Dishonest Dalrock Thinks He Won

Dalrock’s True Color:  Feminist Pink

Evidently this blog has made enough of an impact that Dalrock decided he had to do something about it.  Or perhaps he just wanted a massive food fight on his blog.  For whatever reason, Dalrock  decided to do a takedown of what I write about, using a strawman argument he thought he could knock down.

It was not a debate or even a discussion.  Dalrock already knew he couldn’t win the fight legitimately because the Bible is not on his side.  So, he decided start the fight on his terms and used the theme of “it sounds nutty” in order to use shaming rhetoric, hand waving and the power of his bully pulpit.  It’s true.  To feminists, what the Bible says is nutty because feminism is opposed to God.

The question underlying all of it is simple:

Is the eligible virgin married when she has sex, even if she does not know that act makes her married?

The answer rests on the question of whether the virgin’s consent is required in order for her to be married.

Does the father have the authority to grant or withhold consent for his virgin daughter?

What does the Bible say?  If the father can grant consent for her, then obviously she does not have agency to grant or  withhold consent to marry.  It must be understood that Dalrock is a feminist in practice, if not in belief, so he could not allow that question to be answered.

If Dalrock was correct in his doctrine, he should have been able to refute me easily.  The problem  is he isn’t correct and he can’t refute what the Bible clearly says by using the Bible.  Dalrock’s argument was rhetorical, designed to sway the emotions and for the most part all he did was intentionally lie and engage in ad hominem.  Commenter Gary Eden objected to all the ad hominem and the refusal to address what the Bible says.  In this comment Dalrock responded and explained what he was really doing- attack me personally:

he still looks nutty, because he is writing nutty things.

In other words, Dalrock chose to take advantage of the ignorance and cultural conditioning of all his Dalrock bros and encourage the personal attacks rather than allow a rational debate to take place.   In the end the “debate” touched the third rail of feminism (does the virgin have agency) and it had to end.

 

SJW = Churchian

Churchians are feminist SJW’s who dress their feminism up and hide behind the Bible.  Or, they claim they do.   As Vox Day explained in “SJW’s Always Lie”:

  1. Churchian’s Always Lie:  Dalrock intentionally lied, over and over again.
  2. Churchian’s Always Double Down:  When refuted, Dalrock doubled down.
  3. Churchian’s Always Project:  Dalrock claimed I was doing what he actually did.

Dalrock’s action follows the classic SJW attack sequence that Vox explained in his book:

  1. Locate or Create a Violation of the Narrative.
  2. Point and Shriek.
  3. Isolate and Swarm.
  4. Reject and Transform.
  5. Press for Surrender.
  6. Appeal to Amenable Authority.
  7. Show Trial.
  8. Victory Parade.

My comments over the years and the complete inability of anyone to refute my argument has clearly been a violation of the narrative.  Obviously I am not going to apologize or surrender and there isn’t any Amenable Authority to appeal to.  Dalrock knows this.  He created a post that combined point and shriek with isolate and swarm.   He turned the multiple posts into a show trial.

But, the show trial didn’t turn out to be quite what he thought it would be.

Over 90% of the “argument” was lying about what I claim and ad hominem attacks, with very little attempt support their doctrine from Scripture.  The centerpiece of Dalrocks theological argument was the claim that 1st Corinthians 7 is instruction that sex is only to take place within marriage and thus all sex “outside marriage” is a sin.  But he can’t describe how marriage actually begins…

Dalrock claims that God didn’t provide us with a wedding ceremony.  Then he doubled down and claimed that having sex and becoming one flesh doesn’t make a virgin married… because whores have sex and become one flesh with their customers and it doesn’t make them married.

According to that argument, either God got it wrong in Genesis 2:24 and Adam and Eve were not married because they didn’t have the Dalrock Special Sauce, or Adam and Eve were not married because Eve was a whore.  For some reason Dalrock didn’t respond to that.

 

The Importance of Dalrock’s 1st Cor. 7 Argument

What Paul actually said in 1st Corinthians 7 is simple:  Because of the ubiquitous temptations of sexual immorality, each wife is to have her own husband (not someone else’s husband- sexual immorality) and each husband is to have his own wife (not someone else’s wife- sexual immorality).  They are to have sex whenever either of them wants sex and neither can say no to the other, except for those times set aside, by mutual agreement, for fasting and prayer.  When the time set aside for fasting and prayer is over they are to come together again and have sex in order that they might not be tempted by the sexual immorality around them.

The text Dalrock refers to is instruction to the already married people concerning sex and it does not have anything to do with the creation of marriage.  The problem with the Dalrock brigade is they skip over the first part of the instruction in their rush to judgment and miss the fact that Paul specifically addressed sex outside marriage in 1st Corinthians 7:1.

 

“It Is Good Not To Touch A Woman”

  • The word translated as “touch” is the Greek word haptomai, which means “I fasten to; I lay hold of, touch, know carnally and Paul is obviously using the “know carnally” meaning in this passage.
  • The word translated into English as “woman” is gynaikos, a form ofguné.   Given the context of the instruction he gave immediately afterward, he is obviously not saying it is good not to have sex with your wife.
  • If the woman is not a wife, then obviously carnal knowledge of such a woman is, by definition, sex outside marriage.

In the previous chapter Paul forbid men from having sex with prostitutes.  Adultery, which is the sin of a married woman having sex with a man who is not her husband, was forbidden in the Law.  So was incest and male homosexuality.  These acts are known as “sexual immorality” because they are specifically forbidden.  However, “sex outside marriage” is not prohibited and when Paul addressed the issue directly, all he had to say on the subject was (paraphrasing)

“It’s good to not do that.” 

Paul was a Pharisee of Pharisees and he knew exactly what God’s Law said and didn’t say.  He knew that marriage begins with sex and sometimes…  sex “outside marriage” is just sex that doesn’t result in marriage and it’s not sin.

Rather than prohibit sexual activity “outside marriage” as Dalrock claims, Paul actually said “it is good to not have sex a woman who is not your wife”.  Meaning, “yes, that is permitted, but it’s good not to do that.”  

As with his erroneous interpretation of Deuteronomy 23:17-18, Dalrock is claiming that 1st Corinthians 7:1-2 says something that it clearly does not say and can’t see that it actually says the opposite of what he claims.

 

The Show Trial Had To End

After two separate threads totaling more than 1400 comments, with several commenters asking why Toad wasn’t being refuted, it had to end.   In order to get a violation of his blog rules, Dalrock asked this question:

If I follow your logic, raping a non betrothed virgin isn’t a sin then. Right?

Actually, he was intentionally not following my logic and he is incorrect, but it’s just one more example of Dalrock’s dishonesty.  The subject is the rape of the non-betrothed virgin that creates her marriage to the man who raped her (Deuteronomy 22:28-29), but the issue is the agency of the virgin and whether her consent is required in order for her to be married.  Obviously the virgin has no agency and her consent is not required.

What Dalrock did was ask a forked question.  The classic example of a forked question is “Have you stopped beating your wife?”   The question assumes wife-beating is or has been occurring.   Dalrock’s question assumes that a rape cannot create a marriage, the community had to do so as part of the punishment for raping her.  It was important for Dalrock to establish that some Special Sauce makes a virgin married, not just the sex and becoming one flesh as described in Genesis 2:24 that makes a virgin married.

Thus, according to Dalrock’s Special Sauce doctrinal view of Deuteronomy 22:28-29, marriage is a punishment and the rape victim is punished by being forced to marry her rapist.  This is the level of ridiculousness they are forced to stoop to in order to justify their doctrines.

It was not clear whether Dalrock was putting on his pink vagina hat or not, so I asked for clarification before answering by changing the subject within the same issue of consent.

I think it safe to say that we should be able to agree that according to Scripture, the father has the right to give his daughter to the man *he* chooses for her regardless of her feelings about it. If you have an objection please let me know.

So, under that condition, is the man who gets her from her father in sin when he marries her? Just so we’re clear, he marries her with the act of penetrative sexual intercourse, against her will and over her objections.

Is that man in sin for marrying his wife?

Unlike the virgin who was raped into marriage, the subject of my question is a wife according to Dalrock’s doctrine, because she had the Special Sauce in the form of her father giving her to her husband in a “public  status” ceremony in front of witnesses.  Dalrock claims marriage is a public status and therefore it requires some sort of Special Sauce ceremony dictated by the particular culture.  Obviously this girl had that because that particular culture lived under God’s Law and they said she was his wife.

So, is the husband in sin if he takes her by force?  Lack of consent is the sine qua non of rape, so is her husband raping her?  The question is whether her father has the authority to consent for her.  If he does, it cannot be rape and more importantly it proves she does not have agency.

Is the virgin’s consent required in order for the sex to make her married?

According to the Bible, the answer is clearly no.  Deut. 22:28-29 tells us that the virgin can be raped into marriage, which means her consent is not required.  Therefore the idea that a virgin does not know that giving her virginity to some hawt boy will result in her being married is irrelevant.   It doesn’t matter whether she knows or not, whether she consents or not, because her consent is not required.

Does a father have the authority to give his daughter in marriage to the man he chooses, against her will and over her objections?  According to the Bible, the answer is clearly yes.  Exodus 21:7-11 tells us that a father can sell his daughter into slavery to be a man’s concubine.  Leviticus 19:29 limits that authority, with the prohibition on a father profaning his daughter by making her a prostitute.

Notice what Dalrock said in answer to the question:

All you’ve done is asked me the very question I asked you. But since you asked, yes, rape is a sin, and that would include raping a virgin.

Is Dalrock stupid?  No, not at all.  He knows very well that consent is the essential element in the crime of rape, he knows exactly what the Bible says and he carefully did not answer the question.  He did not say that the man in question was raping his wife, he simply said that rape is a sin.   I know that and he knows I know that.  Dalrock gave the standard feminist answer about rape always being a sin and in so doing covered his ass, but he had reached the point he could not allow it to continue.  Because feminism.

Dalrock banned me before I could respond and 1) call him out for not actually answering the question and 2) point to the real issue.  Of course, I’d have also called him out for lying,  once again, but that’s beside the point.

This page has the story of the big argument, condensed, with commentary.  The post history is archived here and here.

Obviously it’s Dalrock’s blog and he has every right to ban anyone he wants.  I’m not complaining, because what he did was establish a few facts once and for all:

  1. Dalrock and all his churchian bros together could not refute (on any point) the teaching of Scripture that I’ve been writing about for years.
  2. In two threads with a total of over 1400 comments, several points emerged.

☠  The fact Dalrock could not argue without resorting to lying and ad hominem attacks proves he cannot debate the issue.

☠  The fact that he got his ass handed to him every time he put forth any kind of Scriptural argument to refute me proves he is wrong and he knows it.

☠  The fact he banned me proves he couldn’t tolerate publicly losing the argument.

☠  Dalrock is a dishonest, feminist churchian who does not like or agree with what the Bible actually says and does not say.

There were several novel points that got raised during the course of the argument that I’ll address in later posts, notably the position of Evan P Turner that slaves cannot be wives and his logical deductions resulting from that position.

 

Addendum:

For years, all Dalrock has done is keep up a steady drumbeat of posts that essentially boil down to one thing:  men are losing the cultural war against feminism.  For years, Dalrock has offered no solutions to help men and churches deal with the problem of feminism.  The Dalrock message is clear:  Men are losing and there is no hope.

The truth is that the early church threw out the Bible’s teaching on sexual morality and replaced it with a combination of Pagan belief, Stoic philosophy and Roman law.  These teachings are encapsulated by the following:

  • Sex is evil, don’t do it.  However, because of the requirement of “be fruitful and multiply” sex is permitted within marriage, but only for the purposes of procreation.  Obviously sex “outside of marriage” is forbidden. (pagan belief/stoic philosophy).
  • Marriage is established by consent, not sex (Roman law)
  • Marriage must be monogamous, polygyny is not permitted (Roman Law)
  • Men and women are held to the same standard of sexual morality (pagan belief)

This rejection of the Bible has resulted in two major problems.  The first is the epidemic of adultery within the church.  Solutions exist to solve this problem but the first step is to refute the lies and teach the truth.

The second problem impacts not just the church but the culture as well.  The early church’s teaching that men and women are held to the same standard of sexual morality is to say that men and women are equal.  Thus, the church is the creator of the moral foundation of feminism and feminism cannot be defeated within the church until that pernicious doctrine is rejected by the church.

In order to reject the the adultery within the church and the moral foundation of feminism, the church must teach and preach the standards of sexual morality that are contained within the Bible, not the lies they have been preaching and teaching for 1500 years.  Men must accept the responsibility of the role they were given, by God and women must accept the role they were given, by God.

Men and women are not equal and they are not held to the same standards.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Biblical Illiteracy, Churchianity, Marriage. Bookmark the permalink.

53 Responses to Dishonest Dalrock Thinks He Won

  1. fuzziewuzziebear says:

    Toad,
    While our opinions differ, I have found out what it is like to be mobbed and I don’t like it either. It may not be fair to call Dalrock a Churchian. It is hard to shed all the prejudice. We are always left with something. However, I will not read comment threads over there.

  2. fuzziewuzziebear says:

    I saw this and thought that you might get a laugh out of it. This is legal in Chechnya, they’re Muslim. It is also practical, they’re poor.

    Thi9s might have stopped the Boston Marathon bombers.

  3. SnapperTrx says:

    Honestly I have searched my bible a number of times for ways to dispute your logic and it just isn’t there. When I was younger I wondered why the whole ceremony wasn’t in the bible, and thought it odd that the OT shows several examples of women getting married without them really having them to do anything about it. I mean, it just says, plain as day, if she has sex with a guy she is now his wife. You explain it pretty well and I just don’t see anything in the bible that contradicts what you say, or vice versa. Its eye opening and somewhat frightening. I can understand why some people would not want to accept it.

    • It is extremely difficult to disregard tradition and acknowledge that what has traditionally been taught is a lie. Men have an especially difficult time with this if the woman they purported to marry wasn’t a virgin.

      For those men who are red-pilled, it’s obvious that a lot of wives would love to hear this because it means they can get out of their marriage without being the “bad guy”.

      Then too, the entire issue devolves to whether or not the consent of the virgin is necessary for her to be married (it’s not) and modern feminism is adamant that the virgin must consent to marriage before she is married (Roman law).

      The Bible makes it clear that men and women are not equal and men and women have separate standards of sexual morality. The early church changed that, claiming that men and women were held to the same standard of sexual morality. That false doctrine is the moral foundation of feminism. Women were created by God from man, for man, to be a helper to a man as his wife and the mother of his children. As Genesis 3;16 clearly states, “he shall rule over you.”

      • SnapperTrx says:

        I also think that modern Christian men are absolutely terrified of picking up the mantle of authority they have been given by God and leading their wives in a manner that is contrary to popular belief. Instead of caving every time the wife fusses or throws a fit he would have the responsibility to administer discipline to keep her rebellion from growing. Modern Christian men cannot handle that because they have been feminized. Even myself, who have been reading your blog and consuming red-pill theology and studying my bible deeper have trouble keeping my mind on track and not reverting back to the “just let it slide” mentality. Thus, modern Christian men may even understand what your saying is true, but just not be able to change their reality to it. They have been raised bowing to the idol of ‘equality’, and are to afraid to turn away from it. Even a moderate reading of the scriptures proves out that men and women are held to different standards by God and have different roles to play.

        • “I also think that modern Christian men are absolutely terrified of picking up the mantle of authority they have been given by God”

          I believe you are correct. I’m also slowly coming to the conclusion that it’s this attitude that caused men to accept feminism in the first place. I don’t teach for the average church-goer because they’re lost in their delusions, living in a fools paradise. There is a remnant, however, who need to be able to hear it. I write for them.

          “modern Christian men may even understand what your saying is true, but just not be able to change their reality to it. They have been raised bowing to the idol of ‘equality’, and are to afraid to turn away from it.”

          Feminism, I believe, is the foremost of the “degrading passions” written of in Romans 1:26. Feminism’s demand for equality is a rejection of God’s design and purpose for women, which was to be a helper, wife and mother for her husband, under his complete authority. It is a form of idolatry and I believe we are now in the generation of “depraved minds” (Romans 1:28) which causes people to believe this garbage.

          • Toad, you once wrote that a man who marries a non-virgin, while her the man who took her virginity is still alive and has not divorced her, is not biblically married. This understanding would psychologically help Christian men who are divorced from women – divorces initiated by women – who believe a) the their marriage was valid and b) that they are still married as per Jesus’ declaration that marriage is forever; for, an invalid marriage cannot “be forever.”

            I say this because I have a younger (40s) friend who is emotionally and financially destroying himself because he believes that as Christian, he is still married to the non-virgin he married and who divorced him.

        • The armed might of the State is the main deterrent keeping men from living a biblical marriage.

  4. Stephen says:

    Good to see you back writing AT!

  5. Caleb says:

    Dalrock is scared of the implication like most churchian men these days . . . he likely married a “used” woman and doesn’t want to accept the truth and separate from her and split his family. I see no difference between this scenario and say two homosexual men living together as “partners”, adopting children and then later coming to their senses and God. These men have to stop living as homosexuals; grace doesn’t change God’s prohibition on this sin. Likewise, an adulterer must stop committing adultery; whether it is hard and children have been born of it is irrelevant.

    • Caleb

      You make the same mistake many have made, assuming that the situation requires that the couple separate. I have repeatedly pointed out that solutions exist. First and foremost is the father’s authority to forbid his daughter’s agreement to marry (Numbers 30:5). Second is the authority of a non-Christian man to divorce his wife for adultery (Deut. 24:1, Matthew 19:9). The third is the refusal of the non-Christian husband to live with his wife, in which case she is free (1st Cor. 7:15)

      There are other workarounds as well, they are just a bit more complicated.

      To compare this situation to a couple of homosexual men is ridiculous because there is no path by which homosexual men might live together and continue having sex with each other. All that must be done for the men and women caught in this trap is to end the first marriage. God provided multiple ways to do that.

      • Stephen says:

        I think many of Dalrock’s commenters don’t like that God allows greater sexual possibilities for men. For instance, they are always having a neurotic fit over the idea of polygamy. Many of them seem to care less about God’s desires and designs for humanity then going on and on about how everyone should practice hard monogamy and missionary position vanilla sex.

        • SnapperTrx says:

          As I said in my earlier comment, it just doesn’t fit into the reality of most modern men who have been taught from childhood that women are precious and should be treated with the utmost care and respect, and that men and women should be equal. Though many red-pilled men have an awakening many likely still find it a struggle to fully change the way their world works. I myself struggle with this. I know what the truth is and have seen it in action. Despite it proving out to be true and real it is still difficult at times to change my own reality and my own actions. That good ol’ human resistance to change. I would bet that most of the men responding to Dalrocks page are similar. Willing to go so far, but only so far before reality warp becomes too real and too far from their comfort zone.

  6. SnapperTrx says:

    I like to view scriptural situations in this manner, sometimes:

    If I were a guy in a remote jungle, without a society, and I found a bible and read it, what conclusions would I come to from what is written?

    If I were such a guy and I read the words of the bible I can only reach the conclusion that sex = marriage. Why? Because there is nothing else in the bible about a path to marriage! No instructions on ceremonies or steps to take. I mean, sure weddings are mentioned, but they are mentioned not as the path to marriage, but more as a celebration of. The words of the OT, particularly verses about a virgin being seduced into marriage or raped into marriage, as well as the versus about the family “checking the bedsheets” if a man accuses his wife of not being a virgin, can lead to no other conclusion!

    Certainly there is some revelation through the holy spirit to be had (otherwise I might be plucking out my own eye or hating my parents), but really I don’t see how one can come to any other conclusion regarding marriage.

  7. Hose_B says:

    Toad,
    I’m sorry to see things devolve between you and Dalrock. I find both of your blogs to be insightful and enlightening. I will continue to check in.

  8. Bart says:

    Toad, I don’t understand one point of your arguments.

    You argue that divorced or widowed women must consent to marriage (not sex only like the Virgin). Divorced or widowed women can just go around banging dudes, and not be married.

    When Paul said that sex with a hooker creates a “one flesh union”, then it seems to me that sex with a widow or divorced woman does as well.

    To me, it seems the Bible teaches that sex always creates a marriage (unless the woman is already married, where it is adultery).

    Do you have an article explaining your view on this?

    Thanks

    • SnapperTrx says:

      I don’t know how you don’t understand:

      1. Virgin is under authority of her father. That authority gets transferred to her husband when she gets married (ie: sex).

      2. If husband dies (on in a couple of other situations) she is no longer under they authority of her husband and thus has agency and can make decisions of her own accord (authority doesn’t go back to father), which wasn’t the case while she was in her fathers home or had a husband (according to the OT, father or husband could negate any of her agreements).

      3. She is no longer a virgin, so no “you broke it, you own it” via sex, and since she has her own agency she can determine if sex = I agree to marry or not. Essentially the man invites her into marriage via sex and she has agency to agree or not, even if they have already done the deed.

      • Bart says:

        Thanks Snapper,
        I understand the issue of authority, and consent.

        I also understand that sex intercourse is the act that establishes marriage

        Sex equals – one-flesh equals – marriage (or adultery if it involves a married woman).

        Consenting to sex means consent to marriage for both men and women.

        The widow or divorced woman has authority to consent for herself, and does so when she has sex with a man.

        At least that is my current view on the issue.

        • Bart says:

          Maybe the widow or divorced woman has the authority to nullify the marriage in the case of rape (like the father did).

          If she nullified in the case of seduction, she would impute guilt to herself.

    • SnapperTrx says:

      Don’t mean to come off sounding smarter than I am. Toad has a number of articles on his blog, more than enough to prove his point. Everything can be traced back to the bible and verified, and as I said in an earlier comment, I have looked through many times to see if this holds water and it does, supposing some other information doesn’t come up to disprove it. There’s no section in the bible that describes a “proper wedding” like we know now or have known for however many thousands of years. A wedding may be a celebration of a marriage, but it is not what makes the marriage. The OT shows us that a marriage can happen sans witnesses, parties or cakes. Since nothing else in the bible changes that or points toward something else we can feel safe assuming it still works the way described back then.

    • “When Paul said that sex with a hooker creates a “one flesh union”, then it seems to me that sex with a widow or divorced woman does as well.”

      That is correct. However, the Bible does not teach that sex always creates a marriage. What the Bible does teach is that the man gives his commitment to marry every time he has intercourse with a woman. Women, however, have status issues. Eligible virgins are always married with the act of sexual intercourse. Non-virgins must agree because they have the right to choose who to marry (1st Corinthians 7:39) and they are not under the authority of any man so their agreements are binding upon them (Numbers 30:9)

      I will be writing a post on status and agency soon that will explain the issues of status (virgin and non-virgin; slave and free; Christian and non-Christian) and agency (men vs women and virgins vs non-virgins).

      • Bart says:

        Thanks. I appreciate your comments. It seems that “one flesh” in Genesis 2 (and the Corinthians passage) refers to a marital union.

        Thus, if a widow or divorced woman spreads her legs for a man, then she just gave her consent to marriage. (Was this what Ruth was proposing to Boaz?). It seems like consent to sex means consent to marriage.
        Maybe I’m still missing something. I’ll be sure to read your upcoming articles.
        Thanks again.

        • Bart

          ” It seems that “one flesh” in Genesis 2 (and the Corinthians passage) refers to a marital union.”

          Actually, no, which is the reason that prostitutes are not married to the first customer and committing adultery with all the rest. I suspect the problem is you (along with most) don’t understand what sex is from a Biblical perspective.

          If we go to the 1st Commandment of God to man, God told man to be fruitful and multiply, to fill the earth and subdue it, to take dominion over it. That is the mission of man. For that reason, men have a physical need for sex and men have a desire to conquer and be in control.

          Note that Eve wasn’t around when God gave man his mission. Later, after God brought all the animals to Adam to see what he would name them, Adam realized there was no helper for him. So, instead of creating Eve from the dust of the ground as He did with Adam, God put Adam into a deep sleep and created Eve from one of Adam’s ribs. Woman (meaning “taken from man”) was created to be a helper to man to assist him in accomplishing his mission.

          Adam woke up with Eve beside him and he jumped her. The next thing we see is that God said “For this cause a man…” or “For this reason a man…” at the beginning of Genesis 2:24. What is the cause or reason? Being fruitful and multiplying. Children are to be brought up within the container known as family with a father in charge and his wife assisting him, under his authority.

          Genesis 2:24 is the Law of Marriage and the grant of authority from God to the man to marry. In order to fully understand what it means, it’s necessary to read what Jesus said about it in Matthew 19:3-9. God makes the two one flesh, not the man. Paul compared the one-flesh union to the one-body union of the believer in Christ (Ephesians 5:28-32).

          Read the post “Biblical Marriage” in the “Theology For Men of the West” series (linked in the blog header) and that should explain how marriage is begun. The posts on becoming one flesh should also be helpful.

          Sexual intercourse is the definitive act by the man that marries a woman. Note that the word “marries” is a verb. This is why I have stated before that a man gives his commitment to marriage every time he has sex. Within marriage he reaffirms his commitment to the marriage with every act. It is the man’s action but the outcome of that act depends on the status of the woman.

          In the judgment of Exodus 22:16-16 the woman is clearly identified as a virgin not betrothed, a woman who is eligible for marriage. In the judgments of Deuteronomy 22:22-29, we see that the act of sex is treated differently based on the status of the woman. Note that the status of the woman is clearly identified each time and in all those judgments the woman was a married woman, a virgin betrothed (ineligible) or a virgin not betrothed (eligible).

          God places a heavy emphasis on status. Note also that there is no mention of the non-virgin, unmarried woman because there is no one-size-fits-all solution, because she has a choice in whether she is married to the man or not. I’ll get more into the nitty-gritty of status when I do a post on that.

          • AmicusC says:

            “Adam woke up with Eve beside him and he jumped her.”

            This is factually wrong. Genisis:

            So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and then closed up the place with flesh.22 Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

            23 The man said,

            “This is now bone of my bones
                and flesh of my flesh
            she shall be called “‘woman,’
                for she was taken out of man

            24 That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one fl

            Adam was awake when God brought eve to be named woman and nothing in those sections mentions sex other than your Reliance on cleave (kollao) which I address below

  9. AmicusC says:

    I am unsure how
    “According to that argument, either God got it wrong in Genesis 2:24 and Adam and Eve were not married because they didn’t have the Dalrock Special Sauce™, or Adam and Eve were not married because Eve was a whore. For some reason Dalrock didn’t respond to that.”

    applies to “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh”

    if sex creates the marriage why would God say hold fast to his wife and they shall become one flesh. shouldn’t the become one flesh come first if sex = marriage? also wouldn’t the use of wife rather than wives imply lead to the logical conclusion you can only have one.

    The Importance of Dalrock’s 1st Cor. 7 Argument

    1st. cor 7:
    7 Now for the matters you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” 2 But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. 3 The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. 5 Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6 I say this as a concession, not as a command. 7 I wish that all of you were as I am. But each of you has your own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.

    8 Now to the unmarried[a] and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. 9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

    how do you read 1st cor 7:1 and 7:2 without acknowledging the sexual immorality being referred to is having sexual relations with someone that is not your wife. alternatively how do you read those two together and suggest that 7:2 is only referring to your approved previous list of sexual immorality definitions rather than expanding on it given there is no reference to any of the sexual immorality you refer to in your other article?

    “Paul specifically addressed sex outside marriage in 1st Corinthians 7:1.”

    more accurately Paul specifically refers to unmarried and widowed in 7:8 that they should remain unmarried unless they can not control themselves, which logically refers to sex with anyone not your spouse especially as it comes after 7:5 “…Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control”

    ” However, “sex outside marriage” is not prohibited and when Paul addressed the issue directly, all he had to say on the subject was (paraphrasing)”

    could you further comment on 1st cor 6:9:
    Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind.

    Given your assertion that sex = marriage what biblical passages allows one to determine when it does and does not = sex “He knew that marriage begins with sex and sometimes… sex “outside marriage” is just sex that doesn’t result in marriage and it’s not sin.” not withstanding the previous texts regarding sex outside of marriage being immoral, prohibited as fornication, and that one should remain unmarried unless they can not control themselves.

    as for the Deuteronomy 22:28-29 is she still the fornicators wife if he doesn’t pay 50 shekles?

    I have one final question given this appears to be a commentary based on the lack steps or definition of marriage in the bible; can you elaborate on the procedure for a man to divorce his wife? I have not seen a definition or the steps laid out in the bible for the process of divorce.

    • AmicusC

      “if sex creates the marriage why would God say hold fast to his wife and they shall become one flesh. shouldn’t the become one flesh come first if sex = marriage?”

      Becoming one flesh is not the act of sexual intercourse, it is the result of sexual intercourse. The man has sex with the woman, God makes them one flesh (c.f. Matthew 19:5-6).

      “wouldn’t the use of wife rather than wives imply lead to the logical conclusion you can only have one.”

      Use of the word “wife” makes the instruction universal. Use of the word “wives” would make the instruction apply only to families with more than one wife.

      Dalrock pointed to the fact that according to 1 Cor. 6:16, prostitutes have sex with their customers and become one flesh with them, but they are not married. (This is correct but the reason is because of their status) Dalrock then claimed that because non-virgins have sex and become one flesh, that something more is needed. Having sex and becoming one flesh does not make one married. The problem with that is Eve was a virgin and she and Adam were married when they had sex and God made them one flesh. However, they didn’t have any of the Special Sauce™ that Dalrock claims is necessary, so according to Dalrock’s doctrine, they were not married. Again, according to Dalrock, either God got it wrong in Genesis 2:24 because He neglected to include instructions on the Special Sauce™, or Eve was a whore.

      Go to this link:

      https://artisanaltoadshall.wordpress.com/theology-for-men-of-the-west/

      Read the post entitled “Biblical Marriage” as well as the posts on becoming one flesh. Most Christians have never studied these issues, accepting the doctrine they have been traditionally taught as the truth. All of them are well worth reading.

      “how do you read 1st cor 7:1 and 7:2 without acknowledging the sexual immorality being referred to is having sexual relations with someone that is not your wife.”

      According to Romans 4:15 and 5:13, Where there is no Law there is no violation and where there is no violation there is no sin imputed. The term sexual immorality also includes the New Testament instruction on sexual morality which is pretty much no sex with prostitutes, no marrying non-Christians and no divorce for any reason. So, what is Paul referring to as “sexual immorality”?

      The answer is the specific acts/relationships that God prohibited in His Law, plus the prohibition in the NT of 1st Cor. 6:15-16 that forbids Christian men from having sex with prostitutes.

      There is no prohibition against having “sex outside marriage” because marriage begins with sex. A man and woman are not married until they have sex and no amount of hand-waving or ring and vow exchanges in front of witnesses will change that. Because Genesis 2:24 tells us how marriage begins for virgins. All women are virgins when they first marry and the exceptions only prove the rule.

      “more accurately Paul specifically refers to unmarried and widowed in 7:8” that they should remain unmarried unless they can not control themselves, which logically refers to sex with anyone not your spouse especially as it comes after 7:5 “…Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control”

      That is logically incoherent. You start with the presumption that “sex outside marriage” is a sin (fornication) and proceed from there. Please demonstrate where “sex outside marriage” is a sin. In fact, please give me a biblical definition of the word “fornication”. You might want to read:

      https://artisanaltoadshall.wordpress.com/2016/03/31/fornication-premarital-sex-and-the-easter-bunny/

      and

      https://artisanaltoadshall.wordpress.com/2017/01/11/marriage-whores-and-churchians/

      The second link is a long post, but it covers Biblical sexual morality and provides some history of how the early church threw out what the Bible teaches and replaced it with Pagan ethics, Stoic philosophy and Roman law.

      Verses 2-7 are instructions to the married, but Paul was specific in saying that it was a concession, not a command (verse 6). Verses 8-9 Paul is giving advice to those who are no longer married. He fleshed out that advice in Verses 34-35:

      ” The woman who is unmarried, and the virgin, is concerned about the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and spirit; but one who is married is concerned about the things of the world, how she may please her husband. 35This I say for your own benefit; not to put a restraint upon you, but to promote what is appropriate and to secure undistracted devotion to the Lord.”

      Paul’s statement for the widows and not-married’s is that they should marry rather than burn with passion. How does one get married? With the act of sex. And what if she has to do that before she can agree to marry him? It’s not a sin.

      “as for the Deuteronomy 22:28-29 is she still the fornicators wife if he doesn’t pay 50 shekles?

      She was his wife the moment he penetrated her because that is what Genesis 2:24 says and she made no agreement her father could forbid (Numbers 30:5). Neither of them were fornicating because one thing a virgin cannot be is a whore.

      The bride price of 50 pieces of silver was over double what she was worth in Temple redemption value and in addition to that the man was forbidden to divorce her all his days. Those two things are his punishment for violating her. He’s stuck with her and cannot divorce her no matter what she does. Raping her was wrong and he shouldn’t have done that, but it doesn’t change the fact they were married with the act of sex.

      As to divorce, it depends on status. If one is under the Law, a man can divorce his wife (but only for adultery) by giving her a certificate of divorce and sending her away. If one is a slave of Christ, no divorce is allowed for any reason (1st Cor. 7:10-11). However, if a Christian’s non-believing spouse refuses to stay with them, they are free (1st Cor. 7:15).

      This post might be of use:

      https://artisanaltoadshall.wordpress.com/2016/04/10/did-jesus-really-say-a-man-commits-adultery-if-he-marries-a-divorced-woman/

      • AmicusC says:

        Ill begin with :
        “That is logically incoherent. You start with the presumption that “sex outside marriage” is a sin (fornication) and proceed from there. Please demonstrate where “sex outside marriage” is a sin. In fact, please give me a biblical definition of the word “fornication”.

        With respect that is a mischaracterization of my statement. I am proceeding from the basis of what is being said. Does the bible say sex outside of marriage is a sin or not.

        The bible speaks for itself. 1st cor 7:1 “Now for the matters you wrote about: “
        Now for the matters you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman. 2 But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband.”

        If the sexual immorality being discussed has nothing to do with having sexual relations with a women 7:1 has literally no place in this chapter. Moreover if sexual immorality has nothing to do with having sex with a woman not you wife 7:2 would not start with a “but” if sex with women outside of marriage is not immoral then that first line has literally nothing to do with the rest of the chapter. But perhaps God just likes pointless statements.

        Back to the issue of whether sex= marriage

        “as for the Deuteronomy 22:28-29 is she still the fornicators wife if he doesn’t pay 50 shekles?

        She was his wife the moment he penetrated her because that is what Genesis 2:24 says and she made no agreement her father could forbid (Numbers 30:5). Neither of them were fornicating because one thing a virgin cannot be is a whore.”

        If sex = marriage why does Deuteronomy 22:28-29 specifically state the virgin only becomes the wife if they are found out. In that vien why does it further state she shall be his wife because he humbled her. Why would God need to specify that if as you say she was his wife at the time of penetration? If she was already his wife God would not need to specify that she isn’t his wife until they are found out and he pays 50 shekels. I have reproduced
        Deuteronomy 22:28-29 below for your ease of reference

        If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her, and they are found out, 29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the young woman’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her; he shall not be permitted to divorce her all his days

        I tried in my last comment to reproduce your image regarding why u believe genesis says sex = marriage but didn’t work I hope u know the image to which I refer. In any event it appears you argument hinges on cleave to the wife as the part regarding penetrative sex i am curious if u can identify why cleave = penetration especially as I don’t believe the bible requires penetrative sex with God yet asks us to cleave to him see for example Deuteronomy 13:4

        4 Ye shall walk after the Lord your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him.

        But I guess our definitions of kollao differ yours means penetrate mine means:

         kollao, “to adhere to,” or “to join one’s self to.” This meaning is the reverse of the preceding. The Psalmist speaks of his tongue cleaving to the roof of his mouth (Psalms 137:6). We are told that a man should cleave unto his wife (Genesis 2:24;Matthew 19:5). It is said that Ru clave unto her mother-in-law (Ruth 1:14), and that certain men clave unto Paul (Acts 17:34; compare Acts 4:23; 11:23 margin).

        “Cleave” is also used in this sense to describe one’s adherence to principles. Paul admonished the Romans to cleave to that which is good (Romans 12:9).

        • Hose_B says:

          @AmicusC
          It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman. 2 But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband.”

          I believe this was addressing the problems of HUSBANDS not having sex with their WIVES. The phrase “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman” is referring to remaining celibate so that you can focus your efforts on God. Put another way…..It is good for a man not to marry. Jesus told his disciples this. for the man that does not marry is consumed with pleasing God, but the man that marries pleases his wife.
          So even though it is good for a man NOT to marry, IF HE IS MARRIED, then he has an OBLIGATION to have sex with his wife as this is the prescription to sexual temptations. So not deny each other, except by mutual agreement and for a time, so that you may pray.

          They were neglecting the sexual needs of their spouses, which leads to sexual immorality.
          this doesn’t actually address whether having sex with eligible nonvirgins is allowed, condoned, forbidden etc. Honestly, I’d have trouble finding an “eliglible nonvirgin” by the criteria Toad sets forth. Doesn’t mean its wrong, just murky.

          • AmicusC says:

            your reply is a complete reordering of Corinthians. if the issue was not having sex with your wife that would have been stated. as it was in Corinthians 7:5 instead what is said is it is good to not have sex with women. but since that is happening, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband

            the “but” ties the first sentence to the second. they are intertwined.

            the issue of not sexually satisfying your spouse is dealt with in Corinthians 7:5 “Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control”

            7:2 and 7:5 are the basis for only one wife and only having sex with your wife. that’s why it says each man with his wife not wives, and the temptation from satan regarding control is sex with anyone not your wife. otherwise if our host is correct God has written about a temptation from satan that is impossible to tempt man since according to the host the man is able to have sexual relations with any woman at any time despite what Corinthians states. (yes i am aware he acknowledges one or two exceptions) put another way why would God say have sex with your wife or husband and don’t deny them so that satan cannot tempt you because of your lack of control. if as our host suggested in his original reply the sexual immorality is not about sex outside of marriage as the very first line covers, this is at best a half useless command as men cant be tempted by satan.

        • Hose_B says:

          They are entwined, but not as you say. And to clarify before I go further….I DO NOT yet agree with our host that having sex outside of marriage is not a sin……..He has points but is hardly definitively convincing. for the sake of my reply, I am not arguing for or against that point.

          1Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: [It is] good for a man not to touch a woman. 2Nevertheless, [to avoid] fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. 3Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. 4The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. 5Defraud ye not one the other, except [it be] with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency. 6

          I see no rewording in my reply. The people of Corinth were abstaining from sex withing marriage and had written asking about it being good to not touch a woman sexually. Peter explained that to avoid fornication they should marry and not defraud each other of their sexual rights.
          As for this “proving” that plural marriages are sin, I don’t accept it for a moment, and for several reasons.
          1.) God had told David that he had given him many wives and would have given him TWICE AS MANY if he had wanted them. So God is not against polygany. God does not change.
          2.) Original Greek. eautou is used when it says “his own” and idioj is used when it says “her own” Interestingly ekastoj is used both as “every man” and “every woman.” Now translation is a tricky subject, but just ponder for yourself why they used different words for “own”
          3.) The model for husbands and wives is Christ and the Church. There is one Christ, but many church members. The church members are Christs own and he can possess more than one. Christ are the church members own and many of them can have Christ.

          I don’t expect you to change your thinking based on this reply. In fact, Jesus tells us that if YOU believe that having multiple wives is sin, then it is sinful for you. Just like eating pork. Now it still MAY be a sin for the one who doesn’t believe it is a sin, but that is between that man and God.

        • AmicusC

          I responded to your points in this post on the subject of sex outside marriage and this post on the meaning of the word “but” and this post on the meaning of the words “dabaq” and “kollao”.

  10. Caleb says:

    Toad:

    The point I was trying to make but obviously failed to, was action is required if a christian wants to repent and forsake this institutionalized sin. Grace does not make adultery ok. I have heard many (protestants at least) defend marriages to divorced women by arguing it was only adultery when they married and that it is not a continual sin to remain wed to such women. I think Dalrock and his amen choir believe that even uf you ate correct, grace covers it so why worry about it. I do not ascribe to this line of thinking.

  11. For years, all Dalrock has done is keep up a steady drumbeat of posts that essentially boil down to one thing:  men are losing the cultural war against feminism.  For years, Dalrock has offered no solutions to help men and churches deal with the problem of feminism.  The Dalrock message is clear:  Men are losing and there is no hope.

    If he said this, then… he’s right. Feminism ruins everything it touches and we are losing because government, the church, academia, business, even families.. are pro-feminist. And they don’t even know it.

    • IBB, no, he is not correct. We are not losing because government, academia, business and even families are pro-feminist, we are losing because the church refuses to accept what God’s Word actually says. And the leaders do know it.

      • Right. That is true as well. But that doesn’t matter since church leaders MUST preach the feminist imperative or else…. the wives (of the church) will remove the families from the church (and take their tithes with them) under full family threatpoint to their husbands. Wives pick the church. And they only want ones that are churchianity. Church leaders either preach feminism, or they starve, the mortgage doesn’t get paid, and they have to find a secular job.

  12. Anchorman says:

    Hey, AT, Christ did a lot of things we are expected to do in His name. You know, Christ-like things.

    Can you point to the part of Scripture in which Christ banged single women?

    Follow-up, how does banging single women glorify God or proceed from faith? Or does your god not expect human actions to glorify your god’s existence?

    • To answer your question, Christ did not bang any single women and thereby become their husband because that was not His mission. Further, banging single women glorifies God because that is the act by which one becomes married. God commanded man to be fruitful and multiply and that is to occur within marriage (Note that Genesis 2:24 begins with “For this cause”). Thus marrying and having children is obedience to God’s first command to man and in obedience man glorifies God.

      Now that we have that settled, have you stopped beating your wife?

    • Hey, AT, Christ did a lot of things we are expected to do in His name. You know, Christ-like things.

      Can you point to the part of Scripture in which Christ banged single women?

      Straw man.

  13. Dalrock says he didn’t ban you; but he’s banned you now, because you publicly denounced him. I can’t really blame him in that regard.

    I’ve also never seen him post defeatist stuff on his blog.

    For years, all Dalrock has done is keep up a steady drumbeat of posts that essentially boil down to one thing: men are losing the cultural war against feminism. For years, Dalrock has offered no solutions to help men and churches deal with the problem of feminism.

    Dalrock is a critical theory blog, and most of its work is illustrating the problem. All that aside, he’s peppered his site, over the years, with practical things one can do to fight back. The How to find a decent wife series is one example.

    Best,

    Boxer

  14. Trinn says:

    One thing not mentioned yet.
    Dalrock’s site is an ecumenical site.
    We live in ecumenical times when all the state-church denominational daughters of the Harlot are all forsaking their history and their doctrine and coming back together under the fold of the Mother Harlot of Rome.
    Anything tinged with ecumenism from Rome is always going to place traditions over Scripture.
    Dalrock’s site is useful for dealing with feminism, but too enamored of the traditions of men–which, for example, is why he never criticizes the ungodly, unbiblical practice of state marriage licenses and state incorporated churches.
    And for the record, I wish this website would place a little less emphasis on the multiple wives thing, not because it is unbiblical, but because so few men could ever attain to that even under a patriarchal system, and so I think that could turn even some biblical men away from taking this, more scripturally based, site more seriously.
    But at least this site makes a real effort to place Bible over traditions.

  15. John K says:

    Agree with @TRIN. Polygamy seems irrelevant to me, even a distraction, considering the state of decline that we are facing. I keep coming back to the words of Christ “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder”. I have a nagging sense that I need the Holy Spirit to give a much deeper understanding spirit and intent of those words.

  16. Pingback: Questions and Objections, Part I, 1st Corinthians 7 and “Sex Outside Marriage” | Toad's Hall

  17. necroking48 says:

    @Artisanal Toad

    Looks like you were 100% right about Dalrock all along……He is nothing but a cowardly FAGGOT who blocks and deletes comments from anyone who disagrees with him

    He just blocked me as well

    I should have trusted you Toad, it looks like Dalrock is nothing but a gutless COWARD that is only interested in pushing his own SJW agenda, whilst pretending to be a right wing Christian

    I’m done with Dalrock’s stupid blog…..seeing him and his bunch of sissy cry babies whine and whine how done in they are by women is too much for my stomach to handle, they are a bunch of LOSER wimps who need to man up as far as I’m concerned

    • Boxer says:

      Brother Necro:

      Is this a parody, or are you seriously upset? I suppose it’s perfect parody because I can’t tell which.

      The internet is equal parts fun and nonsense. Don’t take it too seriously.

      If you (and Toad, also) are seriously angry, take some time, then come back if you want later and apologize. No one will even remember it a week from now.

      Peace,

      Boxer

      • Boxer

        Angry? Not at all. Amused is more like it. Moreover, what on earth would I apologize about?

      • necroking48 says:

        @Boxer

        You were always decent to me Boxer, and I respect that

        Maybe in time I will come back later and calm down, but what I won’t tolerate is when bloggers like Dalrock start deleting comments and bans people because it disagrees with their stated “position”….it’s an act of cowardice, and it’s behavior no different than the SJW’s we despise

        Yes my 2 rants are over the top, and I will regret what I said when I calm down, I’m just too angry at the moment

        Artisanal Toad’s position on marriage cannot be refuted but Dalrock could not handle it so he banned him, and that to me is unforgivable….especially at how he tolerates all the Romish papists who infest his blog

        My beef is not with you Boxer….you are a genuinely nice guy

        Peace be upon you

        Necroking48

        • Boxer says:

          Brother Necro:

          None of my biz, and thanks for the kind words. The people who are mocking you over there are nobodies (Anonymous Reader has been a total phaggot since I found the place, and that was years ago). Don’t sweat them.

          You are welcome at my haus any time, also.

          Best,

          Boxer

          • necroking48 says:

            @Boxer

            You’re welcome my friend….I’ve always seen you as a model of how best to handle those we disagree with.

            On all these wonderful blogs, Toads, Biblical Gender Studies, yours, and even Dalrock when he’s not banning people, we’re not always going to see eye to eye but YOU always remain respectful to those you disagree with….I have learned much from you

            I guess I’ve had a gutsful of all the Celibate Roman Catholics that infest Dalrock’s blog promoting their anti-sexual asceticism, and Dalrock does nothing about them

            Anyway I feel that I shouldn’t carry my war with Dalrock over in Toad’s thread, as that’s not fair on him, so I will respond to you over in your own blog

            Regards

            Necroking48

  18. necroking48 says:

    I hope you don’t mind Artisanal Toad but I’m going to post a comment that I made on Dalrock’s blog before the FAGGOT deleted it and banned me:

    “Isn’t it funny how Dalrock lets you pagan Roman Catholics continue to promote your demonic doctrine of celibacy and DOES NOTHING to rebuke you guys…I see which side of the fence Dalrock sits on….Come on Dalrock, get in here and make a stand

    Why do you tolerate the doctrine of Devils that is consistently preached by earl, and others without rebuking them?

    I am going to continue being as confrontive and antagonistic on THIS issue until either Dalrock bans me which will show everyone that he supports the doctrine of Devils (celibacy), or he comes in here and rebukes those who teach this heretical garbage….I am suspecting that he will ban me rather than lose his membership that subscribe to him

    Typical red herring garbage being thrown around in here to defend celibacy:

    1: Christ was a pork abstaining, Sabbath observing JEW…So does that mean if I’m not doing those things I’m not a true follower of Christ?….Christ was celibate as an EXCEPTION to God’s commandments to be fruitful and multiply which was given to every man

    2: Even the Priests back in the Old Testament were commanded to take wives for them selves, not like the pagan Romanists with their clerical celibate priesthood garbage

    3: Paul said he had the right to have a wife i.e sex, like Simon Peter had…. 1st Corinthians 9:5, but being a traveling evangelist he forgo his right to have a wife….We don’t build our lives around exceptions, and there was specific reasons for those 2 men NOT to have wives

    4: The same Paul you extol, taught that those NOW in this dispensation who forbid others to marry are teaching a doctrine of DEVILS

    5: In order to avoid FORNICATION we are explicitly told to have sex with a wife …1st Corinthians 7:2…a clearer verse that speaks out against celibacy/chastity if there ever was one
    By the way, it was the Corinthians who said “it was good for a man not to touch a woman”, as they were being exposed to heretical pagan gnostic garbage …Paul never said those words

    5: Perhaps if you used the right bible (the KJV), you wouldn’t be prone to your doctrinal errors on this subject….The bible never uses the term “sexual immorality”…..that’s a man made, loose term that is found nowhere in scripture….the correct term is FORNICATION, and like myself and Artisanal Toad have tried to prove with our comments, you can’t condemn those who commit fornication if you have no idea in what that word means
    You THINK you know what it means, but you don’t

    One of the definitions of FORNICATION, which is what we as believers are to abstain from in order to follow sanctification is SODOMY ….see Jude 1:7

    FORNICATION is also defined as INCEST in 1st Corinthians 5:1….so abstaining from INCEST is God’s will in His sanctification process

    FORNICATION is also defined very clearly as sex with prostitutes

    Shall I go on?…..These verses back up my contention and have absolutely NOTHING to do with celibacy, it’s just another red herrings you pagans throw up to cloud the issue

    Like I said I’m done with Dalrock and his blog….all it is, is a platform to promote an extreme right wing conservatism, and promote the Roman Catholics and their Satanic doctrine of chastity/celibacy, whilst bitching and whining about women and how evil they are
    The only reason I’m still posting is to see if Dalrock has got the balls to come in here, be a man and confront earlthomas, red pill latecomer and all the rest of the Romanists and rebuke them publicly for teaching and promoting celibacy/chastity

    You mock God and HIS word at your own peril…the sex drive is so powerful that God has provided an outlet for it in order to PREVENT fornication (“to marry”), , and those who speak out against it i.e those who promote and teach celibacy/chastity are anti-Christ, and causing EVIL to flourish

    Those who teach and promote the DEMONIC doctrine that sex is for procreation and NOT for pleasure are also helping to spread the filth of celibacy via guilt association, and that view is constantly promoted on Dalrock’s blog and he says nothing

    Until you come in here Dalrock and address my concerns, I do not see you as a fellow brother in Christ, I see you as a Roman Catholic sympathizer who promotes and supports celibacy
    We’re not talking about a minor trivial doctrine here, this is a major and important doctrinal truth

    Banning me will only prove that I’m right….this issue is NOT about me and my rants any more, it’s about exposing doctrinal error, and a willingness to stand for the truth, even if it means you lose your subscriber base cause you offended them”

    Dalrock is scum of the earth that is pretending to be a Christian, he also is a gutless coward who will block and ban you when you start to expose his demonic beliefs

    I really appreciate you allowing me to post this Toad…many thanks

    • Boxer says:

      Brother Necro:

      Have you ever considered starting your own free blog at wordpress or blogspot? You could get much more play in writing this sort of critical theory if you had your own site. If you do this, I’ll publicize it and do what I can to help you build an audience.

      I like Dalrock (and I like you and Toad, too). The internet is a big place, and there’s room for all points of view.

      Best,

      Boxer

      • necroking48 says:

        @Boxer

        Much appreciated brother

        I don’t have time this weekend, but I would love to learn how to do it, so I’ll be back, rest assured, and come and seek your knowledge

        I keep expecting Artisanal Toad to come in here and drop a nuclear bomb on me for continually posting in his thread lol…..so it would be better if I learn how to do this myself over on my own blog, instead of cluttering up Toad’s

        Take care Boxer, Toad
        and have a nice week/weekend….I will be busy so I might not have time to respond straight away

        Regards

        Necroking48

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