Marriage, Whores and Churchians

The Wedding Ceremony as designed by God

No doubt more than a few Bible College students will get their panties in a wad reading this, but the truth is like that: sometimes it hurts.  There is only one question you need to answer:  Do you fear God?  That really is the only question.

If you don’t fear God, that raises the question of why.  If it’s because you “don’t believe” in God, that’s OK.  Everyone has the right to be stupid and I’ll confess, I’ve been there.  Once upon a time I drank enough tequila that I thought I was bulletproof, so I do understand.  This post isn’t for you because you’re dealing with other issues.   Stupidity is like that.

If you have faith that you have nothing to fear from God because your boyfriend Jesus will forgive you no matter what you do, this post is probably going to upset you but you need to hear it.  Because Jesus isn’t your boyfriend and there are no rainbow-farting unicorns.

If you are one of those who claims to be a Christian but still worries about going to hell, keep reading.  Your theology is off, but hopefully your mind is open.

For any of you professional churchians or students at seminary or Bible college who are training to be professional churchians, this is important:

Just because you believe the lies you were taught doesn’t make them true.


Religion Is the Original Power and Control Racket

Controlling a persons sexuality is to control the person, the family and the culture.

If you look at the Bible, the major sin of the Old Testament was idolatry.

The major “gods” of idolatry were Baal, Asharoth and Molech.  Baal and Asharoth were fertility gods and part of the worship was sex.

We get a glimpse into this in Genesis 38 with the story of Judah and Tamar, his daughter-in-law.  Tamar had been married to Er, who did evil in the sight of the Lord and was killed for it.  Tamar was given to Onan, Er’s brother, in order to fulfill his duty to give her a son so that Er’s name might continue.  Onan didn’t like that so when having sex with Tamar he pulled out and “spilled his seed upon the ground” in order that she might not get pregnant.  This angered the Lord and He killed Onan for that.  Judah was left with one other son, Shelah.  He told Tamar to go wait in her father’s house and later she would be given to Shelah when he was grown up.

When Shelah had grown up Tamar saw that Judah had not given her to Shelah, so after Judah’s wife died, she put on a veil and pretended to be a temple prostitute on the side of the road.  Judah came along and had sex with her, she conceived and he became the father of her twins.  She became part of the genealogy of Christ with that act.  What did Judah think he was doing?

When Judah saw her, he thought she was a harlot, for she had covered her face.

There are a lot of nuances to that story, but what I want to point out is that she hid her face with a veil and because of this everyone believed her to be a temple prostitute.  From this we get the idea that ordinary women, wives and daughters, could hide their face with a veil and have sex with strange men as part of the worship of Baal and Asharoth.  Worship involves offerings and the women accepted payment (offerings) from the men in return for the act of providing their body.  They were temple prostitutes or cult prostitutes as a matter of function, but otherwise they were ordinary women.  Wives, mothers and daughters. Look at verses 20-22:

When Judah sent the young goat by his friend the Adullamite, to receive the pledge from the woman’s hand, he did not find her.  He asked the men of her place, saying, “Where is the temple prostitute who was by the road at Enaim?” But they said, “There has been no temple prostitute here.”  So he returned to Judah, and said, “I did not find her; and furthermore, the men of the place said, ‘There has been no temple prostitute here.’

Notice what was said of Tamar when her pregnancy became apparent:

“Your daughter-in-law Tamar has played the harlot, and behold, she is also with child by harlotry.”


What Was Judah’s Sin?  What Was Tamar’s Sin?

The Apostle Paul explained this in Romans 4:15 and Romans 5:13 (emphasis added).

15.  “for the Law brings about wrath, but where there is no law, there also is no violation.
13.  “for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law.”

Centuries before the Law, neither Judah or Tamar sinned in their actions.  Over and over again the reader will encounter pastors and others who claim that Judah and Tamar committed adultery (Deuteronomy 22:22-24 Tamar was betrothed to Shelah) and incest (Leviticus 18:15 Judah was Tamar’s father-in-law) without bothering to note that the Law was not given to the people until some 400 years later.  As it is written, “sin is not imputed when there is no law.”

If we were to apply the Law, it gets even more interesting.  From the context, we see that “playing the harlot” is cult prostitution and the sin would be idolatry, not sex outside of marriage.  The reason is while idolatry is forbidden by God, sex outside of marriage is not.  Tamar was twice a widow, then betrothed to Shelah, but her father-in-law violated her betrothal agreement, a violation of Numbers 30:2.  While churchians hold that the “sin” of Tamar was incest, she committed no sin.   Even though she violated the cultural mores, as Judah said of her, “she is more righteous than I am.”

As to having sex with whores, all this occurred about two millennia prior to the regulation forbidding such a thing and that applied only to Christian men (1st Corinthians 6:15-16).  We see that Samson, a Nazarite, used prostitutes and did not violate his Nazarite vow to be Holy to the Lord.  Now I realize that you boys and girls from Millar Bible College will be outraged at that, the very idea of remaining Holy to the Lord while banging whores is just something you can’t handle.  And I know that you’ll fire up Google and find others who agree with you, but there’s one problem with that, which is the text of Judges 16:1.

Now Samson went to Gaza and saw a harlot there, and went in to her.

The word translated as “harlot” is “zanah” of which I’ve written before and in this sense it means she was a whore.  A prostitute.  A woman who spread her legs and provided sex for payment.  She was not described as a “qadesh” (cult prostitute or a temple prostitute) but rather as a simple prostitute.  You should know that in Deuteronomy 23:17 the men and women were forbidden to be a “qadesh” but the “zanah” prostitution was never forbidden.

Many have a hard time with this because “zanah” is translated as adultery, idolatry, sexual idolatry and ordinary prostitution.  Adultery and idolatry are forbidden, ordinary prostitution is not forbidden.  Therefore, according to the Apostle Paul, while adultery and idolatry are sins, ordinary prostitution is not a sin.

I must presume you boys and girls in Bible College don’t have much experience with whores, which is a good thing, but you need to understand that there is only one reason a man goes to see a whore and that’s to get his dick wet.  He wants sex and she provides sex for payment.  The context of the word “bo” (Strong’s 935) that is translated as “went in to her” is indicated by the fact the woman in question is a common prostitute.

Some churchians try hard to claim Samson didn’t have sex with her, that in that day the only boarding houses were with prostitutes.  Implied is that when people were traveling they went to the local whores for a place to stay, using Joshua 2:1 as an example.  Except that they didn’t.  They went to the village or town and expected to be given hospitality by someone at the gate or in the square (Genesis 19:2-3; Judges 19:15).    Churchians also claim the word “bo” means that he entered her house, not that he entered her body.  Except that we see the word “bo” is associated with or used to mean sexual intercourse frequently.  Some examples:

  • Adam and Eve: Genesis 2:22
  • Abraham and Hagar: Genesis 16:2, 16:4
  • Lot and his daughters: Genesis 19:33, 34
  • Jacob and Leah: Genesis 29:23
  • Jacob and Rachel: Genesis 29:30
  • Jacob and Bilhah: Genesis 30:3
  • Judah and his wife: Genesis 38:2
  • Onan and Tamar: Genesis 38:9
  • Judah and Tamar: Genesis 38:16, 18

So not only does God not make a prohibition against banging whores in the Law, we see Samson the Judge, a member of the Hebrews “hall of fame” having sex with whores and not violating his Nazerite vow to be Holy to the Lord.  And since I mentioned the Hebrews Hall of Fame, who else do we see there but the harlot Rahab?  Being a legitimate prostitute is not a sin because nowhere in Scripture did God forbid any woman, Christian or non-Christian, from being a prostitute.  That, however, is ordinary prostitution.


Idolatry and Ordinary Women “Playing the Harlot”

The other type of prostitution was being a temple whore, which is kind of what women do nowadays in terms of sexual promiscuity and adultery.  Keep in mind that no-one was forcing women to do this, the religious/idolatry system provided women with a cultural excuse to exercise their hypergamy.  This appealed to both men and women in different ways but the end result was idolatry.  That system of idolatry gave power to the priests and leaders.  By taking part in that system, the system became part of people’s lives and established the morality of their actions.

Interestingly, we see in Leviticus 21:9 that if the daughter of a priest engaged in temple prostitution she was to be burned with fire because she not only profaned herself, she profaned her father as well.  Knowing that a woman who gave her virginity to a man was married to him, it follows that the daughter who goes out, hides her face and acts as a temple prostitute is married to the first man and commits adultery with every subsequent man.   Which is more or less what the women of today are doing, temple prostitutes for feminism.

Keep in mind that the root of “culture” is the word “cult” and it describes a common belief system.  Once a system of cultural mores involving sexuality was in place, God’s solution was to wipe the people out.  All through the Old Testament we see that idolatry is synonymous with sexual immorality.  The question is whether the sexual immorality was because it was a violation of God’s Law concerning sexuality or God’s Law concerning idolatry.  Often times it was both, but the aspect of idolatry could and did convert any lawful sexual activity into sin.

People have a desire to know that what they are doing is right and this is especially important when it comes to that most intimate of activities, sexual relations.  By invoking God’s name religious leaders create a moral paradigm when it comes to sex, even if God never said whatever it is they claim He said.  And if lies are taught as truth long enough, people believe the lies.

People will believe a lie because they either fear it to be true or because they want it to be true.  People are stupid and leaders take advantage of this.  Sheep are stupid and shepherds know this.

The Churchian Idolatry of Marriage

Genesis 2:24 is a grant of authority from God to the man.  “For this cause a man…( 1 ).”  According to God, the individual man has the authority to begin marriage and he does so by right, because God granted him that authority.  He has no need to seek the approval or permission of anyone else, he has the right to begin marriage.  This follows from the fact that woman was created from man, for man, to be under his authority as his wife and the mother of his children.

The virgin is married when she is taken by a man and penetrated in the act of marriage, which is sexual intercourse.  The virgin’s consent is not necessary, the act of penetration is sufficient to marry her whether she agrees or not( 2 ).  For you anklebiters, the man and the virgin have to be eligible to marry in order to form a marriage so cases of incest or situations in which the virgin is already betrothed do not count.  However, these exceptions so seldom occur that we can say “As a rule, all women are virgins when they marry.”

The question to ask any professional churchian is “By what right do you claim the authority to ‘preside’ over a marriage?”

Typically there is always trouble with pointing this out because everyone wants to turn it into a Catholic vs Protestant fight, but the fact is that all of this was done long, long before the great schism that split east from west and centuries before the protestant reformation that only curbed the worst of the excesses without addressing the root problems.

The Nicolaitans won and they instituted a clerical caste that lorded it over the laity in the same way that the Gentile rulers do.  This began early enough that Christ stated twice that He hated the Nicolaitans and their works, and it was solidified when Christianity became the official religion of Rome.  As time went by the bishops became defacto rulers in the Roman empire and wielded power as members of the government.  This profoundly changed the culture of the church and there was a profound emphasis on submission to authority.

Isn’t it interesting that the word translated as “Nicolaitans” is not an officially translated word?  What are the Nicolaitans and what is the sin of the Nicolaitans?

Others, from time to time, have had interesting things to say about the Nicolaitans.

H.A. Ironside wrote:

“…we have the introduction of wrong principles within — the teaching of the Nicolaitanes. Others have often pointed out that this is an untranslated Greek word meaning, ‘rulers over the people.’ Nicolaitanism is really clerisy* — the subjugation of those who were contemptuously styled ‘the laity’ by a heirarchical order who lorded it over them as their own possessions, forgetting that it is written, ‘One is your Master, even Christ, and all ye are brethren.’ In the letter to Ephesus the Lord commended them for hating the deeds of the Nicolaitanes, those who, like Diotrephes, loved to have the preeminence among them. But, in the Pergamos letter, we have Nicolaitanism designated as a distinct system of teaching. It was then that clerisy was accepted as of divine origin, and therefore something that must be bowed to.”

*Webster defines “clerisy” as: The literati, or well-educated class. *Webster defines “literati” as: Men of letters. This may only mean those who had the ability to read and write. Or, it could also include those who not only could read and write but were advancedly educated in fields of literature and possibly here in theological disciplines, whether doctrinally biblical or unbiblical.


The Sins of the Nicolaitans

After Rome fell the church was (for the most part) the last man standing in Western Europe and the change to the culture was such that the leaders were determined that the church become a large and powerful monolithic organization.  Their primary enemy for hundreds of years was the landed nobility.  The primary weapon the church used to bring the nobility under their power was the control of sexuality, primarily marriage.

First, they claimed that God ordained a “superior” clergy in authority over the laity.  Then they claimed that the power to “bind and loose” gave them the authority to elevate the “teachings and traditions of the church” over Scripture.  Not only that, they claimed the Eater Bunny was infallible…  and then it really got crazy.  They ignored the prohibition of Deuteronomy 4:2 and 12:32, re-writing the Bible as they went along.

God has two separate standards of sexual morality, one for men and one for women.  This should not be difficult to understand, because men and women are not equal and certainly not the same.  The root of all this crap from the church was the profoundly gnostic orientation of the patristic writers.  Gnosticism, the belief that those things of the spirit are good and those things of the flesh are bad.  Two of the worst infiltrators of the early church, Augustine and Jerome, were both gnostics.  Augustine of Hippo was raised in the Manichean belief (Persian gnosticism) and Jerome was an adherent of the Stoic philosophy of the Romans.  This is well-known to historians and the following quotes are from “Sex, Law and Christian Society in Medieval Europe” by James Brundage.

The Church Fathers’ views of sex were dominated by ascetic values, for most of the Fathers were, at one time or another in their careers, monks or hermits. The most important patristic authority on sexual matters, the one whose views have most fundamentally influenced subsequent ideas about sexuality in the West, was St. Augustine of Hippo (354-430).  Augustine held strong, deep seated convictions about sexual relationships and the role of sex in human history, convictions that flowed from his own experience and his reflections upon it, convictions that brooked neither denial nor dissent.
Sexual desire, Augustine believed, was the most foul and unclean of human wickednesses, the most pervasive manifestation of man’s disobedience to God’s designs. Other bodily desires and pleasures, Augustine felt, did not overwhelm reason and disarm the will: one can be sensible while enjoying a good meal, one can discuss matters reasonably over a bottle of wine. But sex, Augustine argued, was more powerful than other sensual attractions; it could overcome reason and free will altogether. Married people, who ought to have sex only in order to beget children, can be overwhelmed by lubricious desires that blot out reason and restraint; they tumble into bed together simply in order to enjoy the pleasure of each other’s body. This, Augustine thought, was not only irrational but sinful.  Augustine’s underlying belief in the intrinsic sinfulness of carnal desire and the sensual delight that accompanied sexual union became a standard premise of Western beliefs about sexuality during the Middle Ages and beyond.
Augustine wrote eloquently on the theology of sex, but he was by no means the only patristic writer to deal with the subject. His contemporaries by and large shared Augustine’s negative attitudes toward the role of sex in Christian life. A few were even more certain than he that sex was a root cause of sin and corruption. St. Jerome (ca. 347-419/20), for example, maintained that sex and salvation were contradictions. Even in marriage, coitus was evil and unclean, Jerome thought, and married Christians should avoid sexual contact whenever possible. St. Gregory of Nyssa was still more emphatic: he taught that only those who renounced sex completely and led lives of unblemished virginity could attain spiritual perfection.
Such views as these owed as much to philosophy, particularly to Stoicism, as to religious teaching, and St. Jerome explicitly acknowledged in his treatise against Jovinian that he was drawing upon Stoic sources. But although fourth-hand fifth-century patristic writers borrowed heavily from pagan sexual ethics, they nevertheless sought to legitimize their borrowings by finding support for their conclusions in the Scriptures. This sometimes required ingenious feats of imaginative interpretation, but a Scriptural foundation for their ideas about sexuality seemed essential.

God created sex and God called it good.  These perverts lied and called it wicked and sinful.  God created a double-standard, one for men and one for women.   The gnostic perverts simplified things and required men and women to adhere to the same standard of sexual morality:  sex is evil, wicked and sinful, don’t do it.  This created a conflict, of course, because God gave the command to be fruitful and multiply.  The result of all this was that sex within marriage was a venal sin, so obviously sex under any other condition was a mortal sin.

The problem was that wasn’t what the Bible said at all, and as professor Brundage observed, it required “ingenious feats of imaginative interpretation” to claim that’s what the Bible said.  One might think this would be easy to spot, but interpretation is the key word.  The pervert Jerome was chosen to make the official translation of the Bible and his choices in how specific portions of Scripture were translated continues to have a major impact, even today.

This completely anti-God view of sex caused a problem, because God commanded that mankind be fruitful and multiply.  Obviously God would not command people to commit sin, so this was neatly handled with the idea that sex purely for the purpose of procreation was good, but sex for any other reason (even within marriage) was a venial sin.  And, of course, if it was a venial sin within marriage then obviously it was a mortal sin if it occurred outside marriage.

In the church’s war on the nobility, several things occurred.  Priests were commanded to be celibate in order that they could devote all of their time and energy to spreading the lies the Church was promulgating.  They claimed that marriage, rather than being initiated by sex (as the Bible says), was only formed with the approval and consent of the church by a ceremony in which the man and woman publicly consented and committed to the marriage in public before witnesses under the authority of the church.  The sex was then considered the “consummation” of the wedding and could only take place after the church had given its blessing in a ceremony.


Premarital Sex and Fornication

This created the requirement of claiming that “sex before marriage” was a sin.  It should be noted that the clergy could state that “premarital sex” was a sin without lying because by definition, it is a sin.

Did you hear that boys?  By definition, premarital sex is a sin.  Not only that, but in cases of premarital sex, the sex won’t make you married because you must have the ceremony before you’re married.

The problem is you boys don’t know the definition of premarital sex.

The Bible does not forbid voluntary agreements and if a man give his word he is required to keep it (Numbers 30:2 and Deuteronomy 23:21-23).   While it is true that when a man takes an eligible woman’s virginity they are married, the emphasis in this case is on the word “eligible”.  If a man and woman engage to be married and have a specific engagement period with a wedding ceremony scheduled at the end of that engagement period, they have agreed that they won’t have sex during that period and they won’t be married until the date and time set certain.

So, if they do have sex during their engagement period prior to the wedding they are literally having “premarital sex” and by virtue of their agreement the woman is not eligible to be married until the date and time set certain, so the sex will not marry them.  They have sinned (the man has) by violating their agreement.  Because they have given their word, only the ceremony followed by the sex (the “consummation”) will make them married.

This is because they voluntarily agreed to these conditions, not because the Bible requires it.

Without a voluntary agreement the process defaults to the basic rules of Scripture and the man who takes the eligible woman’s virginity is married to her.

You boys from Millar Bible College recently tossed around the Greek word “porneia” which is often translated into English as “fornication”.  Jordan Winsby lied about it, claiming the definition of the term “porneia” included “sex before marriage” and as such the Bible forbids “fornication”.  We hear this a lot from sophisticated morons who don’t know what these words mean.  In the last post I listed exactly what the Bible defines as sexual immorality.

The only thing that could be added to that list from the New Testament is the prohibition that forbids a Christian man to have sex with a prostitute.  1st Corinthians 6:15-16 does not create a new facet of sexual immorality, it’s a regulation that applies only to Christian men and the violation of that regulation is willful disobedience to Christ’s instruction.  As such it is a sin.  The question is, can a Christian man marry a prostitute?

Boys, I’ve stated before that you should be able to refute me if you’re correct because that would mean I’m wrong.   So far the only “correction” I’ve received cited the Urban Dictionary as being authoritative.  Jordan Winsby, I’m still waiting on your expert response demonstrating from Scripture that God prohibited “sex outside marriage.”

Benjamin, you should take the advice I gave Jordan.  Life is hard when you’re a short ginger and you probably need a workout partner.  This might give you some ideas:





(1).  We see that God said it was not good for man to be alone, so he fashioned out of man the woman.  Woman was created by God, from man, for man, to assist man with his mission.  To be a helper suitable for him.  To Man was given the command “Be fruitful and multiply…” and in order to multiply the man needs a mate.  It is in taking this mate that man initiates marriage.

(2).  Genesis 2:24 contains no mention of any requirement for consent by the woman.  We know the consent of the woman is not required because a father can sell his daughter to be another man’s wife (concubine) as described in Exodus 21:7-10.  The woman captured in battle becomes the man’s wife (Deuteronomy 23:10-14).  The eligible virgin becomes the man’s wife due to being raped by him if they are discovered (Deuteronomy 22:28-29).   The eligible virgin could consent to have sex (she was seduced) which resulted in her marriage, her father had the authority to forbid her agreement (consent) thereby annulling the marriage that resulted from the act of marriage that followed her agreement (Exodus 22:17).  Because a virgin can be raped into marriage against her will and over her objections and she can agree to be married only to have her marriage annulled, we conclude that the virgin has no agency.



Posted in Biblical Illiteracy, Churchianity, Marriage, Messages to a young man | 15 Comments

Jordan Winsby Tells Lies

jordan2This is Jordan Winsby.  He runs a website called “I Still Have Questions” on which he claims to have Biblical answers.  In other words, he holds himself out to be a teacher and is held to a higher standard.

Unfortunately, Jordan tells lies.  He admits he isn’t a pastor or a scholar (although he claims to have studied Greek), but that doesn’t excuse the fact he’s lying about what the Bible says.  He’s making claims that only God can make.  He’s judging his brothers.  In short, he’s a typical churchian.

It’s reasonable to ask why I’m being so hard on this poor child when obviously his parents are to blame for him being the way he is and the answer is simple.  He is living proof that not many should be teachers.  The best one can say of his gross ignorance of the Bible is that such ignorance is normal these days, but he holds himself out to be a teacher and offers to corrupt people with his ignorance.

Jordan Winsby, is the Apostle Paul a liar?  Either the Apostle Paul is a liar or Jordan Winsby is a liar.  In a recent comment Jordan Winsby made the following claim:

the Bible actually says multiple times that sex before marriage is sin.

Regular readers of this blog already know that is a lie as well as why it’s a lie, but the churchian logic of Jordie’s reasoning is worth looking at.  He said:

1 Corinthians 7:2 says as much by saying a man and woman should get married so they don’t fall into sexual immorality (specifically sex before marriage). People weren’t controlling themselves. Thus, sex before marriage fits under the definition of sexual immorality in which case the Bible says it’s wrong

In the first sentence Jordan Winsby makes the bald claim that sex before marriage is a sin with no support at all.  Then he claims “sex before marriage” is sexual immorality, which means that all the passages that forbid sexual immorality include sex before marriage.  In other words, “It’s a sin because I say it’s a sin!”

His comments demonstrate that Jordan Winsby has no clue what sexual immorality means.  It’s not that his analysis is wrong, it’s that there is no analysis.  He claims something is a sin, but God never said that.  This is not a matter of opinion, it is laid out for us in Scripture.  The Apostle Paul explained this in Romans 4:15 and Romans 5:13.

15.  “for the Law brings about wrath, but where there is no law, there also is no violation.
13.  “for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law.”

Sin is what God says it is, because God says it is.  We know something is a sin because it is a transgression of the Law and we can see what the prohibitions are.   Sin is also something that violates your conscience, but that only applies to you because your faith is weak.  And just because your faith is weak, you don’t get to claim your brothers are in sin.  But Jordan, this isn’t about issues of conscience, this is about sexual immorality.  The Bible is clear what sexual immorality is.  Pay attention, Jordan.

  1. A man may not uncover the nakedness of any close male relative (Leviticus 18:6).
  2. A man may not uncover the nakedness of his mother (Leviticus 18:7).
  3. A man may not uncover the nakedness of his father’s wife (Leviticus 18:8).
  4. A man may not uncover the nakedness of his sister (Leviticus 18:9).
  5. A man may not uncover the nakedness of his half-sister (Leviticus 18:9).
  6. A man may not uncover the nakedness of his son’s daughter [granddaughter] (Leviticus 18:10).
  7. A man may not uncover the nakedness of his daughter’s daughter [granddaughter] (Leviticus 18:10).
  8. A man may not uncover the nakedness of his father’s wife’s daughter by his father [half-sister by father] (Leviticus 18:11).
  9. A man may not uncover the nakedness of his father’s sister [aunt] (Leviticus 18:12).
  10. A man may not uncover the nakedness of his mother’s sister [aunt] (Leviticus 18:13).
  11. A man may not uncover the nakedness of his father’s brother’s wife [aunt] (Leviticus 18:14).
  12. A man may not uncover the nakedness of his son’s wife [daughter-in-law] (Leviticus 18:15).
  13. A man may not uncover the nakedness of his brother’s wife [sister-in-law] (Leviticus 18:16).
  14. A man may not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter [step-daughter] (Leviticus 18:17).
  15. A man may not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her son’s daughter [step-granddaughter] (Leviticus 18:17).  [Polygyny ONLY]
  16. A man may not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter’s daughter [step-granddaughter] (Leviticus 18:17).   [Polygyny ONLY]
  17. A man may not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her sister as a rival while the woman is still living (Leviticus 18:18). [Polygyny ONLY]
  18. A man may not uncover the nakedness of a woman during her menses (Leviticus 18:19).
  19. A woman may not have sexual intercourse following the birth of a child: for 40 days if the child is a boy, for 80 days if the child is a girl (Leviticus 12:1-8)
  20. A man may not have sexual intercourse with another man’s wife (Leviticus 18:20).
  21. A man may not have any form of sex with another male (Leviticus 18:22).
  22. A man may not mate with with an animal (Leviticus 18:23).
  23. A woman may not allow an animal to mate with her  (Leviticus 18:23).

OK, that’s 14 instances of incest, 3 instances of incest that are restricted to polygynous marriages, 1 of adultery, 1 of male homosexuality, 2 of bestiality and the prohibitions against sex during the proscribed period following childbirth and while a woman is on her menses.  But, did I leave something out?

What about all the instances in which sex played a part in the act of idolatry?

They aren’t sexual immorality because they’re forbidden sexual practices, they’re sexual immorality because they’re idolatry.  Just to be clear, consider vaginal intercourse.  That’s where your penis penetrates a woman’s vagina.  Consider that the exact same act can occur under different circumstances and as you can see, the result isn’t nearly as cut and dried as you might think.

  • It’s usually perfectly legitimate when you’re doing it with your wife. (SEX!)
  • It’s forbidden to have sex with a woman too soon after the birth of a child. (SIN)
  • It’s forbidden do it while she’s menstruating.  (SIN)
  • It’s adultery if you do it with another man’s wife.  (SIN)
  • It’s incest if you do it with a blood relative (SIN)
  • If you have sex with your virgin babysitter, you have a second wife. (SEX!)
  • If it’s a widow and she doesn’t want to marry you, it’s just sex. (SEX!)
  • If it’s a prostitute you’ve violated the prohibition against banging whores. (SIN)
  • It’s forbidden to make up new rules about sexual morality. (SIN)

Jordan, this is your opportunity to catch a clue.  You came here thinking you knew what the Bible says.  Quite obviously you don’t.  There is nothing in that entire list about sex outside of marriage because sex is how marriages are begun.  If sex outside of marriages was forbidden then marriage would be forbidden.

Jordan Winsby Needs Help!

Jordan, there’s still hope, even for you.  You’re young and you have time.

Going by your photos and your attitude, you need some serious self-improvement.   That, of course, is frowned upon by the church these days.  Read this essay several times, you need it.  You might want to consider this one as well.  You absolutely need to learn Game and I recommend The Rational Male series by Rollo Tomassi to start with and follow that up with “Married Man Sex Life” by Athol Kay.  Right now you’re just a whiny gamma bitch, but the good news is there’s hope even for someone like you.

I can’t tell how tall you are but if you’re at least 5′ 10″ this should be easy for you.  You have a good facial structure, you’re not fat and appear to have enough of a mesomorphic body-type that putting on muscle wouldn’t be that difficult. I recommend the book “Man 2.0: Engineering The Alpha” by John Romaniello and Adam Bornstein.

You need to join a dojo and learn how to fight.  Believe it or not, getting punched in the face regularly it will do you a world of good.  While Enderby is a rather small place, I notice there are several gyms, including Flow Martial Arts and Fitness.  I recommend Muay Thai as a striking style and Brazilian Jiu Jitsu (BJJ) for a grappling style, but just learning how to box and throw a punch is more than 80% of all men ever get.  The point is there are people in your area that can train you.

In terms of what you believe the Bible says, as you are now so once was I.  Then I started actually studying my Bible.  Forget about taking seminary courses, they don’t teach the Bible- they teach churchian doctrine and use the Bible as support.  Which is not the same as teaching the Bible.

In dozens of posts on this blog I have addressed basic questions about when and how a person is actually married.  What does the Bible actually say about sexual morality?  It is quite obviously not what you think.  What is sin?  What defines sin?  What about divorce?  What is adultery?

Judging from your comments, you have no clue what the Bible actually says about this stuff which means you have never studied it and in all likelihood you don’t know how to study.  Take the topic of polygyny, for example.  Your knee-jerk reaction is probably that polygyny is wrong.  I could take you through the Scriptures and show you that God doesn’t change.  Then I could show you that God said He had two wives (Jeremiah 31:31-32), that God gave King David multiple wives (1st Samuel 12:8), that God regulated the practice of having multiple wives and even sometimes commanded it (Deuteronomy 25:5-10).

And if you’re like most churchian gammas, you’d still reject it all because that’s what you wanted to believe.   Because tradition.  Jesus had something to say about that:  “In vain to you worship me, teaching as doctrine the precepts of men.”

When it comes to exegesis, antinomies are not allowed, which means you are the one engaging in eisegesis, not me.  You claimed I’m trying to justify my sin yet you know nothing of me.  This chart isn’t finished yet (it needs to be cleaned up a bit) because I still regularly get insights on how all this works together, but this is a roadmap.  You won’t find any antinomies in it.

But, as Vox Day so eloquently put it:

I don’t expect you to agree, I don’t even expect you to understand.

Posted in Biblical Illiteracy, Churchianity, Messages to a young man | 22 Comments

Ho, ho, ho.

Merry Christmas

The Subject Illustrates The Issue

While the subject of this post is prostitution, the issue is obedience.  Whether or not some woman is paying her rent by selling sexual access to her body is irrelevant to the life of any given Christian, they were commanded not to judge.  The question of whether God’s people are willing to accept what God said and live in obedience to His Word is quite relevant.

Whether anyone is willing to accept God’s Word when it disagrees with their churchian tradition indicates whether they are even a Christian.

In a previous post, I made a Biblical defense of prostitutes.  The fact is, it wasn’t difficult, it was just a straight look at what the Bible says about prostitutes.  Actually, what the Bible does not say is the more important issue, but it’s all good.  Because prostitution isn’t a sin.  Christian men are forbidden to have sex with prostitutes by the Apostle Paul in 1st Corinthians 6:16, but that applies only to Christian men and says nothing about prostitutes.  For Christian men, prostitutes are forbidden fruit.

Forbidden Fruit

Was the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil a sinful fruit?  Was it bad?  No, regardless of how luscious and appealing that fruit was, it was not sinful.  Adam and Eve, however, were forbidden to eat the fruit.  Being forbidden fruit did not make the fruit sinful.   In the same way, just because Christian men are forbidden to use prostitutes does not make prostitution sinful.  It just means they’re forbidden fruit.  I suspect that at least part of the problem is the fruit looks good, smells good, feels good… and it does more than just hang there- it wiggles.  Which makes it all the more frustrating that it’s forbidden.

At this point we’re arguing over minutia and the only reason I’m arguing the minutia at all is to ensure the anklebiters don’t have a leg to stand on.  See, what happens is once the anklebiters figure out that God chose not to say prostitution was wrong, their feverish little minds toil away trying to figure out if there’s some other way they can claim it’s wrong, even though God chose not to do that.

Does God Really Know What Is Best?

There was a debate almost two years ago and a true churchian who blogs as Simply Timothy (along with the anklebiter and born follower known as SirHamster) took umbrage with me.  I not only defended polygyny but I made the point that whatever might happen when the husband and his wives spent time in bed was fine with God.  The argument took place on Vox’s blog and was one of the longest running threads ever.  Their problem was they discovered (much to their chagrin) that God chose not to forbid female-female sexual contact.  This caused massive butthurt and in the end, they chose to reject God’s Word in favor of their teachings and traditions.  Simple Tim proved he is a churchian with this statement:

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

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

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

God must have made a mistake!  Obviously, God got it wrong and Simple Tim has to save the day!  Because Tradition!  Simple Tim cannot accept the fact that God designed marriage to include multiple wives and the husband is in charge.  So, if that husband wants his own bedroom symphony, he’s the man with the baton and God doesn’t have a problem with whatever might happen as long as the women were not blood relations.  And we know that if God did have a problem with something that might happen in the marital bed, He wasn’t shy about saying so.  Apparently God doesn’t have a problem with female-female sexual contact as long as it’s not incest.

The thread was eventually put into moderation and finally closed at 971 comments.  The anklebiters didn’t realize they were proving the three laws of the SJW in that thread, SJW’s Always Lie, SJW’s Always Double Down and SJW’s Always Project.   The farce continued here with another 386 comments.  Simple Tim then stated he would continue his opposition to God here.  The sheer chutzpah of these people is amazing.  Not satisfied with what God chose, they think they know better than God.  They want to be God.

The take-away is if there had been something in the Bible that forbid female-female sexual activity or polygyny, he would have screamed it from the rooftops because God CHOSE to forbid such activity.  Churchians love it when God agrees with their traditions.  That God chose NOT to forbid such activity, well, that is a major problem for them.  Simple Tim believes he knows better than God.  There just had to be a way to claim this is a sin, even though Romans 4:15 and 5:13 makes it clear that it is not.  Simple Tim is a churchian SJW.

We see the same thing happening with the subject of prostitution.

Churchians tend to ignore their Bible (unless they agree with what it says), but occasionally someone comes by and takes the time to search the Scriptures to see if what I’m saying is correct.  Rather than assuming that what they were taught as a child is automatically correct.  Our erudite commenter Pode has done so and he raised some objections that I will attempt to deal with now.

“The case for prostitution hinges on a woman being able to consent to sex as a separate and distinct activity from consent to marry. I still see some arguments against that assertion.”

Actually, the historical fact that prostitution has always existed and never been automatically considered adultery is the proof that God’s people have historically understood that in the case of a non-virgin (used goods), sex alone did not create a marriage.  The rich widow could not be raped into marriage the way a virgin could, she had to agree to marriage before the sex made her married.  That means her agreement to have sex is not her agreement to marry.

In other words, the non-virgin’s agreement to have sex does not create an agreement to marry any more than taking a used car for a test drive is the agreement to buy the car.  Take that brand new car off the lot and you’ve bought it.  Once it leaves the lot it’s no longer a new car, it’s now a used car and people who want a new car don’t want to settle for a used car.  Everyone knows that.  The previously owned used car?  You’re expected to take it for a test drive.  Everyone understands that.   What’s a few more miles on the odometer if it’s a used car?

The cognitive dissonance is the result, not of God choosing to allow prostitution, but the fact that as one studies and that becomes clear…  the realization also becomes clear that we have been lied to all our lives.

The State of the Argument

This is an ongoing discussion/argument that has already passed though several iterations.  I provide the following (rough) roadmap of where we’ve been.

  • Prostitution is not forbidden, therefore it is not a sin.
  • No way!  Once we ignore Rahab, the Bible has nothing good to say about prostitutes!  Prostitution is BAD.
  • Romans 4:15 and 5:13 says there has to be a prohibition against prostitution in order for prostitution to be a sin.  The Law does not forbid prostitution, so it’s not a sin.
  • You evil LIAR!  Deuteronomy 23:17 forbids prostitution!
  • Sorry, Deuteronomy 23:17 specifically says “cult prostitutes” and cult prostitution was part of idolatry- typically fertility worship.  Baal was a god of fertility and banging a temple whore was part of Baal worship.  A woman selling sex is not a sin.
  • You vile twister of truth!  Prostitution is adultery and adultery is forbidden as sin!
  • Wrong, a woman can only commit adultery if she is some man’s wife, which means she’s married.  The unmarried prostitute cannot commit adultery.
  • Apostate heretic!  Sex means she’s married!  She married the first one and all the rest are adultery.
  • Sex alone only makes a woman married if she’s a virgin.
  • Perverted idolater!  Choosing to have sex makes the non-virgin married too!
  • Wrong.  Sex alone will make the virgin married because she does not have agency, which is why the virgin can be raped into marriage.  The non-virgin woman has agency and is free to choose who she marries (1st Corinthians 7:39), which means she cannot be raped into marriage.  Therefore, sex alone cannot make her married because she must consent to the marriage.
  • You vile, wicked reptile!  Her father did not have the authority to make her a prostitute, which means she does not have that authority, therefore prostitution is a forbidden occupation, it’s wrong and a sin.  You are not a Toad, you are a snake! <– You Are Here

It should be noted that the issue of prostitution comes after a long series of posts that demonstrate that the virgin is married when she has sex, even though she doesn’t know about it, and the issue is somewhat complicated because of that.  The thing is, the issue of consent depends on the woman’s status and it is the responsibility of the man to deal with that.

Commenter Pode’s argument from the last post on adultery is essentially that because a father was forbidden to profane his daughter by making her a prostitute, the woman does not later have the authority to become a prostitute.  Then comes a novel argument, followed by more of the “prostitution is bad” arguments.

The First Objection

Primary is the specific prohibition against a father making his daughter a prostitute (Leviticus 19:29). The father as his daughter’s agent is not allowed to give consent to sex without consent to marry (concubines are to be treated in the same manner as wives). If the woman’s agent does not have a power, she would not gain that power when she becomes her own agent.

No.  Simply put, while an individual may willfully choose to do something that is injurious or risky, a guardian may not force his ward to do something that is injurious or risky because the guardian is held to a higher standard than the individual acting in their own capacity.  In other words, every woman has (in her own capacity) the right to take her inheritance, walk into a casino and put the money on black.  However, if that woman is a ward, her guardian does not have the right to force her to put her inheritance on black.

What the father has the authority to do, acting in his capacity as her guardian, she will have the authority to do in her own capacity.  The fact that her guardian is limited in what he can force her to do in his capacity as her guardian does not necessarily limit the ward’s behavior when she acts in her own capacity.

The father is commanded not to profane his daughter by “making” his daughter a prostitute.  How would a father “make” his daughter a prostitute?

We know that when an eligible virgin gives her virginity to a man, she is married to that man (Genesis 2:24) and is no longer under her father’s authority (Numbers 30:6-8) because she is now under her husband’s authority.  Once she has been married, if her husband dies or divorces her, she does not return to being under the authority of her father, she is in authority over herself (Numbers 30:9).

A woman can legitimately be a prostitute only if she is not a virgin and not married.  The only way she could meet that criteria and still be under her father’s authority is if she lost her virginity with a man who was not eligible to marry her while she was in her fathers house in her youth.  In all likelihood it would be as a result of her being seduced and subsequently her father forbid her agreement to marry and refused to give her.

In the normal course of events, we are talking about an extremely small percentage of the female population.  Given the situation, it is reasonable to assume the father is commanded not to make his daughter a prostitute as a protection for the daughter and to prevent fathers from creating or allowing this situation in order to profit from it.  The text states a reason for forbidding this: “so that the land may not fall to harlotry and the land become full of lewdness.”

The question becomes, what is being forbidden?  The father is forbidden to profane his daughter by forcing her to become a prostitute.  The fact that the father is forbidden to force his daughter to do a particular thing that is not otherwise forbidden is evidence that the particular thing is lawful.  Which makes this a specific restriction on the fathers authority, not a prohibition on prostitution.

The lewness the land would be overrun with is fathers forcing their daughters to be prostitutes so that the land was overrun with them.  Why the prohibition?  Because what is shocking and horrifying to one generation becomes accepted by the following generation and commonplace by the third generation.  Prostitutes have always been around, but fathers pimping out their daughters, forcing them to be prostitutes, that’s lewdness.

Then too, there is the relationship of the father and daughter to consider.

In Genesis 3:16 God issued his first judgment on mankind, saying “he shall rule over you.”  I have written about this before and effectively God declared women to be incompetent and appointed their husband as their guardian.  While it might be argued that prior to Christ the husband-wife relationship was primarily a master-servant relationship, it cannot be argued that the father-daughter relationship is anything but a guardian-ward relationship.

From that perspective, it becomes easy to see the command of Leviticus 19:29 as being a specific restriction on the father in his role as his daughter’s guardian which is there to protect the daughters and the society, rather than a blanket prohibition on prostitution.  Does prostitution alone cause the land to be overcome with lewdness?

The Second Objection

Second area of concern is the authority relationships involved. If the act of coitus is a man’s vow of marriage, then he has made a vow and the Lord shall require it of him. If the woman can refuse consent to marry but consent to sex, she is placed in a position of authority to negate her lover’s vow. She is also put in a position of authority to instruct the Lord not to require it of him after all.

Umm… No.  The act of coitus is the man’s consent, agreement and commitment to marriage.  It is automatic if he engages in the act but he has a choice in whether to engage in that activity.  The woman who is not a virgin and not married does have a choice and absent her agreement sex is meaningless.   We already addressed this issue and the relevant portion is this:

1. Agency. Numbers 30:3-5 is specific as to the authority of the father over his daughter and Exodus 22:17 clarifies that even if a daughter’s agreement to marry resulted in the act of marriage, the father (in the day he heard of it) had the authority to forbid her agreement, thus nullifying the resulting marriage. He refused the agreement to marry for her and thus the sex did not create a marriage. Numbers 30:9 is very specific in detailing that the widow and divorced woman have agency, in that there is no-one with the authority to review their agreements. Whatever agreement or vow they make is binding on them. It follows that they cannot be bound by an agreement they did not make. Likewise, the Apostle Paul (in 1st Corinthians 7:39) is clear that the woman who is no longer bound is free to choose whom she might marry, only in the Lord.

If the father has the authority to refuse marriage to the extent that the act of coitus did not make her married and the widow or divorced woman has the same authority over themselves, how can they be married unless they agree to be married? It stands to reason that if the father had the authority to refuse agreement and thereafter sex did not make the virgin married, then the refusal to agree by the non-virgin was sufficient to prevent marriage.

A non-virgin may be eligible to marry, which means that she may marry.  However, his vow to marry her is meaningless unless she agrees to marry him because that man is not in authority over that woman and he cannot make a vow that binds her unless she agrees to it.  The woman has no authority over the man (and never will), so the idea that her failure or refusal to agree to his vow somehow grants her authority over him is ridiculous.

The Third Objection

Thirdly there are the specific prohibitions against a priest marrying a prostitute, prostitutes giving tithe from their earnings, illegitimate kids being cut off until the tenth generation, etc, that indicate that the profession is frowned upon in ways that farming simply isn’t.

The specific prohibition against marrying a prostitute you speak of was directed to the Sons of Aaron, the men of the Aaronic priesthood.  We are speaking of Leviticus 21 and it starts (Verse 7) with the specific prohibition to all the sons of Aaron, he may not take any woman profaned by harlotry or who is a divorced woman. Does this mean that divorced women are considered prostitutes?  Or is this a prohibition on marrying the two classes of women in which there is a possibility that the woman is actually married, in which case the union would be an adulterous one.

Now jump down to Verse 10, where the instruction gets even more specific to the priest who is highest among his brothers, who has been anointed and consecrated.  That is followed by specific instruction for the high priest, which brings us to Verse 13, which says

“He shall take a wife in her virginity.  A widow or a divorced woman or a woman who has been profaned by harlotry, these he may not take; but rather he is to marry a virgin of his own people; that he may not profane his offspring among his people; for I am the lord who sanctifies him.” Leviticus 21:13-15.

Notice that all non-virgin women are lumped in here together and forbidden to the high priest as a wife.  The reason is that a non-virgin might cause his children to be profane.  His wife must be a virgin of his own people.  This restriction really has nothing to do with prostitutes, it’s about marrying a virgin.

The part about prostitutes being forbidden to make votive offerings in the Temple has nothing to do with forbidding prostitution and seems to be a direct reference to the preceding verse, which forbid cult prostitution both male and female.  The prohibition on illegitimate children entering into the assembly of the Lord down to the 10th Generation actually begs the question of what “‘illegitimate” means.  Does that refer to children born outside of marriage, or to children born of the prohibited unions between the Israelites and the tribes they were forbidden to mix with?  Any child born to an illegitimate marriage would automatically be illegitimate.  Virgins are married when they have sex and sex is how babies get started, so where did prostitution come up in this?

These are common objections that don’t bear up under the weight of scrutiny and the only real test is whether the Law forbid prostitution.  It does not.

If two prostitutes shared a house and dagger and took turns acting as each other’s security against abusive clients, it becomes pretty difficult to convict even a known prostitute of adultery and stone her.

Why do you assume the prostitutes are committing adultery?  The entire point is there is no record of prostitutes being stoned for adultery and in a village setting it is impossible for the community to not know what she is doing, when she does it and who she is with.

Since a woman’s testimony is only worth half that of a man, in this likely scenario it would take 3 men or 5 women to convict since the client and the two whores count as 2 men total. So it’s very likely that, then as now, there would exist a sizeable number of known whores who could not be convicted.

I have absolutely no idea where in the Bible you got the idea that a woman’s testimony is worth only half that of a man, because that’s Islamic Sharia law.

Thus the existence of the specific prohibitions would not necessarily imply that there was a righteous form of prostitution to regulate.

Pode, you’ve gone off the rails here.  The existence of specific prohibitions within prostitution prove that prostitution, generally, is not immoral.  Think of farming.  Mixing your seed, plowing with an ox and ass yoked together, binding the mouth of the ox that treads the grain, etc., are specifically prohibited.  Giving the land a Sabbath rest every seven years, leaving the corners of the field for gleaners, etc., these are commanded.  Which means that other than those specific regulations, farming is permitted and a moral, licit activity.  Want to tend a vineyard?  Go ahead!  Olive trees?  Why not?  It’s allowed.

If prostitution is per se adultery, the prohibition in Corinthians can be read not as creating a new primary offense, but explaining the nature of a new secondary offense. It’s bad enough you committing adultery, but because Christ now dwells in you, you’re involving Him in it too, so now it’s an even worse sin.

No, you’re grasping at straws here.  There is nothing to demonstrate that prostitution is per se adultery.  Cult prostitutes were forbidden in Israel and idolatry was forbidden in any and all forms.  Which is why there was such a fuss over eating meat sacrificed to idols- many construed that to be partaking in idolatry.  Paul was forbidding something to Christians (and Christians only) that had been previously allowed.

Fine Grinding

What we’ve been through in these posts is a bit of sifting of Scripture.  First, we have nothing that says prostitution, per se, is a sin.  So, the question becomes, how can we make prostitution a sin if the Bible doesn’t specifically say it’s a sin? I suppose the first olive out of the jar is adultery.  Adultery requires a married woman.  What about the woman who isn’t married?  Well, let’s take away her choice and force her to be married if she has sex.

The usual refuge of poltroons is to claim there is a “Biblical Principle” at work and even though the Bible does not support what they want to say, there is a “Biblical Principle” that rules.  What is really happening is people want to create a set of rules for their own purposes and claim God is supportive of that.  Worse, they believe God is required to follow their rules.

This all results when people do not agree with what God’s Word says (or doesn’t say).  God chose to forbid men from having sex with men.  God chose not to forbid women from engaging in sexual whatever with women.  God chose to completely ignore the subject of masturbation.  God chose not to forbid prostitution.  God chose not to forbid any man from having sex with a woman he was eligible to marry.  And this is very disturbing to most Christians.  Because they don’t actually like the way God set things up.

Oh… and the legal issue

I am constantly amazed at the number of “escorts” and others who violate the law by engaging in activity that meets the definition of prostitution, which is a crime.  The reason I am amazed is because it’s completely unnecessary of the goal is to be paid for offering sexual gratification.  If a man wants to pay a woman to engage in sexual activity with him, he can pay a woman for sexual access to her body (which is a crime) or he can pay an actress to engage in sexual activity with him while recording said activity on video for entertainment purposes.  That is not a crime.

The only real difference between a prostitute and a porn actress is a video camera and the willingness of both parties to star in a porn production.  Given that the presence of a camera tends to cause women to become more enthusiastic in their sexual performance (they don’t call it “porn star” sex for nothing), it seems reasonable to assert that legally participating in a recorded porn production with a paid actress is a superior method of obtaining sexual gratification in return for payment.

It seems likewise reasonable to assert that a woman who wished to engage in sexual activity in return for payment should choose to legally do so as a porn actress rather than as a prostitute.  There are numerous advantages, such as being able to legally advertise such services and the freedom from prosecution.  Some might consider the possibility that the video might make its way onto the internet to be a problem, but that would be video that was lost in the sea of porn and the name associated with it would be the woman’s “stage name” instead of her real name.  That possibility should be balanced against the risk of being arrested for prostitution, which will create a permanent criminal record under her real name.

Again, there is no reasonable moral argument that a woman selling her body is automatically committing sin because prostitution is classified as a crime.  Any woman who desires to receive payment in return for performing sexual acts can easily comply with the law by doing so as a porn actress, which is completely legal.  Plenty of men take on the job of producing, directing and acting in their own productions and we have examples like Mel Gibson and Clint Eastwood.  They hire actresses to play their assigned roles.  All of this is perfectly legal.    And if an actress wants to offer “one stop shopping” to make his production a reality, all he needs is money.  Which he will pay to her.  Which was the entire point to begin with.

Posted in Biblical Illiteracy, Churchianity, Messages to a young man | 25 Comments

Just Because It’s Not Forbidden…


“Doesn’t Mean It’s Permitted!”

New commenter oogenhand (a convert to the cult of the Easter Bunny), recently stopped by to offer his opinions on issues raised by our recent post concerning prostitutes and lesbians.  His comment raises a number of points.  The first being that oogenhand seems to be unsure as to the identity of the Apostle Paul, confusing him with the noted pervert and church infiltrator Augustine of Hippo.  Augustine was the gnostic Manichean who infiltrated the Church and polluted it with his mad scribblings about sexual pleasure being a sin.  It was the Easter Bunny and his followers, practitioners of the Nicolaitan sin, who promoted and revered the foolishness of Augustine and his partner in crime, the pervert Jerome.

Girl-on-girl is not allowed because although the women are married to YOU, they are not married to EACH OTHER.

Commenter oogenhant’s opinion about “girl on girl” is amusing, because he is claiming two women are not allowed to have sexual contact because they are not married.

Sexual contact is not the same as sexual intercourse. Two women cannot have sexual intercourse because sexual intercourse requires a penis and women don’t have a penis. Sexual intercourse is the act of marriage, the peculiar “ceremony” if you will that begins a marriage. Thus, it is physically impossible for two women to be married to each other because two women cannot have sexual intercourse with each other and marriage begins with the act of sexual intercourse.

That fact, however, does not prevent two women from having sexual contact.

The confusion over the difference between sexual contact and sexual intercourse is amusing.  Masturbation is sexual contact with ones’ self, it is not sexual intercourse because there is no partner. Masturbation is not forbidden in any way- it’s not even mentioned or implied. “Girl on girl” is not forbidden, except within the constraints of a polygynous marriage, where female-female incest is prohibited. The prohibition presumes sexual contact between wives in a polygynous marriage, married to the same husband and most likely sharing the same bed with their husband.

All this would be one massive and somewhat amusing non sequitur except for one point- there are a number of forms of sexual contact that are forbidden. Incest, for example, is any form of sexual contact between people with forbidden relationships. Any sexual contact between men is forbidden. The point, is that sexual contact between women (except for the aforementioned prohibition on incest) is not forbidden.

It is said that there are two types of people.  Your humble Toad is of the first group, those who believe that which is not specifically forbidden is permitted and we are to use wisdom in determining if that which is permitted is good for us.

There is another group who take a different position: that which is not specifically permitted is to be viewed with great suspicion, if not outright hostility.  It is this group who have traditionally judged, shamed and manipulated their fellow Christians.  You see, at the end of the day, they are claiming their opinion on the relative morality of something is what counts.

Commenter oogenhand is, as a zealous convert to the cult of the Easter Bunny, rather opinionated.  He made further assertions. Note that all additions to oogenhand’s comment are in brackets.

Maybe polygyny is allowed and polyandry isn’t because the Bible commands MGC (circumcision), but doesn’t command FGC (clitoridectomy e.a.). Paul [Augustine of Hippo] was a gnostic manichean, who puts the spiritual and the physical at opposite ends.  [Gnostics believe] the spiritual is good and physical is bad. This is wrong. The spiritual and the physical complement each other. This means that, Biblically speaking, spiritual circumcision without physical circumcision is just as worthless as the inverse.  Paul burns in hell. Hell is eternal.

Physical circumcision is only commanded of the physical descendants of Abraham (Genesis 17:1-14)  “between Me and you and your descendants after you: every male among you shall be circumcised.  If one is not a physical descendant of Abraham or a slave who belongs to a physical descendant of Abraham, then the command of physical circumcision is not applicable. But, oogenhand complicates the issue by talking about spiritual circumcision.  What is this spiritual cirumcision?  We find the first reference in Deuteronomy 30:6

Moreover the LORD your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants, to love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, so that you may live.

Spiritual circumcision is something the Lord does, it’s spiritual.  We find clarification in Romans 2:28-29

For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh.  But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God.

Commenter oogenhand is somewhat confused by all this, saying “Biblically speaking, spiritual circumcision without physical circumcision is just as worthless as the inverse.”   He then goes on to say the Apostle Paul is going to hell.  Like many followers of the Easter Bunny, he believes his opinion is more important than what the Bible says.  Which is why they place their traditions above the Bible.

  • Circumcision of a descendant of Abraham is the act that signifies their entry into the covenant and is a sign of the covenant.
  • Sexual intercourse is the act by which a man and woman are married and a sign that the man and woman are married.

These are physical acts, significant in and of themselves, a sign of the covenant.  Yet, along with the physical act, there is also the spiritual.

  • Circumcision of the heart is a spiritual circumcision by Spirit, performed by the Lord.
  • The spiritual joining of “becoming one flesh” is the act of the Lord that joins the two in marriage as one flesh.

Mere sexual contact is not the same as sexual intercourse and sexual contact does not signify anything other than a desire for sexual gratification.  It may be generally forbidden based on the relationship (incest, males with males, etc.),  or it may be permitted because there is no prohibition at all.  Masturbation is an example of this and “girl on girl” sexual contact falls into this category.

Female genital mutilation is not the same thing as circumcision and female genital mutilation does not signify anything other than the attitudes and beliefs of the people who do such things.  And when one considers that it’s the older women who do that sort of thing, not the men, it might give a thinking person something to ponder.

Polygyny and polyamory cannot be compared because polygyny is a marriage with more than one wife.  Polyamory is an attack on marriage and in fact, a denial of marriage because a woman can only be bound to one man.

Posted in Marriages Go Their Own Way | 8 Comments

The Righteousness Of Prostitutes And Lesbians


Let’s talk about righteous prostitutes.  Seems to be a bit of an oxymoron to Christians, but that’s because they don’t know what the word “righteous” means.  I’ll use the King James definition here, but there  are other points of reference:

RIGHTEOUS, a. ri’chus.

1. Just; accordant to the divine law. Applied to persons, it denotes one who is holy in heart, and observant of the divine commands in practice; as a righteous man.

Is the world’s oldest profession a righteous one?  According to that definition of righteousness, if a farmer is in accordance to the divine Law and observant of the divine commands, the only question is whether he’s holy at heart.  That questions the meaning of holiness, which hinges on the concept of sin.  God is Holy, He does not sin.  Christ is Holy, He does not sin.  Christians are Holy, because they are imputed (judged) to have the righteousness (the state of being without sin) of Christ.

So, can a man be a righteous farmer?  The answer is yes, as long as he is obedient to the divine Law and commands.  In accordance with the divine Law, the farmer is not to plow his field with an ox and an ass yoked together, nor is he to mix his seed and there are other restrictions as well.  He is commanded to give his land a Sabbath rest every 7th year and allow gleaners to follow the harvest as well as other commands.  These restrictions and commands exist because God regulated farming.  If the farmer is in accordance with the Divine Law and commands, the question is whether he is holy in heart.  The only person who can judge that is God and not only that, but we are commanded not to judge such issues.

Can a woman be a righteous prostitute?  The answer is yes.  In keeping with the Divine Law, as long as she is not involved in idolatry (meaning she’s selling her body in a money/goods transaction) AND she is eligible to marry the man she is servicing (no adultery/incest), there is no transgression of either Divine Law or Command.  The reason is simple: there is no prohibition and without a prohibition there is no violation and with no violation there is no sin imputed.   In other words, the woman is not in sin for selling her body.  That is true or the Apostle Paul lied in Romans 4:15 and 5:13.

The typical knee-jerk reaction of Churchians is to Google “bible verse that prohibits prostitution” and they get to 1st Corinthians 6:15-16.  They glance at it and claim it forbids women from being prostitutes.  Actually, it doesn’t.  That prohibition is aimed directly at the men, forbidding only Christian men from using the services of prostitutes.  The men were already forbidden to use the cult prostitutes involved in idolatry, this was a specific prohibition that forbid Christian men the use of righteous prostitutes.

Obviously a woman could be an unrighteous prostitute.  She could be married and every customer would be another case of adultery.  She could provide her services as part of the worship of foreign gods, which is idolatry.  However, just as a woman can be a righteous wife, she can also be an adulteress.

Why Are Christian Men Forbidden To Use Prostitutes?

If prostitution can be a righteous and moral activity, why was using prostitutes forbidden to Christian men?  When one considers what Christian wives are like, it seems rather unfair to the men.  The argument goes along the lines of saying that there must be something wrong with the prostitutes if the activity was forbidden.  That’s a great Churchian argument, but the fact is, the men were forbidden to use prostitutes precisely because the prostitutes were not doing anything wrong.

The act of sexual intercourse in which the man penetrates the woman is, by definition, the act of marriage.   With that act the man gives his consent and agreement to marry, as well as his commitment in marriage to the woman he is penetrating.  Because of that, there is no prohibition anywhere in the Bible that forbids a man from having sexual intercourse with a woman who is eligible for him to marry.  Obviously, any restriction on sexual intercourse between a man and woman eligible to marry each other is a restriction on the man’s authority to initiate marriage.

At the time when Paul sent his letter to the Church at Corinth, the men knew they were not engaged in an illicit or otherwise immoral activity when they paid a prostitute to have sex with her. They were well aware that some prostitutes were doing nothing wrong in selling their bodies, while other prostitutes were adulteresses and/or idolaters.

The men used the services of a prostitute because she was eligible to marry and at the same time (by virtue of her “profession”) the man knew that sexual activity would not result in a marriage.  In other words, men had the right to have sex with any eligible woman because they have the authority to initiate marriage, but they were abusing that authority by having sex with the one group of women who would not consent to marry them.  They were using the act of marriage, purely for pleasure, in such a way that it could not possibly result in marriage.

Which meant they were having their sexual needs met and felt no pressure to take on the responsibilities of being a husband and father by getting married.  The women were not abusing their authority because they had no authority to abuse.

Men And Women ARE NOT Equal

There is no restriction or prohibition anywhere in the Law that forbids a woman who is eligible to marry from becoming a prostitute or selling her body to any man she is eligible to marry.  There is nothing in the New Testament that forbids a Christian woman from selling her body as long as she is eligible to marry.  Call it whatever you want, but women get a pass on that.  Men, not so much.  As I have pointed out before, the only prohibition on the use of prostitutes found anywhere in the Bible is in 1st Corinthians 6:15-16, and that prohibition is specific to Christian men.  The prohibition that forbids Christian men from using prostitutes does not apply to non-Christian men and has nothing to do with women.

Men and Women Have Different Standards of Sexual Morality

A man is free to have more than one wife at the same time because Genesis 2:24 gave the authority to initiate marriage to the man but did not limit that authority to a single woman.  Because a man initiates marriage with the act of sex, a man is free to have sex with any woman who is eligible to marry him.  A woman, once bound in marriage, may only have sex with her husband and no other man.  If she has sex with any other man she commits adultery.  The only way a man can commit adultery is if he has sex with another man’s wife.  It does not matter if the man is married or not, a man can only commit adultery if the woman is the wife of another man.

God said if a man lies with a man as with a woman it’s an abomination and a death penalty offense.  If either a man or a woman has sex with an animal it is a perversion and a death penalty offense.  What did God not forbid, and barely even mentioned at all?  Women with women.   There is no general prohibition on anything sexual that women might do with women.  In fact, the incest statutes that apply to polygamy (Leviticus 18:17-18) presume that wives in a poly marriage will have sexual contact.  After all, nobody gets married to sleep alone.  As long as there’s no incest involved, God doesn’t care about sexual activity between women and whatever that might be is not a sin.

Why Do Christians Hate Girl-Girl Sexual Contact?

cute-lesbiansThat really is a valid question: why do churchians get so bent out of shape about this?  Why are they so filled with hate?

First, it’s because they’ve been taught that Romans 1:26 somehow “forbid” lesbian sex.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  Romans 1:26 doesn’t even mention sex between women, it says that certain women were being punished by God with the degrading passion of rejecting the natural function of women.

What is the natural function of women?  Well, what was Eve created for?  Was Eve created to be a “helpmeet” and wife and mother to Adam, or was Eve created to be Adam’s sex toy?  The only way that “rejecting the natural function of women” can be interpreted as lesbian sex is if the natural function of women is to be a sex toy for men.

And not to put too fine a point on it, but anything in the New Testament that goes beyond what is already in the Law can only apply to the church.  Romans 1:26 is descriptive, with Paul describing the wrath of God being poured out on unbelievers who refuse to acknowledge, honor and worship their Creator.  Clearly Romans 1:26 does not refer to the church and there is nothing wrong with a Christian woman engaging in sexual activity with another woman, just like there is nothing in the Bible that forbids a Christian woman from selling her body.  There might be specific issues of conscience and faith that apply to individual women, but that’s a conscience issue for the individual to decide and we are commanded not to judge their decision.

The second reason is that it’s not about the women, it’s all about the lack of attractive men.  Romans 1:26 describes women with a degrading passion that causes said women to reject being a wife and mother under a man’s authority.  In other words, it’s a rejection of men, but it’s also a refusal to settle for men that aren’t desirable.  Some women settle for men they aren’t that attracted to.  Other women refuse to settle for a man they aren’t attracted to and settle for another woman instead.   In both cases the women can’t get what they want so they settle for something else.  And when I put it like that it gives everyone a case of heartburn.  The men are butthurt at being rejected because it really is a rejection of their lack of masculine attractiveness.  The women are butthurt, claiming they don’t want a man, they prefer women… right up until an attractive man shows them some interest.  Then they discover they’re actually bisexual.  Or they were confused, it was just a phase they were going through, they’re actually straight.  Ooops.

tumblr_mu0c8bfl6p1rtil2yo1_1280The third reason is that women are pretty vicious when it comes to judging others, especially other women.  And no matter how much of a witch she is with her husband, a wife can still look down her nose at girls who are with girls.  It doesn’t matter what the details are, churchians are programmed to throw rocks and their leaders are expected to point to the right group or person.

Understanding the socio-sexual dynamics of what is happening helps one to understand why most lesbians are fat and ugly. The truth is that good-looking lesbians are very rare.  The fact lesbians tend to be fat and ugly is because they were never able to attract the attention of a man they found attractive.  And the men they were attracted to probably didn’t treat them well.  Can you say “pump and dump?”  Lots of room for embarrassment and humiliation in there.  But rather than settle for a man they weren’t attracted to (a man in their league), they’d rather be with another woman.

article-2591430-1ca6585600000578-182_306x423While previous photos have shown femmes, the “lipstick lesbians” who probably haven’t given up on the idea of attracting the attention of a man they’re interested in, most “lesbians” finally give up on men completely.  After that they tend to get fatter and make themselves as ugly as possible.

Lots of feminists will howl at that and while there are exceptions, that’s pretty much the general rule.  Which is one more reason why lesbians are angry with men.  They couldn’t get what they wanted.

But, at the end of the day, does not getting what they wanted and settling for something else make them bad people?  No.  Are they “In Sin?”  No.  Have they done anything morally wrong?  No.  And the funny part is the even though lesbian porn seems to be really popular with men, the truth is that most lesbians seldom actually do that sort of thing.   They fight a lot, as evidenced by the fact that the incidence of domestic violence between lesbians is really, really high.

When we compare the two issues of prostitution and female-female sexual contact, we can see that both can be completely righteous and moral activities for Christian women and both of them have traditionally been hated by the churchians because churchians hate sex.  They always have.

More than that, however, is they do not like it when God’s ideas of how things should be don’t agree with theirs.  God chose to prohibit the things He chose to prohibit, which means He chose not to prohibit those things He chose not to prohibit.  God did not forget, He did not overlook anything, He did not get confused.

What About
Issues of Conscience?

The clearest statements on issue of conscience and sin are found at Romans 14:23 (that which is not of faith is sin) and James 4:17 (If you know the right thing to do and do not do it, that is sin to you).  Those things that are forbidden in the law are forbidden for everyone.  However, even though a person can be within the Divine Law, if they violate their conscience they are in sin.   Likewise, because someone is doing something by faith that they know is right for them, they are not in sin and both Paul and James were very specific: who are you to judge your neighbor?  They were speaking of judging someone over issues of conscience.

The issues discussed in this post are not issues of Divine Law because the Law does not condemn or prohibit prostitution or sexual contact between women (unless it’s incest).  Perhaps an individual Christian might decide that she could not possibly spread her legs for money and the thought of a marital threesome with her husband and another wife is nauseating, but that’s OK.  Some people get nauseated on a boat or a plane, but that’s not a sin and they can avoid boats and planes.




Posted in Biblical Illiteracy, Churchianity, Messages to a young man | 39 Comments

Modern Women: Schrödinger’s Cats


The reader may or may not be familiar with the concept of quantum superposition, but most of us have heard at least a reference to Schrödinger‘s Box or Schrödinger‘s Cat.  It comes from a “thought experiment” by Edwin Schrödinger in 1935, in which a cat is locked in a steel box with an amount of radioactive material that triggers a release of poison when it decays.  After a certain amount of time the material may or may not have decayed, so the poison may or may not have been released.  The cat may or may not be alive.  Thus, according to the superposition theory, the cat simultaneously exists as a living cat and a dead cat until reality intrudes and someone opens the box to observe the outcome.

Make of it what you will, but here at Toad’s Hall we have identified Schrödinger‘s Cat: the modern woman.


Schrödinger‘s Pussy?

We start with a little girl who grows to become a woman and one day (the median age is 17.1 years of age) she decided to give her virginity to a guy named Jimmy Schrodinger.  With that act she and Jimmy were married and he is her husband.  But she didn’t tell her father about this and he had no idea that in giving her virginity to Jimmy that they were married.

This is described in Scripture as the man seducing the eligible virgin.  And maybe Jimmy did, but these days the girls don’t need much encouragement if they’re attracted to the man.  The thing is, giving her virginity to Jimmy triggered the Law of Marriage (Genesis 2:24) and according to that Law she was married, but her father wasn’t part of that decision.  That is critically important because as a young woman living in her father’s house, she is subject to the Law of Vows (Numbers 30) and her father has the authority to review any and every agreement she makes in the day he hears of it.

She knew Jimmy wanted sex.  She didn’t have to say anything to agree and when she lifted her ass so he could pull her pants and panties off, that was agreement enough.  For an eligible virgin, the act of sex is marriage.  When she agreed to have sex, she agreed to marry that man.  That agreement to marry was then consummated when they did have sex.  This brings up a serious question because she made that decision and then followed through on it before Daddy had a chance to review it.  And with the act of marriage, the authority over the woman passes from her father to her husband.

Does that mean Daddy  is shut out?  Or does he still get to review her agreement?  If Daddy forbids her agreement, are they married?  That is the case described in Exodus 22:16-17.

“If a man seduces a virgin who is not engaged, and lies with her, he must pay a dowry for her to be his wife.  If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he shall [a]pay money equal to the dowry for virgins.”  Exodus 22:16-17

The first thing we should note is the underlined words “to be” are in italics.  They are a translators addition not found in the original text  and instead of clarifying what the text says, the added words change the meaning.  Verse 16 describes the father allowing his daughters agreement and they are married.  Verse 17 describes the father forbidding her agreement, meaning he refuses to allow his daughter to marry this young man.  Which is why the text says “If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him…”

Understand that if he forbids her decision, he is not annulling the marriage, he is refusing to allow the man to marry his daughter.  Meaning, from the moment of the agreement (which he later forbid) she is no longer eligible to marry the man.  Because that man is no longer eligible to marry her, the subsequent act of coitus does not create a marriage.  She is left unmarried and no longer a virgin.

Interestingly, there is no time limit on the father’s authority to forbid an agreement his daughter might have made when she was in her youth living in his house, he may forbid it in the day he hears of it.  That may not be until many years later.

Quantum Vagina

If the father never hears of it he can’t forbid that agreement so our girl was married when she gave Jimmy her virginity and she stays married to him.  And after she breaks up with Jimmy (and it’s pretty much guaranteed she will), every other man she has sex with after that is an act of adultery.  And when she finally has a wedding and “marries” some man years later, the entire affair is fraudulent because she is still married to Jimmy.  And if she later decides she isn’t haaappy with the man she had a wedding with and decides to divorce him, it’s meaningless because she wasn’t really married to him in the first place because she’s still married to Jimmy.

If her father does hear of it and he forbids her agreement, even many years later, then that original act of coitus in which she gave Jimmy her virginity did not result in marriage because the agreement came before the penetration and when the penetration occured she was no longer eligible.  Because Daddy said no to the marriage.  Which is why Exodus 22:17 states “If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him…”  When he forbids her agreement to marry he is refusing to give her in marriage to that man.  He is no longer eligible to marry her.  When Daddy does that (after the fact), it means she is no longer a virgin but she is not married either.  Which means that every other man she had sex with after that was not a case of adultery, it was just sex.

Because she was no longer a virgin and never married, when she finally agreed to marry some man, she was married to him because she was eligible to marry AND she was agreeing to marry.  Prior to her father forbidding that original agreement she was living in adultery with the man she only thought she was married to; after he forbids it she’s living in marriage with her husband and has never committed adultery up to that point.

The modern woman as Schrödinger‘s Pussy.

She is both an eligible virgin and an ineligible virgin.  Depending on her history, she is married to one man and married to another man at the same time.  She is married and not married at the same time.  She is an adulteress and also a woman who has never committed adultery.  We do not actually know the reality of the situation until we can observe that her father forbid his daughter’s agreement to get married.  It’s a box that stays closed until her father takes action or dies without taking action.

This illustrates the power of fathers.  Oh- and do make note of that part about “in her youth and living in her father’s house.”  That’s a limiting restriction on her father’s authority to review and forbid her agreements.  Perhaps that’s why there is such a satanic focus on separating children from their fathers.  Regardless what churchians know or don’t know, Satan knows full well the power of a father.


Posted in Biblical Illiteracy, Churchianity, Marriage, Messages to a young man | 13 Comments

Churchian Fail: 5 out of 21


The family is the foundation of civilization and sexual morality is the foundation of family.  Most Christians would agree with those two statements, but most Christians are ignorant of the fact that of the following twenty-one points from the Bible concerning sexual morality, only five are generally and consistently taught by the churches today.   Five out of twenty-one is the score for modern churchianity.

Keep in mind that this problem was baked into the cake 1500 years ago.  You might have heard the old saying that when you’ve got them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow.  There’s a lot of truth in that.  This is all about power-hungry individuals and a group of very influential early church fathers who hated sex and considered sex- even within marriage, to be sinful and at best a necessary evil.

Understanding Churchian Sexual Morality

I.  Modern Christianity pays little more than lip service to the idea that the Lord Jesus Christ cares what His servants do. If this premise is correct, Christianity is only useful in terms of providing common social cues and general attitudes. If this premise is not correct, modern Christianity doesn’t need a revival, it needs to be destroyed for the apostate mess that it is.

II.  Modern Christians are almost completely ignorant of what the Bible actually says and they can’t be bothered to read it in order to find out. If and when they do, there is a legion of feminist professional Christians on hand to “help” them “interpret” what the Bible says. The interpretation will prevent understanding what the words actually say and mean.

III.  The modern church is a business, typically organized as a not-for-profit corporation that provides services to the general public of a religious nature. The purpose of this business is to receive money (tithes) from the attending public in return for teaching them that God loves them, Jesus forgives them no matter what they’ve done, they should love one another and not forget to tithe.

IV.  Anyone who teaches what the Bible says within the modern framework of Christianity is derided as a “fundamentalist” and generally rejected, mocked and ridiculed because they take the appropriate points of what the Bible says in a literal fashion.

V.  Because of point #4, Modern Christians of the west are unable to understand Islam because they cannot fathom the idea of being a servant of God with the requirement to do what God has commanded them to do. Therefore, they refer to Muslims who take such an attitude as being “radicalized” instead of understanding that such Muslims are simply taking their religious duties seriously. Ironically, it is common to hear of certain Christians becoming “on fire for the Lord” because they got serious about being obedient to what the Bible says, but they cannot make the connection and see that when a Muslim becomes “on fire for Mohammed” the fire is generally coming from the muzzle of a rifle.

VI.  Anyone who digs into the Bible and carefully studies the area of sexual morality, marriage and family relations will discover that the doctrines in place in virtually every church are in direct conflict with what the Bible says about these areas.

VII.  Anyone who teaches the parts of the Bible that conflict with the carefully constructed doctrines concerning sexual morality and marriage will be viciously attacked by everyone in the modern church; Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant.


21 Elements Of Biblical Sexual Morality

  1. The act of marriage is sexual intercourse and to have sex with an eligible virgin is to marry her (Genesis 2:24). This means that every man she has sex with after that is a case of adultery because the woman is already married to the man who took her virginity.   Following that, any so-called marriage to another man is fraudulent because the woman is already married.
  2. The Law of Marriage states that when an eligible virgin has sex, she is married.  The Law of Vows states the father has the authority to forbid any vow or agreement his daughter makes in the day he hears of it.  Because the act of sexual intercourse is the act of marriage, when an eligible virgin has sex she is married.  Her agreement to have sex is therefore her agreement to marry.  However, in the day her father hears of her agreement (which happens after she has sex with him) he can forbid that agreement and from the moment of the agreement she is no longer an eligible virgin.  Which means that the subsequent act of having sex did not make her married because her father refused her agreement and refused to give her in marriage.  Thus, we see in Exodus 22:16 an example of the father allowing her agreement and they are married.  In the following verse (verse 17) the father forbids it and the text says “and if he absolutely refuses to give her…”   There is no time limit and her father can forbid that agreement in the day he hears of it if she made the agreement in her youth while living in his house.
  3. The consent and/or commitment of an eligible virgin to her marriage is not necessary or required for her to be married (Exodus 21:7-10; Exodus 22:16; Deuteronomy 21:10-14; Deuteronomy 22:28-29). In contrast, marriage to an eligible non-virgin (such as a widow or legitimately divorced woman) requires her consent to marry in addition to sex in order to form a marriage (Genesis 2:24; Numbers 30:9; 1st Corinthians 7:39).
  4. With the act of penetration, the man makes his commitment to marry the woman he is having sex with, every single time (Genesis 2:24).
  5. There is no requirement anywhere in Scripture for a betrothal period, a celebration or ceremony of any kind, public or private, nor does marriage require the permission of any third party such as the church, because the authority to marry was granted to the man in the Law of Marriage (Genesis 2:24).
  6. Reinforcing point #4, there is no prohibition anywhere in Scripture forbidding a man from having sex with an eligible woman, regardless of his marital status. If the woman is a virgin they are married. If the woman is not a virgin her consent to marry is required before they are married.  There is no prohibition anywhere in Scripture that prohibits an eligible woman from having sex with a man eligible to marry her.  According to Romans 4:15 and 5:13, the lack of prohibition means the act is not a sin.
  7. The lack of an eligible virgin’s requirement to provide consent to a marriage means she may be raped into marriage (Deuteronomy 22:28-29).
  8. If a woman agrees to be married and does so without her father’s consent, he has the authority to forbid her agreement in the day he hears of it (Numbers 30:5).  By forbidding her agreement to marry she is no longer eligible to marry that man and the subsequent act of sex does not make them married.  This is the reason Exodus 22:17 states “if the father absolutely refuses to give her.”
  9. A married woman who has sex with any man other than her husband commits adultery as long as he is still alive (Leviticus 18:20, 20:10, Romans 7:2-3) which means that adultery requires a married woman.  Unless a married woman is involved there can be no adultery.
  10. The original standard of marriage was permanent but non-exclusive commitment on the part of the man with permanent and exclusive commitment on the part of the woman (Genesis 2:24, Leviticus 18:20, Genesis 3:16).
  11. Genesis 2:24 allowed a man to have more than one wife, which was supported throughout Scripture (Deuteronomy 25:5-10; 2nd Samuel 12:8; Jeremiah 31:21-32) and never changed.
  12. Although the standard of Genesis 2:24 called for permanent commitment on the part of the men, Moses permitted men to divorce their wives for adultery (Deuteronomy 24:1; Matthew 19:7-9). Christ later made a regulation for His church forbidding divorce between two Christians married to each other, effectively restoring the original standard of marriage within His church (1st Corinthians 7:10-11).
  13. The Apostle Paul instructed that if a Christian was married to a non-Christian and the non-Christian left the Christian and refused to live with them, the Christian was free (no longer bound) to the marriage (1st Corinthians 7:12-15).
  14. If a man lies with a man as with a woman, that is prohibited, an abomination and was classified as a death penalty offense (Leviticus 18:2220:13).
  15. If either a man or a woman has sex with an animal it is a perversion and a death penalty offense (Leviticus 18:23, 20:15-16).
  16. While male homosexuality was an offense and bestiality was an offense for both men and women, homosexual contact between women was not prohibited except for cases of incest. The incest statutes contain two prohibitions on a man marrying sisters, or marrying a mother-daughter or grandmother-granddaughter. Those regulations presume sexual contact between wives in a polygynous marriage (Leviticus 18:17-18).
  17. There is no prohibition anywhere in Scripture that forbids a woman from being a simple money-for-sex prostitute, although prostitution as part of idolatry (cult prostitute) is forbidden in Deuteronomy 23:17.
  18. The only prohibition against using the services of a prostitute is in 1st Corinthians 6:15-16, which only forbids Christian men from using prostitutes.
  19. If a man has sex with an eligible woman who is not a virgin and she does not consent to marry, all they did was have sex, there was no sin (Romans 4:15; 5:13).
  20. The only way a man and woman can have “premarital sex” is if they are engaged to be married and have sex during the engagement period. If they do so the man has violated the requirements of the engagement by not keeping his vow (Numbers 30:2). They are not married (even though she was a virgin) because due to the voluntary agreement, she cannot be married until after the end of the engagement period and any agreed upon ceremony.  In addition, the portion of traditional marriage vows to “forsake all others” is voluntary because Scripture contains no such requirement for the man.  If, however, the man chooses to make this vow it is binding upon him (Numbers 30:2).
  21. A man having intercourse with his wife while she is menstruating is committing a prohibited act that is ranked equally with adultery, bestiality, idolatry and male homosexuality (Leviticus 18:19-24).  The man and woman who do such a thing are to be cut off from their people (Leviticus 20:18).  While there is no prohibition or even any mention of masturbation anywhere in Scripture, sexual relations during menstruation is never mentioned in the modern church but masturbation is frequently condemned.


Of the 21 points on this list concerning sexual morality and marriage, only points 9, 13, 14, 15 and 18 are generally taught in the churches today. The other 16 points are either completely ignored or contradicted by church doctrine and attacked as lies, yet those points describe what the Bible actually teaches.

From point number one, it follows that at least 80% of the so-called “married” couples in the modern church are living in adultery because the women were already married (they were not virgins) when they purported to marry their husbands. This means that the greatest problem in the church today is the widespread adultery of the Christians within the church that is caused by the leaders of the church refusing to teach what the Bible actually says.

If it is correct that God takes an active hand in His creation based on the behavior of people, blessing them, withholding blessings, removing His protection or cursing them; and if it is correct that Christ likewise takes an active hand in His church, then the importance of the endemic of adultery in the church cannot be understated.

There are 16 points in the list above that the Bible teaches which the church either ignores or denies. Because of this, the vast majority of the adults in the church are in sin and the families are being destroyed by divorce, permanently injuring the children. If that sin does not matter because God forgives sin, there is no point in obeying anything in Scripture and the entire so-called “religion” of Christianity is a joke.



Posted in Biblical Illiteracy, Churchianity, Messages to a young man | 41 Comments