Dishonest Dalrock The Feminist


Dishonest Dalrock

On August 9th, Dalrock posted an essay titled “Is Marriage The Cause Of Sexual Immorality?” (archived) and most people think it was aimed at me.  It was, but the real issue behind it was an attack on the idea that only God gets to decide what sin is.  This was his opening:

There is a recurring argument in the comment threads which claims that some forms of extramarital sex are not prohibited.  The argument is that fornication isn’t a biblical concept, and only a small set of defined extramarital sex activities are prohibited:

  1. Adultery.  Sex with a woman who is another man’s wife, or sex with a woman who is not your wife (but for this latter definition only if you are married).
  2. Sex with a virgin.  But after another man has had sex with a virgin, she is fair game unless one of you is married.
  3. Sex with prostitutes.  Some claim this is only a prohibition against sex with certain kinds of prostitutes (e.g. pagan temple prostitutes).
  4. Incest.
  5. Bestiality.
  6. Homosexuality.

All other forms of sex outside of marriage are then claimed to be permitted.

Anyone who reads this blog knows I certainly don’t teach that, so obviously Dalrock set up a strawman in order to knock it down and declare victory.

I responded and argued that according to what the Bible actually says, the eligible virgin is married when she has sex, because that is what Genesis 2:24 actually says.  The churchian idea of “premarital sex” is not a sin.  Naturally, he disagreed.  His first major thrust was to say that I got it wrong, Romans 4:15 and 5:13 doesn’t actually mean what it says, it means something else.

No. Both of those passages are explaining that sin is rebellion against God and His instructions. Eating the fruit of knowledge of good and evil was not part of the Law. But it was a transgression against the specific instructions God gave Adam.

Ironically you are using these two passages to argue that you can disregard the instructions you are given in the NT (1 Cor 7), and only follow the Law. This is the exact opposite of what Paul was saying.  Emphasis Added

Dalrock lied about what I was arguing, then on the basis of his own lie he claims I got it wrong and he is right.

Which set the stage for how he would behave going forward.

Of course sin is rebellion against God.  Violating His Law is an obvious rebellion and we can know that someone else is in rebellion when they violate His Law.  Because violating God’s Law is rebellion against God for everyone.

Then he clarified his position:

To clarify, what Paul is saying is that sin is a rebellion against the will of God, and the will of God doesn’t change. Yet we are not held accountable for violating instructions that have yet to be revealed.

The only way we know the will of God for everyone is by reading what was written down for us.  Yes, for Christians, that includes the instruction in the New Testament.  As far as the will of God for an individual, that can and does change.   He followed that with another lie:

Yet you want to do the same, disregarding NT instruction and only following the Law. Again, this was the opposite of what Paul was explaining.

Dishonest Dalrock tells more lies.  And I called him out on it.   Did he acknowledge that, retract or correct that?  Of course not.  He intended to lie about it.

Then I responded to his churchian interpretation of 1st Corinthians 7 in this comment.

Paul began that instruction saying he wrote to them that it was good not to touch a woman, but “because of sexual immorality…” and went on to give instruction on sex within marriage.   What Dalrock (and all the other churchian bros) is trying to do is claim that because Paul pointed to sexual immorality and then talked about sex inside marriage, that must mean sex outside marriage is immoral.  The problem with their argument is simple:  sexual immorality is well defined and “sex outside marriage” is not sexual immorality unless it’s adultery, male homosexuality or incest.


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

What Paul actually said in 1st Corinthians 7 is that because of the temptations all the sexual immorality around them, 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 to and neither can say no 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.

The text 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.


It Is Good Not To Touch A Woman

Paul DID NOT say it was good not to touch your wife, he said it was “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 that is translated into English as “woman” is gynaikos, a form ofguné.   Given 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 knowing her in the Biblical sense is, by definition, sex outside marriage.

Thus, we see that Paul squarely addressed the idea of “sex outside marriage” and did not condemn or prohibit such activity.  Adultery, which is the sin of a married woman having sex with a man who is not her husband, is forbidden.  So is incest and male homosexuality.  These are known as “sexual immorality” because they are 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.

“It’s good not to have sex with a woman you’re not married to.”  Which means Paul is acknowledging that you can, it isn’t a sin, but it’s good not to.  That sets the tone for the following instruction to come across as “it’s better to have sex with your spouse if you’re going to have sex.”


Why Focus On Sex Outside Of Marriage?

It’s very simple.  According to what the Bible actually teaches (as opposed to modern doctrines), at least 80% of the couples in church today are living in adultery because the woman was not a virgin when they had their wedding.  She was already married to another man, so the wedding was a fraud.

For that reason alone Dalrock must defeat the doctrine that an eligible virgin is married when she has sex, in any way possible.

Dalrock is using the “sex outside marriage is a sin” argument to claim that a virgin is not married when she has sex…  because it’s a sin that can be forgiven and she can go on with her life.  The claim that “sex outside marriage” is a sin opens the door to the claim that there must be some extra requirement of Special Sauce that makes a person married.  Dalrock claims that the requirements of Genesis 2:24 aren’t enough, that God got it wrong.  Unfortunately for Dalrock, the text does not support his claims.  This proved to be a recurring theme with Dalrock citing text to support his claims without understanding what the text actually says/means.

After that the thread descended into a Cat-Prot foodfight over fapping.

Then, in this comment Dalrock lied again and declared victory.

That got a response from me in this comment and once again, I pointed out that Dalrock was lying.  Then I responded to various others in this comment and here and here and here.

After that, Dalrock complained that I write too much and proved he does not understand Numbers 30:3-5.

For example, in this comment you wrote 1843 words, explaining that a virgin’s consent is irrelevant to whether she becomes married, it is sex that marries her. Then you explain that a father can stop sex from making his virgin daughter a wife, because he can revoke her consent.

Oh, and he declared victory.  Again.  However, it was getting pretty obvious he had to do something because he was obviously refusing to address the one point I was making…  which meant that he was losing control of the narrative.  If I’m so wrong, he should be able to refute me easily, right?


Controlling The Narrative Is To Control The Power

The “Sin is Rebellion Against God! position means there has to be either an individual or group of religious leaders who get to decide what sin is for everyone. Because rebellion. That puts them in the drivers seat with the ability to call people out for “SIN” and shame them.  And for hundreds and hundreds of years they have been calling “SIN” on things that God didn’t say were sin. In fact, God’s Law contains a prohibition (repeated twice) that prohibits doing that (Deuteronomy 4:2 and 12:32).

Since the Nicolaitans of the early church took over, they have been doing this.  In fact, it reached the point they had so much power they would punish anyone who disagreed with their ideas of what sin was, sometimes killing them.

One of the ways they ensured their control of the narrative was through their control of the Scriptures.  Even if one could actually get hold of a Bible, it was meaningless without the ability to read Latin.  In order to know what God said, one had to ask a priest.   Only the highly educated could read Greek and Latin and even then, they had to get access to that book in order to read it.

What happened if anyone tried to translate the Scriptures into the common tongue of the people of any given place?  They were killed and the translations destroyed.  Why?  Because as soon as the so-called “common man” was able to read what God had to say for himself, the religious leaders lost control of the narrative.  And guess what happened when technology stepped in and changed things?  The printing press showed up and the Bible not only got translated into the vernacular, it got reproduced rapidly and for a very low cost.  The result was the Protestant revolution.

The problem with the Protestant “reformation” was just that.  It was attempting to reform the abuses they saw in the church, but the idea that sex was intrinsically evil had become part of the culture.  The seeds of feminism had been sown and they didn’t root them out.

Religion is a big business with a lot of money on the table.  Central to the narrative was the church being in control of sex by controlling marriage.   The Protestant Reformation did nothing to change that.  The power of the church is their ability to sway public opinion and the ability to shame people, which is a very powerful tool.   Which is the reason the church decided to take control of sex.  Why?  Because…

When you’ve got them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow.

The problem with the church taking control of marriage was that God put the individual man in charge of that.  Genesis 2:24 begins with the words

“For this cause, a man shall…”

In order to get around this, the church created a new SIN, which the church defined as any sex outside of marriage.  As I’ve pointed out in the past, fornication is a sin, but it’s the sin of a Christian man having sex with a prostitute.  The church redefined “fornication” as any sex outside of marriage.   That causes a problem because if marriage begins with sex, how does one get married if sex outside marriage is a sin?  The church redefined marriage, claiming that marriage began with consent, not sex.  The church claimed that consent and consent alone made a marriage and the couple didn’t ever need to have sex.  In fact, for hundreds of years the church taught that a sexless marriage was the best marriage.

The problem  with that is the Bible is very clear that the virgin is married with the act of sex and her consent is not required or necessary.  Her father has the authority to consent or refuse to consent for her, but even in cases of rape, she’s married.  Is raping a woman a sin?  Yes, it is, but in the case described in Deuteronomy 22:28-29, she’s still married with the act of sex.  How do you punish something like that?  Remove his authority to divorce her to force him to stay married with her.  He wanted her so badly that he raped her into marriage?  He’s stuck with her.


Churchian Special Sauce Marriage

The Bible says that when a man has sex with an eligible virgin, that act creates a marriage. They have sex, God makes them one flesh and they are married.  That’s all it takes when she’s a virgin. Which means that after the woman is married, having sex with any man other than her husband is the crime of adultery.  The feminists (churchians) claim that isn’t true, a marriage has to have the Special Sauce requirement in order for God to view it as a marriage.   According to feminist churchians, without the Special Sauce the sex isn’t a marriage, it’s the sin of “premarital sex” and all the girl has to do is confess it and it goes away.

The problem with that is obvious:  Marriage is not a sin and it can’t be confessed and forgiven.  After her marriage, sex with any other man is the sin of adultery.

I have been pointing out for years that their Special Sauce isn’t a requirement in the Bible, anywhere.  The eligible virgin is married to the man who takes her virginity, which means about 80% or more of the men in church are living with a woman who was already married when he put a ring on it.  And no amount of ceremonial hand waving will take away the fact she was already married and therefore ineligible to marry again.  The ceremony is fraudulent and they are living in adultery.

We can see what God said in Genesis 2:24 and we know what it means, so where is this Special Sauce requirement in the Bible?  Obviously it’s a point that’s been getting some traction, so Dalrock felt like he had to deal with it with a post on his blog.  Dalrock asked the question:  “Is marriage the cause of sexual immorality?”

On the face of it, that looks like an easy question to answer.  I answered the question and said the church-sanctioned version of marriage we have today is causing sexual immorality.

Contrary to anyone’s opinion, a married woman does not suddenly become unmarried because you call her marriage ceremony a sin.  If she’s not a virgin then she was married at some point and the question is whether she’s still married.  If she’s still married then holding a ceremony in front of witnesses with vows and rings does not make her un-married and it does not magically make her married to the man who put the ring on her finger.  This is church-sanctioned institutionalized adultery.  Which is sexual immorality.

And I pointed it out, repeatedly.

The problem Dalrock had was there is no requirement for feminist churchian Special Sauce anywhere in the Bible and I brought that front and center.  The virgin does not need to consent in order to be married, which means that even though she didn’t know she was being married, she was.  Even if she didn’t want to be married, according to what the Bible says, she was married.  And afterward?  Sex with any other man is the sin of adultery.

So, Dishonest Dalrock had the wrong side of a losing argument.  Where’s the Special Sauce requirement?  It doesn’t exist.  So, he did what feminists always do in this situation, he lied, declared victory and changed the topic.


Let’s Talk About Whores Instead!

I made the comment that there is such a thing as a righteous prostitute and Dalrock created a new post called “Righteous prostitutes, spreading their legs without sin.”  And, I brought it right back on topic to the issue of when a marriage is created, but I said it’s OK, we can talk about whores first if you really want to.

Now we had two topics on the table, marriage and whores.  Dalrock then told two lies about marriage.  First, he claimed that God did not tell us what the marriage ceremony is (God got it wrong).  That is a lie, because the ceremony described in Genesis 2:24 is sexual intercourse, which just happens to be known as the act of marriage.  Then, Dalrock cited 1st Corinthians 6:16, which clearly says that when a man has sex with a prostitute, he becomes one flesh with her, but they are not married.  Therefore, having sex and becoming one flesh does not make one married, there has to be more.  There obviously has to be Special Sauce.

That was a masterful rhetorical sleight of hand, but the subject was virgins, not whores.


There Is A Status Difference Between Virgins And Whores

If Dalrock is correct and the act of having sex and becoming one flesh cannot make any woman married, then Adam and Eve were not married.  According to Dalrock, either God got it wrong in Genesis 2:24 and neglected to include the requirement for Special Sauce, or Eve was a whore.  And, I pointed that out.

Genesis 2;24 is incomplete and Adam and Eve were not married (Special Sauce™ needed because God didn’t get it right).
Genesis 2:24 is complete but Adam and Eve were not married because Eve was a whore.
Dalrock is wrong. Genesis 2:24 is complete and it contains God’s specific ceremony for marriage (sex), so when Adam and the eligible virgin Eve had sex God made them one flesh and they were married.

Only one can be true.

The correct answer is Dalrock is wrong.

God did not get it wrong and Adam and Eve were married because Eve was a virgin.  Her consent was not necessary because virgins don’t have agency.  Sex is all it takes to marry them.  The proof is the case of the eligible virgin who was raped into marriage (Deuteronomy 22:28-29).  Does that mean God approves of rape?  No, but it still results in marriage.  Because when the eligible virgin has sex, God makes the two one flesh and they are married.

Why are the men not married to the whores when they have sex with them?  They had sex and became one flesh, so why were they not married?  Because the prostitutes are not virgins.  Women who are no longer bound (meaning, they are no longer married) are not virgins and they have agency, so their consent is required in order to marry them.  Numbers 30:9 states that widows and divorced women have agency.  1st Corinthians 7:39 says a woman who is no longer bound has the right to choose whom she will marry.  Legitimate prostitutes are women who are not virgins and not married, so they are only married when they agree to be married.  And prostitutes are the one group of women who won’t agree to marry a man.  They want money, up front.

That is what the Bible says and it’s irrefutable.  So, how does one deal with that?  Dalrock explained what he was doing:  don’t try to argue the facts of the message, attack the messenger.

“I don’t have to do anything other than quote AT to make him look foolish. He carefully buries the nutty stuff deep inside a wall of text. When you take it out and shine a light on it, it will always look nutty…   he is writing nutty things.”

Dalrock could not respond to the basic point because there is no Special Sauce requirement for marriage found in Scripture.  And, losing that argument, he decided to argue like a woman and changed the topic to something he thought he could win on.


Shape That Narrative!

Dalrock moved back over to the issue of prostitutes and using the text of Deuteronomy 23:18, claimed prostitutes are an abomination, so obviously prostitution is a sin.  Dalrock asked a question and then answered it:

But why can’t they pay their vows with their earnings? “because the Lord your God detests them both.”

They are an abomination, but you call them honorable and compare them to widows and farmers.

Except…  he got it wrong.  Again.  And I called him on it in this comment.  This is the short version:

Your claim that “both of these” refers to the individuals being the abomination is not supported by the text. Because once again, you only see what you want to see in Scripture and you leave things out. Like the part where God restricted that prohibition to the voluntary votive offerings but said nothing about all the required payments.

If the income from prostitution could not be brought into the House of the Lord because prostitutes are an abomination, then God could not accept any prostitution income into His house. But that isn’t what He said. He restricted it specifically to votive offerings… which are… wait for it…

voluntary payments.

But notice something else about that verse. It says the wages of a harlot and the hire of a dog… but it doesn’t say that it’s the prostitute making the offering. That leaves lots of room for pimps, panderers, corrupt officials and others who would have the prostitution income and might want to pay off the priests.

Did Dalrock respond to that?  No.  More intellectual dishonesty, again.


Losing The Argument?  Change the Topic!  RAPE!

This time the subject was Deuteronomy 22:28-29, which is one of the judgments concerning marriage, the case of the virgin that gets raped into marriage.  He had to find a way to end this, so he lied again. First, he craftily asked an emotionally loaded question: that didn’t even get my position correct.

You are arguing that Deut 22:28-29 is telling us that when the non betrothed virgin was raped, she became married so her new husband had to pay her father a bride price, not that her rapist was ordered to marry her and pay the father as restitution for his crime. If I follow your logic, raping a non betrothed virgin isn’t a sin then. Right?

Dalrock is trying to make this an either-or choice.  It isn’t, because her husband was ordered to pay a high bride-price and he was precluded from ever divorcing her, because he violated her (a sin).  The rapist is not being forced to marry her, because under that rubric, marriage is not only a punishment for him, she’s receiving the same punishment for the “crime” of being raped.

He was not being ordered to marry her, because the families, the community, the state and the church do not have the authority to command a man to marry a woman.  They were already married.  His punishment for the way he chose to marry her was a large fine and having his right to divorce her permanently removed no matter what she does.   He’s stuck with her for the rest of his life.  Because he violated her.

Commenter Podethelesser responded to that, and Dalrock replied to him in this comment:


He’s stolen the girl from her father, and pays twice the normal bride price as per the punishment/restitution for other stolen goods. So yeah, rape is a sin, just not in the way we’re used to thinking of it.

“But this goes against what Toad (and I believe at one point you) argued. According to Toad, raping a virgin is a wedding, not a crime. If it were a crime, then the OT might order punishment/restitution by saying he must marry the woman and pay her father 50 sheckles (as the text actually states). But according to Toad, he can’t be ordered to marry her because she is already his wife, so when it says he must marry her what it secretly means is he already married her. Likewise, he can’t have raped her, because she is his wife.”  Emphasis Added

The bold portion of his comment is a lie. I’ve never claimed that rape is not a crime.  In addition, Dalrock evidently doesn’t understand that she was not his wife when he raped her.   He didn’t get her agreement (which her father could either approve of or forbid) and he certainly didn’t get her father’s permission.  He had sex with her and thus married her by violating her.

Before Dalrock responded, I also responded to Podethelesser and attempted 1) to get the discussion back to the central point and 2) deal with the two issues concerning prostitution that he’d raised.   However, at the beginning of that comment I responded to Dalrock’s comment concerning Deuteronomy 22:28-29.


The rapist has committed the act and is being forced to carry out the attendant duties as well.

Yes. He committed to marriage with the act of marriage with an eligible virgin, an irreparable and permanent act. He is married to her and he is being forced to carry out the attendant duties as well. (Emphasis Added)


In other words, contrary to Dalrock’s assertion, he is not being forced to marry her as punishment.  Otherwise we have God saying that men are punished with marriage and the woman is being punished as well, simply for being raped.  With that done, I responded to Dalrock’s question by asking for clarification.

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?

Dalrock responded in this comment, which danced the feminist line regarding the father’s authority and brings it back to the issue of consent.

But since you asked, yes, rape is a sin, and that would include raping a virgin.

Notice that the question I asked concerned whether the father had the authority to give his daughters consent for her and allow the man he chose to have sex with her whether she wanted to or not.  Which is exactly what God did with Eve.   Nobody asked Eve her opinion.  Dalrock staked out the very feminist position that the father does NOT have the authority to grant consent for his daughter.

Then Dalrock lied again.

After all, the verses in question are according to you regulating surprise marriages, not prescribing punishment.

That is not true, because he violated her and I’ve made that point repeatedly.  However, my question was about the father giving away his daughter.  The Bible is clear that the father does have the authority to give his daughter in marriage to the man he chooses, whether she likes it or not.   He has the authority to sell her into slavery (for life) to be another man’s concubine.

The issue central to this entire argument is the virgin’s consent.  Dalrock does not want to continue that because he already knows that Scripture does not support his point of view and Deuteronomy 22:28-29 demonstrates that fact rather decisively.  So, losing the argument badly, he did what you’d expect…

He banned me.

I believe Dalrock understands what the Bible actually says.  He could not have argued the way he did without understanding, but apparently he doesn’t approve of God’s Word.  He didn’t just lie about me, he lied about what God’s Word says.

Further, he knowingly chose to lead others astray.


3 Responses to Dishonest Dalrock The Feminist

  1. Pingback: Dishonest Dalrock Thinks He Won | Toad's Hall

  2. Mycroft Jones says:

    No. The central issue is the FATHER’s consent. If Dalrock muffed that, then he needs to revisit the topic.

    • He will not and cannot revisit the issue because he cannot tolerate what the Bible actually says.

      Does the Father have the authority to give his daughter’s consent for her and give her to a man of his choosing? The answer is yes. Which means that when the husband takes his wife from her father and marries her (takes her virginity) against her will and over her objections, it isn’t rape. Because he gave her consent for her and her opinion doesn’t matter.

      He has the authority to sell her into slavery to be another man’s concubine or to be the slave-wife of one of his slaves (Exodus 21:7-11). His authority is limited by the prohibition against making his daughter a prostitute (Leviticus 19:29).

      Deuteronomy 22:28-29 demonstrates that the virgin has no agency and her consent or lack of consent is meaningless when it comes to marriage. Even if the father does not consent to the marriage. That is the part that I don’t think you’re able to wrap your head around.

      The community is not punishing the man by forcing him to marry the woman (which would be punishing her too AND denying the father the right to refuse to consent on her behalf), because the act of sex makes them married AND they have no authority to command a man to be married to any woman. Numbers 30:5 is limits the father to forbidding agreements she made and in the case of rape there is no agreement he can forbid.

      If she was seduced, she agreed and her father can allow the marriage or forbid it (Exodus 22:16-17). However, in the case of rape (she made no agreement he could forbid and he did not give his consent), if they are discovered they are married because there are witnesses to the fact that she made no agreement.

      Again, Dalrock cannot and will not deal with this in any kind of a rational manner because feminism is completely opposed to what the Bible actually says.

      The point is that if the virgin has no agency then it doesn’t matter that she didn’t know that giving some guy her virginity was the act of marrying him. It wouldn’t have mattered if she’d known or not, the act alone makes the virgin married. That is intolerable to Dalrock and he cannot address it.

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