Solutions and Silver Linings to Dark Clouds

This is a follow-up to the last post, in which I outlined what I think is the biggest problem the church faces today.  The first aspect of the problem that needs to be recognized is it happened because God did it and it’s a punishment.

Before anybody thinks Toad has gone off his rocker, Romans 1:18-32 describes the wrath of God being poured out on a world in which people do not acknowledge, honor or worship Him.  That wrath is poured out in three distinct phases.  First, God gave them over to impurity that they might be dishonored in their bodies.  The second time God gave them over to depraved passions.  The third time God gave them over to a depraved mind.

Given the specific issues involved (especially Romans 1:26, the women giving up the “natural function”) it is apparent to me that passage is a prophesy which has already come to pass for Western Civilization.  It started in the period of the 1960’s with the replacement of absolute (Biblical) morality with moral relativism.   There was an explosion of infidelity, promiscuity, divorce and adultery as people rejected God’s standards and replaced them with their own.  A generation later in the 1980’s we saw the depraved passion of feminism explode into the public consciousness as women gave up the natural function of women and began to truly hate men.  Likewise, the men gave up the natural function and homosexuality experienced explosive growth.  They received the due penalty in their own bodies with the devastation of AIDS.  A generation later with the 2000’s we see the cycle complete with evidence of depraved minds surrounding us.

I have spent the past few years studying Biblical family, marriage and sex; and the results of that study have been surprising.  Or, perhaps they should not have been surprising… because it’s obvious the average church-goer cares far more about what others think about them than what God thinks about them.  the more I dug into this, the worse it got.  Finally, it got to the point that I started all over from the beginning.  I had previously thought the major issue was divorce and remarriage in the church, but I was thinking of “official” marriage and divorce.

As discussed in the last post, when we start with the concept of marriage and take it from there, things get interesting.  There are multiple passages in Scripture that deal with marriage, but the critical passage is Exodus 22:16-17 because that passage clearly states when a man and a virgin have sex they are married unless the father refuses to allow it.   Since there isn’t any dowry or bride-price for virgins any longer, the fact is, sex with a virgin is the act of marrying her.

However, one thing we do not want to do is create a doctrine based on a shaky foundation, so we must rigorously test this.  The on-point passages are Deuteronomy 22:13-21; 28-29; Numbers 30:2-5 and Judges 21.   Comparing Exodus 22:16-17 with Deuteronomy 22:28-29 and contrasting those passages with the punishment of the virgin in Deuteronomy 22:13-21, it becomes evident there is no other way to take Exodus 22:16-17 except as a definitive statement that “taking a woman’s virginity is the act of marrying her.”

This creates a huge dilemma for a great many people.  I strongly suspect the reason we have such a strong tradition of marriage ceremonies is directly related to this.  We started off with people who understood clearly that the act of taking a woman’s virginity was to marry her and if her father refused he was annulling the marriage, not preventing it (yes, splitting semantic hairs, but necessary).  The act of annulling the marriage was to rescind the woman’s agreement and invalidate the marriage after the fact, not to prevent it, and the father had 24 hours (“on the day”) to annul her agreement.

However, we notice that in verse 16, this Law specifically applies to “between a man and his wife; and between a father and his daughter in her youth in her father’s house.”  The father does not have the right to annul the marriage of a woman who gave her virginity to a man while no longer in her youth, living in her father’s house.

Again, this creates a huge dilemma for many people and there is tremendous pressure for people to dismiss this as simply too preposterous to consider.  However, we have two examples of people who were in this situation and a record of what happened.  The first is found in 2nd Kings 22-23.  Josiah was 26 years old, having ascended to the throne of Judah at the age of 8.  He was the son of Amon, an evil king, and the grandson of Manasseh, a truly evil king, but “he did right in the sight of the Lord and walked in all the way of his father David, nor did he turn aside to the right or to the left.”

In the 18th year of his reign a copy of the book of the Law (which had been lost) was discovered during a renovation of the Temple.  The book was taken to the king and read in his presence.  When he heard the words of the book, Josiah tore his clothes and sent men to inquire of the prophets, saying “great is the wrath of the Lord that burns against us, because our fathers have not listened to the words of this book, to do according to all that is written concerning us.”

They went to Huldah the prophetess, who said:

“Thus says the Lord, Behold, I bring evil on this place and on its inhabitants, even all the words of the book which the king of Judah has read.  Because they have forsaken Me and have burned incense to other gods, that they might provoke me to anger with all the work of their hands, therefore My wrath burns against this place and it shall not be quenched.”

“But to the king of Judah who sent you to inquire of the Lord thus shall you say to him, ‘Thus says the Lord God of Israel, regarding the words which you have heard, because your heart was tender and you humbled yourself before the Lord when you heard what I spoke against this place and against its inhabitants that they should become a desolation and a curse, and you have torn your clothes and wept before Me, I truly have heard you, declares the Lord.  Therefore, behold, I will gather you to your fathers, and you shall be gathered to your grave in peace, neither shall your eyes see all the evil which i will bring on this place.”

Read the entire story, both chapter 22 and 23, but pay particular attention to that passage because it is critical.  First, God plainly tells the King that judgment is coming because His wrath has been kindled and it will not be quenched.  Second, because Josiah’s heart was in the right place, he will be spared (and his people with him) from seeing the day of the Lord’s vengeance on His own people.

How is this any different from out situation today?  The wrath of God is being poured out but salvation in Christ awaits all who call upon the Name of the Lord, confess their sin and repent of their wicked ways.  Churches talk a lot about calling upon the Name of the Lord and confessing sin, but there seems to be a strange silence when it comes to repentance.

Look at what Josiah did.  First, he gathered the people and they had the book of the Law read to them.  Then, the King stood by the pillar and made a covenant before the Lord (a vow) to walk after the Lord and keep Hi commandments and His testimonie and His statutes with all his heart and all his soul and carry out the words of this covenant that were written in this book.  And all the people entered into the covenant.  After that, King Josiah spent the rest of his life striving with all his might to enforce the book of the Law in his kingdom.  He tore down the high places, he broke the altars of Baal, he forbid the rituals and re-instituted the passover and new moons feasts.  In the end he received the testimony of the Lord that he was the greatest king, for none before him had served the Lord with all their heart, all their soul and all their might and none like him came after.

Josiah did not just confess his sin, he repented.  He did all he could to ensure that God was honored and God’s Law was observed, that the people would keep the commandments of the Lord.

Now, we turn to the book of Ezra, and the story of the mixed marriages in chapters 9 and 10.  A group of Hebrews under the leadership of Ezra journeyed back to Jerusalem from Babylon with the blessing of King Artaxerxes, but after arriving Ezra was informed that some of the men had violated the commandment not to take foreign wives.  After calling all the people together (like Josiah) an agreement was made amongst the people to repent of their transgressions and they put away their foreign wives, some of whom had born them children.  In total, 113 men had their names listed forever in Scripture, by name, for the sin of marrying foreign wives and they fulfilled their oath and put them and they children they had by them away.

Sounds pretty rough, doesn’t it?  Let’s keep a few things in mind from what we’ve seen.  The attitude of the person who hears the command of the Lord, confesses their sin and repents is something God honors.

The idea that taking a woman’s virginity is the act of marrying her is preposterous to many today because the tradition states “just because you have sex doesn’t mean you’re married.”   In a way, that’s true, because in the case of a non-virgin sex does not create marriage, it usually creates a case of adultery.  In the case of a virgin, her father (and only her father) has the right to say that and if he says it when he first hears of it then he is annulling the marriage.

Just as with the traditions of the people in the time of King Josiah, when the people bowed down and worshiped foreign gods, the traditions today concerning marriage and sex are very powerful and I am certainly no king Josiah.   So, it seems to me that with the Law clear and the examples we have of both Josiah and Ezra, if the person who has finally heard and understood the command of the Lord humbles themselves, confesses their sin and repents of their sin, God will judge righteously.

First, ascertain the situation and status.

Perhaps some have heard the old saying “mama’s baby, daddy’s maybe.”  The fact is, only the woman truly knows who she gave her virginity to if she willingly did it, and I proceed from the standpoint of the woman.

marriage flow chart2

So, if you’re married, it gets a little complex, because that drags a bunch of other stuff into this, specifically Deuteronomy 24:1-4 and 1st Corinthians 7:10-15, but I neglected to mention one thing on that chart.  The question of whether your father annulled the marriage really devolves to whether your father actually found out about the marriage.  Did he?  If you did it “in your youth living in your father’s house” and maybe he was one of those “don’t ask – don’t tell” guys, go to your father, confess what you did, explain why it’s important and ask him to pray and tell God that he is refusing your marriage to the guy you gave your virginity to.

Keep in mind, that you maybe ought to have him read all of Numbers 30, because there *is* that part in there that says the guilt will be on his head if he does it.  I just can’t see the guy you married getting upset about it when he doesn’t know he married you.

But, maybe that won’t work, so let’s graph this out:

marriage flow chart

If the guy you married isn’t a Christian, contact him, tell him you joined a cult that believes you’re married, and ask him for a certificate of divorce (Deuteronomy 24:1-4).  All he has to do is write that he’s divorcing you for adultery and sign it.  You’re divorced and you don’t ever have to show it to anybody.   Just because he’s not a Christian doesn’t make him the non-believer who left you.  You may very well have dumped him.  Play it by the book and get a certificate of divorce.  If necessary, offer to end it with a bang: it’s not like it’s a sin because until he signs that paper he’s your husband.

If he won’t do that, ask him when you should move in with the kids.  When he says he isn’t interested, you’re free (1st Corinthians 7:15).  If he does want you back, you have to consider that you have a choice.  1st Corinthians 7:10-11 says that since you’ve already “left” him, you are to remain single (chaste) or be reconciled to him.  That’s the choice.

Now, here’s where a bit of investigation might help.  If he’s married, you don’t want to tell him that he’s got the right to have more than one wife.  That might interest him.  If he’s been divorce raped and hates his ex, find out how to act just like his ex.  That should fix the problem.   Being stupid got you into this mess but that doesn’t mean you have to continue with that plan…  and ultimately it’s his decision, so why not give him some incentive to decide the way you want him to?

If the guy claims to be a Christian, 1st John 2:2-6 applies.  If he won’t be reconciled to you, present your case to the elders of your church and ask for their judgment.  They won’t want to but since they won’t agree with any of this from a doctrinal standpoint and they don’t have to put anything in writing, they’ll probably go along.  Cry.  That always helps.  Since he isn’t being obedient to the Word (1st Peter 3:7- “husbands live with your wives”) ask for a judgment of excommunication.  They can excommunicate him, that makes him the unbeliever who will not consent to live with you and you’re free. (“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven and whatever is loosed on earth will be loosed in heaven”)

If the guy claims to be a Christian but is married to another woman, you’ll probably get the same answer, but this time when you present it to your elders point out that there is nothing to prevent a man from having more than one wife and he obviously has 2 wives as far as God is concerned but he isn’t treating you equally (see Exodus 21:10) by providing equal food, clothing, shelter and conjugal rights.   Again, ask for a judgment of excommunication.

Trust me on this, the Toad has enormous experience with the reactions of church-folk when they’re confronted with some of the stuff Scripture allows but happens to fall outside their comfort zone.  If the guy is a serious conservative Christian, find a friend to help you.  Your ideal friend will be dressed like a slut, tatted up with a skrillex haircut, piercings and have no hesitation about a bit of groping and swapping spit with you in front of the guy.  Tell him it’s OK, she’s your girlfriend and the two of you are *really* close but you’re the only one that likes guys.  She hates them.  If necessary, have said girlfriend snort a line in front of him and offer him some.

If you really want to wiggle out of this, all you have to do is put him in a state of mind in which he absolutely does not want to have anything to do with you.  In other words, get in touch with your inner slut, your inner bitch and maybe get in touch with your kinkiest girlfriend.  If you don’t have any of those, go find a dyke bar and tell a few of the the girls there your story about your need to make a seriously bad impression on a fundie Christian guy.  If they’re anything like the ones I know they’d get a kick out of helping out with something like that and probably wouldn’t even hit on you (much).

But, you know, wouldn’t it be nice if churches taught what the Bible actually says about marriage?  Saying giving your virginity to a guy doesn’t make you married is like saying you’re only married if it happens in a church, you’re wearing white, a preacher officiates, somebody sings a sappy romance song, at least one of the women cries and your mother acts like a pain in the ass.   I mean, really?  Is that in the Bible somewhere?  (no)

The point is, as a Christian, you either want to please God or you don’t, which means you either commit yourself to being obedient to the Word or you don’t.  Think about it.

Posted in Marriage, Messages to a young man | 39 Comments

The Top 5 Things Christians Believe That Aren’t True

Let God be true and every man a liar.  Tradition can be a good thing, but not when it contradicts God’s Word, adds to God’s Word or adds burdens upon the people that God did not give them.

These are the top five points of “doctrine” that just about all modern Christians and churchians hold which do not agree with Scripture.

1.   Divorce between two married Christians is permitted in cases of adultery.

Christians claim they are no longer under the Law of Moses, but the Law of Moses permitted a man to divorce his wife for sexual immorality.  However, there is a specific prohibition on two married Christians getting divorced at 1st Corinthians 7:10-11.  The exception for sexual immorality is no longer there because for Christians the only exception to the no-divorce rule is if they are married to a non-Christian who leaves them.

Everyone points at the words of Jesus in Matthew 19 and Matthew 5, and they are correct for people under the Law.  For those in Christ there is a special prohibition on two married believers getting divorced.  This issue is #1 in terms of getting Christians fighting mad, because both Matthew 19 and especially Matthew 5:31-32 made it clear that God will not accept an illegitimate divorce.  That means all those Christians who divorced their Christian spouse for adultery/abuse/whatever are not really divorced, they are still married.  If the wife “married” another guy, they aren’t really married because the only thing a married woman can do with another guy is commit adultery.  If the guy married another woman, he now has two wives, which leads us to the next one:

2.  Polygyny is a wrong, marriage is one man and one woman.

God regulated polygyny in the Law.  God condoned polygyny in 2nd Samuel 12:8, taking credit for giving David multiple wives.  God commanded polygyny in Deuteronomy 25:5-10, the case of the Levirate marriage.  God participated in polygyny, stating in Jeremiah 31:31-32 that He had 2 wives.  Unlike the specific prohibition on divorce between two married Christians and the specific prohibition on Christians having sex with prostitutes (that was NOT forbidden in the Law), there is no prohibition on polygyny in the New Testament.

Women hate the idea of polygyny because it robs them of their supreme power within monogamy, the ability to refuse sex to their husband.  To add insult to injury, in polygyny the wives are forced to compete for the attention of their husband and the only way they can compete is by giving him what he wants: a sweet, feminine, submissive and sexually available wife.  Men hate the idea of polygyny because only about 10% of men are Alpha enough to do it and the idea that some guy has a sexual smorgasbord waiting at home drives them crazy with jealousy and envy.

There are many, many arguments that Christians make to try to say that polygyny is wrong.  Every single argument fails.  I especially like the “Very Words of Jesus!” argument that claims Matthew 19:4-5 is a prohibition on polygyny.  That is my favorite because if it was true, there is no Christianity.  You see, Deuteronomy 4:2 is a command not to add to the Law or to subtract from it.  That is repeated again in Deuteronomy 12:32 and it’s also the last command of the Bible.

If Jesus meant to forbid polygyny in Matthew 19:4-5, He would have been violating the Law of Moses, which is a transgression of the Law, a sin.  If Jesus had sinned He would not have been a perfect sacrifice, the payment for sin would not have been made and Christianity would all be a lie.  So, Jesus either didn’t prohibit polygyny and He is the Messiah, or He did, He sinned and He is not the Christ.  You choose.  I go with the no ban on polygyny.

3.  Pre-marital sex is a sin.

In Exodus 22:16-17, if a man (doesn’t matter if he is married or not) seduces a virgin, they are married unless the father exercises his rights under Numbers 30 to annul her agreement to marry.  In Deuteronomy 22:28-29 the Law says if a virgin is forced to have sex with a man and they are discovered, they are married and the father cannot refuse the marriage.  He has to pay a bride price of 50 shekels of silver (very high) and he can never divorce her all the days of his life.  In both of these cases, there is no penalty on the man for having sex with the virgin, in fact, sex with the virgin is the consummation of the marriage so it’s actually marriage sex.  ‘

There is no mention anywhere in the Law of sex (by either a married man or a single man) of having sex with a widow or a divorced woman.  Sex with such a woman, unlike a virgin, is not the consummation of marriage unless the man and the widow or divorced woman agree to marry.  There is no prohibition or penalty for having sex with such a woman, just as there was no prohibition on having sex with an ordinary money-for-sex prostitute.

This is the #3 issue that gets Christians riled up like nothing else.  When confronted with what the Bible actually says and more importantly, does not say, they squirm like a handful of worms trying to come up with something- anything -in the Bible that will make extra-marital sex a sin.  Because it only applies to men and women who are not married.

4.  If a husband has sex with a woman who is not his wife it’s adultery.

Maybe, but only if he has sex with another man’s wife.  The crime of adultery requires a married woman.  No married woman, no adultery.  Women really, really hate this because a married man is permitted to have sex with women other than his wife (unless he took a vow to forsake all others- and where do you think that vow came from?) while the women commit adultery if they do it.

5.  Female – Female sex is a sin.

There is literally no mention of female – female sex in the Bible, anywhere.  Romans 4:15 and 5:13 say (putting the two verses together) “Where there is no Law, there is no transgression and no sin is imputed.”  So, if the Law didn’t say it was a sin it isn’t a sin.  In the New Testament there were some additional restrictions that only apply to Christians, but again, there is no mention in the Bible of female – female sex.  It isn’t a sin.

Where does that leave us?

In really, really bad shape.  If I presented any one or two of these issues, the vast majority of Christians respond “That’s impossible.  That can’t be!”  Presenting just the top 5, a pattern emerges.  Not only does it demonstrate that God’s ideas about proper behavior are distinctly at odds from what is being taught in the churches, but it literally turns at least a third of established doctrine on its head.

Unfortunately, it gets worse.  One of the points I made is an observation so devastating to the church and society today that I’m willing to bet none of you have seen it.   Yes, the thing about Christians not being allowed to divorce their Christian spouse has created a lot of institutional adultery in the church, but one of the others has created a problem so huge that it dwarfs the problem of divorce within the church.  Go ahead, look over the list again and Vote.

 

 

All of these issues create problems in the church, but one of the big problems (not the biggest) is the effect wrong teaching and doctrine has had on our definitions of terms that are used over and over again in the New Testament.  The right of a man to have more than one wife and the fact that a married man having sex with a widow or divorced woman isn’t a sin means that by definition a married man can only commit adultery if he has sex with someone else’s wife.

Terms like Lust, fornication, sexual immorality, adultery, sodomy and even homosexuality are all incorrectly defined by today’s church, causing a lot of problems.  But the biggest problem of all is caused by that issue of pre-marital sex not being a sin.  The reason is there is no such thing as premarital sex for a virgin because the Law states that if a virgin is seduced, she is married.  Her father has the right to annul the marriage when he hears of it and demand the return of his daughter, but people in the church are taught that having sex does not create a marriage.  That, unfortunately, does not comport with what Scripture actually says and does not say.

It is critical to understand that when reading the Law, what is not said is just as important as what is said, and in some cases more important.

Read Exodus 22:16-17 very carefully:

“If a man seduces a virgin who is not engaged, and lies with her, he must pay a dowry for her his wife.  If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the dowry for virgins.”

  • The man seduced the virgin and lay with her.
  • The man must pay the bride price for his wife.
  • If the father annuls the marriage (absolutely refuses to give her to him).
  • The man must pay an amount equal to the dowry for virgins.

Consider what this passage does not say:

  • Implied (but not stated) is the virgin agreed to give the man her virginity.
  • Implied (but not stated) is the man knew the woman was a virgin.
  • The text provides no censure, prohibition or penalty for taking her virginity.
  • The text does not give the woman a choice about the marriage, only her father.

The virgin has no agency, and that means her father has the authority to give her in marriage against her will, just as he has the right to refuse her a marriage she wants.  His authority under Numbers 30 is such that he can negate or annul any agreement or vow she makes when he learns of it.  This point is driven home by Deuteronomy 22:28-29:

“If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her and they are discovered, then the man who lay with her shall give to the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall become his wife because he has violated her; he cannot divorce her all his days.”

  • The man does not seduce the virgin, he seizes her.
  • If they are discovered, they are married.
  • The man must pay 50 Shekels of Silver to her father
  • Because he has violated her he cannot divorce her all his days.

Consider now what the passage does not say:

  • The passage does not state the father has a choice in her marriage, she has been seized.
  • There is no penalty for the man if they are not discovered.
  • There is no penalty for the man if discovered, rather, restrictions on the marriage.
  • Nowhere in the text does it state the woman has a choice in whether she’s married.
  • The text provides no information on what happens if they are not discovered.

Comparing the two passages, we see that the man who seduces the virgin and takes her virginity is married to her unless her father does not forbid it.  In the case of the virgin who was forced, she is married to him unless they were not caught and her father cannot annul the marriage.  An example of getting caught is when the 200 men from the tribe of Benjamin hid in the vineyards outside Shiloh and when the girls came out to dance for a festival they each grabbed a woman to be his wife and took them back home to the land of the tribe of Benjamin.

It should be obvious that the virgin does not have agency (the ability to consent or not consent) because she can be married to the guy who forced her.  That, no matter how much it causes women to scream, is not the problem.

The problem is with the fact that the virgin who is seduced is married to the man she gives her virginity to.   Any serious study of the Bible reveals that the only acts necessary to initiate a marriage is the intent of the man to marry and if the woman is a virgin, the consummation of the marriage.  If the woman is a widow or divorced woman, the initiation of marriage requires the intent of the man, the consent of the woman and the consummation of the marriage.

Because the virgin is a special class of woman who does not have the capacity to consent or not consent to marriage, taking the girls virginity is a public statement on the part of the man that he is marrying her and the act of doing so is the consummation of their marriage.   Think about that and reflect on the fact that 80% of “unmarried” Evangelical women report they are no longer virgins.

The Evangelicals got it wrong.  The 80% of the non-virgin Evangelical women who are not “officially” married are actually married, don’t realize it and they are committing adultery with every additional partner they bed.  Why?  Their father had the chance to annul the marriage when he heard of it and did not do so.  Seriously.  What father today understands what the last two passages even say, much less believes that having her cherry popped means his little girl just got married and he has 24 hours to annul it on the day he learns of it (Numbers 30, the Law of Vows)?

And when that woman finally “officially” walks down the aisle wearing a white gown to get “officially” married, she is doing so as a woman ineligible to marry because she is already married to another man and her “official marriage” is simply institutionalizing her adultery.  The point of Matthew 5:31-32 was that God will not accept an illegitimate divorce.  How much more so when there was no divorce at all?

How many “married couples” in your church are actually married to each other?  It’s pretty much guaranteed that only the ones in which the wife has an N=1 are actually married.  The rest are ALL committing adultery unless the woman’s father annulled her marriage after she lost her virginity or if she lost her virginity by being raped and not discovered.

Which is worse?  The level of adultery in the church demonstrated by what the Word says, or the fact the people in the church refuse to accept what God said about the initiation of marriage and reject teachings of Scripture in this matter?

The real question is how to fix the problem, but it should be obvious that the problem cannot be solved without first recognizing the magnitude of the problem.  The refusal of the church to recognize the issue of fraudulent, illegitimate divorces and “remarriage” in the church is sufficient to demonstrate that this is an intractable problem.

 

Posted in Marriage, Messages to a young man | 32 Comments

A Technology Sufficiently Advanced Is Indistinguishable From Magic

In some ways this post will begin my attempt at a unification theory of Christianity, Eschatology, Technology, Education, Healthcare, Control, Power and what is less-politely known as Conspiracy Theory.  In simple terms it can be stated “Everything is a Business Model.”

Please forgive the denseness of this post.

I’ll start with a documentary that is absolutely a must-see, based in part on research I did for the circles within circles essay.  I was first acquainted with this subject in 1997 by an author named William Lyne, who had written a book called “Space Aliens From The Pentagon.”  That book pissed in the soup for everyone on either side of the UFO discussion and everybody hated on Lyne.  I believe that by being at the right place at the right time he was exposed to information and made observations that caused him to form his hypothesis:  Tesla invented the technology that allows an anti-gravity propulsion system, the Nazi’s got hold of it and were building such machines at the end of WWII, Operation Paperclip brought many of those scientists to the US where they were installed out at Los Alamos and the US began building them in secret.  Naturally all the first UFO sightings began in the area surrounding Los Alamos.   (Lyne’s book is available online for those with skilz and interest)  Now, it appears Bill Lyne has been vindicated, at least partially:

I observe the following:

The video makes a good case these craft exist, are being manufactured by major defense contractors in “black ops” and have been for decades.

The technology that allows them to fly turns our current understanding of electricity and physics on its head.  At the heart of this is our understanding of how our world really works and the resistance of the “experts” to consider the possibility they might just be wrong.  This would effect our understanding of chemistry and thus biology as well, with the potential to disrupt virtually everything.

At the heart of the technology is Zero-Point energy, which can be weaponized to control weather, trigger earthquakes and volcano’s, cause explosions remotely and other effects that sound like they’re out of a science fiction novel.

Private Zero-Point energy (ZPE) research has been suppressed, repeatedly, with a number of major researchers killed.  As the video points out, after making that documentary the producer died of an extremely fast-acting cancer and his autopsy indicated extremely high levels of rare and very toxic heavy metals, but normal levels of lead and mercury.

As the video points out, ZPE would be a radically disruptive technology and energy corporations (along with those corporations with major investments in energy) would be relegated to the status of buggy-whip manufacturers.

What the video does not mention, but which should be obvious, is the countries that receive any significant amount of national income from oil exports will be hurt.  The countries that receive the majority of their national income from oil exports will be devastated.   Obviously the Middle East countries would be hurt, badly, but sub-Saharan Africa would get killed as well.

There’s one country most people don’t think of, Russia.  Oil and gas exports from the Russian Federation accounted for a whopping 68% of revenues in 2013.  Some 50% of Russia’s federal budget comes from mineral extraction taxes and export customs duties on oil and gas.  It is definitely not in Russia’s national interest to have anything negatively impact its oil and gas sector.

ZPE distributed on a large scale would be a serious threat to the current structure of virtually everything we think of as “life as we know it.”

It is not in the interests of the elite non-governmental actors (the guys behind the scenes) for this to happen, but there is no unified front.  There are factions that compete with each other, often in vicious ways.

It is not in any government’s interest to allow such disruptive technology because of the impact on their national economy.   If such devices can be produced and distributed on a large scale that pull energy from the zero point, who needs power plants, hydro-electric dams, nuclear power plants, coal mines and the list goes on and on.

The societal displacement would be an order of magnitude greater than the disruptions caused by the industrial revolution.

Storytime

If asked what caused the “great depression” I would not reply with a “what” but rather “who” caused it.  That man’s name was Henry Ford.   The equation is very simple: the millions of automobiles and tractors produced and sold in the 1920’s caused a major shift in agricultural production, because the vehicles and tractors replaced horses, which had to be fed.  Millions of acres of land that were previously devoted to the production of horse fodder got shifted to the production of other agricultural products, with greater efficiency, which resulted in a collapse of wholesale commodities prices.

The drop in farm income (almost 80% of Americans lived on a farm in those days) caused everyone to tighten their belts.  This cessation of spending took down the economy and caused the “great depression” but it was the intervention of the government that made it worse and prolonged it.  That’s a different story.  The point is we’re talking about a disruptive technology that would be really, really disruptive across the board.

So, think about it.  Why would a documentary that’s been effectively suppressed by killing the producer released less than two months ago?  The documentary was finished at the end of 2014.  Well, maybe it took a long time to finish the editing (which was almost done when James Allen was diagnosed with cancer).  But don’t read the next link until after you’ve seen the documentary because the two are tied together.

A special warning on the next article.  It reads like the ravings of a seriously lunatic-fringe wacko nutter.  But it has some important points that need to be discussed.  So, hold your nose (or whatever you have to do) and give it a read.

OK.  What I glean from that is the following:

There has been a change in policy by the folks who are really in control (there are various factions) with respect to the release of information concerning ZPE and it’s no longer being as actively suppressed.  Because that’s what the “alien technology” really boils down to.  The active harassment, silencing and killing of researchers in this area is well documented and the number of organizations and groups with an interest in doing so is large, so don’t hear that as Ye Olde Toad saying “It’s a gubmint conspiracy” because I’m not.

For Christians I make the following observations: 

The Bible describes various ranks and appearances of angels.  The Bible also makes it clear that angels have the ability to appear, be seen, be touched by and communicate with people.  Satan’s followers are fallen angels, so logically demons should also be able to appear, be seen, be touched by and be able to communicate with people.  You know… like aliens from outer space.

From the account of the nephilim in Genesis 6:1-4 it also appears (assuming the “sons of God” mentioned were fallen angels, ergo, demons) that demons have the ability to procreate with the “daughters of men.”

Scripture also talks about multiple levels of the heavens; Revelation 12:7-8 says a war will be fought in the heavens and at the end of that war Satan was cast down along with his demons and no longer able to enter the heavens.

I don’t have any specific Scripture to support this, but my assumption is angels live forever.  The principle assumption is they’ve been around since God created them and their knowledge and understanding of the physical attributes of the world we live in is far greater than ours.

With just those four points, if we assume the “alien technologies” mentioned are simply radically disruptive technologies that have been actively suppressed (except at the government level) and all accounts of alien contact are actually contact with demons, it leaves us with some questions.

People are informed by their experience; in other words, they try to fit what they’re seeing into their own paradigm of understanding.  Various people who claim to know a lot about UFO’s and aliens claim there are different races of aliens, some benevolent, some cold and warlike and others truly evil.  That they have amazing abilities and vastly superior technology.  My thought is since demons have a power structure and ranks and just as angels, have different appearances and different ranks, why can’t we assume all this alien stuff is contact with demons?  And what’s to stop a bunch of demons from playing good cop – bad cop to convince people their story is real?  Isn’t deceiving people what demons are supposed to be good at?

Does it matter if really evil demon-possessed men developed the technologies, or whether lonely geniuses like Tesla did, or whether demons actually appeared and provided other men with the technology?  Really.  Does it matter?  Because we know that evil, satanic men exist and we know demons exist.  I have seen enough evidence that I’m convinced the technologies described exist.

With respect to the technologies, why are we assuming angels and demons are supernatural?  What if only God is supernatural?  I return to Clark’s third law:

“A sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from [the supernatural]”

With respect to mind control and the provable effects of modulated radio frequencies on the brain, wouldn’t demons (who have the power to “possess” someone) know something about that?  Maybe more than we can imagine?  Again, Clark’s third law.

With all that out of the way, what I’m trying to do is solve the challenge of reconciling two seemingly irreconcilable points of view:  Christians and UFO/alien conspiracy theorists.  Because, I can’t see a single major point that cannot be reconciled by definition alone and very few of the minor ones.  Consider Matthew 24:24

“For false Christs and false prophets will arise and will show great signs and wonders, so as to mislead, if possible, even the elect.”

And not to put too fine a point on it, what about Revelation 12:9:

“And the great dragon was thrown down, the serpent of old who is called the devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him.”

If an “alien invasion” showed up with real “flying saucers” and walking, talking aliens, how many Christians would really struggle with fitting that into their coddled paradigm?  Why would we make the assumptions we make?  Because we are informed by our experience.

I can see it now.

“I think they’re demons trying to deceive us.”

“They can’t be demons, ’cause the Bible doesn’t say anything about demons driving spaceships!  Demons just pop in and out like angels, they don’t need spaceships!”

“Wait a minute.  Wouldn’t you consider aliens arriving in spaceships with a message of peace to be ‘signs and wonders’ designed to deceive even the elect?”

“But you ain’t listening!  The Bible don’t talk about no demons in spaceships!  Mostly demons are invisible, but we can see these things.”

“Ummm, what was it that picked up Elijah and carried him off into the heavens?  Wasn’t that some sort of spacecraft?”

“That’s it!  You’re being divisive and contentious, questioning them in authority over you.  Get out of here you false teacher!”

Go ahead.  Tell me it won’t happen.

Posted in Marriages Go Their Own Way, Messages to a young man, Wars and rumors of wars | 6 Comments

It’s “Baroque” To Be Feminine

Let’s take a look at this.  Turn up the speakers and sit back.

Other than the fact they can really sing, what do we notice about that video? To begin with, the women are all modestly dressed in a feminine manner. They haven’t hacked their hair off. While maybe a couple of them could lose a few pounds, they are all nicely height-weight proportionate, far more so than the majority of middle-aged women. Their makeup is so tastefully applied they appear not to be wearing any and there is not a tattoo in sight.  The only way these ladies could go further would be longer hair and head coverings.

Wait.  Did he say head coverings?  Indeed I did.  While I was only referring to using scarves, there is something about a woman who covers her head in submission to men that is quite attractive.  Some even consider it erotic.

420319_1273534674_large

But let’s not get sidetracked.  They smile. A lot.  They display smiling affection to the men.  Their body language is gentle and feminine.  Add it all up and we have a very attractive collection of middle-aged women who give every appearance of being ladies. Why? Because they’re modestly feminine in their demeanor and dress. Dare I even say it?

They come across as sweet and submissive Christian ladies.   Yes, I know, they’re playing a role.

Let’s compare them to another group in which the women are 20 years younger.  These kids go to Bowdoin College, which is consistently ranked as one of the top 10 liberal arts colleges in the United States.

Younger, and… what? They don’t appear to have hacked their hair off but that’s about all I can say. They aren’t feminine.  At least they can sing, though.

Maybe I’m being unfair, because the first video was a professional production piece and the singers are professionals.  Serious professionals.  The costumes they wore were intentionally chosen to communicate a message.  Their countenances and demeanor during the performance are also meant to communicate a message. Why is it that theater people can and do understand that how one dresses and how one behaves sends a message, but Christians can’t seem to comprehend that?

The second video is an amateur production of college students who dress the way feminism has taught them, not realizing their choice of costume also communicates a message. Instead of smiles, we see the occasional smirk; and even though I think they were trying to be serious because it’s a spiritual song, their demeanor also communicates a message.

The difference is day and night.

But, they’re still young.   They could learn but they probably won’t and one reason is it’s rare to see one attractive woman dressed in such a modestly conservative fashion, much less a group of them.  The girls just don’t have good examples any more.   It isn’t in the clothes, it’s the attitude the clothes and demeanor represent.  A state of mind, if you will, and it signals a clear message to men:  We are worth marrying.

You know it’s coming… The smiles, the affection for each other, can you imagine coming home to these three?  Can you imagine listening to them sing your children to sleep?

hisoah1

But, wait!  These girls are younger, hotter and tighter!  Pick one!  They’ll have a fabulous degree from a top-ranked liberal arts college!  And that red-head in the second row might clean up well…

ursusverses

Just know this:  you’ll remember that sweet voice in your nightmares after she’s cranked out a couple of kids and then divorce-rapes the shit out of you a few years after that.  Because that feminist education and indoctrination will never go away.

Now I’m accused of cherry-picking to make my point.  I wish I were.  Yes, the women in the original video are all beautiful and way above average in their youth, but they are all in middle age now.  Here’s a collection of young women from the same college at the height of their youth and fertility, the all female A cappella group Miscellania:

That blonde on the left, the one with the dress that comes all the way down to the top of her knees, she’s on the right track but if that dress were a foot longer it would really emphasize how slim she is.  The blond in the middle has a nice smile but that dress makes her look fat or worse yet, pregnant.  Granted, these girls look somewhat feminine, but it’s the next photo that gives it away.

The blonde in the middle with the nice smile?  She can’t believe what the idiot to her left is doing.  And the one in the light blue dress on the right of the photo?  She rotated her pelvis so you could see the strap-on she’s wearing.  Talk about sending a message.  Even our semi-conservatively dressed blonde on the left of the photo is sending you a message, telling you what’s going to happen a few years after you put a ring on it.

Take a good look guys, pick your favorite and ask yourself this question:  Is that the woman I want to send my child support and alimony checks to?

 

 

Posted in Marriage, Marriages Go Their Own Way | 8 Comments

Biblical Dread Game and Why Christians Hate The Idea

Biblical dread game is founded on the husband’s authority and right to take another wife or a concubine. There’s nothing immoral about it (God had 2 wives, are you going to claim He did something wrong? See Jeremiah 31:31-32), nothing in the NT forbid it, and it’s still an allowable marriage option for men today. Note- I’m not making a defense of polygyny here, just stating that as fact.

Because modern Christianity teaches monogamy is the only permissible form of marriage and refuses to acknowledge men have the authority and *right* to more than one wife, the definitions of words like lust, fornication and adultery have become feminized and equalized, resulting in a huge negative impact on church doctrine. Probably the worst impact is in the modern doctrines concerning marriage, divorce and remarriage.

As a rule, as soon as the subject of dread game comes up the whole  “sex before or outside of marriage is forbidden” objection comes up when talking about husbands flirting (or going further) with women they aren’t married to.   The problem is such a prohibition cannot be found without making a reference to fornication or adultery and you might be surprised at what those words mean and don’t mean. Modern churchians don’t have a good definition of either of those terms because they ignore what the Law says (and more importantly, doesn’t say) as well as the critical point that a man is allowed to have more than one wife.  I discussed this a bit in “Pot… Kettle… Black” but I’ll get a bit more in depth in this post to demonstrate the extent of ignorance Christians have about the Bible.

In general marriage consists of 4 elements: the permission of the woman’s father, the agreement (commitment to marry) of the man and woman, the consummation of the marriage and cohabitation as husband and wife; with the consummation of the marriage being the sine qua non of the marriage. In Genesis 2:24 the authority to initiate marriage was given to the man, there is no prescribed ceremony required to initiate marriage and the authority rests solely with the man. With that in mind, look at Exodus 22:16-17 and Deuteronomy 22:28-29, which are “The Law” concerning pre-marital sexual relations between a man and woman eligible to marry each other.

In those passages we see no prohibition or condemnation on a man seducing a not-betrothed virgin, but there is a judgment: With the consummation of the marriage already accomplished, the man is required to pay her father what he is owed (the bride price) and live with the woman as husband and wife. The judgment isn’t about punishment but rather the requirement of the man to meet his responsibilities; with the additional restriction that because he has “humbled” his wife he can never divorce her. Because the father is in authority over his daughter, he has the right to refuse to allow the marriage (that would REALLY be punishment for the woman, who would be publicly known as damaged goods) but he still gets to collect the bride price from the man. There is no distinction between a married man and a single man because it doesn’t matter- married or single they can still marry her. However, with no prohibition or condemnation, the sexual activity cannot be called a violation of the Law (sin) and thus cannot be called “sexual immorality” which is a sin

Since I’m already throwing sacred cows on the BBQ I may as well deal with a married man using a prostitute, which reinforces the point I’m making. There is no prohibition or condemnation of a man using (having sex with) a prostitute in the Law and it isn’t a sin for a non-Christian. A close study of Samson’s story confirms this. Samson was a Nazerite and the Spirit of the Lord was with him. The Law of the Nazerite is found at Numbers 6:1-8 and if you read that passage you’ll notice that part of the Nazerite vow was to remain holy and not become unclean. Yet, we see Samson going into a prostitute (Judges 16:1) but he remained holy and the Spirit of the Lord remained with him until he violated the Nazerite vow by having his hair cut. Having sex with a prostitute was not a sin and cannot be considered sexual immorality- and the Spirit of the Lord stayed with him because sex with a prostitute didn’t violate the Nazerite vow.

I said sex with a prostitute wasn’t a sin for non-Christians, and this is why: 1st Corinthians 6 contains a prohibition on Christians having sex with prostitutes, not because it’s sexual immorality (Paul did not violate Deut. 4:2 and claim it was) but because Christians are specifically forbidden to join the members of Christ to a whore by becoming one flesh with them. Following that Paul said to flee from immorality, but he did not use the word “porneia” but rather the word “hamartéma” which is defined as “a fault, a sin, an evil deed.” Paul made it clear he was talking about sexual sin and said the immoral man (one who violates God’s Law) sins against his own body. However, the instruction is specific to Christians because the non-Christian cannot join the members of Christ with a whore because he is not one with Christ.

Some claim 1st Corinthians 7:1-2 specifically forbids sex outside marriage, but there are three problems with that. First, that isn’t what the text actually says. Second, if that is what Paul really meant then Paul is guilty of a violation of Deuteronomy 4:2, adding to the Law. The third problem is that exegesis hinges on the definition of porneia, which would only work if porneia could be defined as any sex outside of marriage.

“Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch (Greek word “haptomai” meaning to have carnal knowledge of) a woman. But because of immoralities (Greek word “porneia”), each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband.”

It is far more reasonable to read the text for what it actually says, and if we try to get a deeper meaning from it as Paul saying that because of the temptation of porneia around us, each man is to have his own wife (rather than the wife of another man) and each woman to have her own husband (and not any other man). Keep in mind that Paul was a Pharisee who was well trained in the Law and he knew what sexual immorality was… and wasn’t. He was also well aware of the prohibition on adding to the Law.

The Greek word “porneia” is translated into English as either “fornication” or “sexual immorality” and is clearly a sin but what we think of as fornication isn’t specifically defined anywhere in Scripture. The word can describe both physical sexual sin and thus encompasses adultery, bestiality and incest; as well as idolatry, which is giving that which properly belongs to God alone (worship, praise, authority) to anyone or anything else. We know from Romans 4:15 and Romans 5:13 that where there is no Law there is no transgression and no sin imputed. In other words, if God didn’t forbid something in His Law, it isn’t a SIN (forbidden for all time for all people) and yes, I realize just how uncomfortable that is for most Christians, which is probably why pastors don’t teach about it. Since there is no prohibition or condemnation of the extra-marital sex mentioned in Exodus 22:16-17 and Deuteronomy 22:28-29, such sexual activity cannot be porneia (fornication), which is a sin. There are consequences to such behavior (don’t have sex with a woman you are unwilling to marry) but it isn’t a sin and to claim it is a sin when God didn’t do so is to violate Deuteronomy 4:2 (you shall not add to the Law or subtract from it).

(NB: This gets a bit complicated for Christians because that which is not of faith is sin and if one knows the right thing to do and doesn’t do it, that is sin to him (Romans 14:23 and James 4:17). There are also restrictions placed on Christians that go beyond what the Law required, such as the prohibition on using a prostitute in 1st Cor. 6 and the prohibition on divorce between married believers in 1st Cor. 7, but there is no specific restriction on pre-marital sex in the NT even though Christians really wish there was.)

To get to the definition of fornication we should also look at Hebrews 13:4, which says the marriage bed is to remain undefiled (Greek word “amiantos” meaning “undefiled, untainted, free from contamination”) and describes two sins that defile the marriage bed: adultery and fornication. As seen above, a man can have sex with a woman that’s not his wife and not be in sin, but if a married woman has sex with anyone not her husband it’s adultery. Adultery requires a married woman and a man can only commit adultery if he has sex with another man’s wife. The definition of the Hebrew word we translate as “adultery” applies equally to both illicit physical unions and illicit spiritual worship. In the physical sense the word carries with it the connotation of illicit sexual activity that can produce an illegitimate child, which means a penis in a vagina.

However, the word in Hebrews 13:4 that is translated as “fornicators” (“pornos,” not “porneia”) refers to a man who indulges in unlawful sexual immorality. What is unlawful sexual immorality? For that we have to go back to the Law and we’ve already seen that a man isn’t in sin because he had sex with a woman he wasn’t married to as long as she wasn’t married or betrothed to someone else. The word translated as “adulterers” is defined as the man who commits adultery. Thus, both the husband and wife are able to defile the marriage bed, the wife by introducing the adulterer and the husband by engaging in unlawful sexual intercourse (adultery, homosexuality, incest, bestiality, etc.), but this passage clearly points to the wife who dallies with another man and either commits adultery or engages in some other illicit (unlawful) behavior with a man she’s not married to.

What illicit activity doesn’t reach the bar of being adultery? The word “pornea” includes any illicit (unlawful) sexual activity from incest to bestiality, and within marriage encompasses anything the wife might do that gives to some other man that which rightfully belongs to her husband, such as the “emotional affair” or any other activity (think Monica Lewinsky) that isn’t sexual intercourse and couldn’t produce a child. When Christ interpreted Deuteronomy 24:1-3 in Matthew 19, He specifically used the term “porneia” and said that was the only reason for which a man could legitimately divorce his wife. It can even be argued that idolatry was grounds for divorce under what Jesus taught. After all, that’s why God divorced Israel.

Examining the words we translate as adultery and fornication using the teachings of the Law and the NT, we must conclude (leaving aside homosexuality, incest, bestiality and other perversions) that within marriage, what we like to think of as adultery and fornication are specific sins that require the presence of a married woman; with the term fornication being a broader descriptor that includes infidelities on the part of a wife that would not rise to the level of adultery.

This goes further than most Christians would imagine. Given the teaching in Matthew 5:27-32, a married woman who deliberately dresses provocatively or immodestly in order to garner the sexual desire (lust) of men could be described as a fornicator. However, a woman eligible to marry who dressed provocatively or immodestly in order to garner the sexual desire of men could not be described as a fornicator because she isn’t married (or betrothed) and any desire she stimulates on the part of the men is not lust because the man’s sexual desire for her can be legitimately satisfied by marrying her.

The objections of the modern Christians to dread game are not supported by the Bible because if a husband is not in sin for having sex with a woman that isn’t his wife (as long as she’s not married or betrothed) then he certainly isn’t in sin if he’s flirting with her. The teaching of the modern church concerning monogamy robs the husband of an extremely effective tool, the legitimate threat of taking another wife if the one he has refuses to honor, obey and please him.

Posted in Marriages Go Their Own Way | 60 Comments

Changes

As you’ve probably already noticed, I’m in the process of cluttering up my blog. I’ll be going back to edit some older posts, perhaps combining a few and in general trying to straighten things out.

One of the things you’ll see is a comprehensive discussion of marriage and polygyny from the legal, cultural and Scriptural perspectives, as well as a more thorough treatment on divorce that will focus on being solution based.

I’m also thinking of starting a section on resistance, but I don’t want it to get out of hand. One of the things that’s really bothered me is the apathy of blogs like Dalrocks, in which the men seemingly don’t want to discuss solutions. In fact, Dalrock won’t allow me to post on what he calls my “pet theories” and thus won’t allow a discussion of solutions.

More changes are coming, but I’ll try to keep any photos safe for work. The new header, for example, is the photo I sent my daughter when she asked what I though of her getting a tattoo. I told her that if she must, that one was the only one I found remotely appropriate. Her response? “Eewwwww, Dad, that’s grosss!” But, I notice the subject of tattoos has not come up since then.

Posted in Marriages Go Their Own Way | 10 Comments

Pot… Kettle… Black

I love the way Christians get bent out of shape over basic things because they don’t know the definitions of words the Bible uses.  This is combined with their unconscious internalization of cultural norms which effects the way they perceive what the Bible says.  Usually in error.  So, let’s take a look at words.  Keep in mind, when it comes to Christianity the Law forms the skeleton and grace fleshes it out.

Lust.  There isn’t anything really on point as to what lust is, but we can logically deduce what lust isn’t by looking at God’s various prohibitions.  Lust is contextually defined as a sin and is closely related to coveting, but a good basic definition of lust is it’s a desire that cannot be legitimately fulfilled.  The problem with this word is it falls afoul of the Biblical double standard between men and women.  The cultural norms say we’re “equal” but this just isn’t so in the way that most Americans want to define equality.  Yes, we’re equal in value but not in status because of the authority structure that God ordained for everyone.

Can a man or woman lust after their spouse?  No.  The question is ridiculous, because a desire for one’s spouse is natural, normal and healthy.  Then come the ankle-biters who want to reframe the issue saying “but what about an unhealthy fixation or infatuation with the spouse?  Isn’t it a problem when a person is so focused on their desire for their spouse that they ignore God?”   See how they do that?  Gosh, if I said it was natural, normal and healthy to have an appetite they’d start talking about overeating and gluttony.

The reason I bring up the word lust is it’s one of those difficult words that’s often twisted to become a club used to beat men with.  The passage in Matthew 5:27-32 where Jesus said if a man looks on a woman with lust in his heart he’s already committed adultery in his heart is a beautiful case in point that demonstrates how an improper understanding of Scripture results in bad doctrine.  First, the only way to look at a woman with lust in the heart is if she cannot legitimately be obtained and the only way that happens is if she’s married.  It doesn’t matter if the man is married or not because a man can legitimately have more than one wife, but the only woman a man can legitimately marry without committing adultery is one who is eligible to marry.

A young man who looks on an unmarried woman with desire in his heart is not lusting after her because his desire for her can legitimately be fulfilled.  That desire is the driving force behind the desire to marry and only an idiot would truly think men decide to marry women they aren’t attracted to.  It may happen from time to time for various reasons, but in general it simply doesn’t happen.  Why?  Because that’s the way God made men.

Understanding how much trouble the word lust can cause, let’s try the word “Adultery.”  According to the Liddell Scott lexicon, the word “adultery” is best translated as “to mongrelize”  and there’s both a physical and spiritual component to the word.  Idolatry is spiritual adultery and adultery is physical idolatry.  The problem with adultery in the physical sense is it’s a sex-specific crime (sin) which requires a married woman.  No married woman, no adultery.  Women don’t like this because they want adultery to apply to men who have sex with a woman they aren’t married to, but it doesn’t work that way according to Exodus 22:16-17 and Deuteronomy 22:28-29.  If a man (with no distinction between married or unmarried) seduces a virgin he is to pay the father the bride price and marry her.  Because he has “humbled” her he cannot divorce her all the days of his life.  If the father refuses to allow the marriage the man is to pay a price equal to the bride price.  That’s it.  No prohibition, no condemnation.

In general we see marriage consists of 4 elements:  the permission of the woman’s father, the agreement (commitment to marry) of the man and woman, the consummation of the marriage and cohabitation as husband and wife.  However, we also see many examples of valid marriages that did not contain all these elements, with the root essentials being the commitment to marry on the man’s part, the consummation of the marriage and cohabitation as husband and wife.  However, the consummation is the sine qua non of the marriage.

In Genesis 2:24 there is no prescribed ceremony required to initiate marriage and the authority rests solely with the man. With that in mind, let’s look at the situation with the seduction of a virgin not betrothed in Exodus 22:16-17 and Deuteronomy 22:28-29.  (Under the Law a betrothed virgin was considered to be legally married, not a single woman)

We see no prohibition on a man seducing a not-betrothed virgin, nor a condemnation.  Back to the elements of marriage, with the consummation of the marriage already accomplished, the man is required to pay the father what he is owed (the bride price) and publicly live with the woman as husband and wife.  It isn’t punishment we are looking at but the requirement to meet his responsibilities with the additional restriction that because he didn’t follow proper procedure and get the father’s permission first, he cannot divorce her all the days of his life (he has “humbled” her).

There is no distinction between whether the man was married or unmarried, because a man can legitimately have more than one wife.  This is difficult for women because women are treated differently in this situation.  If a virgin living in her fathers house (not betrothed) has sex with a man and later gets married as if she was a virgin, it’s a death-penalty offense if she’s caught but there’s no corresponding penalty for the guy she gave her virginity to because he didn’t commit adultery.  She’s defrauding her husband (having cuckolded him before she married him) and having fraudulently married him she’s now guilty of adultery, which is a death-penalty offense.

The point is the Law makes a clear distinction between sex outside of marriage with an unmarried (and not betrothed) woman and sex with another man’s wife or fianceé.  There is no specific prohibition or condemnation of the first, but the second is a death penalty offense.  Again, the crime of adultery requires the participation of a married (or betrothed) woman.

With that in mind, let’s look at the word “fornication” and I can already hear the screams of outrage.   What is the definition of fornication? The problem is there is no passage in Scripture that defines what fornication is, specifically, so we have to work with context and identify what fornication isn’t to help us understand what it is.

Since fornication is obviously a sin, the previously mentioned example of a man having sex with an unmarried woman outside the bounds of marriage cannot apply because that activity has no prohibition or condemnation.  Please note, I didn’t say that the pre-marital sex was not a sin, I pointed out that it wasn’t fornication.  However, we must juxtapose the word fornication with adultery because the two are related.  Given that the word adultery is literally translated as “mongrelize” it carries with it the idea of penis-in-vagina sexual intercourse that could result in a bastard child being born.  But what about other actions that don’t reach the point of sexual intercourse, such as a blowjob, heavy kissing petting and that sort of thing?  Could it be that fornication is sexual (and possibly even emotional) infidelity on the part of a married woman that doesn’t reach the level of fornication?

Fornication and Adultery are related because in Hebrews 13:4 we see the command “Marriage is to be held in honor among all, and the marriage bed is to be undefiled; for fornicators and adulterers God will judge.”  Fornication and adultery are in the same class of sexual sin that defiles the marital bed.  We see in Matthew 19:9 and Matthew 5:31-32 that Jesus interpreted the Law concerning divorce as only being permitted for the sexual immorality of the wife.  The term He used in both those passages was “porneia” which is quite often translated as “fornication” or “sexual immorality.”  Notice that in both cases the word was specifically applied to the married women.  Adultery is a married woman having sex with a man she is not married to and both the man and married woman are guilty of the crime.   Given the contextual placement, fornication appears to be a more inclusive term which would encompass even the non-physical aspects of a married woman giving her affections to a man she’s not married to (the “emotional affair”).  It also includes any sexual contact that doesn’t cross the bar to be classified as adultery.  Let’s see how that works with Matthew 5:27-32:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY’; but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.  If your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.  If your right hand makes you stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to go into hellIt was said, ‘WHOEVER SENDS HIS WIFE AWAY, LET HIM GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE’; but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.”

The only way a man can look on a woman with lust is if she’s already married or betrothed to be married, because again, the crime of adultery requires a married woman and the man who looks at the woman with lust has already committed adultery in his heart.  A man cannot commit adultery with an unmarried woman.  The eye that causes the man to sin is the eye that looks on the married woman with lust, the hand that causes the man to sin is the hand that touches her.  The married woman who dresses immodestly out of a desire to stimulate the sexual interest of men is fornicating, it’s sexual immorality.  The married woman who allows herself to be touched in a sexual manner by other men is fornicating and it is only for this reason, the sexual immorality or fornication, that Jesus said divorce was allowed.

I suggest the word “fornication” doesn’t mean what most people assume it means and as numerous posts on this blog have pointed out, there is a double standard in the Bible when it comes to men and women’s standards of behavior. Romans 4:15 and Romans 5:13 are very clear:  where there is no law there is no transgression and no sin is imputed.  No Law = No Sin.  It gets a bit more complicated when you take Romans 14 (that which is not of faith is sin) and James 4:17 (not doing the thing you know to be right is sin) into account, but this is dependent on the individual.

(Pre-marital sex may not be listed as a sin in the Law, but given the instruction of Romans 14 and James 4 I think it’s something a Christian would have a difficult time justifying in their heart as being of faith and the right thing to do.  However, the classification in the Law impacts how we define words like fornication.)

So, with no Law prohibiting or condemning the extra-marital sex of the man and woman in Exodus 22:16-17 and Deuteronomy 22:28-29, we cannot call it a sin unless marriage is to be referred to as a punishment.  This cannot be because God created marriage and called it good, therefore it is not fornication.  It does not matter if the man is married (he’s authorized to take another wife) or single.  In fact, the married man in such a situation cannot be committing adultery because the woman (not his wife) he was having sex with was single and not betrothed.  To claim this behavior is contrary to the Law (sinful) is to violate Deuteronomy 4:2, the crime of adding to the Law.

Notice also that the Law was silent on a man having sex with a prostitute, and silent on a woman working as a prostitute.  I’m not arguing that it’s right and good, but God didn’t declare it to be a sin.  Why did Paul take pains to instruct the believers in 1st Corinthians 6 not to have sex with prostitutes if it was considered fornication (it wasn’t) and a sin (it wasn’t).  Consider also that Paul said of joining the members of Christ with a whore “may it never be!”  Even though the Law was silent on this, it is immorality for a Christian to do so.  Just as Christians are forbidden to divorce their Christian wife, this is a restriction that applies to the Bondservants of Christ- not a change to the Law.

Again, I’m not claiming that Christians get a free pass on extra-marital sex because the Law doesn’t condemn it.  However, it is impossible to understand what adultery and fornication are without examining the issue of sex outside the marriage and having pointed out that the Law contains no prohibitions or condemnation of pre-marital sex between persons eligible to marry, I have to also point out that Romans 14 says we are not to judge in such matters.

In the case of the married man who keeps a mistress on the side, is she a mistress or his concubine?  I’d say concubine and I can’t see that it’s a sin according to what the Bible says.  What I cannot approve of is the modern cultural response that in such cases the husband and wife should get divorced so he can marry his mistress.  In such a case neither the wife nor the husband have legitimate grounds for divorce and I must say that I believe destroying a family with an illegitimate divorce is a sin no matter who does it.  Anyone who wishes may feel free to argue the point, but make it an argument from Scripture rather than from emotion.

Since I already know I’ll have rocks thrown at me I may as well seal the deal:

Everything I’ve discussed in the last few posts has highlighted the double-standard between men and woman in the Bible, which is God’s ordained structure of authority.  There are numerous restrictions on the behavior of women that are not placed on men, but before getting upset about that one must understand that God made both men and women and He understands exactly what women are really like.  It is obvious to me that God placed the restrictions on women’s behavior that He did because women needed to be restrained.

I’ve been going over the definitions of key words in this post and it should emphasize the truth of the goal of the feminine imperative: to maximally restrict men’s sexual options while giving maximum freedom to women.  Folks, this started in the church.  Look at how marriage was redefined from the patriarchal multiple wives allowed model to the feminist requirement of monogamy.  Look at how the words lust, adultery and fornication have been expanded and changed to apply to men in ways they were never meant to.  Look at how women, who were never given the authority to divorce their husbands (except for 1st Cor. 7:15 and in the case of polygynous marriages Exodus 21:10), have created such a “right” out of thin air and use it frequently.

At the end of the day men have a great deal of freedom in how they may act, but with that freedom comes responsibility.

 

 

Posted in Divorce, Marriage, Marriages Go Their Own Way, Messages to a young man | Tagged , , , , , , , | 17 Comments