Just Because It’s Not Forbidden…

angry-christian

“Doesn’t Mean It’s Permitted!”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Marriages Go Their Own Way. Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to Just Because It’s Not Forbidden…

  1. Stephen says:

    Is it fair to say that tradcon prudes are commiting sin when they place their opinions and sexual preferences over what scripture actually says? Shouldn’t trying to mislead others into thinking that sexual activities that are not sinful are sinful be considered a type of heresy?

    • Actually, it’s a violation of Deuteronomy 4:2 and 12:32, both of which forbid adding to or subtracting from the Law.

      Then, of course, they might say they are free from the law but Romans 4:15 and 5:13 makes it clear that sin is a violation of the Law. All those places in the New Testament where the Christians are instructed to flee from sexual immorality, for example, depend on the Law because sexual immorality is defined by the Law.

  2. Pingback: A post to reply to a comment | oogenhand

  3. Pode says:

    Trying to make sure I follow your argument re polygyny and 1 Cor 7. Each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband you read as their own as opposed to someone else’s. Why is that reading preferred to reading it as a “house rule” for Christians to be mutually monogamous? There are many men (and women) in the collective bride of Christ, so by parallel there can be many women in the collective bride of a man?

    Also from 1 Cor 7:4, since the husband does not have authority over his body, is a wife’s consent required for him to take another wife? The Amplified Version reads “likewise the husband does not have [exclusive] authority over his body, but the wife shares with him” which seems more in line with his authority, he can take another at will as long as he still shares his body with the first as appropriate and as commanded in the OT.

  4. oogenhand says:

    “Physical circumcision is only commanded of the physical descendants of Abraham”

    Being halachically Jew, and my four grandparents all having Jewish surname I would quality for circumcision.

    • Are you Sephardic or Ashkenazim? The Ashkenazim hold the faith but they are not physically the descendants of Abraham. They apply the law to themselves but by definition the requirement of circumcision does not apply to them

      • oogenhand says:

        Maternally Sephardic, paternally Ashkenazic, HOWEVER, it is quite likely Israelite men married Khazar women. Many Ashkenazis do have J2 of even E1.

        If you are bothered by your own circumcision, visit Europe and have sex with local women.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s