. podethelesser says:

    How are the widow, the divorced woman and the prostitute all the same, in terms of profaning the children of the priest?

    The profane was a description of the divorsed/widow/prostitute. Are they all sinners? No. Look at the Hebrew word. Pierced. Its just a way of saying that their not being virgins makes them ceremonial unclean for a priest.”

    Microchimerism confirmed? The issue is that they *might* profane the *children* of the priest.

    You are arguing that God’s plan”

    That right there is the rhetorical bait and switch. “God’s plan”, “wise course of action”, and “sinful” are three different things.

    I can confidently say it was God’s plan for most men to marry a virgin and be satisfied in marriage (by however many wives/concubines/slaves it takes).

    I can also say that visiting a prostitute is unwise and making that your career even less so.

    I can even say prostitutes are looked down upon with scorn.

    But what I can’t say is using them or being one is a sin (unless its a temple prostitute or you’re the daughter of a Levitical priest). God never said that. He never said ‘thou shalt not’, he never gave a sin offering for it, nor ever give a punishment for it.

    And that is the problem. The law was given to show us sin. You all wish to use human reasoning and tradition to speak where God did not speak, to call things sin He did not condemn.

    You add to the law. You teach as doctrine the commandments of men.

    My comment last night was either eaten or fairly deleted as promoting off topic discussion, so I’ll remake the relevant part here and put the rest in the parent thread. Gary Eden did well pointing out the difference between ideal, tolerated, and forbidden. As an engineer I think of it as design point, off design but protected against by failsafes / tolerances, and dangerous conditions outside the operating envelope. Any system that doesn’t have the second region in its operating envelope is not a good system. I think it is very possible to do things God does not like or recommend and not be in sin. So while God’s *design* most definitely does not include bastardy, God’s *plan* that He makes with foreknowledge of all the massively stupid decisions we humans make with our free will most definitely does. Dalrock asked me a question about God’s plan, there’s my answer.

    Dalrock also did something VERY rare in my experience: he showed something “Scripture clearly says” TM that actually WAS clear to me from the cited Scripture. If it is a sin for a Christian man to join a member of the body of Christ with a prostitute, how can it not also be a sin for a Christian woman to join a member of the body of Christ with a prostitute by being a prostitute? I’d already challenged Toad on the idea of Christian prostitutes as a violation of the positive command to be chaste, reconciled, or marry in the Lord, but here’s a negative command against it as well.

    In light of those two challenges, unless Toad can somehow counter both of them, I suggest the thread is settled that Christians can neither use nor be prostitutes and we have been engaged (in this thread) in a pointless quarrel about whether a hypothetical, impossible, otherwise sinless Jewish woman can be a hooker and still get to Heaven on the merit of having kept the Law. To call that an edge case is a profound understatement.

    I further suggest we redirect our attentions to the parent thread “Is marriage the cause of sexual immorality?” and the important question of what begins and constitutes a Biblical marriage. Toad argues (with reasonable Scriptural support IMO) it’s penetrative sex with a virgin (shedding the hymen blood to seal the convenant) or a spoken vow by a non-virgin woman. This has profound implications for the church and IMO discussing that assertion would be far better stewardship of the time God has allotted to us.

  296. podethelesser says:

    I give up. Sorry Dalrock. I need remedial HTML

    [D: No worries. I think I have it the way you wanted it. I also did a quick and dirty demo of basic tags.]

  297. Bruce says:

    @Zippy
    Yes, it was one of Jesus’ “hard” sayings.
    “A completely continent, chaste, unmarried life is certainly one acceptable option, if one does not find the nature of sacramental marriage to one’s liking.”
    Not only acceptable but better and more blessed – you have to believe this as a Catholic (Trent, Session 24, Canon X.) He has an even better option than marriage.

  298. Zippy says:

    SJB:

    I didn’t dispute a good-better-best continuum. I merely made the far more narrow and specific point that the Apostles, when told the nature of marriage by Christ, in fact said back that given the nature of marriage it was better not to marry. I have to idea why that triggered you to start shouting “sophistry!”

  299. thedeti says:

    SkylerWurden:

    “The Church has and still does (call out women on their grave sin). Perhaps not enough to your or my liking”

    WHERE?

    Please show me with sources and evidence where the Roman Catholic Church is, here, today, in 2017, in the United States, holding women to account on their grave (sexual) sins.

  300. Bruce says:

    I’m not sure I follow SJB but “word” is rendered “saying” in AKJV.

  301. Zippy says:

    Bruce:

    Yes, of course. But I was just pointing out more specifically that feministhater’s overt reaction to grasping the nature of marriage was the same as (or very similar to) the Apostles’ overt reaction to gaining that understanding.

  302. Bruce says:

    John uses Logos in that sense do the synoptic gospels? I don’t know off the top of my head.

  303. Bruce says:

    I know that the U.S. Catholic Bishops (who aren’t particularly traditional as Catholics go) called out men and women for pornography use, specifically naming the romantic pornography that women use which the Churchians don’t recognize as pornography.

  304. Bruce says:

    SJB – the good-better-best continuum is not only based on Matthew (even if excluding non-Bibilcal sources of revelation).

    Zippy if I understand him, Catholics (“the Church?”) played with the translation to create that continuum.

  305. thedeti says:

    Bruce:

    Like what? 50 shades of Grey?

    Is the RCC calling out women on:

    –having premarital sex?

    –using birth control?

    –having abortions?

    –divorcing their husbands and remarrying?

    –refusing to have sex with their husbands in lawful sacramental marriages?

    I mean calling them out DIRECTLY. Addressing it from the pulpit. Having meeting with individual women in which they’re confronted. Telling them to go back to their husbands. Refusing to marry them. Excommunicating them. Denying them communion.

    I guaran-damn-TEE you, I can go to any RCC Church in this country, and FULLY 80% of the unmarried women there are having or have had premarital sex, are using or did use birth control, and are guilty of some form of sexual sin. They are NOT called out, they are NOT confronted, they STILL take communion, they STILL hold servant/”ministry” positions, they STILL attend services, they are NOT excommunicated.

  306. BillyS says:

    Pode,

    Use less than and greater thanking instead.

    Earl,

    Your point would have merit, but many Sola Scriptura people are arguing against the idiocy at and others are putting forth. You may disagree with how we view some Scriptures, but many/most of us agree with your end result in the areas you noted. That is why the “holier than thou” stuff Skyler is pushing gets old. Do you really want us posting on all the past and even current flaws of the RCC?

  307. Novaseeker says:

    I mean calling them out DIRECTLY. Addressing it from the pulpit. Having meeting with individual women in which they’re confronted. Telling them to go back to their husbands. Refusing to marry them. Excommunicating them. Denying them communion.

    I guaran-damn-TEE you, I can go to any RCC Church in this country, and FULLY 80% of the unmarried women there are having or have had premarital sex, are using or did use birth control, and are guilty of some form of sexual sin. They are NOT called out, they are NOT confronted, they STILL take communion, they STILL hold servant/”ministry” positions, they STILL attend services, they are NOT excommunicated.

    That’s true, but that’s largely because no-one is generally confronted about anything directly in the RCC for the most part. The general reason is that the parishes are way too large to do so. The average RC suburban parish has like 5-7 masses every weekend with 500+ at each, and 1-2 priests doing them all. The priests don’t know who you are, generally speaking, with some exceptions if you happen to be one of the few who works in a parish function or is on the council. So, as a result, it’s basically an honor system. Noone is called out or confronted on anything, noone is excommunicated — this doesn’t happen to anyone in the RCC, because the parishes are too large for the priest to know anyone other than a handful, and in any case, the whole thing operates on an honor system. It really has to do with the size of the thing and how it operates. There’s no manpower to do things any other way, and likely won’t be anytime soon. Basically noone gets excommunicated (other than a few very high profile cases like abortion doctors and so on) … you’re left to drink judgment onto yourself if you so wish.

    My point is that the entire culture of the RCC is utterly different from any kind of Protestant church, so it’s very hard to draw comparisons. Yes, the RCC doesn’t call out women, but it also isn’t calling out the men, either, which doesn’t seem to be the case in the Protestant churches, where men are routinely called on the carpet by the pastors. The culture is such that the Church makes it clear enough what you are supposed to do and what the moral teaching is in places like the Catechism, but it generally doesn’t rail on people in Church. And approaching the sacraments is on an honor system, because nothing else is practical given the size of the parishes.

  308. Gary Eden says:

    AT’s commentary on Deut 23 is bolstered by Lev 21. Priests couldn’t marry prostitutes and their daughters were killed if they prostituted (simple, not temple).

    No where else was simple prostitution prohibited or given penalty. No where else are we prohibited from marrying a prostitute (whether she’s a born again virgin or not). This was a special case for daughters of priest.

    So not only did God forbid temple prostitution, he is prohibiting/eliminating all arms length versions as well.

    These are all steps He never took for simple prostitution.

  309. Gunner Q says:

    Bruce @ 6:26 am:
    “Traditionally, some Protestants used to base a great deal of their biblical exegesis on natural law. I know Lutherans did. Thought this was an interesting thing to point out.”

    Yep. It’s a good way to get unbelievers onboard with Christian morality. Atheists don’t care if prostitution is immoral but they usually do care about STDs. There are reasons God gave us the morality He did; they aren’t mere tests of loyalty.

    @Cane Caldo,
    Okay, it’s not a universal thing. Good to know I can stop being angry about it. California must be FUBAR.

  310. Gary Eden says:

    to start a quote of something use a ” (greater than).

    to end the quote do the same thing except the keyword is ‘/blockquote’. Without the two ‘ of course.

  311. thedeti says:

    Nova:

    And yet, Teddy Kennedy still got served communion though he was full-throatedly pro-abortion.

    And yet, many Prot churches have no problem telling alt righties they aren’t welcome to take communion because of their views.

    And yet, we have many churches, RCC and prot, and commenters, RCC and prot, willing and ready to bash men over the heads for even so much as thinking about premarital sex.

    But we as a culture, a society and a faith, have no problem with looking the other way with women’s sexual sin.

  312. Zippy says:

    Bruce:

    Ah, so SJB is against the hierarchy of goods with marriage as the most common / least sacred, not for it? Honestly I haven’t attended closely to what he said, since I was speaking neither to him nor about him until he started shouting “sophistry” at me. This confused me, since I was making a very narrow point with which a Protestant ought to easily agree: that feminsthater’s overt reaction to grasping the nature of marriage is almost identical to the Apostles’ overt reaction as recorded in the Gospel of Matthew.

  313. thedeti says:

    And Teddy Kennedy got “remarried”. And his first marriage failed because he was a cheat and a liar and a drunk. Was he ever disciplined? Was he denied remarriage? Was he denied communion because he was living in what the RCC by doctrine considers an adulterous relationship with his second wife?

  314. Pingback: Basic tags for wordpress comments. | Dalrock

  315. Gary Eden says:

    ack, that was aweful. podethelesser, to get the nifty indented italicized quotes just use the standard blockquote html tag. there may be a few other html tags that work too here, idk.

  316. thedeti says:

    Nova:

    I started this exchange because I was questioning Skyler’s claim that the RCC is, today, in the US, holding women to account for sexual sin. Your response would indicate that my questioning whether that is, in fact, happening is well founded.

  317. Zippy says:

    thedeti:

    I never hear RC homilies calling out the terrible scourge of Protestantism either, and protestant rebellion is – from a Catholic perspective – objectively worse than the antics of uppity and trashy women.

    Most homilies are milquetoast pablum, and the few that are excellent tend to focus on theology more than morals.

    But you are probably carrying some of your own baggage into your interpretation of the situation. Just as the Church is not your Daddy, Mass is not an hour spent with a pentecostal corner preacher. Preaching in the protestant sense isn’t what Mass is
    about, at all. One local priest here famously gives one sentence homilies in his daily Mass.

    All that said, I agree with the basic point that feminism generally and characteristically feminine sins are mostly ignored and excused. I’ve called this out myself:

    https://zippycatholic.wordpress.com/2016/10/02/respect-for-murderesses-sunday/

  318. Novaseeker says:

    Deti —

    As I said, they generally don’t deny people communion, they let you decide. It’s the culture of that Church. Biden also receives communion and is pro-abortion, and presided over a gay marriage. They don’t enforce the rules that way. There are a few exceptions but they generally don’t enforce the rules that way. Does this cause scandal in some notorious cases? Yes, it can, no question, but it’s the culture of the RCC generally to permit the person to drink judgment onto themselves, rather than policing the chalice.

  319. Novaseeker says:

    Yes, they don’t call out women on sexual sin, but don’t call out men, either, if you mean from the pulpit and in parishes.

  320. Anonymous Reader says:

    Here is a list of HTML tags referenced by function. Scroll down a bit for the table of formatting tags. Not all of them are supported in WordPress comment boxes. If you ever lose this URL just do a search on “HTML tag list” or something similar.

    https://www.w3schools.com/TAGs/ref_byfunc.asp

  321. thedeti says:

    Zippy:

    You and I have had this exchange before. I know what your views are on it, and im not interested in revisiting them. My “baggage” is irrelevant. The problems with Protestantism are an irrelevant red herring you always toss up to avoid the issue.

    The exchange initiated with Skyler saying that the RCC is, today, in 2017, holding women to account for their grave sexual sins. I questioned that, quite pointedly. I think your post is pretty much an admission that, at least from your observations, it isn’t.

  322. Zippy says:

    Novaseeker:

    My point is that the entire culture of the RCC is utterly different from any kind of Protestant church, so it’s very hard to draw comparisons. Yes, the RCC doesn’t call out women, but it also isn’t calling out the men, either, which doesn’t seem to be the case in the Protestant churches, where men are routinely called on the carpet by the pastors.

    Very true. That is what turns the whole “denying people communion” thing on its head, as if there were bouncers and turnstyles and as if there were these thunderous denunciations of sinners coming from the pulpit.

    https://zippycatholic.wordpress.com/2015/11/13/communion-and-the-dishonor-system/

    I mean, I’ve been a Catholic for more than half a century. I’ve never once seen one of these “calling men to the carpet” deals that the prots here go on about, during any Catholic Mass, ever.

  323. SJB says:

    @Zippy: no shouting here; perhaps the volume to cranked up on your device.

    The accepted meaning of Mt 19:11 is that grace is given to celibates in contrast to a “natural” power to sacramental marriage (one-man, one-woman, for life). It strike me a sophistry, on the Church’s part, as the “natural” power is reproduction. So grace for celibates–especially ordained and consecrated–but lay men and women not so much other than an exercise of raw will.

    It strikes me as being very different than “in the beginning”.

  324. Zippy says:

    thedeti:

    Yes, for at least the second time, the RCC doesn’t really do much “calling out of sin” at all, let alone calling out of the specific sins of women, either in Mass or in personal interactions. I agree with that, because it is true. The RCC tries to make available the revealed-and-provided-by-Christ means to avoid Hell, but it doesn’t do a lot of denouncing-from-the-pulpit of people who are making their way there enthusiastically.

    You are correct on the discrete fact, but that single point of correctness is buried in a pile of incomprehension which you still exhibit in your criticisms.

  325. Anonymous Reader says:

    Deti, if I read correctly in a previous comment stream Skyler claims to be 27, so there are things that you have seen and experienced he doesn’t know about. There’s things he just doesn’t know about, not yet anyway. From what I can tell, there is no RC analog to Mark Driscoll’s man-shaming. The matriarchy takes a different form in the Roman Catholic church. It’s still there, of course, although most RC men are blind to it just as most Protestant men are can’t see the Female Imperative in their own churches. Skyler needs a set of The Glasses.

  326. thedeti says:

    Well, then, how ARE people being held to account for their sins in the RCC? I mean, I don’t see “thunderous denunciations” of individual sinners either from any Prot pulpit, at least not since I was about 10. I HAVE seen “thunderous denunciations” of people who engage in a particular sin, as well as particular sins themselves. That said, if anything, we “heathen” Prots are even more permissive and doctrinally spongy than the Catholics are, yet we try to hew more closely to it. The RCC has rigid, mostly easy-to-understand-and-apply doctrine that most of its faithful simply ignore at best and thumb their noses at at worst (that is, if they even know or understand the doctrine).

    At this point, I have to consider the point conceded, that in the RCC in 2017 in the US, women are not being held to account for their sexual sins.

  327. SJB says:

    @Bruce: I’d not say play with the translation as much as reinforcing a bias.

  328. Zippy says:

    SJB:

    Whatever you say, man. I wasn’t talking about any of that stuff, and have no intention of getting into it now. I was just pointing out that the Apostles’ overt reaction to really grasping the nature of marriage in the Gospel of Matthew was really similar to feministhater’s reaction to it in this thread.

  329. thedeti says:

    Zippy: Yes, OK, the “pile of incomprehension” insult. I was wondering when that was coming.

    Again: The point’s conceded, “incomprehension” notwithstanding.

  330. SirHamster says:

    No where else was simple prostitution prohibited or given penalty. No where else are we prohibited from marrying a prostitute (whether she’s a born again virgin or not). This was a special case for daughters of priest.

    But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.

    Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price.

    Would the temple be held to a lower standard of holiness than the priesthood who serves in it?

  331. Zippy says:

    thedeti:

    Well, then, how ARE people being held to account for their sins in the RCC?

    The same way everyone everywhere who fails to repent [*] is held to account for their sins: an eternity spent in the Lake of Fire.

    ——–

    [*] Including the concomitants of repentance.

  332. Zippy says:

    thedeti:

    That you are clueless about Catholicism is a fact, not an insult.

  333. Novaseeker says:

    Well, then, how ARE people being held to account for their sins in the RCC?

    By God. If you eat and drink condemnation and judgment on yourself that’s your doing, but the Church itself won’t discipline you like that for being a sinner, or “de-fellowship” you or anything similar. It’s mostly a question of size, I think.

  334. thedeti says:

    Zippy:

    It doesn’t matter whether I’m clueless about Catholicism or not. What matters is that the RCC isn’t holding women to account for their sexual sin.

    When you insult your opponent, you’ve lost the argument.

  335. Zippy says:

    thedeti:

    What matters is that the RCC isn’t holding women to account for their sexual sin.

    Specifying “women” turns that into a misleading statement.

  336. thedeti says:

    Zippy:

    I specified “women” because this is the specific claim I questioned:

    “The Church is holding women to account (for their grave sexual sin)”.

    If you want to say the RCC isn’t holding women and men to account for their sexual sin, OK, that might very well be true. It’s beside the point and not relevant to the initial claim I questioned.

  337. SJB says:

    @Zippy: Excellent display of that which I write: the disciples response indicates they are disheartened by “the true nature of marriage”. Yet Christ says there is grace for those who can handle it. Does the Church say there is grace for marriage? No, they reserve grace for celibacy.

    Bias. And sophistry.

  338. Opus says:

    I envy you in America with your first amendment . Were I or anyone in Britain to place a sign outside their house of the sort described above – and especially were the religion mentioned to be Islam – one would soon receive a visit from the police. You would probably expect to serve a year or perhaps eighteen months in prison for the public – though it is hardly that – declaration of your religious views.

  339. Zippy says:

    SJB:

    Does the Church say there is grace for marriage?

    Absolutely! Marriage is a sacrament.

  340. thedeti says:

    “Does the Church say there is grace for marriage?”

    “Absolutely! Marriage is a sacrament.”

    Which grace God makes available to all who love and obey Him and that we all (hopefully) accept and take hold of, so we can walk out our married lives in a way which glorifies God.

    Hopefully.

  341. Zippy says:

    thedeti:

    If “technically true but deceptive as stated” was what you were going for, you’ve succeeded.

  342. thedeti says:

    Zippy:

    Again: Whether the RCC holds men to account for their sexual sins or not was not part of the claim being questioned and is not relevant to this particular analysis. If you have a problem with the specific claim asserted, take that up with Skyler who asserted it initially, not with me, who simply questioned whether the SPECIFIC CLAIM ASSERTED was true or not, and, apparently, has successfully established that that specific claim is, in fact, untrue.

  343. earlthomas786 says:

    Do you really want us posting on all the past and even current flaws of the RCC?

    As long as they are truthful flaws…be my guest. But I doubt the flaws you find will be in the Catholic dogma…it will be the clergy not following the dogma.

  344. earlthomas786 says:

    Yes, the RCC doesn’t call out women, but it also isn’t calling out the men, either, which doesn’t seem to be the case in the Protestant churches, where men are routinely called on the carpet by the pastors.

    That has been my experience with the various Catholic churches I’ve attended…when sin is called out it isn’t pinned on a specific sex. I’m not saying it doesn’t happen…but I’m saying I’ve never heard a homily where there was specifically man or woman bashing. Part of the problem of moral relativism is the fact that it has infiltrated the sexes as well. Whenever one side is called out for their sin…that side then calls out the other side for their sin. It really reminds you of what Adam did when he was caught and what Eve did when she was caught.

  345. Zippy says:

    thedeti:

    If you have a problem with the specific claim asserted, …

    I do, and I already stated what that problem is, and of course my objection applies to anyone and everyone who asserts the claim (which does include you): it is technically true, but deceptive as stated.

    It is like saying that at least a few of the men in this thread don’t beat their wives: technically true, but deceptive as stated.

  346. SJB says:

    @Zippy & @thedeti: sacrament, mysterium, regards the manner in which God makes a male and female fruitful as Christ make His Body fruitful. Marriage (a.k.a. one-man, one-woman, for life) is not the manifestation of grace. That is, given “a sacrament is an outward sign of inward grace” what is the outward sign of marriage? Stability? Charity? Chasity? What is the outward sign of grace resting on a male and female but a child?

  347. Zippy says:

    SJB wrote:

    “Does the Church say there is grace for marriage?”

    I replied:

    “Absolutely! Marriage is a sacrament.”

    thedeti said:

    Which grace God makes available to all who love and obey Him and that we all (hopefully) accept and take hold of, so we can walk out our married lives in a way which glorifies God.

    Assuming of course that it actually is a marriage: that what is celebrated and entered into is the actual sacrament of marriage which meets the requirements of marriage, and not some false simulation of marriage; and that we are not taken in by the delusion that assigning the label “marriage” is sufficient to confect an actual sacramental marriage.

  348. Zippy says:

    SJB:

    what is the outward sign of marriage?

    The form or outward sign of marriage in particular is the explicit and licit consent of (mutual agreement or contract between, pick the language you prefer) the couple who marry.

  349. Gary Eden says:

    @sirhamster

    If you apply that standard then a Christian could never marry a widow or non-virgin.

  350. thedeti says:

    Zippy:

    “I do, and I already stated what that problem is”

    Then take it up with your brother Skyler, who asserted it initially. All I did was question whether what he said was true or not.

    “my objection applies to anyone and everyone who asserts the claim (which does include you):”

    It does not include me. I did not assert that the RCC is holding women accountable for their sexual sins in 2017. Skyler did. I questioned the veracity of the claim and in fact asserted the opposite: The RCC is NOT holding women accountable for their sexual sins in 2017 in the US. Whether the RCC is or is not holding men, or people, or anyone else, accountable for their sexual sins is irrelevant. All the other things you’re talking about are irrelevant red herrings to the specific question.

    I’m not interested in turning this comments section into some sort of pissing contest, which is what discussions with you always seem to devolve into. So let’s just end this here. You get the last word.

  351. earlthomas786 says:

    Well, then, how ARE people being held to account for their sins in the RCC?

    Before every Mass we pray this prayer…

    ‘I confess to almighty God, and to you, my brothers and sisters, that I have sinned through my own fault, in my thoughts and in my words, in what I have done, and in what I have failed to do; and I ask blessed Mary, ever virgin, all the angels and saints, and you, my brothers and sisters, to pray for me to the Lord our God. ‘

    I’ve heard several homilies about the importance of the Sacrament of Reconcilliation (some priests will also claim it’s the most important part of their vocation). During specific times of the year (Lent, Advent)…the priests even offer several opportunities to go to it. They also offer it usually every Saturday and often times another time during the week.

    Look they’ll be Catholics who think they are just as self-righteous as any Pharisee and don’t think they need to be held accountable for their sins…but they are going down the wide road to destruction.

  352. Gary Eden says:

    SJB:

    what is the outward sign of marriage?

    The form or outward sign of marriage in particular is the explicit and licit consent of (mutual agreement or contract between, pick the language you prefer) the couple who marry.

    The OT marriage was an agreement between husband and father, regulated by God, with money given as dowry. The virgin’s consent was inconsequential.

    A concubine on the other hand, that was mutual agreement between her and him; unless she was a slave, then it was between him and former master.

  353. thedeti says:

    “Assuming of course that it actually is a marriage: that what is celebrated and entered into is the actual sacrament of marriage which meets the requirements of marriage, and not some false simulation of marriage; and that we are not taken in by the delusion that assigning the label “marriage” is sufficient to confect an actual sacramental marriage.”

    Is an unconvalidated marriage between two Protestants a sacramental marriage under the RCC; or must the marriage be convalidated before it will be recognized as a marriage? How does a protestant married couple go about having a marriage convalidated in the RCC, presuming one or both is converting to Catholicism?

  354. SJB says:

    Assuming of course that it actually is a marriage: that what is celebrated and entered into is the actual sacrament of marriage which meets the requirements of marriage, and not some false simulation of marriage; and that we are not taken in by the delusion that assigning the label “marriage” is sufficient to confect an actual sacramental marriage.

    Excellent. This is, what I think, Toad is pointing out: there is a social construct of marriage buttressed by the Church which was not present in the legal milieu when the Gospels and Epistles were recorded.

  355. thedeti says:

    Assume the protestant marriage has all the other formal prerequisites: explicit and licit consent, already consummated, between two believers, open to children.

  356. Zippy says:

    thedeti:

    It does not include me.

    It most surely does. You have repeatedly suggested that the RCC does not hold women accountable for their sexual sins. This is (at best) true but deceptive; instead of modifying your claim when corrected, you double down and act as though the reasons why you are making it in that specific deceptive form is someone else’s fault from earlier in the discussion.

    Even if that is how it started for you, you should be willing to adjust your claim once the deceptiveness of it has been pointed out to you. You shouldn’t double down on the statement that a few of the men in this thread don’t beat their wives, once the deceptiveness of that phrasing has been pointed out. That you want to stop the conversation and leave the deceptive statement hanging as stated is your thing, not something you can blame on another commenter.

  357. earlthomas786 says:

    And in the examination of conscience a person can use in reference to knowing which sins they’ve committed in order to confess…you’ll often see things like: have I taken birth control, have I had sex outside the context of lawful marriage, have I viewed or read porn, have I masturbated, have I had or assisted with an abortion. It’s up to the particular person’s choice if they are going to confess their sin or keep it.

  358. SJB says:

    All right Zippy, we do not agree on what grace is; you say an inward grace is shown by:

    The form or outward sign of marriage in particular is the explicit and licit consent of (mutual agreement or contract between, pick the language you prefer) the couple who marry.

    Consent, as a grace, seems quite contemporary.

  359. thedeti says:

    “You have repeatedly suggested that the RCC does not hold women accountable for their sexual sins.”

    It doesn’t — not outwardly. You’ve conceded the point.

    “This is (at best) true but deceptive; instead of modifying your claim when corrected,”

    But you haven’t corrected it. You conceded it. It also isn’t deceptive. The best you’ve been able to point out is:

    –the RCC doesn’t hold men accountable for their sexual sins either

    –the RCC holds women accountable through men and women drinking judgment on themselves by taking communion unworthily, and if they do so, they suffer eternal judgment

    If that is what you (and the RCC) consider “holding women accountable for their sexual sins”, ok, but it certainly isn’t pointing out their sin to them, and it isn’t the enforcement of any earthly consequences.

  360. Zippy says:

    thedeti:

    Is an unconvalidated marriage between two Protestants a sacramental marriage under the RCC

    Yes, assuming/clarifying the criteria you stated:

    explicit and licit consent, [consummation snipped]. between two [baptized people], open to children …

    … and indissolubility: no remarriage for any reason whatsoever including adultery, abandonment, etc.

    And proper form, but Canon law explicity dispenses Protestants from proper form, so that basically means “the legal form doesn’t matter” — as long as neither spouse is Catholic (which you can read as “has ever been Catholic by baptism).

    Consummation is not required for a valid sacramental marriage; but it is required for that marriage to become indissoluble.

  361. thedeti says:

    Whether the RCC does or does not hold men accountable for their sexual sins (and we men commit many) is wholly irrelevant to what was under discussion.

  362. Dalrock says:

    @Toad

    The eligible virgin is married when she has sex. Because that’s what Genesis 2;24 says.

    God provided us with three judgments that explain this.

    3) The third judgment, found a bit later at verses 28-29, is the case of the eligible virgin (she is not betrothed) who is raped. If the rape is discovered (meaning it really was rape), she obviously didn’t make any agreement her father can forbid so she’s married to the man who took her virginity. Even though he raped her. Because when the eligible virgin has sex, she’s married to the man who got her virginity and quite obviously, her consent is not necessary.

    Therefore, the correct exegesis of Genesis 2:24 is simple: the eligible virgin is married when she has sex, with or without her consent.

    You are arguing that Deut 22:28-29 is telling us that when the non betrothed virgin was raped, she became married so her new husband had to pay her father a bride price, not that her rapist was ordered to marry her and pay the father as restitution for his crime. If I follow your logic, raping a non betrothed virgin isn’t a sin then. Right?

  363. Zippy says:

    thedeti:

    [The statement “the RCC doesn’t hold women accountable for their sexual sins”] isn’t deceptive.

    I suppose then that “A couple of the people in your family aren’t sodomites, and one or two don’t like copulating with donkeys” is a perfectly fair statement.

  364. thedeti says:

    For the purposes of the specific question under discussion, it is not relevant that the RCC does or does not hold men accountable for their sexual sins. It doesn’t matter. It’s a red herring.

  365. earlthomas786 says:

    For the purposes of the specific question under discussion, it is not relevant that the RCC does or does not hold men accountable for their sexual sins.

    If what you are asking is ‘are there particular sermons on just what sins women commit and their accountability for it’…no we don’t have homily sessions where the priest rains fire and brimstone on the sins women are committing and demand they be held accountable. When it comes to the topic of a particular sin the sex of the person is irrelevant.

    Now if it is true what some Prots say what is going on in their church sermons…the man bashing and using their sins as the excuse that is a big problem.

  366. thedeti says:

    “When it comes to the topic of a particular sin the sex of the person is irrelevant.”

    OK.

    The RCC doesn’t hold men accountable for their sexual sins either.

    The RCC allows those in sexual sin to drink judgment on themselves.

    The RCC doesn’t denounce women’s sexual sins openly from the pulpit.

    So what? “The RCC holds women accountable for their sexual sin” is a false statement. The first three statements above aren’t relevant to the fourth. They do not prove or disprove anything with respect to the fourth statement.

    The fact that the RCC doesn’t (openly) hold men accountable either is not relevant to this question.

  367. Okay, Pode, that is great. Next question:

    Was God Adam and Eve’s priest?

  368. earlthomas786 says:

    So what? “The RCC holds women accountable for their sexual sin” is a false statement.

    It’s probably an incomplete statement. The RCC hold us all accountable for our sins…and gives us the means to confess them.

  369. Zippy says:

    earlthomas786:

    It’s probably an incomplete statement.

    Incomplete, distorted, and deceptive about the reality it purports to describe. It is like saying “Well, at least thedeti’s mother doesn’t have sex with animals.”

    But being unequivocal about that wouldn’t advance the Deti Catechism, I guess.

  370. podethelesser says:

    If I follow your logic, raping a non betrothed virgin isn’t a sin then. Right?

    He’s stolen the girl from her father, and pays twice the normal bride price as per the punishment/restitution for other stolen goods. So yeah, rape is a sin, just not in the way we’re used to thinking of it.

  371. podethelesser says:

    2 sentence explanations for why Pode will never be elected to public office for 1000, please, Alex.

  372. Pingback: Basic tags for wordpress comments. - Top

  373. Gunner Q says:

    Dalrock @ 12:09 pm:
    “If I follow [AT’s] logic, raping a non betrothed virgin isn’t a sin then. Right?”

    I would say so, actually. The idea would be to prevent sexual hoarding, a “My princess is too good for any of the local men, I’ll see if any billionaires in Manhattan are interested in my Cindy Crawford” situation. The law pressured fathers to marry off daughters quickly instead of waiting for the best possible deal.

    This law is, of course, exclusive to ancient Israel. But I’m sympathetic. The problem young men face today isn’t just that chicks want to leverage their sexuality instead of marrying young; their fathers want them to do it, too. Even some Red Pill fathers.

    God made raping a not-promised virgin a noncrime because He knew young men needed sex that badly. The father was the truly guilty party and his punishment was getting Quasimodo for a SIL, in a culture that prioritized genealogy above everything.

    The takeaway for modern fathers would be to find the best suitors in their local area instead of scouring nations and continents for a “proper” groom. I bet church attendance would skyrocket if sexy virgins were practically forced upon the best of only five or six candidates. No more competing against 45-year old Rasputin the Russian Magnate.

  374. thedeti says:

    “The RCC hold us all accountable for our sins”

    didn’t we just go through this? How? By allowing us to drink judgment on ourselves when we take communion unworthily? By promising eternal judgment? OK, but that’s not imposition of earthly consequences. And it does us no good to say “well, the guys’ feet aren’t held to the fire either.”

    Saying “the RCC doesn’t hold women (outwardly) accountable for their sexual sins, but instead only allows them to drink judgment on themselves, and hey, the guys aren’t going to get away with it either at the end of the day” doesn’t mean the vaunted RCC is a thoroughly corrupt institution either. It has its problems. But saying “the RCC doesn’t hold women (outwardly) accountable for their sexual sins” doesn’t impugn the integrity of everything else it does and is. And the statement I’ve made is true.

  375. Zippy says:

    SJB:

    …you say an inward grace is shown by: …

    That isn’t quite right. A sacrament is a specific, concrete outward sign of an inward grace. The specific form of the sacrament is the outward sign: much like the word “love” is much like an outward sign of love. To reduce that to suggesting that love is just four letters, or that love only manifests itself as four letters, is to miss the point.

    Sacraments are also the ordinary means of receiving grace. Just as someone might express their love by saying “I love you”, Christ expresses and manifests His grace through the sacraments.

    Anyway, sacramental theology is a big subject. Attempting to reduce it to a combox discussion won’t really work. The best I can do here is make some suggestions, which someone seeking a good faith understanding might be able to follow.

  376. earlthomas786 says:

    OK, but that’s not imposition of earthly consequences.

    I didn’t know the church was in the business of impositioning earthly consequences to sexual sin. I thought things like poverty, health complications, and STIs or Ds were the earthly consequences.

  377. thedeti says:

    Earl:

    –direct confrontation/shaming

    –denying communion

    –disfellowshipping/excommunication

    these were the usual consequences of continued unconfessed sin – you get confronted/shamed, kicked out of your church and denied the Eucharist. Those things used to be done (at least sometimes, from what I hear), but aren’t anymore. They were done specifically to bring a sinner in line, apply pressure, bring him/her to confession and repentance, so the sinner might be saved and brought back into right relationship with God and man.

    Confession, conscience and repentance are ways in which we confess sin and God cleanses us of them, yes. Are those “holding accountable”, or ways in which to avoid consequences?

    I really have to get things done. And at least I understand now the areas of disagreement. Thanks.

  378. Dalrock says:

    @podethelesser

    He’s stolen the girl from her father, and pays twice the normal bride price as per the punishment/restitution for other stolen goods. So yeah, rape is a sin, just not in the way we’re used to thinking of it.

    But this goes against what Toad (and I believe at one point you) argued. According to Toad, raping a virgin is a wedding, not a crime. If it were a crime, then the OT might order punishment/restitution by saying he must marry the woman and pay her father 50 sheckles (as the text actually states). But according to Toad, he can’t be ordered to marry her because she is already his wife, so when it says he must marry her what it secretly means is he already married her. Likewise, he can’t have raped her, because she is his wife.

  379. MKT says:

    thedeti says:
    August 17, 2017 at 1:11 pm
    “Earl:

    –direct confrontation/shaming

    –denying communion

    –disfellowshipping/excommunication

    these were the usual consequences of continued unconfessed sin – you get confronted/shamed, kicked out of your church and denied the Eucharist. Those things used to be done (at least sometimes, from what I hear), but aren’t anymore”

    I’ve seen the latter two done–more than once–in some very conservative Protestant churches.

  380. Anonymous Reader says:

  381. thedeti says:

    MKT: I have too. But never in a Catholic parish; and in Prot churches, not for a woman engaging in sexual sin. The person usually excommunicated and denied communion is almost always a man.

  382. SirHamster says:

    If you apply that standard then a Christian could never marry a widow or non-virgin.

    I have not offered a standard, I have given an observation that refutes the idea that Christians are less holy than priests.

    The Christian is a priest and a temple.

    For that reason, it would be holy for a Christian to abstain from impure and lesser forms of marriage. Yet, it is better to marry than to burn.

    I am applying no standard to you, but your own conscience is recognizing what follows from the facts.

  383. earlthomas786 says:

    –direct confrontation/shaming

    –denying communion

    –disfellowshipping/excommunication

    Well I believe the first would have to be if the person admits they are committing sexual sin to a priest and then deny it is a sin. Or the priest happens to catch them in the act. Other than that what do you expect a priest to do when it comes to direct confrontation or shaming?

    Which leads to denying communion…unless the priest explicitly knows of the sexual sin that hasn’t been confessed, he can’t read minds. Examples where politicians openly supporting abortion is a good reason for a bishop or priest to deny them communinon because it has been stated in a public forum.

    And as far as excommunication…this is basically the method to that.

    http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05678a.htm

  384. earlthomas786 says:

    I’ve seen the latter two done–more than once–in some very conservative Protestant churches.

    And I assume the Prot minister had explicit knowledge of the situation to come to that conclusion. It wasn’t based off hearsay or conjecture?

  385. MKT says:

    Gary Eden says:
    “No where else was simple prostitution prohibited or given penalty.”

    Among other problems with this view, why is Israel repeatedly told not to “play the harlot”? This language and imagery is all over the OT prophets. Hosea was even forced to marry a prostitute, symbolizing Israel’s broken relationship with God. If prostitution was no big deal (except in a few specific circumstances), why was it used as a negative metaphor and improper relationship over and over?

  386. SirHamster says:

    I would say so, actually. The idea would be to prevent sexual hoarding, a “My princess is too good for any of the local men, I’ll see if any billionaires in Manhattan are interested in my Cindy Crawford” situation. The law pressured fathers to marry off daughters quickly instead of waiting for the best possible deal.

    Interesting take.

    Also, KJV/ESV both do not use the word rape. If dad doesn’t marry her off, daughter’s own actions can lead to a de facto marriage.

  387. MKT says:

    earlthomas786 says:
    “And I assume the Prot minister had explicit knowledge of the situation to come to that conclusion. It wasn’t based off hearsay or conjecture?”

    Yes, they followed the pattern set forth in Matt. 18. Approach the sinner, approach again with elders if they don’t repent, etc. They were given ample time and opportunity before the discipline.

    I’ve also known of churches who abused church discipline. However, done correctly it’s an important practice. I wouldn’t attend a church that refuses to discipline/excommunicate members when there is a serious issue and a refusal to repent.

  388. Cane Caldo says:

    @Sir Hamster

    The Christian is a priest and a temple.

    Another excellent point on another shiny nail for the coffination of fornication.

  389. Evan Turner says:

    @mkt
    God told Israel not to play the harlot because she was married to God so it would have been adultery.

    @cane caldo
    It’s true that we are priests of God a royal priesthood as the scriptures say but as i wrote in my book analogies go only so far. If i were to take your view to its logical conclusion we could only marry virgins.

    So unless you want to defend such a silly doctrine that we can’t marry nonvirgins go ahead.

  390. podethelesser says:

    Dalrock says:
    August 17, 2017 at 1:14 pm
    @podethelesser

    He’s stolen the girl from her father, and pays twice the normal bride price as per the punishment/restitution for other stolen goods. So yeah, rape is a sin, just not in the way we’re used to thinking of it.

    But this goes against what Toad (and I believe at one point you) argued. According to Toad, raping a virgin is a wedding, not a crime. If it were a crime, then the OT might order punishment/restitution by saying he must marry the woman and pay her father 50 sheckles (as the text actually states). But according to Toad, he can’t be ordered to marry her because she is already his wife, so when it says he must marry her what it secretly means is he already married her. Likewise, he can’t have raped her, because she is his wife.

    A thing can be a member of more than one set. A forced marriage to a virgin is a member of the set of marriages, because sex with her initiates a marriage. It is also a member of the set of crimes / sins, because forcing. We come back to my earlier point about the act of marriage carrying along with it the obligations of marriage, which is what’s being explained here. The rapist has committed the act and is being forced to carry out the attendant duties as well.

  391. feministhater says:

    Certainly feels like that AR. Endless circles.

  392. feeriker says:

    The same way everyone everywhere who fails to repent [*] is held to account for their sins: an eternity spent in the Lake of Fire.

    That’s GOD holding people to account, not the church on Earth. Nice dodge, but fail.

  393. SirHamster says:

    Certainly feels like that AR. Endless circles.

    But is the train fine?

    We’re dealing with spergs emotionally invested into their position. They cannot be reasoned out of it. The reason is a facade covering the rebellious, “My will and not God’s will be done”.

  394. Cane Caldo says:

    @Evan Turner

    …but as i wrote in my book…

    LOL!

  395. Dalrock says:

    @SirHamster

    Certainly feels like that AR. Endless circles.

    But is the train fine?

    We’re dealing with spergs emotionally invested into their position. They cannot be reasoned out of it. The reason is a facade covering the rebellious, “My will and not God’s will be done”.

    Toad can’t be a sperg. He’s married to three supermodel lesbian ninjas.

    But if he were a sperg, it would be hilarious to make him keep explaining the most ridiculous things, over and over again, as if they were really serious.

  396. Zippy says:

    Dalrock:

    But if he were a sperg, it would be hilarious to make him keep explaining the most ridiculous things, over and over again, as if they were really serious.

    Twist. That. Knife.

  397. Anonymous Reader says:

    But if he were a sperg, it would be hilarious to make him keep explaining the most ridiculous things, over and over again, as if they were really serious.

    I didn’t pick some choo-choo at random, I chose one that is green.

  398. earlthomas786 says:

    @MKT

    Yes, they followed the pattern set forth in Matt. 18. Approach the sinner, approach again with elders if they don’t repent, etc. They were given ample time and opportunity before the discipline.

    Then I’d have no problem with that. An excommunication shouldn’t be based on a rash decision.

  399. @SirHamster:

    The self-convinced sperg will hold onto a position with a ferocity that few Women can ever hope to match.

  400. @Dalrock:

    Why does “supermodel lesbian ninjas” feel like it should be part of a sequel to Kung Pow?

  401. earlthomas786 says:

    That’s GOD holding people to account, not the church on Earth. Nice dodge, but fail.

    Well Christ is the head of the church on Earth. If Christ is holding us to account then so is the church.

    ‘For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body.’

  402. earlthomas786 says:

    Toad can’t be a sperg. He’s married to three supermodel lesbian ninjas.

    He is? Now I’m surprised we all just haven’t accepted whatever ethos he’s spouting.

  403. feeriker says:

    Well Christ is the head of the church on Earth. If Christ is holding us to account then so is the church.

    Then either Christ is asleep on the job, or some organization calling itself a church is missing a key component somewhere.

    Care to wager on which is more likely?

  404. earlthomas786 says:

    Care to wager on which is more likely?

    Well if you are talking about the church that is subject to Christ…then a key component is that those who are corrupt clergy forgot who they are subject to.

  405. SJB says:

    @Dalrock: But if he were a sperg, it would be hilarious to make him keep explaining the most ridiculous things, over and over again, as if they were really serious.

    Were not the same scripture references you used above used in the decade prior to the 1930 Lambeth conference? In the years prior to Griswold v. Connecticut? Before Roe v. Wade? Somewhat in Lawrence v. Texas? Oberfell v. Hodges?

    Perhaps there is precedent for a different tact; in the arc of the last century Toad is a logical outcome. Yet every man will make his own decision as it is his judgement.

    However, thank you for keeping open comments: I learned a number of things I did not know.

  406. Evan Turner says:

    @cane caldo
    Nice thoughtful reply your lol clearly wins the debate.

  407. BillyS says:

    Dalrock,

    Toad can’t be a sperg. He’s married to three supermodel lesbian ninjas.

    Only 2 are ninjas. 1 is only a braniac that is really nice….

  408. BillyS says:

    Zippy,

    The question would be how often do homilies call men out? How often do they call women out? If the former is almost never, the latter can be almost never and be somewhat consistent. If it is out of balance then the RCC has as much of a problem as the “errant” Protestant church.

    Didn’t the Pope recently say Protestants weren’t headed to Hell? If he is not RCC anymore I will have to revise a joke we told in scouts as a kid about bears/woods and the Pope/RCC.

    ====

    Ted Kennedy just continued the tradition of buying indulgences, for himself in this case. I pray he had a true conversion experience at some point because otherwise he is not very happy now, however nice his human life was. (See the story of the rich man and Lazarus.)

    I don’t wish Hell on my worst enemy, even though some will end up there. A few get a bit too excited about others going to it.

  409. Swanny River says:

    I have learned much also from these two threads and one several months ago about kick-ass conservative women. Prior to that gun one, I was pro-arms for wives, but not so much anymore, so maybe not coincidentally, I still can’t buy the idea prostitution is a matter of conscience for a group of people whom are eligible for it. Since you wrote a book on it Evan, you probably wrote about Paul’s gift in 1 Corinthian 7- what does the gift he has and he wishes all believers had mean, if wanking and prostitutes were available options, at least for some believers? Also, gifts of the Spirit don’t seem to focus on direct OT laws like the reasons given for honorable prostitution, so how does increasing self-control play itself out with Johns and prostitutes? I assume the answer would be that they get celibate or get married?

  410. Zippy says:

    BillyS:

    I don’t think I’ve ever, in at least 40 years of reasonable literacy, heard a homily which could be accurately described as “calling men out”. That seems to be a Protestant thing.

    As for the Pope, he puts his collar on one neck at a time. I’ve never understood why so many people expect Popes to be all that different from other human beings.

  411. Zippy says:

    (I mean, look at the example of Peter for crying out loud).

  412. Derek Ramsey says:

    @TimFinnegan – “This statement speaks of the man having sex with his wife and the one flesh union in the future tense (“a man *shall*…have sex with his wife and the two *shall* become one flesh”) and yet the statement also is already calling her his wife.”

    This argument does not work with English grammar. If on my wedding day before the ceremony begins, I say to my fiance that I’m excited because I shall (finally!) have sex with my wife, does this mean that we are already married and can take care of business right away? Of course not. Of course you have to have sex with your wife if having sex makes your wife your wife. It could work no other way. If sex=marriage than having sex means having sex with your wife. Whether or not that is in the future is not important.

    Additionally, if your grammar analysis was actually true, how would you reconcile that with the teaching of Jesus in Luke 10 where he states that divorce is wrong because it breaks the one-flesh joining of sex. (Divorce = ending marriage; Ending marriage = Ending the one-flesh joining; One-flesh joining = marriage)

  413. Zippy says:

    Oh and an annulment isn’t an indulgence. If you don’t believe in purgatory – a process of becoming perfected before entering into the direct presence of God the Father – then indulgences will make no sense to you, because they only apply in that context.

    Which is by no means an excuse for the American Catholic annulment mill, which is a horrific scandal that has nothing to do with indulgences.

  414. Zippy says:

    Derek Ramsey:

    It all depends on what the meaning of the word “is” is.

  415. Derek Ramsey says:

    @Cane Caldo – It says they will have sex

    No, it says they shall have sex. These are not the same words, even though they share one possible common meaning. Shall implies intention. So the passage is saying that man is intended to leave his family and be joined by sex to his wife so that the are glued together and become one through this sexual act.

    Read v23 and v24 together. The woman was taken from (a piece of) the man at creation and the two are brought back together in marriage through sex. That’s what it says. The intention of marriage is to restore what was split through the process of sexual union (which is also, not ironically, an act of creation).

    Genesis 4 starts “Now Adam knew Eve his wife…” which was after their expulsion from Eden. Maybe that wasn’t the first time, but it’s the first mention of a fulfillment of a one flesh union.

    If we are going to play the legalistic, literalistic, chronological game along with an argument from silence, then answer this: When exactly did Adam leave his father and mother to be joined with his wife?

  416. Emperor Constantine says:

    @Zippy

    Congratulations, you win the Pharisee of the Week award. While I’m a devout RCC who believes all the formal stuff about Magesterium etc. that you do, pretty much in my deepest bones out of sense of logic as well as a deep tradition from generations in my family, you out of a sense of pride and a need to AMOG, continue to egg on our Protestant brethren just so you can win an argument and feel superior. So I say this in the deepest Christian sense of brotherly love to you: go fuck yourself.

    Seriously, go fuck yourself. And Earl, you’re as delusional as the rest of these motherfuckers who think that God gave men a sexual drive just so they could spike it and feel superior to other men because they were celibate. What utter and complete bullshit. My mother and father went through hell raising 8 children, do not ever denigrate them and say they are lesser Christian’s just so you other celibate motherfuckers can feel superior. I know a lot of priests: my parents and a lot of other parents struggled and suffered a lot more than many of them in their Christian walk.

    Yes, let’s just accept Open Hypergamy and allow women to murder their families, hey the great news is that then we get to be the victim and be celibate and feel superior because hey being celibate is the highest calling for Christian men. Forget about all the sons and daughters whose lives are attenuated, traumatized, destroyed because HEY I get to be celibate and feel sorry for myself.

    Fuck you and fuck your defeatism and Pharasitical hypocrisy. It’s time to join hands together with our Protestant brethren like Dalrock, BillyS, feeriker, etc., heathen motherfuckers like Boxer and Rollo, and others and reestablish patriarchy. Once we’ve done that, we can go back to bickering about doctrine. Until then, it’s time to focus on destroying the current feminist system root and branch.

  417. Derek Ramsey says:

    @BuenaVista

    Tamar was a prostitute for value in actual fact, but Judah didn’t know that. He only knew she was pregnant and unmarried. So the punishment, burning to death, was for general, unqualified prostitution. Judah was not a white knight in this whole business, so whether he should have been punished and whether prostitution is wrong cannot be determined directly from the passage. However, we don’t have to do that in order to see that the linguistic term used for prostitute does not make any distinction between “for pay”, “for fun”, and “temple” prostitution. Since a number of people were arguing that the Bible doesn’t condemn all prostitution, I suggested that the term used (zanah and by extension pornea) is flexible enough to include the prostitution that they claim isn’t mentioned anywhere.

  418. @Derek Ramsey

    This argument does not work with English grammar.

    That’s one plausible interpretation of the text, sure. Mine is another. I think mine is more supported by Matthew 1:20, 24-25:

    But as he considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying “Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit;…When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him; he took his wife but knew her not until she had borne a son

    Mary and Joseph were husband and wife without having consummated the marriage, according to the Gospel of Matthew.

    To answer your question about Luke 10: as a papist, I am with the Catholic Church in asserting that marriage exists prior to consummation, but consummation makes marriage indissoluble by creating a one-flesh union.

  419. Emperor Constantine says:

    TimFinnegan (previously halt94) says:
    August 17, 2017 at 10:04 pm

    “To answer your question about Luke 10: as a papist, I am with the Catholic Church in asserting that marriage exists prior to consummation, but consummation makes marriage indissoluble by creating a one-flesh union.”

    I’m a papist too, but you are wrong. 90+% of “Catholic” women do not believe that their marital bond is permanent when they take their vows, and therefore, their vows are null and void. And *that* is Catholic doctrine: trust me, I know, I had one of the top lawyers from the Papal courts tell me this.

    It would be awesome if the Catholic Pharisees on this thread would wake up and admit the obvious: Open Hypergamy runs unchecked in the Catholic Church by either families or clergy, and by the very doctrine you love to cite to AMOG the rest of us, the vows taken by women who have no intention of permanently staying married (see reference to Open Hypergamy) are null and void. Even Pope Francis admitted this most obvious fact. Wake up and start dealing with reality for a change.

  420. 90+% of “Catholic” women do not believe that their marital bond is permanent when they take their vows, and therefore, their vows are null and void

    You have read my statement the wrong way; my statement asserts the general principle that marriage becomes valid at consent and is subsequently consummated. This says nothing about particular cases. If 90+% of (supposed) marriages are actually invalid, then by definition there is not union to consummate, therefore consummation of the marriage does not occur either. That some women do not intend to commit to what marriage actually is says nothing about what marriage actually is.

    You really should tone your rhetoric down, stop cursing, and try to refrain from psychoanalyzing people you know next to nothing about.

  421. Emperor Constantine says:

    “You really should tone your rhetoric down, stop cursing, and try to refrain from psychoanalyzing people you know next to nothing about.”

    Perhaps, but maybe you could start caring about the actual, real people involved instead of the abstractions you apparently are most interested in. Actual, real people swear, are passionate, vulgar, and fail often. Try to get to know a few, you might find them interesting.

  422. Derek Ramsey says:

    @TimFinnegan – “Mary and Joseph were husband and wife without having consummated the marriage, according to the Gospel of Matthew.”

    I have seen three primary arguments made. That sex does not equal marriage, that sex does equal marriage, and the one that I have been making (along with one or two others) that sex is an expectation (alternatively an obligation) of marriage.

    Matthew 1:24-25 has already been mentioned. It isn’t a problem for any of the three viewpoints. Obviously for sex != marriage there is no problem. For the other two, she was a wife in the statutory/contractual sense. She can be called wife (just like any betrothed) because there is an expectation that they will have sex (which they did eventually) to finalize the marriage, but since the marriage is not finalized, it can’t be treated as a full marriage. See my comment on the other thread about the implied difference between a pledged wife and a wife.

    Let me ask the question that I’ve asked time and again: Why did Jesus, in Mark 10, identify the joining of one-flesh (sex) as the primary reason that divorce (ending a marriage) is wrong? If marriage is a non-sexual bonding, why highlight the sexual act when discussing divorce? We already know that Joseph was going to divorce Mary for being unfaithful and that he was not told this was sin, only that he shouldn’t do it in this specific case because God was the father.

  423. Derek Ramsey says:

    @Mycroft Jones – “Genesis 2:22 shows that the marriage was when God gave Eve to Adam.”

    No, it doesn’t. It says “And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.” This is not marriage unless one squints really, really hard and ignores the meanings of words. More importantly, this is not a simple chronological retelling as if this were a modern work of history. v23-24 is poetry that is the direct result of v22. God presents the woman to man and man immediately launches into song describing how God created woman from man and now man is going to have sex with woman to glue the two back together.

    @Cane Caldo – They are one flesh already

    No, they are of the same flesh. If man and woman were already the same flesh, marriage wouldn’t be required. v23 describes not marriage but the creation of the woman from man. v24 describes marriage and the act of creation that is sex that forms the marriage. v23 is in the direction of splitting and v24 is in the direction of joining.

  424. Gary Eden says:

    We’re dealing with spergs emotionally invested into their position. They cannot be reasoned out of it.

    Being that you know little to nothing of my motives, personal life, theology and arguments, this is what is called projecting.

  425. @Derek Ramsey

    So Mary was his wife, but not really his wife, and they were married, but not really married. There are two different kinds of wives: wives and wives. There is marriage and there is marriage. But if sex is just an expectation of marriage, then why indeed does Christ associate sex with indissolubility? Are you claiming that a marriage which is only expected (that is, does not yet exist) is indissoluble by virtue of the couple having sex?

    Why did Jesus, in Mark 10, identify the joining of one-flesh (sex) as the primary reason that divorce (ending a marriage) is wrong?

    I answered you. Because sex makes an already existing marriage indissoluble. Once a marriage has been consummated, the marriage cannot be dissolved by man, but an unconsummated marriage is dissoluble.

  426. Perhaps, but maybe you could start caring about the actual, real people involved instead of the abstractions you apparently are most interested in.

    Continued psychoanalysis of complete strangers it is then.

  427. Derek Ramsey says:

    @TimFinnegan

    I’m not sure if we are disagreeing or just speaking past one another. The Greek word for wife is the same as the word for woman, so you can’t read much into Matthew 1 regarding Mary being called a wife vs a woman.

    “Are you claiming that a marriage which is only expected (that is, does not yet exist) is indissoluble by virtue of the couple having sex?

    Yes, based off Genesis 2 and Mark 10 (except for the part about “does not yet exist”: see below). I’ve yet to see an argument that refutes this.

    “But if sex is just an expectation of marriage, then why indeed does Christ associate sex with indissolubility?”

    Because they are one flesh. It all comes down to that point. Once they are one flesh it is permanent. Whether the sex is illicit or licit, the expectation of marriage is there because they become one flesh. Every single biblical law on sex can be clearly understood this way.

    If sex does not come before statutory marriage, then my view is practically equivalent to your view, if not identically philosophically or theologically. Obviously sex inside marriage is an expectation of marriage. There is no distinction to be made here and it’s a rather silly point.

    The expectation of marriage only applies to non-marital sex in that it creates a debt (sin) against the woman that is expected to be paid one way or another, either through marriage, stoning, or some other penalty such as a bride price. All non-marital sex is illicit precisely because it is an expectation of marriage and no marriage contract is made. But the Bible is very clear that if sex happens without a marriage contract that this can be remedied by making it into an official marriage, that is, fulfilling the expectation of marriage.

    I thus arrive at the traditional viewpoint that only marital sex is licit, but I arrive at that conclusion by a different understanding of the meaning of sex that is much closer to “sex=marriage” than others have argued. I’m not claiming that a marriage ceremony isn’t important, but that it’s not the fundamental attribute of marriage. Sex is.

  428. The expectation of marriage only applies to non-marital sex in that it creates a debt (sin) against the woman that is expected to be paid one way or another, either through marriage, stoning, or some other penalty such as a bride price.

    Either the marriage exists or it doesn’t. If one way to resolve the debt you say is created by pre-marital sex is to get married, then this is admission that the marriage does not yet exist between the two. If the marriage already existed because of the sex, there’d be no need to get married. And if the marriage does not exist then it cannot be indissoluble; it simply isn’t there. How certain offenses should be remedied as a legal matter is something which is a prudential judgment to be made by those in authority, and there is no one right answer.

    So either the marriage is created at the time of coitus or it isn’t. If it isn’t created yet, it can’t be indissoluble, and they can’t get a divorce because there isn’t anything to divorce. So why would Christ bring sex up in the context of divorce? Because sex makes an already existing marriage indissoluble. But if marriage is created at sex, then I don’t see how that is compatible with Matthew 1:24-25.

    But I don’t expect to convince you in a combox discussion. My specific point was just that sex creates marriage is refuted by the Gospel of Matthew; I wasn’t trying to make a claim about any other understanding of what marriage is and how it is formed.

  429. BillyS says:

    Zippy,

    I’ve never understood why so many people expect Popes to be all that different from other human beings.

    He is put up as a “big thing” so he should be expected to be something special. Otherwise the RCC is no big deal. That is the impression from others more than your posts though. (See Skyler for example.)

    My comment about indulgences wasn’t exactly right, but making the point that money and influence still talk, which is why he remained in good standing in spite of the horrid positions he took and the actions he did.

  430. Evan Turner says:

    @Swanny River
    In terms of Paul talking about singleness he was giving his opinion on the matter, just like he gave his opinion on widows under the age of 60 remarrying. The fruit of the Spirit go hand in hand with the law of God he gave to the Israelites. How else can we know sin without the law? In terms of temperance having sex with a prostitute or girlfriend out of wedlock does not mean one lacks self control. This is the same nonsense that many Christians fall for that lead to so many problems we have today. Some Christian wives deny their husband sex than when they catch him releasing his sex drive with pornography then divorce him for it. So tell me how is releasing one’s sex drive with porn or by having sex with a girlfriend lacking temperance? Having sex or masturbating to porn automatically means one is a sex addict now? Does having a couple of beers after work mean one is a drunk?

  431. @Podethelesser

    The rapist has committed the act and is being forced to carry out the attendant duties as well.

    Yes. He committed to marriage with the act of marriage with an eligible virgin, an irreparable and permanent act. He is married to her and he is being forced to carry out the attendant duties as well.

    This thread is a continuation of the previous thread as well as (I think) an attempt to get away from actually addressing the issue I raised. I don’t mind being on the hot seat and as you already know, I do my best to address each concern. On the other hand, very few have addressed the issue of what God’s standard for marriage creation actually is and the answers given have ranged from legitimate questions to the downright silly and ridiculous.

    The level of ridiculousness is exemplified by Dalrock actually stating that “the Bible doesn’t tell us a specific ceremony”. Because marriage is a “public status”. Then this whopper: “When you have sex, you become one flesh, but it doesn’t make you married.” Because whores.

    Which means either:

    Genesis 2;24 is incomplete and Adam and Eve were not married (Special Sauce™ needed because God didn’t get it right).
    or
    Genesis 2:24 is complete but Adam and Eve were not married because Eve was a whore.
    or
    Dalrock is wrong. Genesis 2:24 is complete and it contains God’s specific ceremony for marriage (sex), so when Adam and the eligible virgin Eve had sex God made them one flesh and they were married.

    Only one can be true.

    But what about the whores? They get married when they consent to marry and have sex.

    The real problem with the Special Sauce™ doctrine is it’s founded on the idea that, as Dalrock stated, God didn’t give us a defined standard of marriage. It appears that Dalrock is saying God got it wrong and something has to be added to Genesis 2:24 in order to get a marriage that God recognizes as a marriage.

    He’s free to correct me if I mischaracterize what he’s saying, so in the meanwhile let’s talk about whores. You said:

    In light of those two challenges, unless Toad can somehow counter both of them, I suggest the thread is settled that Christians can neither use nor be prostitutes and we have been engaged (in this thread) in a pointless quarrel about whether a hypothetical, impossible, otherwise sinless Jewish woman can be a hooker and still get to Heaven on the merit of having kept the Law. To call that an edge case is a profound understatement.

    Here’s my counter to both of them. Dalrock’s question

    If it is a sin for a Christian man to join a member of the body of Christ with a prostitute, how can it not also be a sin for a Christian woman to join a member of the body of Christ with a prostitute by being a prostitute?

    First and foremost, this is an example of feminism. Feminism says men and women are equal and thus held to the same standards of sexual morality. Not true and not true. Men and women are not equal (from the beginning) and Scripture has two different standards of sexual morality, one for men and another for women. That is irrefutable. Because what God requires of men is not the same as what God requires of women. Just as what God allows men to do is not the same as what God allows women to do.

    Second, the question is not “how could they not be in sin”, rather, the question is whether they would be in sin. The first is “guilty until proven innocent by my standards” while the second is “prove me guilty by God’s standards”. I prefer the standards of God rather than those of men.

    OT: Prostitution is not forbidden. Therefore, it is not automatically a sin.

    NT: But what about Christian women? Now we are back to the same point I made (repeatedly) in my response to Dalrock’s Deuteronomy 23:18 argument. At every point God chose to regulate prostitution, He was choosing not to forbid it. We see that again in the New Testament when the Lord chose to forbid *men* from using prostitutes. The Lord had the issue squarely in front of Him and He chose not to forbid Christian women from being prostitutes.

    Either we accept that God chose not issue a blanket prohibition that forbids women from being prostitutes, or we choose to claim that God got it wrong.

    But what about issues of conscience?. Once again:

    in addition to the Law, for Christians there are issues of conscience and a prostitute would be in sin if her conscience objected to selling her body (Romans 14:23). At the same time, if she was convinced it was the right thing to do she would be in sin if she didn’t sell her body (James 4:17). Neither of which situations is something that you or I have the right to judge, no matter how we might feel about it, because they are matters of conscience and we are forbidden to judge such things.

    Could a Christian woman be convicted in her conscience that selling her body was the right thing to do? Yes, but we don’t need to go there because we do not have the authority to judge matters of conscience.

    But what about being a stumbling block?

    Is she your sister in Christ who has been reduced to prostitution to feed herself and/or her children? Them that don’t provide for their own family are worse than heathens and unbelievers. Which is why the church supports its widows if they don’t have immediate family to support them.

    Which leaves us with Pode’s question about “the positive command to be chaste, reconciled, or marry in the Lord”.

    The wife was commanded not to leave her husband. If she did (in violation of the command), she was further commanded to remain chaste or be reconciled to her husband. She is a married woman and there is no Christian divorce. What else is she supposed to do? If she’s not chaste she’s committing adultery and if she wants a man she has to reconcile to her husband because he’s the only husband she’s got. However, that instruction was to wives.

    And…

    Legitimate prostitutes don’t have husbands.

    Which leaves the command to marry in the Lord in 1st Corinthians 7:39.

    This was not a command to marry, at all. She is free to choose whether she will marry at all and if she chooses to marry she may marry whomever she may but she must marry in the Lord. This freedom gives her the right to refuse to marry as well. If she meets the qualifications of 1st Timothy 5 to be placed on the roster of widows who are supported, she can only be encouraged to marry. The church cannot require it of her in order that they avoid having to support her.

    And…

    The “woman not bound” is not a virgin and she is not married, which means we are right back to where we started. She has agency. Was she commanded not to sell her body? No. Does it offend her conscience? That’s between her and God. How could any woman believe it’s the right thing to do? Again, that isn’t a decision anyone but the individual can make and WE ARE COMMANDED NOT TO JUDGE.

    As I’ve previously stated, I believe God’s refusal to prohibit prostitution was an act of mercy. Could it be abused? Of course. Do I think prostitution, in general, is a good thing? No, I don’t. Every real prostitute I’ve ever known was damaged in some way and many were batshit crazy.

    Did God say prostitution was a sin? No, so neither will I. Did God encourage prostitution? No, so neither will I. Does God put up with prostitution? Yes, so I will too.

    Gary Eden did well pointing out the difference between ideal, tolerated, and forbidden. As an engineer I think of it as design point, off design but protected against by failsafes / tolerances, and dangerous conditions outside the operating envelope. Any system that doesn’t have the second region in its operating envelope is not a good system.

    I agree. I’ve seen first-hand just how messy and nasty life can be.

  432. @Dalrock

    If I follow your logic, raping a non betrothed virgin isn’t a sin then. Right?

    Some clarification on your question is needed before I can answer.

    Does the virgins father have the right/authority to give his daughter to the man he chooses? Under the Law he has the right to sell her into slavery to be a concubine and in 1 Cor 7 Paul re-affirms the fathers right to choose to give his virgin daughter in marriage as well as his right to refuse to allow her to marry.

    I think it safe to say that we should be able to agree that according to Scripture, the father has the right to give his daughter to the man *he* chooses for her regardless of her feelings about it. If you have an objection please let me know.

    So, under that condition, is the man who gets her from her father in sin when he marries her? Just so we’re clear, he marries her with the act of penetrative sexual intercourse, against her will and over her objections.

    Is that man in sin for marrying his wife?

    Looking forward to your reply.

  433. Emperor Constantine says:

    @zippy @early
    My comments above includes personal and ad hominem attacks against you, and that was wrong. I apologize. I tried to edit/delete them but could not. The issues we are discussing are very personal to me, but that does not make personal attacks OK.

  434. Pingback: Hawt chicks & links – No Nazis here, man. – Adam Piggott

  435. earlthomas786 says:

    Seriously, go fuck yourself. And Earl, you’re as delusional as the rest of these motherfuckers who think that God gave men a sexual drive just so they could spike it and feel superior to other men because they were celibate. What utter and complete bullshit. My mother and father went through hell raising 8 children, do not ever denigrate them and say they are lesser Christian’s just so you other celibate motherfuckers can feel superior.

    Well first off I don’t understand why you got that mad to just start cursing at people, second where is it located other than in your perception that a celibate person feels superior over married people in who is the better Christian?

  436. earlthomas786 says:

    Just saw the apology…I accept it.

  437. earlthomas786 says:

    He is put up as a “big thing” so he should be expected to be something special. Otherwise the RCC is no big deal.

    He is the leader of the Catholic church on Earth. It’s a great responsibility. However that doesn’t mean he magically loses his human weaknesses.

  438. Bruce says:

    Catholic clergy up to and including the Pope are taken from Catholic laymen and, in general, show the qualities (good and bad) of the population of laymen from which they are drawn.

  439. Bruce says:

    I wouldn’t be the slightest bit surprised if 80% or 90% of Catholics marriages are invalid – I wouldn’t be surprised if most Catholic men and women believe (at the time of their marriage) that they can divorce and remarry if their spouse does something really bad (e.g. adultery). The virtue of obedience seems to be almost entirely lost. The real scandal it seem is that the American church hasn’t treated this like the crisis it is.

  440. Zippy says:

    Emperor Constantine:

    While I’m a devout RCC …

    Obviously.

  441. Zippy says:

    BillyS:

    [The Pope] is put up as a “big thing” so he should be expected to be something special. Otherwise the RCC is no big deal. That is the impression from others more than your posts though. (See Skyler for example.)

    Yes, and we even have a word for that mistake: ultramontanism. The Pope is a monarch and, well, we all know what monarchs are like. The position is due respect, but the man is very much a man.

    My comment about indulgences wasn’t exactly right, but making the point that money and influence still talk, which is why he remained in good standing in spite of the horrid positions he took and the actions he did.

    Agreed.

  442. Zippy says:

    Emperor Constantine:

    Ah, no worries.

  443. Zippy says:

    Bruce:

    I wouldn’t be the slightest bit surprised if 80% or 90% of Catholics marriages are invalid …

    Agreed, I think it is quite likely. We had an Orthospherish discussion of this a while back:

    https://orthosphere.wordpress.com/2013/03/07/are-people-even-marrying-anymore/

  444. feeriker says:

    The real scandal it seem is that the American church hasn’t treated this like the crisis it is.

    The sole function of the Amercan “church” — be it RCC or any denomination of Protestantism– is to confer a veneer of Christianity upon the secular lifestyle sanctioned by the popular culture. I remember the late Joe Sobran referring to it as “The Great National Religion,” an institution in which everyone can pretend all they want to to adhere to the tenets of their religion (whatever it is), but at the end of the day, nobody had better rock the boat and had better “go along to get along” – or else (any American church that conducted itself like the First Century church of Jesus and Disciples would quickly find itself a persecuted outlaw body).

  445. Bruce says:

    Pope is a father (spiritual) – you can have Ward Cleaver or a total jerk – still your dad. Dad is owed a certain respect. Honor thy father.
    @ feeriker – I should have specified the American Catholic bishops. Really my comment applies to Catholic Church in general but the annulment situation is especially bad in America – I have no idea how it is in e.g. The Phillipines. Less bad than America, I’m pretty sure.

  446. Zippy says:

    BillyS:

    Upon reflection, though, I think you may be attributing to simony what is really a matter of more general laxity. Public figures like Kennedy, Biden, etc are scandalous because they are so well known. But for every one of them there are thousands of unknowns who have gotten rubber stamp annulments, and not because of greasing palms.

    https://www.questia.com/library/78969521/what-god-has-joined-together-the-annulment-crisis

  447. Novaseeker says:

    In addition to the belief that one can divorce, isn’t it also the case that beliefs along the lines that artificial birth control is moral for limiting family size and so on can also be used as ground to annul, given that a couple who actually believed that at the time of the marriage lacked the proper intentional consent to enter into a Catholic marriage due to not being fully open to children as a result of sex? I suspect there are even more Catholic couples who fall into that category than into the category of people who think it is morally licit to divorce for a “good reason”.

  448. podethelesser says:

    @AT
    I’m slowly shedding the equalist fog I was raised in, so the idea that different standards apply to different sexes is not as repugnant to me as many may find it. I agree with your reading that 1Cor6:16 is directed at men using female prostitutes and there is not a corresponding explicit condemnation directed solely to women. That said, I think 6:15 gives the reason for the ban in 6:16, and that reason is not gender specific: Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Am I therefore to take the members of Christ and make them part of a prostitute? Certainly not! Sticking with your explanation above, I don’t see how a Christian woman could read 15 and not be convinced in her conscience that it was a sin. OTOH, I have literal scars to testify that my estimation of what women feel in their consciences is not always accurate. Otherwise I consider your response compelling and will need to ponder on it carefully.

    Interesting aside for this discussion, the footnote in the AMP (for whatever that’s worth) says this passage is likely referring to temple prostitution, not fee for service: Corinth was famous for its prostitutes, and many if not all probably practiced their trade in connection with the worship of Aphrodite. Having relations with temple or cult prostitutes was considered acceptable behavior, and Paul’s admonitions here indicate that some of the Corinthian converts were continuing the practice.

  449. podethelesser says:

    Ack, I was trying to get the blue background on quoted text by using quote command instead of blockquote. Dalrock gave me the remedial HTML class I asked for and I still screwed it up. Sigh.

  450. Dalrock says:

    @Toad

    If I follow your logic, raping a non betrothed virgin isn’t a sin then. Right?

    Some clarification on your question is needed before I can answer.

    Does the virgins father have the right/authority to give his daughter to the man he chooses? Under the Law he has the right to sell her into slavery to be a concubine and in 1 Cor 7 Paul re-affirms the fathers right to choose to give his virgin daughter in marriage as well as his right to refuse to allow her to marry.

    I think it safe to say that we should be able to agree that according to Scripture, the father has the right to give his daughter to the man *he* chooses for her regardless of her feelings about it. If you have an objection please let me know.

    So, under that condition, is the man who gets her from her father in sin when he marries her? Just so we’re clear, he marries her with the act of penetrative sexual intercourse, against her will and over her objections.

    Is that man in sin for marrying his wife?

    All you’ve done is asked me the very question I asked you. But since you asked, yes, rape is a sin, and that would include raping a virgin. But under your twisted reading of the Scripture involved, it can’t be a sin. It is merely an unscheduled marriage, or if you prefer, a surprise marriage. As you put it, he “committed marriage”, he didn’t commit rape:

    He committed to marriage with the act of marriage with an eligible virgin, an irreparable and permanent act. He is married to her and he is being forced to carry out the attendant duties as well.

    So (and again under your logic, not mine), we might say that we think scheduled marriages are better than surprise marriages, but we can’t call it sin. After all, the verses in question are according to you regulating surprise marriages, not prescribing punishment. They tell us what the divorce laws are for surprise marriages, and what the bride price should be. And as you have explained, God doesn’t regulate sin:

    God regulated prostitution in the Law.
    God does not regulate sin, He prohibits it.
    God did not prohibit prostitution.

    So (per your logic) rape (surprise marriage) can’t be a sin. We could as easily say:

    God regulated surprise marriage in the Law.
    God does not regulate sin, He prohibits it.
    God did not prohibit surprise marriage.

  451. Zippy says:

    Novaseeker:

    In addition to the belief that one can divorce, isn’t it also the case that beliefs along the lines that artificial birth control is moral for limiting family size and so on can also be used as ground to annul, given that a couple who actually believed that at the time of the marriage lacked the proper intentional consent to enter into a Catholic marriage due to not being fully open to children as a result of sex?

    My understanding is that that is not grounds: the express intention would have to be to have a sexual relationship while ruling out ever having any children.

    I have raised the point myself that support for ‘gay marriage’ on the wedding day might be grounds, since it prima facie demonstrates that the person does not mean marriage when they use the term ‘marriage’.

    In practice I think very few annulments are granted on these kinds of doctrinal grounds though. Doctrine is so medieval and rigid and authoritarian, after all. Most annulments are actually granted based on a combination of psychological bullshit and mutually contradictory subjective criteria which make it possible for the tribunal to reach whatever result they want.

    See here:

    https://zippycatholic.wordpress.com/2014/10/04/an-annulment-mill-straw-man-or-turning-ignorance-into-the-eighth-sacrament-redux/

  452. Evan Turner says:

    @Artisanal Toad
    Status differences count.
    There is a difference between a wife and a concubine and from what historical documentation I can find (which matches up with Scripture), a wife was a free woman and a concubine was a slave.
    The first indicator of this is Exodus 21:7-10, which says that when the owner/husband takes more than one concubine he is treat the girls equally and if he doesn’t give here equal food, clothing and conjugal rights she is to be freed. That is within the context of the father selling his daughter into slavery, BTW.
    Then we see the passage in Deuteronomy 21:10-14 on the woman captured in battle.
    You said:
    “The law of the captive woman (erroneously called by many wife) states that a man can take a woman in battle have sex with her and send her away for any reason. “
    And what that passage actually says is:
    10“When you go out to battle against your enemies, and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take them away captive, 11and see among the captives a beautiful woman, and have a desire for her and would take her as a wife for yourself, 12then you shall bring her home to your house, and she shall shave her head and trim her nails. 13“She shall also remove the clothes of her captivity and shall remain in your house, and mourn her father and mother a full month; and after that you may go in to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. 14“It shall be, if you are not pleased with her, then you shall let her go wherever she wishes; but you shall certainly not sell her for money, you shall not mistreat her, because you have humbled her.
    The passage does not say what you think it says. The point is she’s still a slave, even though she’s a wife. And the rules for these women were different from free women: Observe Leviticus 19:20-22
    “20‘Now if a man lies carnally with a woman who is a slave acquired for another man, but who has in no way been redeemed nor given her freedom, there shall be punishment; they shall not, however, be put to death, because she was not free. 21‘He shall bring his guilt offering to the LORD to the doorway of the tent of meeting, a ram for a guilt offering. 22‘The priest shall also make atonement for him with the ram of the guilt offering before the LORD for his sin which he has committed, and the sin which he has committed will be forgiven him.”
    Because she’s not free, the death-penalty for adultery doesn’t apply.

    You want to have it both ways but you can’t. We both agree that wives are free and slaves aren’t however my view is consistent and yours isn’t. Just because you see the word “wife” in Hebrew or Greek doesn’t mean that she is married as the word for “wife” and “woman” are used interchangeably in both languages. So even though the law of the captive woman says “wife” we know this is not the case because she is sent away and no divorce is mentioned. Likewise, the same law about concubines mentioned the fact that she can also go free if certain needs aren’t met but no divorce is mentioned. So you are wrong here also.

    Why do you think God can tell Abraham to listen to his wife and send Hagar away? That’s because she was his concubine and Sarah’s slave. Even though scripture mentioned the fact that Abraham “took her to wife” the context makes it clear that she was never his wife. If you believe this than you believe that God told Abraham to listen to his wife Sarah and divorce his other wife Hagar. This would be madness, as God is not the author of confusion.

    So I will ask you again. If a man buys a virgin concubine are they married when they have sex?
    If a man buys a female slave virgin for one of his male slaves and they have sex are they married?
    Why didn’t David put his “wives” (according to your interpretation) away for having sex with Absalom?
    Why is no bill of divorce mentioned in the law of the captive woman?
    Why is no bill of divorce mentioned in regards to concubines?

    Also note for everyone else here that disagrees with Artisanal Toad’s incorrect view. I have also proven that sex outside of wedlock is not a sin.

  453. Bruce says:

    For Zippy, this is my impression (from an interview with Cardinal Burke I saw).
    An annulment is a legal declaration (which I choose to call “legal opinion” – my words not the Churches) by canon law experts that there were/are one or more impediments to contracting a marriage. This legal verdict carries moral (i.e. “actionable”) certitude but not absolute certitude because the status of millions of individual marriages isn’t part of the deposit of faith that Christ left to his disciples (and therefore, something the Church can rule on infallibly). This is why I don’t like using “annul” as a verb because it makes it sound like the Church can end a Christian marriage, which it cannot. I prefer “declaration of nullity”. I am asking your opinion on this because I don’t want to go around spouting off if I’m wrong.

  454. Bruce says:

    “Under the Law he has the right to sell her into slavery to be a concubine….”

    As Christians, we are not under the old law. We are under what Catholics call the evangelical law, i.e. the Law of Christ.

  455. earlthomas786 says:

    I wouldn’t be the slightest bit surprised if 80% or 90% of Catholics marriages are invalid.

    I think most are valid, America is a society that loves divorce…the one place I could see manipulation of the annulment process is figuring out how it wasn’t a free will decision and instead say they were coerced into it.

  456. earlthomas786 says:

    I suspect there are even more Catholic couples who fall into that category than into the category of people who think it is morally licit to divorce for a “good reason”.

    They have NFP classes before marriage. Turns out if a woman figures out how her fertility works naturally…it is just as good as birth control. There can be oops…but there can be oops with using bc perfectly.

  457. Anonymous Reader says:

    Earl
    he one place I could see manipulation of the annulment process is figuring out how it wasn’t a free will decision and instead say they were coerced into it.

    My initial reaction was to seriously doubt this, but given the way “abuse” is redefined under the Duluth protocol, “coercion” can similarly be redefined to include anything at all. So you could be correct. I’ve also been told that “lack of knowledge”, as in “He didn’t understand what it means to be a Catholic husband! I was duped! I’m not married!” will work. It may require some bishop-shopping.

    podthelesser
    OTOH, I have literal scars to testify that my estimation of what women feel in their consciences is not always accurate.

    That’s nicely understated, you thread the needle in that statement. Conservative feminists would deny your experience and try to convince you those scars don’t exist; if that failed they would fall back to NAWALT. On the other hand, cynical men and MGTOW would deny that women have consciences at all. Thanks for sharing that bit with us.

    Now we return to the endless green choo-choo show.

  458. earlthomas786 says:

    I’ve also been told that “lack of knowledge”, as in “He didn’t understand what it means to be a Catholic husband! I was duped! I’m not married!” will work.

    Well unless they found a way to find a church that offers shotgun weddings…most churches mandate at least 3-6 months of marriage prep beforehand. If they use that excuse I’m calling BS.

  459. Anonymous Reader says:

    Earl, it’s second hand information, worth every penny you paid for it. Could be just an excuse that was offered to me for something else that happened. Or it could be you are still naive.

    Because if you really believe that mere facts such as “3 to 6 months of pre-marriage counseling” or mere vows or mere parts of the Bible or mere canon law can stand in the way of a woman who is not haaaapy, you’re still not quite up to speed yet. Not in the US, at least. There are men out there who were certain that “She can’t do that! It’s against canon! The church won’t let her!” whose wound up frivorced and annulled paying child support anyway.

    “Is” and “ought” are not synonyms.

  460. earlthomas786 says:

    Not in the US, at least. There are men out there who were certain that “She can’t do that! It’s against canon! The church won’t let her!” whose wound up frivorced and annulled paying child support anyway.

    Oh that was the excuse the woman used…I thought it was the excuse a man would use.

    Yeesh if they are just going off her word for an annulment and not doing their due diligence to get all sides of the story…that’s a corrupt diocese.

  461. SirHamster says:

    @Gary Eden

    We’re dealing with spergs emotionally invested into their position. They cannot be reasoned out of it.

    Being that you know little to nothing of my motives, personal life, theology and arguments, this is what is called projecting.

    Why do you assume you are one of the spergs being talked about? You could have been part of the “we” or even a neutral third party. I wasn’t thinking of you.

    Like, I would think it entirely reasonable if you grouped me in with “the spergs”. I do have those tendencies, and it is hard to judge yourself accurately.

    On the flip side … your words, your attitude, and your reactions? Very revealing of your motives, theology, and your arguments. And maybe personal life.

  462. Zippy says:

    Bruce:

    I am asking your opinion on this because I don’t want to go around spouting off if I’m wrong.

    That exactly aligns with my own understanding. A declaration of nullity is a legal opinion (no sacramental status) which says that a marriage was not contracted in the first place despite appearances.

    An annulment (which as you point out is shorthand for “declaration of nullity)” is ‘reliable’ in the sense that a priest is required, under Church law, to rely on it when determining if the couple in front of him right now are eligible to marry. A priest may not refuse to marry a couple based on a previous marriage of one of the parties if that party has a declaration of nullity from the tribunal.

    I am not aware of declarations of nullity being ‘reliable’ in any sense other than that particular bureaucratic sense. I could be wrong, but as I understand it ‘reliable’ just means that Catholic officials (priests and Church employees) are directed to rely on it for certain purposes, namely, determining eligibility to marry. As a legal opinion its ontological status is no better than the process which produced it.

  463. Zippy says:

    Anonymous Reader:

    My initial reaction was to seriously doubt this, but given the way “abuse” is redefined under the Duluth protocol, “coercion” can similarly be redefined to include anything at all.

    In my opinion this is exactly what has happened with the American Catholic tribunals, though you have to replace ‘coercion’ with ‘impaired consent’. The great majority of declarations of nullity in the US rest on a finding of ‘impaired consent’, that finding itself further resting on a bunch of subjective psychobabble crap.

    It may seem paradoxical to at the same time believe that the majority of marriages are in fact null (which is to say, they never actually happened as marriage in the first place). But thoughtful Catholics do think that this is the case, for reasons we got into in the discussion I linked.

    All that said, I don’t think declarations of nullity should be given out in any case, except in obvious, clearly provable public forum (no subjective psychobabble) cases. If a couple’s marriage status is doubtful they should get it convalidated. If they can’t do that they should spend the rest of their lives in a monastery / convent; all in a perfect world, of course. Declarations of nullity should be extremely rare, for reasons I’ve gone into elsewhere.

  464. anglosaxon says:

    Does anyone have a response for Artisanal Toad other than you are a sperg, you are stupid, you smell, you are a slave for your wives, your posts are too long?

    Every time you resort to name calling to attack AT and his arguments, you strengthen his position because if the Truth was on your side, you would not need to try to defame him in order to win.

  465. earlthomas786 says:

    The great majority of declarations of nullity in the US rest on a finding of ‘impaired consent’, that finding itself further resting on a bunch of subjective psychobabble crap.

    ‘Impaired consent’…yeesh it probably is better to stay celibate if those mental gymnastics are being used for annulment. Was she drunk when she said ‘i do’ to the vows?

  466. Novaseeker says:

    Was she drunk when she said ‘i do’ to the vows?

    Well, of course that’s not the issue in almost all the cases. The issue is some lacking in understanding/maturity/stability in a mental sense such that one was not in a position to consent. I suspect that this is the case in a huge majority of marriages, Catholic and not, which makes it a standard that is, de facto, very permissive. I suspect this is the precise intention of the tribunals as well — that is, if you disagree with the Church’s position on divorce, yet understand that it isn’t changing, you work within the system and the rules to twist them and hollow them to the point where the rule is thoroughly undermined in praxis, while being upheld in form. It’s a way of rebelling against the rule while still upholding the rule formally, in other words.

  467. Bruce says:

    “Does anyone have a response for Artisanal Toad other than you are a sperg, you are stupid, you smell, you are a slave for your wives, your posts are too long?”

    Sure. While not all his argument rests on the OT, he references the OT law a lot in his argument. We aren’t under the OT law, we’re under the Evangelical Law, that is, the Law of Christ. Note: I exclude his referencing of Genesis 2 in my criticism of his position.

  468. Bruce says:

    I don’t know what how the typical annullment goes but I wouldn’t be shocked if the average Catholic bride thinks “I’ll divorce that bastard if he cheats” or whatever.

  469. earlthomas786 says:

    Well, of course that’s not the issue in almost all the cases. The issue is some lacking in understanding/maturity/stability in a mental sense such that one was not in a position to consent.

    Yeah…that excuse is used way too often to excuse bad behavior.

    And yet Ive always heard women mature faster than men when we are younger…I guess that changes when they aren’t happy in the marriage.

  470. Evan Turner says:

    @anglosaxon
    You can scroll through the comments and see that I’ve had several responses to artisanal toads incorrect belief of sex with a virgin equals marriage. In the process I’ve also proven that sex outside of wedlock isn’t a sin.

    @bruce
    So the OT LAW is no longer valid? So how do we know if bestiality is still a sin without it?

  471. earlthomas786 says:

    Probably the root of most of the motivation to get out of a marriage is perceived discontent. Then it’s some pyschobabble to either permit an annulment or just going to the courthouse for the no fault.

  472. SirHamster says:

    Does anyone have a response for Artisanal Toad other than you are a sperg, you are stupid, you smell, you are a slave for your wives, your posts are too long?

    The counter-arguments are right there. It is not the fault of everyone else that AT and his fans can’t read.

    That you are only able to see name-calling illustrates that you can’t handle the Truth. You skip over the arguments and only see the rhetoric they are packaged in.

    Every time you resort to name calling to attack AT and his arguments, you strengthen his position because if the Truth was on your side, you would not need to try to defame him in order to win.

    It’s not a resort. It’s a truthful description to call him spergy for creating ridiculously long posts of text on other’s blogs, fixated upon definitions of marriage that just so happen to justify his own sexual lifestyle. Better Christian men than I have looked at AT’s fruit and find no value in it.

    Half the accusations you list aren’t even used on AT. If Truth was on your side, you wouldn’t have to put words in our mouths.

    If his position was actually strengthened, why are you even posting? We are improving his credibility! But despite what you say, you know better.

  473. podethelesser says:

    While not all his argument rests on the OT, he references the OT law a lot in his argument. We aren’t under the OT law, we’re under the Evangelical Law, that is, the Law of Christ. Note: I exclude his referencing of Genesis 2 in my criticism of his position.

    The judgement of James in Acts 15:20 spells out what parts of the OT Law Gentiles must observe.
    1: Abstain from the pollutions of idols (i.e., avoid idolatry as defined in OT)
    2: Avoid sexual impurity (as defined in OT)
    3: Avoid meat that was strangled
    4: Avoid the pollution of blood (i.e. consuming it, point 3, or shedding it, both per the OT definitions)

    Not the tiniest part of the Law shall pass away. Toad is arguing from the OT as he reads it for the precise meaning of point 2. We don’t get to handwave away the OT, all Scripture is God breathed and useful for instruction.

  474. podethelesser says:

    BTW, in verse 28-29 the judgement of James is endorsed by the Holy Spirit.

  475. Bruce says:

    The evidence for the wrongness of bestiality is in the natural law.
    Do we have a complete list of what aspects of the old law were given for hardness of the heart? We know divorce via a certificate. We know stoning of adulteresses. I suppose a Protestant would say only the cases explicitly in the NT. I’m not Protestant so “everthing’s in scripture” isnt’ a dogma for me.
    I prefer to trust nearly 2000 years of Catholic thinkers over bloggers and internet commenters.

  476. Dalrock says:

    @Anglosaxon

    Does anyone have a response for Artisanal Toad other than you are a sperg, you are stupid, you smell, you are a slave for your wives, your posts are too long?

    Every time you resort to name calling to attack AT and his arguments, you strengthen his position because if the Truth was on your side, you would not need to try to defame him in order to win.

    1) It isn’t inappropriate to point out that someone is being absurd when they really are absurd. Find someone, anyone, you know in real life and tell them how unfair it is that people on an internet forum aren’t taking a man’s arguments seriously, just because he writes numerous 2,000 plus word comments and claims he is married to three lesbian supermodels, two of whom are ninjas (thanks BillyS for the correction). Make sure to explain how much the unfairness of this really bothers you. Report back their reaction.

    2) It isn’t inappropriate to point out that when a series of assumptions produce absurd results, the assumptions are themselves absurd. Toad has made a long list of assumptions, and those assumptions indicate that God thinks prostitution is a righteous profession, fitting of a Christian woman (and mother). Likewise, as I’ve shown, the same assumptions produce the result that rape is not a sin. When the folks you spoke to above stop laughing and have had the chance to wipe the tears from their eyes, let them know how upset you are that we are firmly convinced that prostitution and rape are sins.

    3) You are overlooking the fact that we have replied to Toad’s arguments in detail. If you don’t like mine (including the post that started the discussion), then read Novaseeker’s. If you don’t like those, read Cane’s, etc.

  477. Evan Turner says:

    @bruce
    With all due respect I’ll take the word of God over inconsistent contradictory tradition.

    @podethelesser
    I don’t agree with a lot of artisanal toads thinking but at least he uses the Law and doesn’t ignore it like so many others do.

  478. Mycroft Jones says:

    @podethelesser, you can’t claim AT falls back on the Law. He cherry picks from the Law. Ask him about his views on eating pig, for instance.

  479. podethelesser says:

    As long as the pig isn’t strangled, not prohibited under Acts 15:20.

  480. Son of Liberty says:

    Bruce says:
    August 18, 2017 at 2:31 pm
    I prefer to trust nearly 2000 years of Catholic thinkers over bloggers and internet commenters.

    Yea, and I prefer 6000 years of the teachings of “Morningstar”, the “Bearer of Light” than some Sky fairy in the sky…

    God has been clear about his warning to all Catholics to come out of her abominations and spiritual fornication in the book of Revelation, that the Vatican kicks itself in the foot everyday for not removing the book sooner enough if they had known who was Mystery Babylon of the Church Age, comeoutofher.org
    1700 years to be precise, succeeded by the Pagan Church of Rome of mythraism, where Jupiter-Juno, Neptune-Minerva, Mars-Venus, Apollo-Diana, Vulcan-Vesta, Mercury-Ceres, where the Babylonian fallen angel hybrids who “came upon the daughters of men” (“upon” is penetration, for the context of this post), aka Nephilim. Then sugarcoated these gods as graven, idolatrous images of “Peter”, “Mary (ISIS)”, “baby Jesus” instead of adult Iesous (J false letter), etc. Greek, Hindu, Chinese, Aztec, Mayan, Incan, etc gods are all of the same derivatives of the pre-flood fallen angel worship.

    Walter Veith The Wine of Babylon and the Catholic Church
    Images of the Roman Catholic Church

    Studying to retain the ethics and Godly principles of the female behavior will not be found under no Great Whoring institution, but in the word of God. Not of Alexandrian Manuscripts of Gnosticism embedded in vulgates, vulgarities, or modern per-versions of today.

  481. Zippy says:

    Bruce:

    The evidence for the wrongness of bestiality is in the natural law.

    Hey, if Scripture (as interpreted by Scooby and Shaggy) doesn’t explicitly say that you can’t, you are put whatever you want wherever you want. All things are Hole-y.

  482. Zippy says:

    Edit: you may put …

  483. podethelesser says:

    You are overlooking the fact that we have replied to Toad’s arguments in detail. If you don’t like mine (including the post that started the discussion), then read Novaseeker’s. If you don’t like those, read Cane’s, etc.

    The Goolag is not helping me find any reference to Toad on Novaseeker’s blog, got a link? Cane’s too, as long as I’m being demanding. You did well IMO to rebut the Christian women can be whores idea with 1Cor6:15, but as I pointed out it’s been very rare in my experience for anyone to clearly and simply quote / explain where Scripture clearly says something that “Scripture clearly says”TM. If there’s more of that that refutes Toad’s less extreme and more consequential assertions like sex=marriage, I’d very much like to see it.

  484. anglosaxon says:

    @dalrock
    1) Find someone, anyone, you know in real life and tell them how unfair it is that people aren’t taking a man’s arguments seriously, just because he is a monk who hates sex and women and claims to be a ‘father of the church’ when he was alive 100s of years after Christ and the Apostles and gets rid of much of the Bibles teaching on sexual morality because he Feels Very Strongly that sex is bad and polygyny is wrong despite God never saying a man having multiple wives is wrong. Make sure to explain how much the unfairness of this really bothers you. Report back their reaction.
    2) He said it was possible to be a whore and not sin. Not that it’s a super fantastic amazing profession that Christian women including mothers should all go do right away. Again, the Bible doesn’t forbid women from being prostitutes, so just because you think it’s sinful or icky or whatever for a woman to be a whore doesn’t mean God agrees. Why should I listen to you, a mere mortal man on the internet when God didn’t forbid prostitution?
    3) I will take a look.

  485. SirHamster says:

    @podethelesser

    Responses in the comment thread, not blog posts. It’d be pretty sad if that many Christian blogs dedicated blog posts to refuting AT.

    Use your browser to search this thread and the previous one.

  486. podethelesser says:

    I’ve read both these threads in their entirety. Novaseeker’s contribution has been, almost word for word, Wow just wow TM, and an interesting but off topic discussion about whether the RCC exercises appropriate church discipline. Cane did a little better, 2 insults, a lot of off topic, and one actual response re sex ?= marriage that several others not named Toad promptly took apart IMO.I’m looking for the arguments against Toad that Dalrock mentioned.

    So far, at least from where I sit, Dalrock has countered Christian whores with 1Cor6:15. Toad’s counter that there’s no female equivalent of 6:16 is a fair point but not adequate IMO to override the gender neutral basic principle in 15. 16 is specifically for men because it’s less intuitive how 15 applies to men versus women. I’m sympathetic to Toad’s safety valve argument but believe that applied under the OT and the Christian is to rely on Christ and the church to provide for her.

    So, again, the opinion of Pode, what little that’s worth, is that the question of Christian whores is settled in the negative, the question of Jewish whores is irrelevant, and can we please seriously address sex ?= marriage using Scripture, because there are potentially VERY significant consequences to the answer to that question. This is probably one of the only forums were there’s even a hope of seriously discussing the question without immediate terminal social ostracism. If we can’t have the conversation here I’m not sure it can be had.

  487. Boxer says:

    Pode The Lesser:

    I’m in your camp. People who get on to insult Toad aren’t doing themselves any favors. He regularly ties these types up in knots (for his own amusement). If you’re looking for lowbrow entertainment, it’s sorta funny, but it’s not very thought-provoking.

    I agree about the Dalrock-Toad debate. It’s been productive and interesting. I’ve been in a long series of airports for the past couple of days, so I haven’t caught all of it. I have enjoyed it, though.

    So, again, the opinion of Pode, what little that’s worth, is that the question of Christian whores is settled in the negative, the question of Jewish whores is irrelevant, and can we please seriously address sex ?= marriage using Scripture, because there are potentially VERY significant consequences to the answer to that question. This is probably one of the only forums were there’s even a hope of seriously discussing the question without immediate terminal social ostracism. If we can’t have the conversation here I’m not sure it can be had.

    My main problem with Toad is that when he’s stuck in an ideological corner, he tries to retreat into either a sort of intuitionism (God’s people get inspired when reading the text, and this way get extra information that isn’t privy to scroungy heathens like Boxer) or skepticism (we can’t know exactly what God wants us to do, so we have to read the text at face value, and whatever God didn’t talk about is thus permitted). I’d be interested in hearing your thoughts on either or both of these non-standard innovations.

    Oh, and Toad, the whole “regulation isn’t prohibition” is beneath you. I can’t smoke crack or go to a brothel here, where I live, because both are prohibited — by regulation. Those two terms aren’t always synonymous, but they often are. You know this already.

    Best,

    Boxer

  488. Boxer says:

    My comments above includes personal and ad hominem attacks against you, and that was wrong. I apologize. I tried to edit/delete them but could not. The issues we are discussing are very personal to me, but that does not make personal attacks OK.

    Yes! Zippy, Earl, and Emperor Constantine are all best poasters. Keep debating the real issues. For theological neophytes (like me) these threads are gold mines.

  489. Zippy says:

    Boxer:

    I’d be interested in hearing … thoughts on either or both of these non-standard innovations.

    You didn’t ask me, but I’d suggest the possibility that this isn’t so much a criticism of AT’s specific methodology as it is a more general observation that any sufficiently complex finite text will give rise to multiple mutually incompatible interpretations made in good faith.

    The implications this has for resolving Christian doctrinal conflicts is left as an exercise.

  490. earlthomas786 says:

    We don’t get to handwave away the OT, all Scripture is God breathed and useful for instruction.

    It certainly is…but when someone goes on a tangent like only sex constitutes a marriage or that women being prostitutes can actually be a good thing…there’s something wrong with that thinking.

  491. SirHamster says:

    I’ve read both these threads in their entirety. Novaseeker’s contribution has been, almost word for word, Wow just wow TM, and an interesting but off topic discussion about whether the RCC exercises appropriate church discipline. Cane did a little better, 2 insults, a lot of off topic, and one actual response re sex ?= marriage that several others not named Toad promptly took apart IMO.I’m looking for the arguments against Toad that Dalrock mentioned.

    I understood Dalrock as pointing out that there is a level of response for everyone. Some at the detailed reasoned response level, some at the dismissal level.

    Because arguing about penis in vagina = marriage is a stupid topic. It’s less entertaining than angels dancing on the head of a pin, and about as relevant.

    … because there are potentially VERY significant consequences to the answer to that question.

    No there aren’t. What is significant has already been spelled out. Marry rather than burn. Marriage is good, but eunuch for the sake of Christ and his kingdom is better. It is fine for a man to not marry a virgin but so is marrying her.

    “Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.”

    If marriage = sex, then all Paul is doing is telling everyone to have sex. And if someone wants to argue about sex = marriage and marriage != sex, please stop abusing mathematical symbols.

  492. Gunner Q says:

    anglosaxon @ 1:23 pm:
    “Why should I listen to you, a mere mortal man on the internet when God didn’t forbid prostitution?”

    For starters, you would have heard our more respectful responses to AT. I assume you won’t be staying long if you don’t plan on listening to what the blog owner has to say.

    SirHamster @ 5:50 pm:
    “If marriage = sex, then all Paul is doing is telling everyone to have sex. And if someone wants to argue about sex = marriage and marriage != sex, please stop abusing mathematical symbols.”

    QFT

    Happy Friday all and enjoy this YouTube clip summing up the last couple threads of tedious argument:

  493. This is why I ask if God was Eve’s Father. Because He was her Father. He was present for Adam and Eve’s wedding, such as it was, and He gave her to Adam. He was also her priest, the mediator between God and man. (If you doubt this, look at the book of Hebrews. If Christ can be a mediator between us and God, the Godhead can also be a mediator) Finally, God was her King. A wise King, since Proverbs 14:28 says “In a multitude of people is the glory of a king, but without people a prince is ruined.” This King told his subject to “Be fruitful and multiply” before Eve even existed. And this King was present at Eve’s wedding. All three spheres of government, family, church and state, participated in and witnessed her wedding. So I conclude that it must be good and right for all three spheres of government to witness the formation of a new family.

  494. Morgan says:

    Off topic, but Reese Witherspoon is doing some more divorce porn. This time she leaves her husband and takes his kids away before the divorce is even final. Then on her 40th birthday meets a 20 something stud who just might be the one for her and her 2 daughters. How is there a market for this fantasy?

  495. Anonymous Reader says:

    How is there a market for this fantasy?

    You’re kidding, right? There’s a huge market for divorce porn, especially among women in the 35 to 45 year old bracket.

  496. Derek Ramsey says:

    @Dalrock – “It isn’t inappropriate to point out that when a series of assumptions produce absurd results, the assumptions are themselves absurd. Toad has made a long list of assumptions, and those assumptions indicate that God thinks prostitution is a righteous profession, fitting of a Christian woman (and mother).”

    Don’t forget the absurd time travel where a marriage both validly existed for decades and yet simultaneously never existed.

  497. earlthomas786 says:

    How is there a market for this fantasy?

    1) Hollywood only seems to produce Satanic filth
    2) People will go to the movies to watch the Satanic filth

    The scary part is when some think it’s a good idea to go off of what a movie/tv show promoted. I can’t tell you the number of times women thought Sex and the City was an acceptable way to live.

  498. Gary Eden says:

    There is a difference between a wife and a concubine and from what historical documentation I can find (which matches up with Scripture), a wife was a free woman and a concubine was a slave.

    Could you point me to any historical documentation to that effect? I’d like to read it. My research indicated they were essentially mistresses. Women who were seduced into a relationship rather than brought in through formal dowry agreement with a father.

  499. podethelesser says:

    Earl, SirHamster, GunnerQ I apologize for not being excruciatingly clear. The argument I was trying to denote in shorthand is more properly stated “Sex creates a marriage”. You may recall I have argued elsewhere with our host that the marriage created by rape imposes duties on the rapist, so we all agree there is more to marriage than just sex. If “Sex creates a marriage” is tangential and trivially dismissed from Scripture, I would like you to please do so for the benefit of your less theologically enlightened readers like myself. I am respectfully requesting that someone show me where Scripture clearly says what you say it clearly says.

    As for the time travel thing, for a being who exists outside time I suspect time travel is less of a big deal. It’s how I square the whole free will vs predestination thing in my head, dunno how you do it. Regardless, at Judgement Day everything will be past tense so time travel is not required to square that seeming paradox.

  500. Gary Eden says:

    As Christians, we are not under the old law. We are under what Catholics call the evangelical law, i.e. the Law of Christ.

    We are not under the OT law in this way: it is not the basis of our justification. That is what Christ’s blood is for. But that doesn’t mean the Old Law is meaningless to us

    Paul 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.

    Everyone wants to ignore or hand wave that away as it has uncomfortable implications for our human traditions. But it is true.

    As Christ said in Matthew 5:17-18…

    Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

  501. I read this whole thread and am not enriched for it.

    The OT contains 3 main categories:

    1. How to act. In other words, what is right and what is wrong.
    2. What to do when someone screwed up to make things right. In other words, restitution and punishment, if any.
    3. Ceremonial rites

    Exodus 22:16 “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. 17 If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he must still pay the bride-price for virgins.

    Deut 22:28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[c] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

    Using #2 to justify behavior because there is nothing about #1 prohibiting it is an exercise in foolishness — e.g. “sacred prostitutes.”

    Any rape falls under #1. Why? The sin is that he “violated her” as the Scripture states. However, the whole scenario falls under #2. If the father does not consent, the rapist must pay the bride price as restitution. Even IF the father consents to marriage, the husband does not have full marital rights under the law as punishment; he must pay the bride price and he “can never divorce her as long as he lives.”

    What exactly did the rapist violate? Two things. He violated her and her father’s consent, and he violated her virginity. Why is consent required? If sex was marriage, any man could rape a virgin and she would be his wife. A man is not punished for having a wife. Why is the woman not given a chance for consent under the Law to marry after being raped? God rightly knows that a woman who has had sex — raped or not — cannot make an impartial judgment. Her consent is impaired. Lest someone mention Isaac taking Rebekah into his tent in Gen 24, the servant sent by Abraham had already obtained consent from Laban and her which was why she was there in the first place.

    Covenants require both consent and blood. Noah, Abraham, David, the New Covenant in Jesus, and so on. Some had burnt offerings, God killed some animals for Abraham, Jesus shed his blood. All required both parties to consent; this is why salvation requires repentance, remission of sins, and acceptance of grace through the blood of Jesus. Marriage, as a reflection of Christ and the Church, is similar. Marriage requires consent of the husband and wife (and father, if able) and blood from a broken hymen.

    Typically, a marriage ceremony is held for the man and wife to each give consent to the covenant in the form of vows. Consent and consummation alone are perfunctory, which is usually why there are witnesses and a celebration. Rightly so as if they are accused of any wrong doing the witnesses can speak against that (“in the presence of two or three witnesses”), and it should be obvious why there is a celebration as marriage is holy. Then their marriage is sealed is consummated by sex; the breaking of the hymen which draws blood.

    Of course, the obvious “counter argument” that will inevitably be brought up to this is that there’s no “consent” in Gen 2. Of course, anyone can use that to justify anything, as we’ve already seen here.

    It’s not that hard unless you like to legalistically twist the Scriptures into something they’re not.

    I’ve said my piece, so peace out.

  502. Derek Ramsey says:

    @TimFinnegan – “If the marriage already existed because of the sex, there’d be no need to get married.”

    There is an apparent contradiction. Genesis 2 gives sex as the sole ceremony for marriage and Jesus confirms that the fundamental attribute of a marriage is sex. Until sex occurs, it simply isn’t a full-fledged (consummated) marriage. The story of David and Abishag confirms this. So why then is a betrothed woman called a wife in both the OT and NT in multiple places and the punishment for sex with someone else’s betrothed the same as the punishment for adultery? Because the normative marriage is a covenant followed by sex. You can’t really have one without the other (however it is possible for both to be simultaneous: e.g. Adam and Eve). In the story of Ruth and Boaz the implication was that sex would have created an unconditional obligation for marriage: Boaz understood her offer of sex to be a marriage proposal. So there is no contradiction.

    “…sex makes an already existing marriage indissoluble…My specific point was just that sex creates marriage is refuted by the Gospel of Matthew”

    Why does sex make a statutory marriage indissoluble? Because it fundamentally changes the nature of the relationship. Whether you label this as ‘marriage’ or something else is just semantics. The discussion gets tripped up over “sex=marriage” without considering the equivocation over different uses of the term marriage. The important detail isn’t whether or not sex creates a binding marriage contract (it doesn’t on its own) but what sex actually does. It creates a one-flesh joining. And it is the one-flesh joining that has primary significance to God, not the marital declaration. IMO, the declaration is only important in-so-much as it leads to a one-flesh joining.

    Genesis 2:24 says that marriage is identified by sex not that marriage is sex. Marriage without sex and sex without marriage are both lame implementations of the biblical sexual ethic.

    So what advantage does my particular take on the issue have over the one you’ve described? 1) It informs us that God takes sex to be absolutely sacred. It must be in marriage and it must only be in marriage. This is fundamental from the time of creation. We don’t require any later Law or Paul to inform us of this.; 2) It explains why adultery is not only wrong, but one of the 10 commandments. Having sex with another man’s wife is an invalid marriage expectation. It’s becoming one-flesh with someone who is already one-flesh with another. It is wrong on a physical, moral, and spirital level and fundamentally goes against creation.; 3) Creating a one-flesh bond with someone who is not your spouse is wrong even if it doesn’t lead to marriage. See below:

    “And if the marriage does not exist then it cannot be indissoluble”

    This is an example of missing the point. Marriage is not indissoluble, all it takes is legally permitted divorce. When Paul writes that a Christian having sex with a prostitute is wrong (because it is a one-flesh joining), he is saying that the one-flesh joining is indissoluble. There is no such thing as divorce for the one-flesh joining. It lasts until death even if there is no marriage.; 4) Non-marital sex does not have to result in marriage, but if it does not, it is a sin/debt that must be paid. It is not a victimless crime.

    “But I don’t expect to convince you in a combox discussion.”

    You’ve been engaging and I appreciate exploring the subtleties of our positions. I’ve mostly always held beliefs similar to yours but found that the view I am proposing is not easily refuted and has fewer difficulties. I hope others who read this appreciate how even though we can arrive at similar conclusions, how we get there may be very different and have consequences that are not immediately obvious.

  503. Derek Ramsey says:

    @Evan Turner – “Even though scripture mentioned the fact that Abraham “took her to wife” the context makes it clear that she was never his wife. If you believe this than you believe that God told Abraham to listen to his wife Sarah and divorce his other wife Hagar. This would be madness, as God is not the author of confusion. Also note for everyone else here that disagrees with Artisanal Toad’s incorrect view. I have also proven that sex outside of wedlock is not a sin.”

    You’re going to have to explain your reasoning in more detail. Ignoring “took her to wife” seems like a really significant stretch. If sending her away meant that he divorced her, then how is that madness? That seems to be exactly what it is saying. If sending her away meant that they were still married, that wouldn’t be very nice, but it wouldn’t mean she wasn’t a wife only that she didn’t live with him anymore. Either way, why would you assume, in clear contradiction to the text, that they were never married when it says they were?

    @anglosaxon – “Does anyone have a response for Artisanal Toad other than you are a sperg, you are stupid, you smell, you are a slave for your wives, your posts are too long?”

    Read the comment threads on both articles. Many of us, myself included, have addressed AT’s points. However, we’ve kept the responses focused (something AT seems incapable of doing) and have not addressed every possible objection. And one of the things you seem to miss: when someone finds a flaw in AT’s argument, he rarely replies directly to the objections. There is a lot of misdirection and I don’t waste time responding to the misdirection.

    @Artisanal Toad – “Genesis 2;24 is incomplete and Adam and Eve were not married. or Genesis 2:24 is complete but Adam and Eve were not married because Eve was a whore. or Dalrock is wrong.”

    This is a false dilemma. Adam and Eve had sex and were married at the same time. The two ‘events’ just occurred simultaneously, but this doesn’t mean it is always this way or that there was no consent provided or required.

  504. necroking48 says:

    @jeremy Van Gender

    And this King was present at Eve’s wedding. All three spheres of government, family, church and state, participated in and witnessed her wedding ”

    That’s an abominable lie….there was NO wedding of Adam and Eve, and all three spheres of Govt certainly WERE NOT present…….Adam and Eve were married the instant his penis penetrated her vagina, there were no witnesses, no exchanging of vows, no Govt official, no marriage license. ..there was ONLY the act of sexual Intercourse which made them one flesh
    Stop trying to embellish the story and say what was present when the text says no such thing……as far as I’m concerned it’s a blasphemous reinterpretation to garb the simplicity and unity of what constitutes marriage into a 21st century narrative

  505. Dale says:

    Bruce said

    Pope is a father (spiritual) – you can have Ward Cleaver or a total jerk – still your dad. Dad is owed a certain respect. Honor thy father.

    The pope may very well be a spiritual father… of a few dozen/hundred people. If an evangelist serves God well, he may be father even for thousands (a la Billy Graham). (Ignoring for the moment whether the RCC preaches the gospel accurately.)

    For we see passages like this in Titus 1:4:

    To Titus, my true son in our common faith …

    However, the RCC does not claim that each priest or pope is “father” only to those whom he has lead to submission to Christ and faith in his resurrection, and therefore to salvation (Rom 10:1-13).
    No, the RCC claims that every priest is “father” to all the laymen. (Earl or Bruce, feel free to correct any slight misstatement, but this is mostly/completely true. Every priest acts as if he has the title “father”.)

    In Scripture however, we see the exact opposite message. 1 Cor 4:

    15 Even if you had ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel. 16 Therefore I urge you to imitate me.

    It is ridiculous to read that we “do not have many fathers”, yet think that every RCC priest at every church I go to is my “father”. It is obvious this “father” label is not a reflection of who led us to repentance, but a title. And we see in Matt 23:

    5 “Everything they do is done for people to see: They make their phylacteries[a] wide and the tassels on their garments long; 6 they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; 7 they love to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces and to be called ‘Rabbi’ by others.

    8 “But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers. 9 And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. 10 Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one Instructor, the Messiah. 11 The greatest among you will be your servant. 12 For those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.

    13 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the door of the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to. [14] [b]

    The bold emphasis I added shows the part most directly related to the sin (aka disobeying God’s commands) of asking to be addressed as “father” as a title from the people. Yes, I call my own biological father, “father”, as that is true. But not every man is my biological father. Neither is every guy in an RCC church with funny robes my spiritual father.

    The italics part is relevant for those who teach a false gospel, directing people away from heaven. For those who follow the RCC instead of following God, this is very important.

    Anonymous Reader said Now we return to the endless green choo-choo show.
    a) no kidding
    b) A couple days ago I was walking home, and saw some couple walking a dog. It wanted to go chase some Canadian geese that were walking around, and the guy let out the leash. Dog proceeded to charge the geese. Geese proceeded to half-fly, half-waddle out of range. Whilst hopping/half-flying out of range, a few of the geese dropped green loads on the ground. We could say the dog literally “scared the shit out of them”. 🙂 Or perhaps more accurately, the sudden physical exursion caused it. But I figured that this type of scene is likely what caused the expression. I thought of this scene, as AR specified green choo-choo. 🙂

    And I blame Dalrock for the sudden proliferation in html tags 🙂 Thanks for the primer.

  506. Boxer says:

    Dear Necro King:

    That’s an abominable lie….there was NO wedding of Adam and Eve

    With respect, brother, I have to disagree. The wedding ceremony was presided over by none other than “the big G” himself, two chapters before the sexy stuff is reported to happen.

    From Genesis Ch. 2:

    21 And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;

    22 And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

    23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

    24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

    25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

    Incidentally, this is why I have long agitated for you Christian bros start making this the status quo. I see strong precedent for private Christian marriages, with witnesses in the community, and no official records or licenses necessary. I also argue for hermetic “self-initiation” marriages, where only the couple makes promises, with the Christian God as the witness.

    Keep the meddlers of the divorce courts as far away as possible, and make them work to prove that you’re a married couple if one party decides to involve them.

    Best,

    Boxer

  507. @Derek Ramsey

    Genesis 2 gives sex as the sole ceremony for marriage and Jesus confirms that the fundamental attribute of a marriage is sex.

    This is only true if you hold to your own interpretation of the wording of Genesis 2:24. Mine is also plausible. As Zippy said, for any finite text there are multiple plausible but mutually exclusive interpretations. How is this to be resolved?

    Why does sex make a statutory marriage indissoluble? Because it fundamentally changes the nature of the relationship.

    This is not true. Marriage is a relationship which by its nature is not indissoluble until consummation. There is no changing nature, otherwise referring to both as a marriage and calling a woman in either relationship a wife is misleading. She is a wife because she is married; it is a relationship with a single nature, one which is created by consent and made indissoluble by consummation. This view is consistent with the idea that sex is sacred and that both adultery and fornication are sins for which penance must be done.

    Marriage is not indissoluble, all it takes is legally permitted divorce.

    This is exactly what Christ is saying is not allowed; divorcing your wife is not possible (that is if by divorce we mean ending the marriage). He says specifically that “whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery.” Your interpretation must hold that wife can mean either a woman who is married or a woman who is part of a one-flesh union. This is not so; wife has one meaning: one who is married.

    It all returns to the fact that multiple plausible interpretations which are mutually exclusive can be made about the same text. So how is Christian Doctrine to be decided then? Your appreciation is acknowledged and accepted gratefully.

  508. earlthomas786 says:

    The argument I was trying to denote in shorthand is more properly stated “Sex creates a marriage”.

    No, sex consummates a marriage. It actually completes it, it doesn’t create it.

  509. earlthomas786 says:

    She is a wife because she is married; it is a relationship with a single nature, one which is created by consent and made indissoluble by consummation. This view is consistent with the idea that sex is sacred and that both adultery and fornication are sins for which penance must be done.

    That’s a better way of putting it…marriage is created by consent and completed with consummation (which makes it indissoluble).

  510. Zippy says:

    It is interesting that when different people come to mutually incompatible interpretations of the text they so often accuse each other of bad faith, lying, etc.

    Maybe it isn’t (or at least isn’t always) bad faith. Maybe it is the nature of a finite, unchanging, complex text to give rise to mutually incompatible good faith interpretations.

    And if that is so then the text alone cannot resolve conflicting ideas about doctrine which arise when that is the case, as here.

  511. earl says:

    Marriage is not indissoluble, all it takes is legally permitted divorce.

    Matt 19:3-12

    Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?” And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.” They *said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to give her a certificate of divorce and send her away?” He *said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

    Now this next response came even back in the age when Jesus was on earth, with the divorce laws even more libertine today (divorce for any reason…and the wife can initiate it)…this attitude, especially among men, is growing:

    The disciples *said to Him, “If the relationship of the man with his wife is like this, it is better not to marry.” But He said to them, “Not all men can accept this statement, but only those to whom it has been given. For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother’s womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to accept this, let him accept it.”

  512. Gary Eden says:

    No where in the Old Testament is the woman granted consent in marriage (at least the normative virgin marriage). God didn’t care about the consent of the woman; it is only in our femcentric society that glorifies romance that consent became important.

    The only people with consent were the husband and the father (and if the husband takes her virginity without the father’s consent the husband looses his consent and must marry unless the father objects).

    This is also true in the case of slave taken as a wife. It is master and husband who consent.

    For concubinage it is unclear, unless we are to believe they are just slave-wives (which I don’t see evidence for). It is strongly implied historically and linguistically that concubines were a relationship founded upon the consent of the woman. But she also lacked the protections and honor that wives had.

    Its probably true that in the OT divorced women married by their own consent. Widows were bound by Levirate marriage unless the closest relative refused (as in Boaz and Ruth).

    Ironically, modern marriage may be most similar to concubinage.

  513. Gary Eden says:

    @zippy

    It is interesting that when different people come to mutually incompatible interpretations of the text they so often accuse each other of bad faith, lying, etc.

    Maybe it isn’t (or at least isn’t always) bad faith. Maybe it is the nature of a finite, unchanging, complex text to give rise to mutually incompatible good faith interpretations.

    And if that is so then the text alone cannot resolve conflicting ideas about doctrine which arise when that is the case, as here.

    Some of that is projection. Some of that is emotional protecting (I am right/can’t be wrong so he must be lying). When confronted by truth many people are induced with cognitive dissodense and lash out in defense.

    But a lot of it is because we are a rationalizing species, not rational. We have a belief and will cherry pick facts and interpretations to fit our internal narrative.

    Rationally speaking, a set standard (the text) is the only way to establish truth. Some people are capable of dialectic and establishing their belief by looking to a standard.

    But it is not foolproof. Most people rather use the text to justify their own beliefs, whether those come from church tradition or the milieu of their day (i.e. culture/’the world’).

  514. thedeti says:

    “Maybe it isn’t (or at least isn’t always) bad faith. Maybe it is the nature of a finite, unchanging, complex text to give rise to mutually incompatible good faith interpretations.

    “And if that is so then the text alone cannot resolve conflicting ideas about doctrine which arise when that is the case, as here.”

    That, I agree with. As everyone here knows, that’s why we have so much disagreement among Prots about the meaning of Scripture, and why I’m increasing convinced of the inherent flaws in Sola Scriptura.

    To get all the way down to it, the main problems most prots and fundies have is with the scriptures on sex, marriage, and divorce. And that’s because we little immature humans want to have sex without consequence and we want to get out of our bad marriages and remarry. We don’t want to love bitchy wives or respect crappy husbands. We don’t want the responsibility of leading or of submitting. We want to fornicate and cheat, and we want to have abortions, and we don’t want to do hard things. And then when we admit all this, we don’t want God to judge or spank us and we don’t want to suffer earthly consequences.

  515. Gary Eden says:

    The RCC is faring no better against feminism than the Protestants, and compared to the fundies, worse. Compared to the traditional Anabaptists, both sides are doing far far far far worse.

    This isn’t about the Reformation and constantly trying to re-fight that gets us no where.

    RCC and Protestants will appeal to their various traditions (dressed up as apostolic authority and scripture respectively). But neither side will defeat feminism if they can’t admit where they’ve been wrong and learn from their losses in the culture war.

  516. Son of Liberty says:

    Dale says:
    August 18, 2017 at 10:16 pm

    Bruce said

    Pope is a father (spiritual) – you can have Ward Cleaver or a total jerk – still your dad. Dad is owed a certain respect. Honor thy father.

    The pope may very well be a spiritual father… of a few dozen/hundred people. If an evangelist serves God well, he may be father even for thousands (a la Billy Graham). (Ignoring for the moment whether the RCC preaches the gospel accurately.)

    Matthew 23:9 KJV
    And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

    Just seems that “marriage”, “feminism”, “female behavior”, “sexuality”, will NEVER be solved in Biblical context if catholics and its daughter harlot denominations sects refuse to accept God’s mandate to come out of her doctrines, spiritual fornication and idolatry. Refusal to do this, the Holy Spirit will never enter upon oneself and shed light in enlightenment and knowledge, no matter how many brain cells you burn, disobedience is shooting yourself in the foot.

    http://www.comeoutofher.org

  517. SirHamster says:

    @podethelesser

    Earl, SirHamster, GunnerQ I apologize for not being excruciatingly clear. The argument I was trying to denote in shorthand is more properly stated “Sex creates a marriage”.

    Okay. Since you are looking for a more tailored answer, I will oblige with a point by point response.

    You may recall I have argued elsewhere with our host that the marriage created by rape imposes duties on the rapist, so we all agree there is more to marriage than just sex. If “Sex creates a marriage” is tangential and trivially dismissed from Scripture, I would like you to please do so for the benefit of your less theologically enlightened readers like myself. I am respectfully requesting that someone show me where Scripture clearly says what you say it clearly says.

    1.) First off, do we need to dismiss “Sex creates a marriage” from Scripture? It is not from Scripture in the first place. Scripture does not say “sex creates marriage”. It does not say “one flesh creates marriage”. It does not say “man knowing woman creates a marriage”. I do believe we can dismiss it using Scripture. My first point here is that there is no duty to limit the dismissal to Scripture.

    2.) Without the requirement to dismiss it from Scripture, how does “sex creates marriage” stand as it is, with our common knowledge? Poorly. That’s not how we as a society practice marriage. We understand marriage to be something that involves commitment and choice – if all that was needed to create marriage was sex, a party girl has married herself hundreds of times to as many different men. We do not consider her to be married that many times. Neither does the law, even though the law does recognize a form of common law marriage, which is based not on a single instance of sex, but a practiced lifestyle.

    3.) Rape does not create marriage. This is consistent with sex not creating marriage. One might object that in Deuteronomy 22:28-29, there are instructions regarding a man that lies with an un-pledged virgin to pay the bridal price and being restricted from divorcing her. But this is following two other examples in Deut 22:23-27 where a man has lied with a pledged virgin. In those cases, rather than the two becoming married and compensation going to the father, the man is stoned, and the woman is stoned if she did not try to protect her virginity by calling for help. The rule to be learned here is not that rape creates marriage. This chapter in Deut is not about teaching Israelites how to marry each other. This is about setting the standards of justice and holiness in the nation- for ” You must purge the evil from among you.” Where in a similar situation the man would be stoned to death, in this other situation he does not have to die, but must only commit his life in marriage. This is not rape creating marriage. This is marriage being used as a remedy where the alternative is putting the man to death.

    4.) Marriage is best defined in Genesis between Adam and Eve. Both Jesus and Paul point to Genesis when they make points about how divorce and marriage are supposed to . Again, as pointed out in (1), there is no legalistic definition of penis in vagina as the precise moment of marriage. Rather, marriage is described poetically and we are left to draw conclusions from those elements and this choice of description. God desires man to not be alone. The man can use a helper, but animals don’t cut it. God creates woman out of man and she is brought to him. The man is inspired by her to create his first poem, and their coupling is cited as the prototype and model for why son leaves family to form a new one with his wife. And if one looks carefully at the declaration of Adam and Eve as model for all couples, notice the woman is called the man’s wife before he unites and becomes one flesh with her. With one flesh having a clear connection to sex, this indicates that the status of husband and wife occurs before sex!

    In summary: Bible does not say sex creates marriage. Rape does not create marriage. Deuteronomy is about setting community standards and stopping/remedying evil behavior, and is not about defining marriage. Genesis provides a model with the first married couple, and shows sex happens after the couple is defined as husband and wife, within their marriage.

  518. Jason says:

    The long of the short of it is:

    This topic has has so many replies for the one fact:

    *Players, churchians, lukewarm believers, and non believers want excuse(s) to have premarital sex or to remarry, or to father children out of wedlock……..and to still be considered “good” in the eyes of men, pastors, priests, deacons, and church folk……and then at Judgment they can say “But, but I didn’t know that.”……..or “no one taught me the Truth” (even though it’s in His Word), and “let me explain my circumstances.”

    Dalrock. Hasn’t this topic had enough? I mean, to an outsider coming here…….he or she will see us all behaving like Bill Clinton on the stand during those Ken Starr hearings debating and hairsplitting what the meaning of the word “is” is. We’re beginning to look really silly here; us folks who do like your blog….well, personally I think its now bringing us down in the eyes of the world we are trying to inspire. Just one man’s opinion,

  519. Zippy says:

    Gary Eden:

    The RCC is faring no better against feminism than the Protestants …

    Between the following square brackets I have produced a comprehensive list of all female deacons, priests, bishops, cardinals, and popes in the RCC throughout all of time and space: [ ]

  520. BillyS says:

    Pode and Boxer,

    This may have already been said, but you shouldn’t view interaction with AT only in the context of these 2 threads. He has been around for a long time and his lack of logic (I disagree with Boxer on that topic) and poor foundations are continually presented as Dalrock notes. That has made people realize much discussion with him is foolish.

    I wonder if his most recent supporters are just sock puppets, but I am not going to bother looking into it enough to see if that is valid.

  521. feeriker says:

    And then when we admit all this, we don’t want God to judge or spank us and we don’t want to suffer earthly or eternal consequences.

    FIFY.

  522. Gunner Q says:

    podethelesser @ August 18, 2017 at 9:17 pm:
    “If “Sex creates a marriage” is tangential and trivially dismissed from Scripture, I would like you to please do so for the benefit of your less theologically enlightened readers like myself.”

    The simple fact that the Bible doesn’t use sex and marriage as synonyms ought to be sufficient. Scripture didn’t call her “Rahab the Wife”.

    Sex is a physical act. Marriage is a publicly acknowledged/enforced relationship. This has been true for all human history. The two are not the same and the one can happen without the other. Mosaic Law says they should happen together but that does not make the two concepts interchangeable.

    Jason @ 5:13 pm:
    “…he or she will see us all behaving like Bill Clinton on the stand during those Ken Starr hearings debating and hairsplitting what the meaning of the word “is” is.”

    That was a success story for the people, enough so that Slick Willie Clinton became the second US President in history to be impeached for his criminal conduct.

  523. BillyS says:

    Deti,

    I think you are missing that human nature is the problem, nothing else. That is one reason I will favor Sola Scriptura over even godly traditions. It still involves man’s interpretation so is vulnerable to flaws, but the Word is the only infallible base.

  524. Lost Patrol says:

    Between the following square brackets I have produced a comprehensive list of all female deacons, priests, bishops, cardinals, and popes in the RCC throughout all of time and space: [ ]

    I am not Roman Catholic myself but this is laudable. One hopes the policy will endure to the bitter end, but I ask those more knowledgeable if groups like these:

    http://romancatholicwomenpriests.org/

    http://catholicwomendeacons.org/

    Will make any actual inroads over time. I expect they have no recognized standing, but maybe plenty of feminist support in the ranks.

    Not knowing too much about it (though I’ve seen some RCC women in these roles), and at the risk of inserting a third link, I looked at the dummies version which indicates (if accurate) women are checking every box outside of deacon to pope, even to handling and passing out the Eucharist at the altar. Have they always done these things, or has it come along commensurate with more recent feminist gains in secular society?

    http://www.dummies.com/religion/christianity/catholicism/the-role-of-women-in-the-catholic-church/

  525. Boxer says:

    BillyS:

    This may have already been said, but you shouldn’t view interaction with AT only in the context of these 2 threads. He has been around for a long time and his lack of logic (I disagree with Boxer on that topic) and poor foundations are continually presented as Dalrock notes. That has made people realize much discussion with him is foolish.

    Our host doesn’t think it foolish. I appreciate his efforts to argue in good faith with AT. He’s making salient points and doing a good job presenting alternatives to the (suspiciously self-serving) Toad interpretation.

    I respect you, but you’re wrong. Not only is Toad not an idiot, he’s charming and persuasive. That’s why it’s important to argue with him. (If you really think he’s an idiot, you owe it to yourself to just pass him by.)

    I wonder if his most recent supporters are just sock puppets, but I am not going to bother looking into it enough to see if that is valid.

    Doubtful. I’ve been accused of that, too (recently by my pet, SirHamster). There’s nothing that a sockpuppet could say that Toad couldn’t.

    You’ll note on your own wordpress console that you can get the originating IP on comments. It’s pretty easy to spot a sock. I also have to assume that if anyone were being so petty, that Dalrock would tip off the audience, so that we could all indulge in the appropriate mocking and scoffing at such cheap theatrics.

    Best,

    Boxer

  526. Gary Eden says:

    Zippy your priests may all be men still, but that is a misdirection.

    You have priests but several have testified that the on ground church activities are dominated by women.

    You have radical feminist nuns going off the deep end. I believe I heard about a few of them doing ordinations.

    The marriage situation among the laity is as bad or worse than protestants.

    I do not see evidence that belief in feminism/feminine imperative is appreciably different amoung the Catholic laity.

    You have some good doctrine thats not feminist, but the lack of strong teaching from the pulpit means it is of no affect.

    I could go on in depth but this isn’t a competition. Its not Protestant v. Catholic. If you can’t admit you have a problem then you will fall to feminism.

  527. Gary Eden says:

    Players, churchians, lukewarm believers, and non believers want excuse(s) to have premarital sex or to remarry, or to father children out of wedlock……..and to still be considered “good” in the eyes of men

    Hello churchian projection. You impinge the motives of people you do not know; that ought to bother you.

    Many of us are simply seeking the truth, trying to establish our beliefs on scripture and not false churchian tradition. We care not for the approval of others, or we wouldn’t be going down this road.

  528. necroking48 says:

    For those of you who have made it this far and don’t want to read a wall of text, I will try and summarize in my OWN words this thread so far:
    A lot of it are my own OPINIONS and insights so without further ado:

    1: “Is marriage the cause of sexual immorality?”…..If we’re talking about marriage that existed 3000 years ago and how God intends marriage to be, then the answer is NO.
    If we’re talking about “modern marriage”, quote/un-quote, then YES>, marriage is definitely the cause of sexual immorality. Never is the utterly deceptive, hypergamous, wicked nature of women truly revealed until they get married, and then their chameleon like behavior becomes fully exposed.

    Women lure men with the promise of delicious pussy and earthly delights in order to trap men into marriage, but once that occurs, the sex is almost guaranteed to stop, and she will use her pussy as a weapon….no longer will her husband be given access to her body, and if she reluctantly agrees to it, then it will be on her terms, and when SHE decides….she will dispense “sex” sparingly, if at all, and use emotional blackmail, belittling and shaming tactics to make sure her man never ever objects to not be able to have sex with her any more.
    The 1001 excuses will come out….I’m too tired, sex is not all there is to a relationship, is sex all you think about, i need emotional connection before we can do it, i have a headache, I’m not in the mood, why do I have to take care of YOUR sexual needs, blah, blah, blah, and the list goes on. This creates an impossible environment for men to get their needs met which creates the ideal situation for a man to seek release outside the confines of the relationship
    @Feministhater is quite right, marriage= the death knell for those of us who need sex, yet it is the 1 place where sex is meant to be guaranteed
    I don’t even think most of us in here quite fully realize how destructive FEMINISM, truly is, and how it has irrevocably destroyed western society COMPLETELY AND FOREVER……Giving women the power, the vote, the control over all aspects of our lives, was and is the 10,000,000 gigaton nuclear bomb that Satan used to utterly destroy the family and rip the very fabric of society apart to the point where it is now unfixable

    2: Matthew 5:28, is talking about ADULTERY, and NOT sexual immorality
    3: Lust=to Covet, it is a gender neutral term, with the object of the lust the main component, not the lust itself
    4: Since lust is to covet, it is not a sin to view pornographic images, or to be aroused by beautiful sexy women
    5: Marriage is not necessarily permanent and life long…..Divorce was included in the law to allow divorce
    6: God divorced Israel, and in the future will commit adultery by remarrying both Israel and the body of Christ……This should not be possible if divorce is not permitted
    7: Masturbation was never a sin, except in the filthy polluted minds of the anti-sexual ascetics
    8: Sin is a transgression of the LAW…..if there’s no law condemning a particular practice then it is not a sin
    9: There is no such term in the bible as “living in sin”, therefore those who are married to women who arn’t virgins when you took them, ARE NOT living in adultery, they are truly married in the eyes of God
    10: sex= marriage….That is God’s own definition of what makes a man and a woman one flesh, if you don’t like it, take it up with God, Genesis 2:24, and 1st Corinthians 6:16 makes it abundantly clear that it is sexual intercourse that makes a man and a woman one flesh in HIS eyes, with or without any commitment
    11: Prostitution is a sin, no matter what clever tomfoolery @Artisanal Toad tries to use to justify it, therefore @Dalrock is correct on this particular subject

    I think that about covers it all

  529. SirHamster says:

    Doubtful. I’ve been accused of that, too (recently by my pet, SirHamster). There’s nothing that a sockpuppet could say that Toad couldn’t.

    Have not called you an AT sock puppet. You’re a fellow traveler with AT as a subversive, but you have your own voice and are wrong in your own snowflakey way.

    Really want some attention, eh?

  530. Caleb says:

    “No such thing as living in sin”?

    Really? So I can bang all the whores I want?

  531. Zippy says:

    For those who asked/are curious, Pope John Paul II infallibly declared in 1994 that female priests are an impossibility, in the Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. Of course there has been much crying and handwringing since then, as well as heretics being excommunicated for the pretense of carrying out female ordination.

  532. Zippy says:

    The actual text of the declaration:

    Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the Magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church’s judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force.

    Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.

  533. Anonymous Reader says:

    For those who asked/are curious, Pope John Paul II infallibly declared in 1994 that female priests are an impossibility,

    So when some future pope, probably not Frank, infallibly declares that female priests are possible, what then?

  534. BillyS says:

    Boxer,

    I was speaking of the brand new people here.

    Dalrock mostly ignores AT as far as I see, though much of that could be a time issue for him as he only has a few replies in most threads. I do mostly skip really long posts from AT and such, I just catch a few highlights, especially when I miss some conversations.

    I am annoying in my own way of course.

  535. earl says:

    Many of us are simply seeking the truth, trying to establish our beliefs on scripture and not false churchian tradition.

    And that’s how the new Prot sect Edenism starts.

  536. Novaseeker says:

    So when some future pope, probably not Frank, infallibly declares that female priests are possible, what then?

    Perhaps that will happen, and if it does it would result in an immediate schism in the Western Catholic Church, no question.

    But why focus on that speculation, when there is a “here and now” issue right in this thread, which is this: no text can be, in itself, an authority. Without an authoritative interpretation, the text is merely a text subject to various, and often incompatible, interpretations (as we see in spades in these threads which go on for hundreds of posts), none of which is authoritative for any believer beyond his ability to be convinced. It’s marketplace approach to truth, to be honest, and it’s downright disgusting. It’s been horrifying reading through these threads.

    This is obviously not intended as an indictment of all Protestant Christians, because clearly almost all Protestant Christians understand the faith well enough to disagree with the nonsense that Dalrock is arguing against in these threads. That’s obvious.

    One wonders, however, how anyone can really see the will of Christ as expressed in the Garden of Gethsemane, be vindicated by an approach which gives rise to such a high degree of contentiousness, and which *must do*, by virtue of its core means of self-understanding. These threads exemplify the issue, in a rather bizarre and thankfully uncommon way, but the issue remains in more mundane contexts as well. It’s sad and unfortunate, really. It truly is.

  537. Zippy says:

    Anonymous Reader:

    So when some future pope, probably not Frank, infallibly declares that female priests are possible, what then?

    When some future thing that hasn’t actually happened does happen in our imaginations about what might come to pass, we are writing a Phillip K. Dick novel.

    This line of comments started when a commenter claimed that here, now, and today the billion-member RCC was just as overrun by feminism as protestantism. The facts I presented are inconvenient for that thesis.

  538. earl says:

    This line of comments started when a commenter claimed that here, now, and today the billion-member RCC was just as overrun by feminism as protestantism.

    The convent comment was true about where feminism is running rampant in the RCC but they aren’t female clergy like many Prot churchs have now…and they aren’t changing Catholic dogma. They’ve traded the faith for the cheap counterfeit of feminism.

    Besides it is completely possible now in some Prot churches for a female clergy member to marry a same sex couple in a church which removes any Christian symbols so as to not offend Muslims.

  539. Zippy says:

    earl:

    There are some rotten-to-the-core convents which are old and dying, and some fantastic ones which are young and growing.

    But all of them are under the supervision of men (bishops), and to the extent some are rotten it is because this is tolerated by their superiors (who are all men).

  540. Lost Patrol says:

    Thanks.

    the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women

    No authority to confer. That is well stated. Look girls, it’s not that we’re some kind of misogynists from the patriarchy; no one on the earth has authority to give you this final frontier of feminism.

    I remain curious about the second part of my question regarding where on the timeline women in the RCC began to fill so many other roles short of the priesthood. One of the groups I linked up thread claims the church once had hundreds of women deacons, but they got stood down.

    (if accurate) women are checking every box outside of deacon to pope, even to handling and passing out the Eucharist at the altar. Have they always done these things, or has it come along commensurate with more recent feminist gains in secular society?

  541. earl says:

    But all of them are under the supervision of men (bishops), and to the extent some are rotten it is because this is tolerated by their superiors (who are all men).

    Yes that’s the important aspect. It doesn’t matter how many women are involved in church activities…it’s still under the supervision of a bishop/priest.

    But we also can’t be naive to think that Catholic women (especially American/European) haven’t been infected by secular feminism. I’ve met those type before and they will fight tooth and nail for the feminist ethos and ‘smashing the Patriarchy’ over what Scripture and/or the church authority says.

  542. feministhater says:

    This line of comments started when a commenter claimed that here, now, and today the billion-member RCC was just as overrun by feminism as protestantism. The facts I presented are inconvenient for that thesis.

    The Pope is welcoming your replacements with open arms. The women might not be in headship (figureship) positions but they rule through subterfuge anyway. The authority lies with them but the responsibility lies with the man.

    It’s just a matter of timing. Drip by drip feminism takes more control.

    The idea that the Catholic Church is immune to human nature, that the Pope somehow can be infallible when speaking on Church Doctrine one second and then fallible when speaking about anything else the next, is not rational.

    The convent comment was true about where feminism is running rampant in the RCC but they aren’t female clergy like many Prot churchs have now…and they aren’t changing Catholic dogma.

    I don’t know about that. They have made changes throughout the two millennia since Christ. They even add to dogma every now and again. The Catholic Church might not like removing Scriptural Doctrine, but they sure like to add to it.

    In the end, humans will argue the same stuff for years. Humans can simply be wrong, they could be wrong then, we could be wrong now. It matters not.

  543. Novaseeker says:

    I remain curious about the second part of my question regarding where on the timeline women in the RCC began to fill so many other roles short of the priesthood. One of the groups I linked up thread claims the church once had hundreds of women deacons, but they got stood down.

    On deacons, there have been no women ordained to the diaconate in either the Western Catholic or Eastern Orthodox churches in any relevant recent timeframe. Both churches are trying to understand better whether there were women in the first few centuries of the church who served in some kind of diaconal-type ministry, perhaps exclusively to women, and that remains an open inquiry … there is no consensus on that in either church, as far as I understand.

    The other roles …. well in the Western Catholic Church you’re talking about “extraordinary Eucharistic ministers” (EEMs, i.e., lay people who assist in distributing the Eucharist at Mass), which were instituted after V2 and were supposed to be extraordinary but are now ubiquitous because of the small number of priests relative to the faithful (i.e., it speeds up the distribution of the Eucharist a lot for a large group) … altar servers being girls (also came up after V2), which has also resulted in fewer boys being interested in being altar servers … lay offices in parishes, like religious education, liturgical music director and so on (mostly women, because (1) it pays poorly, (2) women have the degrees more than men do in these areas, at least among Catholics and (3) the priests are small in number and can’t run all of these ministries themselves).

    In general, it’s happened because there are a small number of priests relative to laity, such that they need a good deal of assistance, and most of that comes from women because there are few men who are not priests who are geared up, educationally, or willing to get paid that amount for work.

  544. earl says:

    The idea that the Catholic Church is immune to human nature, that the Pope somehow can be infallible when speaking on Church Doctrine one second and then fallible when speaking about anything else the next, is not rational.

    It’s survived ~2000 years of human nature in it, besides if we thought that then Jesus would be a liar saying the gates of hell wouldn’t prevail against it.

    They even add to dogma every now and again. The Catholic Church might not like removing Scriptural Doctrine, but they sure like to add to it.

    Name the female who has made any changes/adding to Catholic dogma.

  545. earl says:

    There was no ethos in modern times more hell bent destroying the church than atheistic Communism…it didn’t even last 100 years as a great power.

  546. feministhater says:

    Name the female who has made any changes/adding to Catholic dogma.

    I didn’t say there was one specific female who did anything. I just said that the Catholic Church has changed dogma.

    It’s survived ~2000 years of human nature in it, besides if we thought that then Jesus would be a liar saying the gates of hell wouldn’t prevail against it.

    So did the Roman Empire. So did Western Civilisation. So did the Orthodox Church. This point raised has no merit.

  547. earl says:

    I didn’t say there was one specific female who did anything. I just said that the Catholic Church has changed dogma.

    What dogma has it change?

    So did the Roman Empire. So did Western Civilisation. So did the Orthodox Church. This point raised has no merit.

    None of those had a Christ guarantee. That’s the point you overlooked.

  548. Lost Patrol says:

    @Novaseeker

    Without an authoritative interpretation, the text is merely a text subject to various, and often
    incompatible, interpretations

    It has been a wild ride for sure, almost Trump-like in bringing forth people’s true colors. I note from the Acts of the Apostles that similar things have happened all along the way. When St. Paul or St. Peter reasoned with the people from the scriptures to explain the Gospel, some were persuaded and some formed mobs to drag the preachers before city authorities. Berean Jews were praised for examining the scriptures to verify St. Paul’s message, whilst some Jews from Thessalonica were angry enough to take their mob cross country, chasing the Apostles to Berea to try and shut down the message.

    Someone up thread mentioned these words from Jesus at the sermon on the mount: “Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” Even a man that claims to recognize no authority but God cannot be confused by this.

    It’s a tall order that He knew no mere man on the earth could fulfill, but it establishes the main theme. In my old line of work this would be called commanders’ intent. There will be confusion, the plan may not bear up to changing events, I will be confronted with situations where there is no time or way to consult higher echelons as to how to proceed. But I know the end state that my commander is aiming for. I evaluate my actions and decisions as to whether they honestly feed into that. It’s an attitude that leaves no room for pulling out a microscope, if you know what I mean.

  549. feministhater says:

    So the Orthodox Church has no Christ backing it? Great. I believe Jesus backs all Christians who actually believe in him and submit to him and worship and pray to him, not institutions.

    Specific Dogma? How about the Assumption of Mary into some spiritual equal to God in 1950? How about all the Vatican 1 and 2 group meet ups. Yeah, yeah, we know, these are not real ‘Dogma’ changes, just more up to date versions of the truth or some such. The point being, it’s ever changing, being subject to additions.

    I don’t care to argue the specifics. However, the Catholic Church has either brought in new Dogmas or re-interpreted older ones.

  550. Boxer says:

    Dear Fellas:

    BillyS sez:

    Dalrock mostly ignores AT as far as I see

    You kidding? Have you read this ongoing conversation? He’s just spent the last two or three weeks deconstructing the Church of Toad. I’ve been taking notes, in anticipation of the next family reunion (I have cousins who use similar arguments – problem is that they aren’t as smart or thoughtful as Toad is, and may not even understand the ripostes.)

    Then Kooky SirHamster sez:

    Have not called you an AT sock puppet. You’re a fellow traveler with AT as a subversive, but you have your own voice and are wrong in your own snowflakey way.

    You have accused me of being a Toad sock. Before that you accused me of having my own socks. Before that you accused me of being a homosexual pedophile. Of course, you denied all these accusations, after they failed to produce the desired results.

    https://v5k2c2.wordpress.com/2017/03/24/boxer-his-stable-of-kooks/

    In the interim, you accused Artisanal Toad of various nonsensical stuph. When no one took you seriously, you excused your lies as “rhetoric” and explained that making up nonsense was “the only sensible thing to do.” (fuck’n lol)

    It’s a basic pattern, and your paradigm, to resort to funny untruths when you lose an argument. Anyone who pays attention here has seen you do this countless times. Of course, you’re not the only one who stoops to these theatrics, and you’re not even very good at it, but you’re probably the most consistent.

    What does the Bible say about shit like this, anyway? Let’s see…

    Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

    And again, I’m not singling you out. There are a couple of others who do this stuff. That won’t stop you from drafting another twelve responses, just as nonsensical as the last few.

    In the meantime, you’ve been roundly ignored, while more intelligent people have actually debunked the foundations of Toad’s new religion. You should apologize to them, for working so hard to distract from their good work.

    Regards,

    Boxer

  551. earl says:

    So the Orthodox Church has no Christ backing it? Great. I believe Jesus backs all Christians who actually believe in him and submit to him and worship and pray to him, not institutions.

    Then why did Christ institute a church and put Peter in charge of it? That’s in Scripture.

    How about the Assumption of Mary into some spiritual equal to God in 1950?

    Please point out where in that proclamation, Mary is made into a ‘spiritual equal to God’.

    There’s also the Immaculate Conception…along with the Assumption those are the only ‘changes’ that have occurred. And they weren’t really changes, they were something already long believed from the apostles until they were put in as official dogma.

  552. feministhater says:

    Earl. You can just state what you truly mean. Anyone who is not a Roman Catholic cannot be saved. There done. I’m not going to argue anymore with your specifics.

  553. Boxer says:

    Dear Feminist Hater:

    Specific Dogma? How about the Assumption of Mary into some spiritual equal to God in 1950?

    It’s interesting that you know about this. Sorta off topic, but check out Jung and the Jungians on Myth By Steven Walker (Routledge, 2002) pp. 80-81

    How about all the Vatican 1 and 2 group meet ups. Yeah, yeah, we know, these are not real ‘Dogma’ changes, just more up to date versions of the truth or some such. The point being, it’s ever changing, being subject to additions.

    The Catholic bros here remind me of my Muslim friends I used to talk to, in the town I used to live in. They’d tell me that Islam was immune to feminism, only moments before the preacher got up, and started lecturing on the duties of the Muslim husband, and the privileges of the Muslim wife.

    Feminism destroyed the protestant churches first. They were first priority for destruction because they were originally the primary vehicle for the transmission of healthy culture in North America. The feminists are now destroying Catholicism, Judaism, Mormonism and Islam as merely a clean-up operation. Catholics (and Muslims and others) who think they are immune from damage are fooling themselves. They’re just a few years behind. Time to get up and start resisting, because it’s almost too late.

    Boxer

  554. earl says:

    Feminism destroyed the protestant churches first.

    When they all allowed birth control…that was the beginning of letting feminism in. The Catholic church is still opposed to birth control and considers it a grave sin (I know some Catholics use it…that’s on them, not the what the church says).

    For Catholicism…from the research I’ve read it was in the convents where the infestation started. But Zippy is right…those orders are getting older and dying and the ones staying true to the faith are growing.

    I’d be curious to know how feminism has wormed its way into Islam though. Seems like the idea of secular equality and Islam don’t mix…but that doesn’t mean it hasn’t started to change.

  555. earl says:

    You can just state what you truly mean. Anyone who is not a Roman Catholic cannot be saved.

    You mean this…

    ‘The original phrase, “Salus extra ecclesiam non est” (“there is no salvation out of the Church”) comes from Letter LXXII of Cyprian of Carthage (d. 258). The letter was written in reference to a particular controversy as to whether or not it was necessary to baptize applicants who had previously been baptized by heretics. In Ad Jubajanum de haereticis baptizandis, Cyprian tells Jubaianus of his conviction that baptism conferred by heretics is not valid. Firmilian (died c. 269) agreed with Cyprian reasoning that those who are outside the Church and have not the Holy Spirit cannot admit others to the Church or give what they do not possess. According to Cardinal Ratzinger, Cyprian was not expressing a theory on the eternal fate of all baptized and non-baptized persons, despite the fact that the plain words of Cyprian clearly express that concept.’

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

  556. Boxer says:

    Dear Earl:

    I’d be curious to know how feminism has wormed its way into Islam though. Seems like the idea of secular equality and Islam don’t mix…but that doesn’t mean it hasn’t started to change.

    Same way the feminists infiltrated protestants, and the same way it’s wormed its way into the Catholic church.

    I wrote, right here on Dalrock, about going to vigil mass and seeing a priest ramble on about the duties of Christian men to intervene in any suspected domestic violence situation in the neighborhood. The lecture was complete with the phony statistics (one in three, etc.) we all enjoy scoffing at here on Dalrock.

    What surprised me was the fact that this priest wasn’t the typical scrawny male feminist priest, who spoke with a lisp. He was a visiting priest from Africa, where I assumed that the Church was still producing healthy masculinity. I’m wrong sometimes, in my assumptions, and it saddens me.

    Best,

    Boxer

  557. earl says:

    I wrote, right here on Dalrock, about going to vigil mass and seeing a priest ramble on about the duties of Christian men to intervene in any suspected domestic violence situation in the neighborhood.

    I never saw that writing…I’d be curious to know in what context that was even brought up.

  558. earl says:

    What surprised me was the fact that this priest wasn’t the typical scrawny male feminist priest, who spoke with a lisp.

    Those type are trying to rationalize homosexuality into being a good thing. And I’d guess the majority of them are Jesuits or were taught in Jesuit schools.

  559. Boxer says:

    Earl:

    I never saw that writing…I’d be curious to know in what context that was even brought up.

    https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2016/08/10/the-peasants-are-revolting/#comment-216303

  560. Caleb says:

    And christians can’t understand why kids “raised in the faith” leave it for the secular world . . . its mass confusion. I had occasion to be in a strip joint recently, and found myself engaged in a debate on Calvinism with the most beautiful dancer I have ever seen in a club like this . . . she looked like she stepped out of a VS catalog. She came from an Orthodox Presbyterian family but said she didn’t believe anymore because the elders leading her church, including her own father, could even agree themselves on some of their doctrines. Mass confusion and bickering.

    I agree with AT as to the initiation of marriage . . . I am not yet convinced on the prostitution thing. But I will say he at least challenges the churchians to think and prove their own beliefs . . . that is something that has been missing from most congregations I have attended through the years.

    Keep it up AT, I ain’t mad at ya!

  561. earl says:

    Weak-nonexistent at best if the story of Jeremiah was the context. However the church isn’t immune to having SJWs…Judas Iscariot is the prime example.

  562. earl says:

    Besides…St. Rita is a prime example of the correct thinking when domestic abuse happens in a marriage.

    https://www.catholiccompany.com/getfed/st-rita-of-cascia-patron-saint-of-the-impossible/

  563. necroking48 says:

    I gather your comment is directed at me?

    Yes, there is NO SUCH terminology in the entire bible called “living in sin ” , not 1 reference, nada, zip, nil, none……so yes you can bang as much whores as you want BUT you will be guilty of fornication each time you do so, there’s no such thing as living in fornication but you are committing the ACT of fornicating each time you do so, whether it’s your 50th whore or your 200th

  564. Hrodgar says:

    Re: Boxer

    Catholicism isn’t immune to feminism. What we have seen in this thread are more limited claims, things along the lines of the RCC being more resistant to, not thus far as affected by, or even – the most extreme claim made thus far – unable to be destroyed by feminism.

    But resistant to isn’t the same as proof against, and a body can get awfully sick without dying.

  565. earl says:

    , there is NO SUCH terminology in the entire bible called “living in sin, not 1 reference, nada, zip, nil, none ”

    https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+6%3A1-2&version=NASB

  566. Zippy says:

    Boxer:

    FWIW, I was not defending the proposition “feminism is not a problem in the Catholic Church,” an absolute claim.

    I was providing evidence against the proposition “feminism is just as much a problem in Catholicism as it is in Protestantism,” a relative claim.

  567. Boxer says:

    Dear Zippy (and Earl, etc.)

    FWIW, I was not defending the proposition “feminism is not a problem in the Catholic Church,” an absolute claim.

    I was providing evidence against the proposition “feminism is just as much a problem in Catholicism as it is in Protestantism,” a relative claim.

    I think that’s right. Most of these Protestant denominations are so utterly pozzed out that the only solution is to let them collapse, and build new institutions to replace them. The Catholics aren’t at that point, yet; but you guys are much closer than you realize.

    I’m also disturbed by the positive thinking of some of you, with nonsensical foolishness like reliance on a “Christ guarantee.” I’ve read your books. Jesus never guaranteed that man-made institutions would stay true to the discipline of Christianity. What he did guarantee is that men would have to suffer (and often die) for living the life he suggested, and building a high civilization in his name.

    I’m not saying that Earl doesn’t suffer and work for his faith, but his statements can easily be read as shiny-happy let’s not worry about Feminism, Christ will do all the work defeating it by anyone who runs across his comments here.

    And, lest you Cats feel singled out, my own people (call them the Moes) are even further along in woman-worship than you are. We don’t have female bishops, and we don’t marry dykes in our temples, but the last sacrament meeting I went to was all about the duty to pay child support. Laughable and pathetic.

    Best,

    Boxer

  568. earl says:

    Jesus never guaranteed that man-made institutions would stay true to the discipline of Christianity.

    The gates of hell won’t overcome His church. Matt 16:18

    Now when it comes to any other man made institutions…it does not have that guarantee.

    And I actually worry about feminism quite a bit, not so much that it will overthrow throw the church…but seeing and reading about the results it does to women (and men) of faith who actually believe in it. Eventually they’ll either reject some or all of the faith…on the basis that it is an oppressive patriarch. And you are correct that feminism is basically ‘women-worship’. They flat out eventually think they are ‘goddesses’.

  569. Boxer says:

    Dear Earl:

    The gates of hell won’t overcome His church. Matt 16:18

    And I think that’s right. Unfortunately, when his church starts conceding to feminists, it’s not his church any longer. He lifts his mantle of authority off that church, and lets it go down to destruction. (There are too many stories about this happening in the text to count).

    You’re putting your faith in the works of men. Quit doing that. Have faith in the system laid down by Jesus and St. Paul. Test your priests by their fidelity to the text. It’s the only way to keep your church away from the idiots.

    Boxer

  570. earl says:

    Have faith in the system laid down by Jesus and St. Paul.

    That’s His church. When the clergy start going away from Jesus (for something like feminism, rationalizing homosexuality, or being a SJW)…they begin to show much like Judas they aren’t really his clergy anymore…to their own peril.

  571. Boxer says:

    Dear Earl:

    That’s His church. When the clergy start going away from Jesus (for something like feminism, rationalizing homosexuality, or being a SJW)…they begin to show much like Judas they aren’t really his clergy anymore…to their own peril.

    That’s only his church as long as it follows his system. To prove otherwise, you’ll have to show me in the New Testament where the phrase “Roman Catholic Church” pops up.

    When the clergy start going away from Jesus, they gain control of the infrastructure of his church, and then it becomes the church of feminism. That’s the reality of the situation.

    On the upside, you guys have fought against the poz for a thousand years plus. I have faith in your ability to defeat the latest crop of dolts; provided enough good people get woke. That’s our job, and I’m taking it seriously.

    Best,

    Boxer

  572. earl says:

    When the clergy start going away from Jesus, they gain control of the infrastructure of his church, and then it becomes the church of feminism.

    That’s supposedly been what the ‘lavender mafia’ has tried to do. Not so much for feminism but for active homosexuality.

    https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/catholic-expert-details-39huge-homosexual-underground-in-the-church39

  573. Novaseeker says:

    Boxer —

    Test your priests by their fidelity to the text. It’s the only way to keep your church away from the idiots.

    I am not Catholic, but Eastern Orthodox, as you know. It isn’t about constantly shit testing your hierarchy against a text which you interpret yourself to test them against. It’s about authority, and understanding the apostles had authority given to them by Christ, and their successors had the authority given them by the apostles, as we see from Titus in the NT itself, and from numerous other contemporaneous accounts in the immediate decades after the NT texts. This is a feature of both Catholicism and Orthodoxy, and without that authority, which comes in a line directly from Christ and his apostles, you end up with the textual anarchy we have seen here, all based on “testing against the text”. It’s quite literally a road to nowhere, or at the very least a road to such a disastrous multiplicity of varying churches based on varying interpretations of the authoritative text as to make a sad mockery of the living God. It’s like Christ is being crucified all over again by this nonsense.

    The truly ironic thing is that it is often the people who lament the collapse of authority in our culture (not you, by the way, but others here and elsewhere) who embrace a personal worldview of personal authority based on personal interpretation of a text which they then claim to be authoritative over them based on their own personal interpretation of it. Yet the irony escapes them. They do not see the link between this mindset, based centuries ago, and the current collapse of *all* authority, based on the same mindset. Alas.

  574. earl says:

    The truly ironic thing is that it is often the people who lament the collapse of authority in our culture who embrace a personal worldview of personal authority based on personal interpretation of a text which they then claim to be authoritative over them based on their own personal interpretation of it.

    It’s the very reason they don’t like a church authority on these matters.

  575. Zippy says:

    Boxer:

    I’m also disturbed by the positive thinking of some of you, with nonsensical foolishness like reliance on a “Christ guarantee.”

    My own take is that the “gates of Hell” guarantee just means that ultimately the Church will triumph (because Christ already has), battering down the gates of Hell. There is a whole lotta potentially ugly looking phase space between here and the eschaton though.

    You might find this amusing;

    https://zippycatholic.wordpress.com/2017/06/05/the-search-engine-of-christ-on-earth/

  576. Zippy says:

    “Actually I am a Christian, and indeed a Roman Catholic, so that I do not expect ‘history’ to be anything but a ‘long defeat’— though it contains (and in legend may contain more clearly and movingly) some samples or glimpses of final victory” — JRR Tolkien

  577. Son of Liberty says:

    “Actually I am a Christian, and indeed a Roman Catholic, so that I do not expect ‘history’ to be anything but a ‘long defeat’— though it contains (and in legend may contain more clearly and movingly) some samples or glimpses of final victory” — JRR Tolkien

    All masons, knights, Illuminati members are Roman Catholic. Tolkien was an occultist and a possible Freemason, nothing “Christian” about it. After all, Jesuits created all of these secret societies groups, as supposed Bible readers and researchers without personal ideological, forced childhood upbringing bias here at Dalrock, let’s not forget the that Vatican is the Mother Harlot, Great Whore of Babylon of the modern age.

    J.R.R. Tolkien and C.S. Lewis
    – The Occult Overtones In Their Writings –

  578. Novaseeker says:

    Vatican is the Mother Harlot, Great Whore of Babylon of the modern age.

    Dalrock —

    Does this really need to be here? I think that Catholic commenters have been mostly respectful, and although I don’t have a personal bone to pick here, this strikes me as being Jack Chick type stuff which is below the level of discourse expected here, in my view.

  579. Zippy says:

    All masons … are Roman Catholic.

    You’d better let the Vatican know, since they’ve been excommunicating masons since the 1700’s.

    “The faithful who enroll in Masonic associations are in a state of grave sin and may not receive Holy Communion.”

    … let’s not forget the that Vatican is the Mother Harlot, Great Whore of Babylon of the modern age.

    I don’t really have anything to say in response to that. I just find it adorable.

  580. Son of Liberty says:

    Uhm, are you requesting deletion of my comment Novaseeker?
    How about if I said this… “have we all been respectful to the American woman here”?
    If that is the route you want to take, sugarcoating “disrespect” to open speech here among adults, then you need tone it down. Not sure what sort of “respect” you refer to.

  581. Zippy says:

    I suppose if I were a Protestant I might want to see Son of Liberty’s comment removed because it would be embarrassing. But I don’t filter all of Protestantism through Jack Chick pamphlets myself, FWIW.

  582. Son of Liberty says:

    Fellas, what’s with the denomination wars here? Not sure how “protestants” got into the discussion, as I do not relate to it. Topic’s about prostitution, with history showing us institutions and sects that were involved in today’s female behavior and I had to comment on about Tolkien since it was mentioned, but did not mean to divert it to another topic shedding some light and truth, but anyhow, I stepped on a few toes, telling me who’s who now.

  583. SirHamster says:

    You have accused me of being a Toad sock. Before that you accused me of having my own socks. Before that you accused me of being a homosexual pedophile. Of course, you denied all these accusations, after they failed to produce the desired results.

    Desperate for attention, Boxer repeats the same lies about me. I have not done any of these things. You can’t make me feel bad with lies, Boxer. In the meantime, your doubling down on false accusations undermines your own credibility and pushes you closer to AT clown levels.

    When no one took you seriously, you excused your lies as “rhetoric” and explained that making up nonsense was “the only sensible thing to do.” (fuck’n lol)

    Point out a single lie if you can. You’ve consistently attacked anyone willing to cut to the chase and dismiss AT on prior experience.

    Just because AT uses the veneer of logic does not mean everyone has the duty to answer him according to his folly. As Dalrock points out: “You can see the original comment here, but will have to read through 1843* words in the comment before you get to this bit, as one doesn’t merely blurt out such absurd claims upfront. You have to slowly ease people into this kind of nonsense, even when they are eager to accept it.”

    AT’s absurd outbursts are why he is a clown that does not have to be taken seriously. One can refute a clown by teasing out the absurdity he professes, or one can save time pointing out he is a clown. Both methods have their pros, and the exciting thing is that you have your pick in this very thread!

    And again, I’m not singling you out.

    How many blogposts have you dedicated to lying about me at this point? Never mind the absurd projections.

    If those reflect you on the inside, Boxer, Jesus can heal your hurts.

  584. Jason says:

    Around the fall of the Roman Empire….in the provincial backwater city of Carthage on the north coast of Africa were two men…..one was once a teacher who became Christian. His name was Augustine, Bishop of Hippo. The other was a Roman lawyer, Proconsul Martianus Capella. Carthage was a principle supplier of corn and oil for the empire. It was a sleepy, and quiet area of the empire. The calm was only disturbed for the most part by the Christians who lived there with their endless upon endless sectarian quarrels, debates and insults towards each other.

    Augustine at this time was writing “The City of God” and he believed that Rome was collapsing because the church had become subservient to a pagan-secular-authority-culture. He advocated that the State should obey the moral authority of the church. Even as he was writing this, the barbarian Vandals were crossing Gibraltar to destroy Carthage as they had already sacked and burned Rome. Augustine was offering an escape to the spiritual life of the monasteries and abbeys. To him belief was always more important than earthly knowledge. This is what became of Christian creed for the Medieval period that was about to follow…..

    For Proconsul Capella the fall of Rome was indeed tragic, and the expansive empire and public life was going to be indeed gone for good. If Romans were to survive it all, it would be in a very different world and society, with everything on a much smaller scale. The empire would be fragmented into smaller states, city states, and territories. They would have to exist on limited resources. They would need a condensed form of Roman knowledge to help them. This would become the “Capella” of the imperial school of curriculum, and what would become classical ‘liberal arts’ sixteen volumes in totality including cross referencing. All in Latin.

    Between these two men, the stage for the intellectual side of the Dark Ages was set for the next six centuries. Both books went into the world from a very different place of Carthage’s splendid decay at the end of the Roman Empire…….

    What of this discussion thread here? While we all debate about who is more correct, which denomination has it more right, which one is more feminist than another……..what Jesus *really* meant….should we not be focusing more on the fact that sin is sin? Redemption is possible. His place in your life, and a strive to righteousness.

    This thread is actually making me not upset….but just…….tired.

  585. Lost Patrol says:

    @Novaseeker

    In general, it’s happened because there are a small number of priests relative to laity, such that they need a good deal of assistance, and most of that comes from women

    Thanks, that seems logical. Like math. No doubt these women come to wield considerable influence, at least at their local level, since they become all but indispensable to keeping the train on the tracks. “Yes Minister” was an old British comedy that captured the effect very well.

    Here’s hoping it doesn’t devolve into anything like the “Women’s Ministries” that pervade most Protestant churches, and of which I have seen enough to last me. Even in churches where only men serve as pastors, elders, and deacons, these are a force to be reckoned with. The women greatly outnumber the male church leadership, such that most of what they are saying to each other in small groups is anybody’s guess.

  586. Anonymous Reader says:

    Novaseeker
    So when some future pope, probably not Frank, infallibly declares that female priests are possible, what then?

    Perhaps that will happen, and if it does it would result in an immediate schism in the Western Catholic Church, no question.

    Sure, and it won’t be the first schism, either. So? Does that make it impossible?

    But why focus on that speculation, when there is a “here and now” issue right in this thread, which is this: no text can be, in itself, an authority.