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.




This entry was posted in Biblical Illiteracy, Churchianity, Messages to a young man. Bookmark the permalink.

42 Responses to The Righteousness Of Prostitutes And Lesbians

  1. Renee Harris says:

    Ok so can I virgin be a prostitute if she is too ugly to Mary

  2. happyhousewifey says:

    Just planes??? I avoid elevators, too. Nasty feeling they give me.

  3. Tiffany says:

    So what if they are evangelical whores? Suck and swallow in Jesus name!!!! LoLzzz

  4. First off, major cool points for the t.a.T.u. picture. Well done. As usual I disagree with some of your reasoning but almost none of your conclusions. I would quibble with your take on Romans 1:26. I believe if you compare it to the preceding verse what you will find is that women preferring anal intercourse to vaginal is what is being prohibited. Other than that I do believe sex is marriage and so if a Christian woman prostituted herself to a non-Christian man then at very least she is becoming unequally yoked.

    • Romans 1:26 is *descriptive* and does NOT prohibit anything. In Verse 27, Paul is again *descriptive* and mentions men participating in a prohibited activity. The “likewise” points to what both the men and women were doing, which was giving up the natural function of women. The natural function of women is to be a wife and mother under the authority of her husband.

      In fact, nothing anywhere in the Bible prohibits a wife from having anal sex with her husband so it’s not a sin. As to whether that happens, it’s up to him because the wife is commanded to submit to him in everything.

      As far as women with women, The only thing in the Law that forbids women with women was a specific prohibition on incest in Leviticus 18:17-18. Other than that, it’s fine.

      And, as has been pointed over and over again, a woman who is not a virgin must specifically agree to become married before the sex makes her married. I base this on the fact that a virgin can be married with the act of sexual intercourse, against her will, as is proven by Exodus 21:6-10 (Father selling his daughter to be a concubine); Deuteronomy 21:10-14 (woman captured in battle) and Deuteronomy 22:28-29 (eligible virgin married by rape). Contrast that with the authority of the divorce woman and the widow in Numbers 30:9. Then look at 1st Corinthians 7:39, in which the woman is free to choose whom she will marry. If that choice can be taken away from her with the act of rape she is not free to choose.

      In other words, the eligible non-virgin must agree to marry before the act of coitus consummates the marriage.

      This is actually demonstrated by prostitutes, inasmuch as there could be no legitimate prostitution if any woman were automatically married with the act of sex. If you refer to this comment you’ll find a much more detailed explanation of my reasoning behind this.

      • You and I have duked this out on another site and there’s probably no point in going back into it. I agree with 99.9% of everything you say. I am interested why you don’t interpret Leviticus 18:17-18 literally, blowing it out to be a blanket prohibition on “lesbian incest” when it appears to be a very pointed command to not force sisters to have sex.

        I agree that there is nothing in scripture that even remotely touches on “lesbianism” as we define it and that if there is no penis there can be no sex. That’s why Romans 1:26 is not describing a woman desiring women but a woman preferring anal to vaginal. You’re right that anal (it’s an ugly word and thought and I hate to bring it up, sorry) is not anywhere forbidden and so is permissible. My point is that if you read verse 27 and 26 together then it makes more sense that Paul is talking about women who prefer the more uncomfortable option. This is a phenomenon that occurs in women who have been very well used and I believe better fits both the text and the spirit of the text better. It is also just simpler than other explanations.

  5. Pode says:

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

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

    If prostituiton 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.

    • I know, I just know it, this is going to get me in trouble… but I’m going to address your points on this with it’s own post. And I was having such a fun morning at Dalrock’s site. It all started with the question of gluing vagina’s shut to keep girls out of trouble. If you’re interested, it’s here:

      The best part? I *told them* what I was doing.

      • Samuel Culpepper says:

        Mr. Toad:

        I read the exchange over at Dalrock’s and understood, or so I thought, what you were doing there. Strawman argument, correct? You don’t actually think Paul believed it was permissible to have intercourse with prostitutes so long as you didn’t take them to wife? If so, I agree with your understanding of the institution as defined in Genesis. I am not sure why so many of Dalrock’s readers don’t want to here this message . . . it answers most of the issues they address on feminism. If the church body would teach and enforce this law, many of the problems we deal with today would disappear in one generation, after the whores, whoremongers and all other manner of liberals died out from lack of progeny. More boots on the ground wins this war . . . they just have to be filled with the right people.

        • Samuel, what I did was to hoist them by their own petard. I have previously made the point that sex with a virgin marries her. They cannot accept that for the obvious reason that it means admitting they are living in adultery with another man’s wife. They cannot argue against me because the point is correct and completely supported by the Bible.

          The Apostle Paul was actually quite clear that sex with prostitutes was forbidden to Christian men. That is understood, but it also proves the point about sex being the act that marries a virgin.

          The reason Dalrock’s audience cannot handle the truth is that they are feminists who are unhappy with the how things turned out for them. When the moral foundation of feminism is pointed to, as well as why it is a lie, they come unglued because they want the moral foundation of feminism to be true. They do not want to accept that God does not agree with their point of view.

          You replied in that thread, but did you notice that all they wanted to do was have a highly technical argument that completely avoids the real issues? They literally cannot bring themselves to discuss the points I made because it requires they acknowledge their guilt and the fact they’ve been propagating lies all their lives.

  6. oogenhand says:

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

    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. 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 [Augustine of Hippo] burns in hell. Hell is eternal.

  7. Keep it up Toad. Make the cucks weep warm salty tears.

  8. Samuel Culpepper says:


    Have you run across any books in your studies, 20th Century or later, that has addressed (correctly that is) the issue of Biblical marriage? I knew this belief to be true from an early age, but could not explain it to people in biblical terms so I was left with natural law and gut instinct to support my arguments. I only made the connections with scripture around 5-6 years ago, which is sad since I have been a professing christian for 30+ years. I have found other like minded believers on chatrooms and obscure christian websites along the way, but not a large body of scholarly work like you would expect for a subject so fundamentally important to christian society. I have a pamphlet that I found on the web a few years back on the subject of blood covenant marriage which nibbles at this question but not as directly as you are doing here. The pamphlet I mentioned, cites some older writings on that particular subject that I have been meaning to read, I’ll find it and share the title with you if you would like to take a look. Short of the long, I would like to read any references you might have to offer.

    • The simple answer is no, I know of no such book. I’m working on one and you can have my current roadmap here. The link to the chart at the bottom of the page is what you’re after. I’m sure it will be popular only as something to attack.

      I’m still working on this and I’ll update the chart again sometime in the next few weeks. There are a lot of little issues like grammar and punctuation and I could say things better for a clearer understanding. The essential elements would cover:

      How marriage begins.
      The standards of marital commitment for men and woman (they’re different)
      The standards of sexual morality within marriage.
      The standards of sexual morality outside marriage.
      The story of divorce and the rules that apply to each class of person.
      The history of how everything got to be the way it is.

      As to the history of how things got to be the way they are, “Law, Sex and Christian Society in Medieval Europe” by James Brundage is excellent, but it requires that one understand what the Bible actually says.

      The reason you don’t see books on what the Bible actually says about sexual morality and marriage is I know of no organized group of Christians who desire to teach such things. Church is a business and to be a successful business one has to please the customer. The truth is not very pleasing.

      Any comments or insights are welcome.

    • Check out a book called Man and Woman in Biblical Law and the website . There is a lot of information and resources there.

  9. Pingback: Ho, ho, ho. | Toad's Hall

  10. tteclod says:

    Toad, I’m pleased to see you’re still hard at work!

    As a former Christian, your arguments amuse me, mostly because they’re absolutely true, and, to a lesser extent, because they frustrate Churchians while leaving those few Christians I’ve met unfazed. Christian men, particularly, generally have enough sense, and too little cents, to marry a second wife, so the whole subject of polygyny is academic. Prostitution, likewise, isn’t relevant to their lives, except when compassion is warranted, which your opinion encourages.

    All that said, it seems to me that various exhortations against fornication suffice to restrict women from prostitution, which is compensated fornication. If that is not sufficient, Paul also advises Christians abstain from sex, and failing that, to marry.

    Strictly parsing law, prostitution is not sin, but Christian men are prohibited prostitutes, and Christian women exhorted to marry, so prostitution isn’t particularly relevant among Christians, except as regards compassion.

    • “various exhortations against fornication suffice to restrict women from prostitution, which is compensated fornication.”

      That word “fornication” doesn’t mean what you think it means (I have a post coming out about that soon). There is no command, anywhere, forbidding a man and woman who are eligible to marry from having sex. In other words, there is no restriction, anywhere in Scripture, that confines sex to marriage.

      That drives Christians nuts because it is contrary to everything they have ever been taught. The thing is, they don’t know where it came from.

      The early church was invaded by men who hated sex. Sexual pleasure was considered the most foul and wicked of evils. Even within marriage, sex was considered a venous sin. Given that God commanded mankind to “be fruitful and multiply” it stands to reason that if within marriage sex is a venous sin, any sex outside the bounds of marriage is a mortal sin.

      This is not found in Scripture anywhere. They made it up.

      There are twenty-one enumerated sexual sins in the Law. We have 12 instances of incest, 3 instances of incest that are restricted to polygynous marriages, 1 of adultery, 1 of male homosexuality, 2 of bestiality and the ever-favorite, having sex with a woman (to include your wife) while she is on her menses.

      Then, there is the catch-all of anything sexual that has to do with idolatry. The prohibition of Deuteronomy 23:17-18 falls into this, which said there shall be no cult prostitutes in the land. When the people bowed down to the Baal at Peor, they committed idolatry. Sure, the young women (temple whores) lured them into it, men like banging attractive young women. The sex, however, was not the sin. It was the idolatry.

      There is actually one more, the violation of the engagement agreement by having sex prior to the end of the engagement period. In that case the sex isn’t wrong, per se, the violation is the man not keeping his word (Numbers 30:2).

      But, you put your finger on it when you use the word compassion. Fascinating that we have to hear that from a non-Christian.

      • tteclod says:

        Alright, that’s almost an answer. Would you explain what you mean by fornication? I mean sex between people not married. Some relevant passages from the new testament epistles are as follows.

        1 Cor 6:9-11,18-20
        1 Thess 3:13-4:12
        1 Tim 1:3-11 [whoremongers – not fornicators, but that’s not my emphasis, my emphasis is yours, that is, “teach no other doctrine.”]

        I infer from these and other scriptural passages that you may be defining fornication in the context of idolatry, to which I’d argue that fornication, as defined in modern vernacular, can’t really become widespread without some kind of idolatry being the framework for the fornication. Put another way, only by substituting idolatry for The Law can fornication become the model for a nation otherwise ruled by The Law. If we thereafter apply constraints upon Christians exceeding simple adherence to The Law, such as proscriptions against Christian men hiring prostitutes for sexual gratification (I imagine one could hire a prostitute for academic instruction), then we rapidly create a purportedly Christian society in which there is no work for prostitutes. Opportunities for (modern-word) fornication reduce to zero (theoretically). Since I am not Christian, but generally adhere to Christian rules since I live within a purportedly Christian nation (America), then I, too, would not hire a prostitute since that would unnecessarily complicate my otherwise righteous and blameless image among Christians and those who purport to be Christians.

        If these are the “rules,” and even if fornication requires idolatry (the definition thereof we’ll avoid for the time being), then the only way for a woman to fornicate is with a Christian man who does not observe Christian rules – which means he isn’t a Christian – and with non-Christian men. While (modern word) fornication might not be sin, it most certainly correlates with idolatry, and is likely motivated (caused) by idolatry, so it becomes an “unprofitable” activity, even if it is not, strictly speaking, prohibited (for women). A Christian man, being prohibited from engaging a prostitute, and being responsible to marry any woman he fucks, can’t reasonably select to fuck a woman who has not already agreed to marriage, and so he cannot fornicate except by disregarding either the prohibition of prostitution or the requirement to marry.

        For women, the instructions from Saul of Tarsus [Paul – I like needling my wife with the “Saul” moniker] seem relatively clear: be celibate or, if you can’t be celibate, marry. Once you’re married, if your spouse wants to fuck, don’t deny them, because you’re married because you tried to be celibate, and couldn’t manage it.

        PS: I liked your lesbian explanation. What I like most about it is that polygyny (as you propose it) would probably eliminate most lesbian households on two fronts: it would permit married women to dalliance with other married women, both women with whom they shared a husband, and those with whom they did not, and second, it would free men to be less picky about selecting a wife, so he would be free to pick an “ugly” woman at any point without harming his opportunities to marry a “pretty” woman, either before or after marrying the “ugly” one.

  11. jordanwinsby says:

    There are so many verses taken out of context here it’s hard to know where to start.

    Well, first off, the Bible actually says multiple times that sex before marriage is sin. 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 all these verses: (Acts 15:20; 1 Corinthians 5:1; 6:13, 18; 10:8; 2 Corinthians 12:21; Galatians 5:19; Ephesians 5:3; Colossians 3:5; 1 Thessalonians 4:3; Hebrews 13:4; Jude 7.

    Secondly, the Bible forbids homosexuality multiple times as well. You took Romans 1:26 completely out of context. It’s talking about how people become homosexuals because of their sinful nature and choice. It’s a result of them disobeying and denying their Creator. God gave them over to an even more depraved and wicked mind so they might see the futility and hopelessness of life apart from Him. Homosexuality is not a greater sin than the others, but it’s still sin that keeps us from God (1 Corinthians 6:9-10). Fortunately, God out of His grace and mercy provides strength to those who desire to turn away from their sin (1 Corinthians 6:11; 2 Corinthians 5:17; Philippians 4:13).

    I don’t know what Bible you’re reading, but don’t take verses out of context to try and justify sin. God’s rules are still the same even if you try and distort them to fit your views. Read what the text says as well as the text around it; not your interpretation of it.

    • You are the one taking them out of context Jordan. Toad doesn’t need me to defend him but I would encourage you to look at the definition of adultery and marriage. You are in for quite a ride if you research biblical sexual morality honestly and without your Dr. Dobson blinders. Just remember two things, the modern church has failed spectacularly at changing people’s lives or affecting the culture at large. Why? Why are we failing? Could it be because we don’t do God’s thing His way? Could it be because we substitute the traditions of men for God’s Laws?

      Put away your outrage. Stow your moral superiority. If your version of the Bible is true then it is self contradictory and inconsistent. You have to reconcile the difficult passages. You have to explain why we should obey your Roman sexual laws over the Biblical ones.

  12. I noticed you have zero Scriptural support to back up anything you’ve just said.

    Adultery: willful sexual intercourse with someone other than one’s husband or wife. Jesus said this also includes lust (Matthew 5:28). Adultery is a sin (Exodus 20:14; Proverbs 5:3-22; 6:20-35 Jeremiah 13:27; Matthew 5:31-32; 19:9; Mark 7:20-23; 10:11-12; Luke 16:18; 18:18-20; Romans 7:2-3; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10; 6:15-16; 7; Hebrews 13:4). Adultery involves married people.

    Fornication: sexual relationships outside the bonds of marriage. Fornication is a sin (Matthew 15:19; Romans 13:13; 1 Corinthians 5:11; 6:9; Galatians 5:19; Ephesians 5:3; Colossians 3:5). Fornication involves at least one person who is unmarried.

    Marriage: the union of a man and a woman as husband and wife, which becomes the foundation for a home and family. Marriage was instituted by God after He created Adam and Eve (Genesis 2:18). This definition of marriage is good and God’s desire is for the married couple to not divorce (Genesis 1:27; 2:24; Matthew 19:4-6). (By the way Christians don’t hate sex like this article claims; it just has to be within the biblical definition of marriage. God created it and told Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply (Genesis 1:28))

    These are the biblical definitions of adultery, fornication, and marriage. I fail to see how this in any way contradicts Scripture. You say it does? Support your claim with Scripture!

    You say the Church has failed to change people’s lives? It changed mine as well as many others I know (e.g. those in the Church…that’s how it still exists). The Bible is filled with stories of Jesus changing people’s lives and He started the Church by using the Apostle Peter. The Church started as a bunch of people meeting together in a room (Acts 2:1) and when the Holy Spirit came down to earth, Peter preached and converted 3,000 people through the power of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:41). The Church has since affected culture everywhere. If it didn’t, the ungodly wouldn’t hate the Church; they wouldn’t even recognize its existence. You say it doesn’t change lives and affect culture? Support your claim with Scripture!

    Please read what Scripture actually says instead of forcing your interpretation on the text. This is very important and affects how you spend eternity.

    “Don’t copy the behavior and customs of this world, but let God transform you into a new person by changing the way you think. Then you will learn to know God’s will for you, which is good and pleasing and perfect” (Romans 12:2).

    • Jordan Winsby, you are a liar and an idiot child.

      I might have felt bad about using you for an example after just your first comment but you are a liar, repeating lies you don’t even understand using words you do not understand. You are an excellent example of why James warned that only some should be teachers:

      “Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we will incur a stricter judgment.” James 3:1

      But don’t worry, I’ll be dissecting everything you’ve said and you’ll get your answer. Meanwhile, you might want to educate yourself.

      What is sexual immorality?

      When is a person actually married?

      • I’ve read enough of your heresy and I’m not going to read anymore of it. You can’t back up your own views with more of your own views. Use Scripture…in context! And if you’re going to resort to name-calling because you don’t have any other way to defend your views, then I’m done.

    • We are discussing the Holy Scriptures of Israel and Christianity Jordan, not Webster’s Dictionary. The definition of fornication in scripture, Greek word porneia, is prohibited sexual acts. The acts that are prohibited are not included in the word. They are found in the Old Testament. You can’t try to make porneia only mean “sex outside of a state/church sanctioned marriage”. The word is clearly defined in scripture.

      Your claim to the contrary shows you did not look into this at all and that you don’t take God’s Word seriously since you proclaimed demonstrable falsehoods. If all you want to do is justify your own opinion then found your own religion. Don’t try to hijack this one.

      Fornication in scripture has nothing to do with your limited understanding. It is much bigger than that. Look at porneia. Look at adultery. Then come back and engage thus conversation. Right now you’re shooting from the hip and the men in this conversation take this very seriously and spend a lot of time studying it. You are not ready for this conversation.

      • All you’ve done is state your own definition on the Greek word porneia. I’ve studied Koine Greek and your argument is non-existent. I’ve shown you the Scripture against your interpretation and you are left with nothing but your own distorted ideas to defend yourself. You’re basically saying there are no specifics behind the word porneia (a selling off of sexual purity) when Scripture clearly teaches it’s anything outside of a biblical marriage (look at the verses I’ve previously provided). Additionally, the Old Testament only affirms what I’ve been saying all along and since I’ve actually been using Scripture to support my arguments (look at the verses I provided for you previously). Once again, you have no Scriptural support for your claims and I’m done arguing with someone who practices eisegesis instead of exegesis.

        • The Apostle Paul explained what sin was in Romans 4:15 and 5:13.

          Where there is no Law there is no transgression;
          Without a transgression no sin is imputed.

          Sin is a violation of the law. There are 22 enumerated relationships or acts which are forbidden in the Law that are sexual offenses. What you cannot find is any prohibition that forbids a man and woman who are eligible to marry from having sex and their marital status is irrelevant.

          According to the Apostle Paul, in order to support your claim that sex outside marriage is a sin, you must show where God forbid having sex outside marriage in the Law.

          God did not forbid a man and woman who are eligible to marry from having sex because that is how a man and woman are married. That you evidently cannot comprehend that means you’re an idiot. That you continue to spout lies makes you a liar.

        • No, I’ve stated the Biblical definition of porneia. Its in every lexicon. I don’t have to defend this claim because you can verify it yourself. When the New Testament uses the word fornication it is referring through porneia to the sexual laws outlined in the Old Testament. The laws governing sex are not changed or even reiterated in the New Testament. You have to look to the Old Testament to see what is prohibited. For example, incest and bestiality are not listed in the New Testament. Porneia has to point to the Old Testament sexual laws or things can get very dark very quick.

          Since we have to go back to the Old Testament to find the laws we now have to be very careful not to make up any laws ourselves. That would be adding to scripture and that is a VERY bad thing that carries with it heavy curses.

          What Toad, and a growing number of other men, are trying to do is strip our faith down to what God actually said and not what we think He said. Because Jordan, the church failing in this country. It’s not working. Either God is wrong or we’re wrong. You pick which one you think it is.

          I would love to debate verses with you but the truth is that we will not see one of them the same. You will look at Matthew 5:26 and see a blanket prohibition on sexual desire and thoughts not directed at your state and church designated spouse. I see an admonition to men not to desire to have sex with a married woman. That’s the literal interpretation of a statement given by a guy who had just taken a keg to a blow out party where two guys made a deal, got drunk, went in the back room to have sex and then came out waving a trophy around. Christ literally went to this wedding where there was no license, no preacher and possibly not even a ceremony. Oh yeah, and he brought the booze and His mother. Do you think that maybe there’s something we’ve been overlooking in the west?

          You’re going to have to take a step back look at this with completely fresh eyes Jordan. Consider it an intellectual exercise. Play devil’s advocate with yourself. Start with Matthew 5:26. Christ said if we look on a married woman with lust then we’re committing adultery. If this verse is the basis for all sexual morality does that mean we can look on men with lust? Does that mean heterosexual women are off the hook since they don’t desire women? The verse doesn’t mention men. Or animals. Or anything else. The verse clearly states that you’re not to desire a married woman. There is some debate if that word means married woman or just woman but in our circles that debate is very settled and since He identified the sin being discussed as adultery, the act of sex with another man’s wife, we can safely assume that He is referring to a married woman here.

          So yes I can reference scripture, and a lot of it. But I don’t think you can even hear what I’m trying to say. Our western morality is not God’s morality and He will not let us try to put Him in our box. It is our reverence for scripture that leads us to take it literally and without addition or subtraction. If you can do that then you will find some of the most stimulating and challenging ideas you have ever heard here. If not then don’t waste your time. You’ll only leave angry.

  13. So I just reread my last post and in it I make it sound like the two men at the wedding went in the back room and had sex. Obviously that is patently ridiculous. I meant to say that two men struck a deal, one of them went in the back and had sex and then came back out and bragged about it. Sorry for the confusion. I couldn’t find an edit button. I’m on my phone though so I’ll check from the desktop later and see if I can fix the mistake.

  14. Pingback: Jordan Winsby Tells Lies | Toad's Hall

  15. Pingback: Advice To A Young Man, Part II | Toad's Hall

  16. Pingback: Frame, Fitness Tests and Feminism | Toad's Hall

  17. Pingback: Adventures in Biblical Interpretation: Incest and Polygyny – Grassroots Apologetics

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s