The Subject Illustrates The Issue
While the subject of this post is prostitution, the issue is obedience. Whether or not some woman is paying her rent by selling sexual access to her body is irrelevant to the life of any given Christian, they were commanded not to judge. The question of whether God’s people are willing to accept what God said and live in obedience to His Word is quite relevant.
Whether anyone is willing to accept God’s Word when it disagrees with their churchian tradition indicates whether they are even a Christian.
In a previous post, I made a Biblical defense of prostitutes. The fact is, it wasn’t difficult, it was just a straight look at what the Bible says about prostitutes. Actually, what the Bible does not say is the more important issue, but it’s all good. Because prostitution isn’t a sin. Christian men are forbidden to have sex with prostitutes by the Apostle Paul in 1st Corinthians 6:16, but that applies only to Christian men and says nothing about prostitutes. For Christian men, prostitutes are forbidden fruit.
Was the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil a sinful fruit? Was it bad? No, regardless of how luscious and appealing that fruit was, it was not sinful. Adam and Eve, however, were forbidden to eat the fruit. Being forbidden fruit did not make the fruit sinful. In the same way, just because Christian men are forbidden to use prostitutes does not make prostitution sinful. It just means they’re forbidden fruit. I suspect that at least part of the problem is the fruit looks good, smells good, feels good… and it does more than just hang there- it wiggles. Which makes it all the more frustrating that it’s forbidden.
At this point we’re arguing over minutia and the only reason I’m arguing the minutia at all is to ensure the anklebiters don’t have a leg to stand on. See, what happens is once the anklebiters figure out that God chose not to say prostitution was wrong, their feverish little minds toil away trying to figure out if there’s some other way they can claim it’s wrong, even though God chose not to do that.
Does God Really Know What Is Best?
There was a debate almost two years ago and a true churchian who blogs as Simply Timothy (along with the anklebiter and born follower known as SirHamster) took umbrage with me. I not only defended polygyny but I made the point that whatever might happen when the husband and his wives spent time in bed was fine with God. The argument took place on Vox’s blog and was one of the longest running threads ever. Their problem was they discovered (much to their chagrin) that God chose not to forbid female-female sexual contact. This caused massive butthurt and in the end, they chose to reject God’s Word in favor of their teachings and traditions. Simple Tim proved he is a churchian with this statement:
I believe what I have been taught, that all homosex is sin.
Attacking Toad’s position cannot be made by showing a prohibition against woman-woman sex as no verse does so.
The question then becomes, how do I make a Biblical case that it is sin absent such a verse?
God must have made a mistake! Obviously, God got it wrong and Simple Tim has to save the day! Because Tradition! Simple Tim cannot accept the fact that God designed marriage to include multiple wives and the husband is in charge. So, if that husband wants his own bedroom symphony, he’s the man with the baton and God doesn’t have a problem with whatever might happen as long as the women were not blood relations. And we know that if God did have a problem with something that might happen in the marital bed, He wasn’t shy about saying so. Apparently God doesn’t have a problem with female-female sexual contact as long as it’s not incest.
The thread was eventually put into moderation and finally closed at 971 comments. The anklebiters didn’t realize they were proving the three laws of the SJW in that thread, SJW’s Always Lie, SJW’s Always Double Down and SJW’s Always Project. The farce continued here with another 386 comments. Simple Tim then stated he would continue his opposition to God here. The sheer chutzpah of these people is amazing. Not satisfied with what God chose, they think they know better than God. They want to be God.
The take-away is if there had been something in the Bible that forbid female-female sexual activity or polygyny, he would have screamed it from the rooftops because God CHOSE to forbid such activity. Churchians love it when God agrees with their traditions. That God chose NOT to forbid such activity, well, that is a major problem for them. Simple Tim believes he knows better than God. There just had to be a way to claim this is a sin, even though Romans 4:15 and 5:13 makes it clear that it is not. Simple Tim is a churchian SJW.
We see the same thing happening with the subject of prostitution.
Churchians tend to ignore their Bible (unless they agree with what it says), but occasionally someone comes by and takes the time to search the Scriptures to see if what I’m saying is correct. Rather than assuming that what they were taught as a child is automatically correct. Our erudite commenter Pode has done so and he raised some objections that I will attempt to deal with now.
The First Objection
The part about prostitutes being forbidden to make votive offerings in the Temple has nothing to do with forbidding prostitution and seems to be a direct reference to the preceding verse, which forbid cult prostitution both male and female. The prohibition on illegitimate children entering into the assembly of the Lord down to the 10th Generation actually begs the question of what “‘illegitimate” means. Does that refer to children born outside of marriage, or to children born of the prohibited unions between the Israelites and the tribes they were forbidden to mix with? Any child born to an illegitimate marriage would automatically be illegitimate. Virgins are married when they have sex and sex is how babies get started, so where did prostitution come up in this?
These are common objections that don’t bear up under the weight of scrutiny and the only real test is whether the Law forbid prostitution. It does not.
No, you’re grasping at straws here. There is nothing to demonstrate that prostitution is per se adultery. Cult prostitutes were forbidden in Israel and idolatry was forbidden in any and all forms. Which is why there was such a fuss over eating meat sacrificed to idols- many construed that to be partaking in idolatry. Paul was forbidding something to Christians (and Christians only) that had been previously allowed.
What we’ve been through in these posts is a bit of sifting of Scripture. First, we have nothing that says prostitution, per se, is a sin. So, the question becomes, how can we make prostitution a sin if the Bible doesn’t specifically say it’s a sin? I suppose the first olive out of the jar is adultery. Adultery requires a married woman. What about the woman who isn’t married? Well, let’s take away her choice and force her to be married if she has sex.
The usual refuge of poltroons is to claim there is a “Biblical Principle” at work and even though the Bible does not support what they want to say, there is a “Biblical Principle” that rules. What is really happening is people want to create a set of rules for their own purposes and claim God is supportive of that. Worse, they believe God is required to follow their rules.
This all results when people do not agree with what God’s Word says (or doesn’t say). God chose to forbid men from having sex with men. God chose not to forbid women from engaging in sexual whatever with women. God chose to completely ignore the subject of masturbation. God chose not to forbid prostitution. God chose not to forbid any man from having sex with a woman he was eligible to marry. And this is very disturbing to most Christians. Because they don’t actually like the way God set things up.
Oh… and the legal issue
I am constantly amazed at the number of “escorts” and others who violate the law by engaging in activity that meets the definition of prostitution, which is a crime. The reason I am amazed is because it’s completely unnecessary of the goal is to be paid for offering sexual gratification. If a man wants to pay a woman to engage in sexual activity with him, he can pay a woman for sexual access to her body (which is a crime) or he can pay an actress to engage in sexual activity with him while recording said activity on video for entertainment purposes. That is not a crime.
The only real difference between a prostitute and a porn actress is a video camera and the willingness of both parties to star in a porn production. Given that the presence of a camera tends to cause women to become more enthusiastic in their sexual performance (they don’t call it “porn star” sex for nothing), it seems reasonable to assert that legally participating in a recorded porn production with a paid actress is a superior method of obtaining sexual gratification in return for payment.
It seems likewise reasonable to assert that a woman who wished to engage in sexual activity in return for payment should choose to legally do so as a porn actress rather than as a prostitute. There are numerous advantages, such as being able to legally advertise such services and the freedom from prosecution. Some might consider the possibility that the video might make its way onto the internet to be a problem, but that would be video that was lost in the sea of porn and the name associated with it would be the woman’s “stage name” instead of her real name. That possibility should be balanced against the risk of being arrested for prostitution, which will create a permanent criminal record under her real name.
Again, there is no reasonable moral argument that a woman selling her body is automatically committing sin because prostitution is classified as a crime. Any woman who desires to receive payment in return for performing sexual acts can easily comply with the law by doing so as a porn actress, which is completely legal. Plenty of men take on the job of producing, directing and acting in their own productions and we have examples like Mel Gibson and Clint Eastwood. They hire actresses to play their assigned roles. All of this is perfectly legal. And if an actress wants to offer “one stop shopping” to make his production a reality, all he needs is money. Which he will pay to her. Which was the entire point to begin with.