We are at over 750 comments in the discussion of Is marriage the cause of sexual immorality? and I assume that most readers (like myself), have not carefully read all 750+ of the comments. With this in mind, I offer an update of sorts, with a Artisanal Toad’s description of righteous Christian prostitutes:
That’s the “loophole” that allows prostitutes. Righteous prostitutes who are not in sin when they spread their legs for paying customers.
That makes modern churchians scream in outrage, but the fact is, God knew all about women when He gave His Law, and He chose not to forbid ordinary payment-for-sex prostitution. He did choose to ban cult prostitutes, which points to the fact He didn’t have anything to say about ordinary non-idolatry prostitutes. And the Lord could easily have had one of the Apostles state a prohibition on Christian women working as whores, but He did not, which means He chose not to.
You can see the original comment here, but will have to read through 1843* words in the comment before you get to this bit, as one doesn’t merely blurt out such absurd claims upfront. You have to slowly ease people into this kind of nonsense, even when they are eager to accept it.
However, there is a loophole that closes the loophole. Christian men aren’t allowed to have sex with prostitutes:
There is nothing in Scripture that forbids a man from having sex with a woman he is eligible to marry. Because sex is how marriage begins. The only exception to that is Christian men are forbidden to have sex with prostitutes.
In a later comment Toad reiterates that prostitutes are righteous:
Prostitution isn’t even an offense and you know that… otherwise you’d have cited chapter and verse. Prostitution is the same as farming, it’s a regulated way of earning a living. And if a farmer can be righteous, so can being a prostitute.
*This makes the wall of text preceding this statement longer than my original post, which was only 1,229 words (including Scripture). And the 1843 words are just the wall of text preceding the absurd claim in that specific comment. This does not count the multiple walls of text which came before in his previous comments.
I see we’re in goalpost moving from “Polygamy isn’t a sin” to “Polygamy isn’t a bad idea” to “Polygamy is expected” right up to banging whores! (For the record, it’s not a Sin; just a really terrible idea. Like shooting yourself in the foot.)
AT would make a good Shia Muslim. They’ve actually used logic like this to make prostitution legal there. (It’s a chunk of the reason that, while they’ll use terror tactics, they don’t use suicide attacks.)
“Marriage begins with sex.”
No, sex begins with marriage.
C’mon Artisanal Toad, you’re smarter than this.
Dalrock, love the blog but why do you let the comments section descend into the depths it does?
Yeah this is a person who doesn’t understand what sex entails at all…trying to reduce it and justify it to a mere economic transaction and taking everything else out. Suddenly it can be righteous because there are economic transactions that are righteous. It’s along the same lines of people saying that animals have homosexual sex so it should be fine for humans too.
Pingback: Righteous prostitutes, spreading their legs free of sin. | @the_arv
Just saw the new post, so I’m moving my comment here to keep up with the discussion.
Someone may have already addressed this in the previous thread, but even if the arguments of the pro-prostitution camp held water, I would expect to find a precedent for this teaching in church history.
I’m not making a tradition vs. scripture argument. I just mean that if one cannot find a shred of evidence that anyone of any credibility in the 2,000-year history of Christianity has espoused a similar position, it should give one pause to reconsider one’s own interpretation. Surely every Christian thinker of all time wasn’t foolishly waiting in chastity for the great and wise Artisanal Toad to enlighten us on the proper way to get our rocks off.
I’ve enjoyed these posts, and agree 100% with your commentary Dalrock. But there is one loophole which would allow a man to have sex with multiple women without committing fornication or adultery and it’s this:
– marry a woman of questionable morals that doesn’t want to stay married (maybe Vegas?)
– wait for her to commit adultery
– divorce her
– repeat
You’ve breached the spirit of the scriptures and 1 Corinthians 7:39, but you haven’t committed fornication.
Ryder:
“Surely every Christian thinker of all time wasn’t foolishly waiting in chastity for the great and wise Artisanal Toad to enlighten us on the proper way to get our rocks off.”
But how many of those Christian thinkers over the last 2000 years had wives like AT’s? Former mercenaries who could take out a Seal team without blinking an eye..but are ever-loyal to Toad. Oh, and I’m sure they look like super models, too.
Or maybe those thinkers just lack AT’s rich fantasy life.
So, back to God needing to spell out every single angle/situation/possibility, else “no sin!”
I think I heard something like that before.
If anything it’s the complete opposite. Jewish or Christian prostitution was strictly forbidden in the OT/NT. True, OT figures being with prostitutes didn’t appear to receive too much opprobrium.
Remember the context of St. Paul in Corinthians. The early Corinthian church had elements of proto-Gnosticism in it. Certain members thought marriage was bad since Jesus was returning. Also if you believed in Jesus, you could go to any temple feast/orgy with prostitutes and it wouldn’t matter according to them.
The other thing St. Paul was upset at was bringing loose women (i.e. harlots, prostitutes, hos) around the Christian community (read 1 Corinthians 5 about the woman shared by father and son).
Look, I don’t understand St. Paul’s argument of fornication a sin of defiling the body. The best arguments against prostitution are found in the Wisdom books, written close to the time St. Paul was writing. The books of Wisdom and Sirach, when discussing prostitutes, just mention how stupid it is to waste money or time dealing with them. Why be foolish and spend money on whores when you can have your own “vessel?”
Also, we look at prostitution as a sin against a poor naïve woman being abused in an unfortunate circumstance. The authors of the OT and NT, with possibly the exception of Jesus, found prostitutes to be dirty, polluted women you don’t want around.
If “ordinary” prostitution can be righteous, so can “ordinary” assassination.
I don’t know how to square AT’s argument with:
I Cor. 6:9: Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
or
I Cor 6:15-17: Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never! 16 Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, “The two will become one flesh.”[b]
Pingback: More SirHamster Whining – v5k2c2
Ben Sakes:
“If “ordinary” prostitution can be righteous, so can “ordinary” assassination.”
I’m sure AT and his mercenary wives will figure that one out, too.
He’s the classic case of an ‘eel’…unless it states that (Bible of the Book, Chapter Number, Verse Number) ‘women who are baptized can’t be prostitutes’ then God must somehow be okay with it. When you present the verses which clearly imply that Christian women being prostitutes won’t inherit the kingdom of God…he’ll come back by saying it doesn’t directly state that.
Yeah that’s what I call a weapons grade rationalization. Just say the sin is ordinary and suddenly it can be righteous.
If AT’s wives are lurking…they might consider an ordinary divorce where they can go to the judge and ordinary slander him and they will be granted the ability to ordinarily confiscate his funds.
is the argument that it’s ok to be a prostitute as long as you’re not baptized, with the intent to confess later and repent? Isn’t that the sin of presumption?
Is the argument that it’s ok to use prostitutes as long as the prostitutes youre paying to have sex with you are not baptized Christian women?
Isn’t St. Paul saying here that baptized men aren’t to have sex with prostitutes whether or not they are Christians?
I really just want to understand what the argument is, because I just don’t see it.
And we talk about the female rationalization hamster…
Dear Deti:
I don’t either. A number of quick questions arise when I try to understand Toad’s point of view, e.g.:
1. What did Jesus mean when he told that woman to “go and sin no more”? What was her sin, if not illicit sex?
2. Why does St. Paul constantly use the phrase “prostitutes and tax collectors” when he invokes the lowest common denominator?
There are others, but my point is to demonstrate that even a theological neophyte seems to know, intuitively, that prostitution isn’t consistent with the letter or spirit of the text.
I’m also open to the fact that prostitutes (like alcohol) was a sort of structural consequence of urbanization and an agrarian society, which presented a problem that was difficult to deal with. Even so, the practice of banging strange women for money (or getting wasted drunk) is not in line with anything written in the new testament.
Best,
Boxer
@Deti
This is the fundamental problem. Not enough words have been trucked out to allow for this to happen. We need at least another 700 comments, and tens of thousands of more words from AT before we merely get the next nugget.
Ah yes, the forbidden idea of just letting people speak their minds.
He’s been trying to get around the vow part by stating just the act makes it a marriage. Even in the OT the man had to give shekels to the father of the former virgin he deflowered as the vow.
@Boxer
I thought the woman in John who Christ told to sin no more was an adulteress, not a prostitute. I didn’t think they stoned prostitutes (also, the Jews weren’t to stone anyone. Capital punishment was only performed by the Romans. This stoning would have had to been a “mob” action).
Dalrock: want to make the case that bride price / dowry is not a transaction regarding sexual access to a female? That is, I’m curious where you are drawing the line.
I thought the dowry was more of the marital access to a female…I mean it even says it in the definition.
@SJB
You are asking if wives are prostitutes? They are not. Marriage is for life. As the saying goes, you pay a prostitute to leave.
One thing I didn’t see in the previous discussion thread is the question of paternity. Fathers aren’t important to modern Christians, but they are extremely important in the Bible. I believe it is in the Book of Ezra that returning Israelites are rejected after Babylonian captivity if they can’t show their paternal lineage. On a practical level sex is about making children, and marriage is about making sure the child has a father. Sometimes father’s die, and sometimes the family is torn apart via sin. But God’s plan includes a father for every child. Except in Toad’s theology, where widows can bang men out of wedlock without sinning, and prostitutes are righteous so long as they are our prostitutes.
Good thing I didn’t have to read 700+ comments to find out AT’s comments don’t hold water.
I must be as dumb as deti cuz I don’t get it either.
AT and his views are nothing new. It is a modern day Nicolaitanism, promotion the sin of Balam on those who try to live and believe in the way
Dalrock: thank you and I do understand your answer. My response: a man always pays. The 2nd wave feminists (I think) declared that marriage is legalized prostitution. I would agree as, again, the man always pays. The difference, then, is the difference between a consumable (an orgasm for the sake of an orgasm) and an investment (children).
There is a prostitute in every woman rather than just those who demand cash on the barrel head.
Dalrock
“and prostitutes are righteous so long as they are our prostitutes.”
I’m sorry; I just don’t understand how prostitution is OK. I just don’t see how God sanctions prostitution.
I get that men use prostitutes. I get that some women are or were prostitutes. I get that no matter how much we legislate and preach against it, some men will use hookers and some women will be hookers. And, a few men will be gigolos and a few very wealthy women will use them.
If prostitution were a good thing or at least a not-bad thing, a helluva lot more men would use them, and a helluva lot more women would charge money for their “services”. Because men would pay for it, and women would want the money. A lot of men would consider it money well spent, and a lot of women would consider it a lucrative (if quite difficult) way to earn a living.
But none of that makes prostitution acceptable in God’s sight. People know it’s wrong but do it anyway, like all other sins.
Having said all this though, there must be some argument that prostitution is OK, or at least is not prohibited.
Dowries did not always work the same way, but in a sense it’s a kind of an insurance policy. If the husband dies young, it’s savings for the wife so she is not destitute. If she runs off on him, he gets to keep it and she does not ever get to have it, so it’s incentive for her to stay. Today we do the opposite, we pay women to leave rather than to stay.
To reduce marriage to pure money is deliberately myopic. It’s like saying I bought my car with money, therefore I only bought it to stimulate the economy. No, I bought a car because I wanted a car. And yes money is what I traded for it. But the mechanical underpinnings of the transaction is not the purpose or the essence of the transaction. Money isn’t the point of marriage, even though it is a factor. I would die without my lungs, but I don’t exist solely for the sake of them either.
Darth:
I thought dowries were to help the young couple with nothing to their names get off to a decent start. Some money for start up costs, to get an apartment, to have a little furniture, and start their lives together. When I got married my wife brought with her all of her furniture, much of which her parents gave her; and I brought some too but not as much. Her parents also gave us some money as a wedding gift.
So if I have Toad’s argument right, then both of the following are true:
A) Prostitution is an acceptable and God-ordained way for a even a Christian woman to make money for herself.
B) Men who follow Christ are forbidden under penalty of damnation from using the services of prostitutes, even though it is completely licit for Christian women to offer him such services.
I’m probably not the only one here who finds that to be a colossally hypocritical double standard, but one thing is worth pointing out: This isn’t terribly different from how a lot of modern government and law enforcement agencies choose to deal with prostitution. When you hear about anti-prostitution efforts today they usually tend to focus on hunting down and locking up prospective “johns” while also letting the prostitutes themselves off with not much more than a slap on the wrist, usually under the rationale that the women selling the sex are “victims” of the sex industry and need to be treated with care and rehabilitation rather than punishment. If that seems lopsided in favor of the woman, there’s also some precedent for it in the way abortion gets handled. During the 2016 election when there was a big flap about Trump raising the possibility of criminally charging women for illegal abortions I remember at least one writer over at The Gospel Coalition who pretty much boasted that prior to Roe v. Wade it was considered standard U.S. legal policy to charge and punish men who provided and aided those seeking abortion while also regarding the woman who’d received the procedure to be innocent of any crime. Modern government, it seems, is very much like the modern church in that it is deeply uncomfortable with the idea of holding women accountable.
I’m not quite sure how one can make any logic out of freely allowing someone to sell something while also condemning all those who might possibly buy it, but if that allows the government to avoid using the criminal justice system to punish women at all then it looks like that’s how it’s going to be. While I can’t approve of Toad’s reasoning here, I may have to give him credit for this: He’s the first person I’ve seen try to establish a theological case for why the church should be handling sexual sins in favor of the women in a way that modern government already does. Don’t be too surprised if in the next few years some bigwig in the SBC introduces similar reasoning before proposing that the church should no longer consider it a sin for women to engage in prostitution.
Regardless of what AT has to say, I’ll give him one thing. Although I agree with Dalrock and the others here about the inherent sinfulness of prostitution, I find it relatively MUCH more moral compared to the sodomy, pederasty, broken families, and soft harams that celebrated today.
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. All this loophole seeking? That is lack of fear of the Lord.
As if God said all the words he did just so we can find the best way to cheat the rules in pursuit of pleasure.
@Darth
You can actually reduce it to resources. Physically that’s what marriage is about. The religious aspect was added later. Please gather that I’m not a Creationist, and there’s been non-Christian civilizations that have marriage around for a lot longer than Christianity or Old Testament religions.
This may be why “the circle can’t be squared” and why the ideas of “loopholes” exist. It also demonstrates why the Old Testament type religions have become so rule based, in that faith and adherence to the principal coupled with traditions that police social behavior must be transmitted to each successive generation intact; when large scale disruptions or bottleneck events occur much of that is lost and therefore reliance on a rules based system becomes the means of transmission.
Looking at the historical patterns of Old Testament religions this explains much of how they work. It also explains why Christianity took such a foothold among European peoples. They had the creative capacity to transmit Christianity beyond rule based systems using principal and tradition.
Toad has in the past also made the following arguments:
C) What is specifically forbidden of Christian men is only for men. Eg: May not be forbidden for Christian women.
So since he was so specific about it being Christian MEN in point B, and AT only values what is explicit: B.1) Women who follow Christ are not forbidden under penalty of damnation from using the services of prostitutes.
I really don’t care to find out if AT will argue Christian women can righteously use righteous Christian woman prostitutes, but if he backs off that, at least he has a tiny shred of conscience left.
I apologize if someone brought this up before but I’m having trouble reconciling the admission that a virgin having sex constitutes marriage, and asserting prostitution is not sinful. If marriage begins at her first sexual penetration, doesn’t any sexual encounter with another man afterwards constitute adultery?
@Darwinian Arminian
The double standard isn’t a problem. God does after all give different instructions at times to men and women. But there is no way that a “righteous” Christian prostitute could ply her trade without leading men into sin.
I’m sure there is a kooky backstory involving 1 Corinthians 8 and a long (and I mean looong) drawn out walk through the OT that will explain why in this case leading others into sin isn’t really leading them into sin. But you will have to stand by, with the utmost patience, to get that particular rationalization. You can’t just blurt this kind of thing out. It ruins the magic.
Dear Damn Crackers:
The point is that the text seems to be consistent about the proper place for sexual congress: exclusively with your spouse. People who claim to follow the discipline of Christianity need to take the text at face value. Those who can not do so, ought to call their new religion something else.
I don’t really think the text would rank the benefits of banging a prostitute, who was technically married to someone else, in favor of banging any other married woman. I’ve never seen any such thing in there, anyway.
Behold, I say unto you, that it is better to pay a married woman for sex, than merely to sex her up for your own amusement, for prostitution is superior to common fornication… thus saith the LORD
I could see that verse in Toad’s new book of scripture, but it really doesn’t sound like Saul of Tarsus.
Best,
Boxer
@Boxer “I don’t really think the text would rank the benefits of banging a prostitute, who was technically married to someone else, in favor of banging any other married woman. I’ve never seen any such thing in there, anyway.”
I’m curious. Do you agree with AT’s statement that everyone is married to the first person they have sex with?
The one story in the Bible about ‘a prostitute with a heart of gold’ was Rahab. And her virtue didn’t come by doing what prostitutes do, but by helping Joshua’s spies.
As you should…because both statements are incorrect.
Dear Ted:
BANG! You got it. I read that into the subtext of Dalrock’s responses to The Toad, and saw the contradiction also.
Had I taken the time to read the entire thread, I’d have simply cited you in my response to Damn Crackers. I’ll do so after the fact, since you said it better than I.
Now, my Artisanal brother owes us a bit of reconciliation. How do these seemingly contradictory commands in his new religion cohere together?
Toad?
Best,
Boxer
@Boxer – I understand your point about the married prostitute now. Your last post cleared it up. Thanks.
Dear Damn Crackers:
Irrelevant. I’m merely pointing out what Ted did (before I did, and more succinctly).
Toad is creating a structure with contradictory rules embedded therein. Dalrock hinted at it, and Ted illustrated it. Now Toad needs to come forward and reconcile.
The process of starting a new religion (or any consistent ideological system) is probably pretty difficult… a trial-and-error process. I’m appropriately grateful for this opportunity to witness the birth of the Church of Toad, firsthand.
Best,
Boxer
You fellas are just too fast for me. HAHA!
Best,
Boxer
Pingback: Righteous prostitutes, spreading their legs free of sin. | Reaction Times
I’d like to know if Toad thinks fornication is even possible…if first time is automatic marriage and anything after is adultery. I mean it is in the Bible after all.
Fornication that is.
Here is what marriage is really about, from Eph. 5:
That is where a Christian starts from in his thinking about marriage and sex. St. Paul’s words are either a revelation of God, or they are not. And you either believe those words, or you don’t. You don’t start with money, resources, sharing, payment, pre-Christian marriage traditions, or even children. This makes loads of sense in light of what Jesus Himself said when questioned about divorce in Mat. 19.
So Jesus, talking about earthly marriage, didn’t solely speak of earthly marriage. Again, this makes sense because he is rebuking religious leaders who were not only divorcing and remarrying in earthly marriages, but also–by laws and hardness of heart–divorcing God’s people from God. They were stumbling blocks to those God had called and who were to be Christ’s people, His Church.
Anybody who speaks or practices sex and marriage in anyway which is not one man leaving his father and mother to hold fast to his wife and the two becoming one flesh is not just in error, but is speaking and acting against the plan for Christ’s perfect, holy, and eternal communion with his Church. He speaks against salvation itself. If you believe that Christ will save us, wash us, and keep us for eternity then you should live out sex and marriage in a way that reflects that belief. You should not make excuse for alternative sexual or marital relations as “not specifically condemned” because there is only ONE way to God, and that is through the mystery of communion with Christ Jesus, and marriage is that one way’s representation on Earth.
@Boxer:
Behold, I say unto you, that it is better to pay a married woman for sex, than merely to sex her up for your own amusement, for prostitution is superior to common fornication… thus saith the LORD
Here is God speaking to Israel, Ezekiel 16:
How weak is thine heart, saith the Lord GOD, seeing thou doest all these things, the work of an imperious whorish woman; In that thou buildest thine eminent place in the head of every way, and makest thine high place in every street; and hast not been as an harlot, in that thou scornest hire; But as a wife that committeth adultery, which taketh strangers instead of her husband! They give gifts to all whores: but thou givest thy gifts to all thy lovers, and hirest them, that they may come unto thee on every side for thy whoredom. And the contrary is in thee from other women in thy whoredoms, whereas none followeth thee to commit whoredoms: and in that thou givest a reward, and no reward is given unto thee, therefore thou art contrary.
It would seem God accords more honor to a common prostitute, who puts a value on her wares, than to an adulterous wife, who essentially pays her lovers.
@Ted
Here is my understanding of AT’s argument: Marriage occurs when a virgin has sex, but in some cases marriages can be nullified or otherwise ended. Since they are now both 1) not virgins and 2) unmarried, these women are then (again, according to AT) free to have sex out of wedlock with an unlimited number of men. He says these women are mostly widows, but includes women who lived in their father’s house and the father countermanded the woman’s “vow” (sex) once he heard about it. I presume he would include a Christian woman whose non-believing husband left her as well.
You work from the presupposition that things you don’t like are condemned unless God somewhere says its ok. I personally hate cauliflower. God never sanctioned its consumption so it must be a sin!
That is the problem with this whole comment thread. You are all starting from the belief/tradition that prostitution is wrong; rather than going to scripture to determine what the opinion of God is on the matter. More interested in shaming AT than dealing with the truth.
Its no surprise Dalrock choose to highlight the issue of prostitution in his follow up thread. In light of 1 Cor 6 he actually has an argument to make that seems right (though probably isn’t) and few use prostitutes (fewer still admit to it because its seen as shameful).
But he ignores the matters which were discussed more, such as masturbation or porn. Most people do those and the condemnations are patently ridiculous. Not to mention the condemners haven’t a leg to stand on scripturally.
No, rather than seek out the truth, we’ll associate all these arguments with prostitution in order to shame them and mock them for trying to reason things out.
More importantly, is AT’s religion tax-exempt? I’d like to go to a service.
“Dalrock said on August 15, 2017 at 1:19 pm
Here is my understanding of AT’s argument: Marriage occurs when a virgin has sex, but in some cases marriages can be nullified or otherwise ended. Since they are now both 1) virgins and 2) unmarried, these women are ….”
Shouldn’t “1) virgins” be “1) deflowered” (or some equivalent)? Or the statement rephrased to something like “Since they are 1) no longer virgins but 2) still unmarried, these women are ….”?
[D: Ah. Yes. Typo. I’ll fix that.]
They are offenses against chastity. The only defense others have against that is it isnt explicitly stated in Scripture. I have yet to see refute against the claim the church makes about both…or justifying using Scripture how they are on equal parring morally with the only licit way God made the sexual act.
@Gary Eden – “You are all starting from the belief/tradition that prostitution is wrong; rather than going to scripture to determine what the opinion of God is on the matter.”
So I went to scripture (Genesis 2:24; Luke 10; 1 Cor. 6-7) and learned that sex creates an expectation of marriage. From this, all non-marital sex is illicit.[1] That means prostitution is wrong. Straightforward logical deduction that starts from scripture and arrives at the conclusion. You imply that it is the other way around. It is not.
But this is not the only option available in making the determination. Let’s say that you want to derive whether or not prostitution is right or wrong based on explicit mentions of prostitution. So we look throughout all of scripture to find a single example praising prostitution. Are there any? No, not a single one. The most righteous of all prostitutes, Rahab, was not praised for her prostitution. But there are many mentions of specific instances of prostitution that were condemned. The complete lack of any approval for prostitution combined with the strong disapproval of some kinds of it implies quite strongly that all prostitution is wrong.
If you don’t like that argument, try the linguistic one. The language used in both the OT (zanah) and NT (pornea) to describe “whoring” is very generally applicable. It’s a bit of a catch-all word to include various forms of sexual immorality and is used both generally and specifically. As such, the language used makes it very difficult to make assertions that the Bible did not mention prostitution when it almost certainly did in the general case. For example, Tamar, a non-virgin widow, is found to be pregnant. She is accused of being a whore (zanah) and they want to execute her for that crime.
[1] Dalrock and others have a different way to arrive at the conclusion that “all non-marital sex is illicit”, so even this argument is not the only possible one based on scripture.
Wow. And to think the church got it wrong all these years.
@Derek – Why didn’t King Solomon kill both prostitutes from 1 Kings 3:16-28?
“Damn Crackers:
“More importantly, is AT’s religion tax-exempt? I’d like to go to a service.”
I shudder to think.
“And now for our offertory, Candy and Bambi will walk up to the striper’s pole.”
Damn Crackers @ 1:44 pm:
“More importantly, is AT’s religion tax-exempt? I’d like to go to a service.”
Stay away from the Blackwater Brides of Death.
@Damn Crackers – “Why didn’t King Solomon kill both prostitutes from 1 Kings 3:16-28?”
You might as well ask why he was so barbaric that gave the command to chop up a baby and give its divided bloody corpse to a pair of prostitutes (i.e. “have you stopped beating your wife yet”). These loaded questions are beside the point, as we are not given the reason for his actions (or lack of action). I cannot make an assumption or moral judgment based purely on an argument from silence. I can however note that Hebrew word used for prostitute and refer back to the linguistic argument.
@Gary Eden
Except you are overlooking the places where Scripture says that prostitution is sin, that you and AT handwaved away. Moreover, as I wrote in the original post in the series, 1 Cor 7 instructs us in the moral context to have sex. Don’t follow the instruction if you wish, but don’t pretend that you aren’t in rebellion. As Boxer says regarding AT, be upfront about this new religion you are creating.
@Derek – “I cannot make an assumption or moral judgment based purely on an argument from silence.”
True, but it shows that being a prostitute wasn’t always a death sentence like you supposed from the story or Tamar.
Here are the verses regarding prostitution I cited in my post on the last thread
On prostitution:
Leviticus 19:29
Do not prostitute thy daughter, to cause her to be a whore; lest the land fall to whoredom, and the land become full of wickedness.
The legally minded would point this out as a restriction on merely pimping your daughter and that she’s free to pimp herself out but the reason given in the second part that prostitution is a source of wickedness and destruction invalidates prostitution as a neutral occupation. There is no moral prostitution.
Hosea 4:13-14
13 They sacrifice upon the tops of the mountains, and burn incense upon the hills, under oaks and poplars and elms, because the shadow thereof is good: therefore your daughters shall commit whoredom, and your spouses shall commit adultery.
14 I will not punish your daughters when they commit whoredom, nor your spouses when they commit adultery: for themselves are separated with whores, and they sacrifice with harlots: therefore the people that doth not understand shall fall.
Another verse where prostitution is shown in it of itself as being immoral, and here the daughters turn to whoredom of their own volition as opposed to being pimped out.
Ezekiel 16:33
33 They give gifts to all whores: but thou givest thy gifts to all thy lovers, and hirest them, that they may come unto thee on every side for thy whoredom.
Jerusalem, who’s also an adulteress in this imagery, is admonished as being a whore of such depravity that she not only doesn’t accept payment but pays her lovers.
Deuteronomy 22:20
20But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: 21Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father’s house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.
She’s stoned to death for whoredom with no evidence that she’s accepted payment for sex just that she’s not a virgin before marriage. There’s reason to believe that the use of prostitution extends beyond the mere institution to just sleeping around.
Dalrock, not sure how new this religion of A Toad’s really is. But one certainly wouldn’t want to use the word “cult” too casually.
https://infogalactic.com/info/Family_International
Look for the term “flirty fishing”. Which isn’t necessarily prostitution…
@Dalrock
Still waiting for you to address the point from the previous thread, to recap, here it is:
(To save you the trouble of checking, it’s 620 words)
_________________________________
The eligible virgin is married when she has sex. Because that’s what Genesis 2;24 says. God provided us with three judgments that explain this.
1) The first judgement is found at Exodus 22:16-17, the case of the virgin who is not betrothed (meaning she’s eligible to be married) who is seduced (she agreed to have sex) and the question is whether her father forbids her agreement to marry the guy. According to Numbers 30, as her father he has the authority to forbid any vow or agreement she makes in the day he hears of it. In the day he hears of it he can either say nothing and she’s bound by that vow or agreement, or he can forbid it. Exodus 22:16-17 explains how it works in either case. In verse 16 the father says nothing, they are married and her husband has to pay the bride price for his wife. In verse 17, the father forbids her agreement to marry, refusing to give her to the man who seduced her. They are not married and he has to pay the price for virgins.
2) The second judgment is found in Deuteronomy 22:23-27 and it concerns the case of the betrothed virgin who has sex. Because she is not an eligible virgin (she’s betrothed), sex with her does not create a marriage and the man who does it gets put to death for the crime of adultery. She may or may not be put to death depending on the circumstances.
3) The third judgment, found a bit later at verses 28-29, is the case of the eligible virgin (she is not betrothed) who is raped. If the rape is discovered (meaning it really was rape), she obviously didn’t make any agreement her father can forbid so she’s married to the man who took her virginity. Even though he raped her. Because when the eligible virgin has sex, she’s married to the man who got her virginity and quite obviously, her consent is not necessary.
Therefore, the correct exegesis of Genesis 2:24 is simple: the eligible virgin is married when she has sex, with or without her consent.
Which means that if a man puts a wedding ring on a woman but did not get her virginity, almost assuredly she is a married woman and he’s joined himself to another man’s wife. That’s adultery. According to the surveys by the Southern Baptists, at best only about 20% of the women in the church give their virginity to the man who gives them a ring, which means that 80% of the so-called “marriages” in the church today are adulterous unions.
You claim that is an “outlandish” statement and that I’ve been refuted. Then the thread devolved into a discussion of fapping.
You cannot “refute” the fact that a man marries a woman with the act of sex and the virgin’s consent is not required for her to be married. Scripture clearly states that a virgin can be raped into marriage, so the claim that consent is required in order to create a marriage is obviously not true. Whether she agrees or not, whether she knows she’s being married or not, the sex will make her married if she’s eligible for that man to marry.
The prior permission of the father, an appropriate engagement period followed by the party with the dress, the vows and exchange of rings… followed by getting naked and lots of sex… there’s nothing wrong with any of that and arguably doing it that way is best. However, all of that stuff prior to the sex is by voluntary agreement and it does not actually marry the woman. A man marries a woman with the act of sexual intercourse.
_____________________
Rather than address that issue, you respond with a post in which you deliberately went off-topic and seem shocked that I stated the obvious: according to the Bible, prostitution is not a sin. Apparently you’re just trying to find anything to focus on rather than the issue I just described, but I’ll play along.
If you believe I’m wrong and prostitution is a sin, please cite chapter and verse in the Law where God forbid it. If God did not forbid prostitution, please explain how it became a sin when God chose not to forbid it.
Consider Proverbs 6:24-29, which contrasts the adulteress with the prostitute. In fact, it’s the only mention of prostitutes in that section, which is chapters 5-7.
keeping you from your neighbor’s wife,
from the smooth talk of a wayward woman.
Do not lust in your heart after her beauty
or let her captivate you with her eyes.
For a prostitute can be had for a loaf of bread,
but another man’s wife preys on your very life.
Can a man scoop fire into his lap
without his clothes being burned?
Can a man walk on hot coals
without his feet being scorched?
So is he who sleeps with another man’s wife;
no one who touches her will go unpunished.
The lesson? Keep away from the adulteress, no-one who touches her will go unpunished and she could cost you your life. Prostitutes are cheap in comparison to that.
Consider the context as well. Proverbs 5 has a long warning about adultery, followed by instruction to be satisfied with your own wife. Chapter 6 has the further instruction to stay away from married women but makes the point that spending the money on prostitutes is better than running the risk of committing adultery. Then chapter 7 is another long warning about the danger of adultery.
So three chapters that over and over again tell the young man to stay away from married women, rejoice in the wife of your youth instead… but there’s that one little point that basically says “if you have to get laid, prostitutes may cost money, but that “free” married woman might cost you your wealth, your reputation and even your life.”
There is no prohibition on prostitutes here, not even a condemnation. Proverbs 29:3 says that the companion of prostitutes squanders his wealth, so again we see the point that prostitutes cost money, but there is no prohibition. It’s just as true to say that a television set squanders a man’s time, but that doesn’t mean watching television is a sin.
@Gary Eden
This is a lie. I have not ignored the issue of masturbation and porn. See this comment, this comment and (less directly) this comment in the Friend Zone post. See also this comment in the post on whether marriage causes sexual immorality.
But this is the real problem with your claim. 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. This isn’t just regarding his assertion of holy Christian hookers. For example, take this nugget:
See. No holy hookers involved, but he still looks nutty, because he is writing nutty things.
My question to you is: Did you not notice these nutty things and are defending them in error? Or did you notice the nutty things and like them, which is why you are defending them?
@AT
You always dive immediately back in the weeds, because that is the only place your claims can survive, in murky water. But you are wrong here. Sex does not create marriage. What is confusing you is that until very recently, there was a presumption that sex should only occur within marriage. A harlot is already a harlot, so one more act of sex doesn’t change her fundamental status (but it is still sin). But a virgin risks becoming a harlot if she doesn’t marry the man she has sex with.
Marriage is a public status. As for how a man and woman go about publicly establishing that they are married, they might invite the community to witness them make a public declaration (a wedding), or they might merely live together publicly as man and wife (see the legal history of common-law marriage). That the Bible doesn’t tell us a specific ceremony doesn’t change this. Moreover, intercourse is the one thing they won’t do in public, so it can’t be the defining factor of marriage. Fornication and adultery are done in secrecy, unless the actors are shameless. Marital sex is done in private, with no shame, yet the couple is out in the open about the fact that they are (or should be) having sex.
@Joules – “There’s reason to believe that the use of prostitution extends beyond the mere institution to just sleeping around.”
I agree with this statement. I think most of the posters here think “prostitute” means some woman in fishnets standing under a street lamp. But the term may have had multiple meanings, much like the term “ho” can mean a woman who takes money for sex or a gold digger or a trampy slut.
SJB
Dalrock: thank you and I do understand your answer. My response: a man always pays. The 2nd wave feminists (I think) declared that marriage is legalized prostitution. I would agree as, again, the man always pays. The difference, then, is the difference between a consumable (an orgasm for the sake of an orgasm) and an investment (children).
At the basic, biological level women want sperm to make babies and resources to raise them. Hypergamy pushes them in the direction of men who are perceived to be of high value.
That’s the basic level. Housewife, career YouGoGirll, single mother, serial-babymomma, that’s the basic level. In purely secular terms, any culture above the grass hut level requires more. But at the basic level All Women Are Like That. Also, all women are potential “war brides”, because that’s what the basic, hindbrain level, programming does. I’m sure I’ve offended any number of conservative, churchgoing feminists of both sexes with this ugly truth. But there it is. Women pass gas, too.
This didn’t used to matter a few centuries back when men were not blinded to these facts. Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales has a few literary mentions such as the Tale of the Wife of Bath regarding “what women want”. It’s only in the last 150 years or so, with the arrival of Victorianism (“women do not enjoy sex, they merely undergo it for the sake of children”) that Western men became blinded to the basic, feral programming of women.
None of this is relevant to Toad’s fantasies, I just want to point out the facts: women have an animal side just as men do. To deny that reality is really stupid and can be dangerous.
Now, back to A. Toad’s “Letters to Penthouse” fantasy world.
Well I keep returning to this thread to see more lines of inquiry.
Dalrock, I don’t see that you’ve addressed masturbation in the other comments. You’ve addressed porn, but not masturbation from what I can see. Maybe it’s there but I’m just missing it.
So can we conclude that I Cor. 7 says by implication that masturbation is illicit sex, because the only licit sex is intercourse between a man and a woman married to each other? That this one enumerated circumstance in which sex is permissible thus prohibits masturbation?
Sirach 9:1-9
1 Do not be jealous of the wife you love, do not teach her lessons in how to harm you.
2 Do not put yourself in a woman’s hands or she may come to dominate you completely.
3 Do not keep company with a prostitute, in case you get entangled in her snares.
4 Do not dally with a singing girl, in case you get caught by her wiles.
5 Do not stare at a pretty girl, in case you and she incur the same punishment.
6 Do not give your heart to whores, or you will ruin your inheritance.
7 Keep your eyes to yourself in the streets of a town, do not prowl about its unfrequented quarters.
8 Turn your eyes away from a handsome woman, do not stare at a beauty belonging to someone else. Because of a woman’s beauty, many have been undone; this makes passion flare up like a fire.
9 Never sit down with a married woman, or sit at table with her drinking wine, in case you let your heart succumb to her and you lose all self-control and slide to disaster.
Deti, Dalrock has undertaken to parse A. Toad’s wall-of-text, that’s fully within his stated premise for the existence of this blog: marriage issues in a Christian context. Asking Dalrock to pursue every rabbit trail that someone drags in…is a bit too much. He’s not a pope, after all.
@Deti
I lumped porn and masturbation in together because I see both as involving the nurture of desire for illicit sex (sin emanating from the heart). You might be talking about a married man masturbating while thinking about licit sex with his own wife, but I don’t think this is where the heat and noise around porn and masturbation are coming from. To be fair, I haven’t given that particular corner case much thought. But even here, if you wanted to make a corner case, marriage to the woman being imagined would be required.
Dalrock: Det. 23:18-19 contain a cultic prostitution prohibition as well as an implication that a prostitute might make the correct offering. Perhaps there was (is) such a thing as a righteous prostitute. Very interesting.
Anonymous Reader: cosign your comment — the middle / late Modernist era wrecked a number of things. We still feel the waves.
Great posts Dalrock and great citations of scripture. A lot of the naysayers fail to realize Paul is an apostle and God gives commandments through the epistles too.
1) Sin existed before the Mosaic law was given and God judged peoples and nations(Sodom and Gomorrah, etc).
2) The fact that someone isn’t automatically executed for premarital sex in the OT in no way means it isn’t sin.
3) Deut. 22: 21 gives “whoring” as the reason for execution which makes number 2 a moot point.
As other posters have pointed out,
Fornication = All manner of sexual sin.
Adultery = A type of fornication.
Whoring = Another type of fornication.
All the naysayers who like to bring up Greek words need to check 1 Cor 5: 1 and notice how incestuous adultery is called fornication(porneia). Then they need to go through the NT and see how numerous other specific forms of fornication(whoring, homosexuality, etc.) are called fornication(porneia) instead of their specific words.
This means NO SEXUAL ACTS OUTSIDE OF MARRIAGE in word or dead are licit.
Now it needs to be said once again, AT is a liar, a heretic and a demonic false teacher.
Here’s the list of AT’s heresies with links directly to his comments. Note that these are false teachings to both Protestants and Catholics.
AT has falsely claimed in the past:
1) The Pharisees were “in authority” over Jesus. https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2016/01/06/a-fresh-start-for-naghmeh/#comment-198646
“In Matthew 19, Jesus, the man in His earthly ministry, is speaking to the Pharisees who are in authority over Him (c.f. Matthew 23:1-3). In 1st Corinthians 7, Christ the Risen Lord is speaking to His servants in the church, speaking in authority as their Master.”
2) Deuteronomy was just a “judicial ruling” and not the command of God(good for him if he changed his mind on this). https://shammahworm.wordpress.com/2014/05/22/yes-there-is-biblical-divorce-and-remarriage/#comment-4
3) Lesbianism is biblical if it’s between two women married to the same man. https://web.archive.org/web/20150919153953/https://artisanaltoadshall.wordpress.com/
Matthew 19: 4-5 shows why lesbianism IN ANY FORM is sin.
4) AT claims some forms of premarital sex aren’t sin. This is false for the reasons stated in the thread and other reasons which I don’t have enough energy to quantify. 1 Corinthians 7: 8-9 is one such scripture. https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2016/01/06/a-fresh-start-for-naghmeh/#comment-198567
5) AT has called prostitutes “righteous” https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2017/08/09/is-marriage-the-cause-of-sexual-immorality/#comment-242532
Anon Reader:
Fair enough, but the question came up in the context of what is and is not licit sex under I Cor 7 both in a reading of the text and Christian tradition. (We can say what we want about Roman Catholic doctrine and catechism, but at least they’ve been consistent on this point.) Plus, I’m sure catechism covers it – there’s no way I’m the first person who ever conceived that specific question.
Having my question answered, I’m content to sit back and lurk.
I can’t say I’m following all this righteous prostitute stuff. But as an aside, given the nature of the modern sexless American marriage, if it wasn’t for prostitution, millions of married men would have no sex at all, ever.
Christian solipsism: not just for women any more.
Dalrock @ 3:22 pm:
“I lumped porn and masturbation in together because I see both as involving the nurture of desire for illicit sex (sin emanating from the heart).”
I go a step further and claim that humans were sinful even before the Fall. We simply couldn’t express the sin because there was no ability to do so, like a marooned thief. Only when God gave Adam & Eve a breakable command was evil able to surface and be recognized.
That’s why God allowed the Fall to happen. It was the only way we could confront the darkness inside us.
Dalrock i enjoy reading your blog from time to time as you expose the false teachings and teachers that lead many astray. However, here i can’t agree with you. The mistake you are making is common among Christians and that is you don’t define what fornication or sexual immortality is biblically.
I have written a book on God’s law in relation to sex which can be downloaded for free it is exhaustive and compares scripture to scripture.
I respectfully challenge you or anyone else to point out with scripture where my conclusions are wrong. The name of my book is called SEX IN THE BIBLE THE UNTOLD TRUTH. Again it’s worth mentioning that you can download it for free.
Yours in Christ
Evan Turner
I follow Artisanal Toads thoughts partly.
Sex with a (unbetrothed) virgin equals marriage. You are then expected to marry her (Exodus 22:15+16 or Deuteronomy 22:28+29). If her father refuses the marriage, she can’t marry someone other. Her father can’t give her to another man. In the old Israel she could be stoned (Deuteronomy 22:13-21).
But sex with an nonvirgin is adultry – exept widows. In the book of Ruth they tried to get Boas into marriage (Ruth 3:3+4). What do you think Naomi expected, when she said “… wait till he has finished eating and drinking … uncover his feet and lie down … do as he says…”?
For now I see two parts for a biblical marriage: 1.) the vow and 2.) convert the virgin to your woman (except widows). If I start with 2. I have to catch up 1. and don’t complain about a shotgun wedding.
I relate fornication with unlawful sexual relations (Leviticus 18) – adultery includet.
Stephan
@theDeti
“I don’t know how to square AT’s argument with:
I Cor. 6:9: Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
or
I Cor 6:15-17: Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never! 16 Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, “The two will become one flesh.”[b]
“
I can do that for you, no problem.
In 1st Corinthians 6:9, Paul provides a laundry-list of the sorts of people who will not inherit the Kingdom of God. This really needs to be laid side-by-side with his list in Galatians 5:19-21
Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.
The Corinthians passage was people, the Galatians passage was acts, and when you match them up it gets clear. Interestingly, prostitution is not listed on either side of the aisle. So, one might say prostitution falls under the heading of “sexually immoral” but as I’ve pointed out over and over again, sexual immorality is the set of offenses listed in the Law, plus Christian men having sex with prostitutes.
Female prostitution is not one of the offenses listed in the Law (although there is Deut. 23:17-18 that forbids cult prostitution), nor is it forbidden in the NT for Christians. Therefore, prostitution is not sexual immorality. To put it another way, there is no prohibition anywhere in Scripture that forbids a woman from having sex with any man she is eligible to marry, whether she charges for it or gives it away for free. If she’s married she can only have sex with her husband or it’s adultery, but adultery is sin whether she was charging for it or giving it away for free.
1st Corinthians 6:15-16 forbids the use of prostitutes by Christian men and says nothing about the women. That prohibition is actually no different from the 2nd Corinthians 6:14 prohibition on marrying an unbeliever, which doesn’t concern the unbeliever, it commands the believer not to marry them.
I just noticed that Dalrock finally took a stand, so I’ll now go deal with that.
Again you keep making the mistake that consumation as the only legit thing that makes a marriage. It is a ratification and consumation. If there is no ratification at the time of the act…it’s called fornication (assuming both partners are not married). You can’t rationalize away fornication by suddenly saying she’s your wife because of intercourse only.
That’s probably the bigger issue…not only prostitution but men are rationalizing porn, jerking off, adultery, etc. because wives aren’t fulfilling their marital duty. St. Paul was obviously correct when depriving each other gives Satan an in for temptation.
It would be much easier to implement Disqus comments system, than the current one, which is linear and hard to reply appropriately.
It is what I said in that 750+ post :)….
Is marriage the cause of sexual immorality? (comment #241651)
But it seems that all of them were busy justifying their pump and dump excuses.
It would be much easier to implement Disqus comments system,
No. Just no. Most of Dalrock’s comment threads do not go this long (“Are women done with men after 50” is the exceptional gift that keeps on giving). WordPress has its limits. Other sites have comment threads that go for pages. Disqus is not a solution.
Uhm, no…
Your ideology MIGHT hold water if the prostitute’s 1000+ men happened to be ALL non married, abstinent, celibate men who lost their virginity to that same prostitute. But yet again.. the prostitute literally married her first penetration for the rest of her life… So whether the prostitute had 1000 men or the adulteress had 1 man… fornication was committed, period. And adultery/harlotry (not roman catholic spiritual harlotry :)), or prostitution… all fall below fornication. You a coadjutor for the Society of Gesu infiltrating the (fundamental/originalist/classical protestant) Christian Dalrock site? lol.
Well I’m open to anything as alternative. Current one is linear and there’s no sub commenting right below the preferred reply of choice, it’s endless scrolling and copy and pasting to have some sort of formal organization.
After my mother died, may father remarried. It wasn’t a match made in heaven. He had a lot of conflict, culminating with her leaving him for about 3 weeks. She eventually returned and all was sorted out.
Later, my father rang me to tell me he was passing blood. I sent him to a doctor, who referred him to a urinary tract oncologist. Tests ensued, to no avail. Was it his prostate? More tests, no it wasn’t. Then some doctor thought about testing him for an STI. Sure enough, there it was. “Mr Spike Snr, you’ve been a naughty boy. Who have you been with?” His answer: No one.
It was her, all along.She had an affair, came back infected.
A messy divorce ensued. My father was up to give her half of his life’s earnings, ridiculous when it was considered he married her after he had retired.It was only a very cunning lawyer that made her settle for a quarter, allowing my father to not be destitute.
So, my father decided to get another woman in his life. This time, he didn’t marry her. He stayed with her until he died. He wasn’t even cold in the ground when she stripped his house of all the internal furniture, and demanded a third of his life’s earnings. Fortunately he had won a lottery and my sister and I gave her the cash, basically paying her to leave.
What has this to do with Artisanal Toad? Well, I for one think he has a point, at least from a secular, but not a biblical one.
If my father simply lived alone and visited prostitutes when he had an urge, he would have kept the family wealth intact, lived his life in greater dignity and maintained the continuity of the family wealth, instead of squandering it on, well, very expensive prostitutes. In doing so, he probably would have fulfilled more of a biblical role than he did.
Well I’m open to anything as alternative. Current one is linear and there’s no sub commenting right below the preferred reply of choice, it’s endless scrolling and copy and pasting to have some sort of formal organization.
Perhaps that is a feature, not a bug. Slows down the tide of comments to something more reasonable. I do wish there was a “preview comment” button though. And also, wish there was some link so I could see how do I quote other peoples posts, do I just insert raw HTML? No hint or clue anywhere on this.
@Spike
Sorry about your family. I would say prostitution wasn’t stopping your Dad from passing blood though, spiritual health is more important than money or physical wealth… Artisanal Toad should just admit that rubbing it off is 100% biblical, as long as your mind is blank to prevent the “looketh” verse violation. No different from flexing muscles and mentally “lookething” a women. Limb is a limb.
@ Mycroft
To quote other people’s posts in the indented format, use the blockquote html tag.
EX: [blockquote] TEXT [/blockquote], but use the angle brackets instead of square ones.
AT’s theology is not new. The basic gist of it -my husband has been heavily propagandized with it in real life- is that men cannot commit sexual sin UNLESS they have sex with another man’s wife.
Of course, if said wife isn’t really even married to her “husband” because he didn’t get there first, then…
It’s a theology been gaining decent traction for at least a decade now. Complete with voluminous Scripture quoting and twisting to cover up the glaring contradictions.
@Dalrock
“Sex does not create marriage. What is confusing you is that until very recently, there was a presumption that sex should only occur within marriage. A harlot is already a harlot, so one more act of sex doesn’t change her fundamental status (but it is still sin). But a virgin risks becoming a harlot if she doesn’t marry the man she has sex with.”
You lead with ad hominem and follow with a bald assertion that contradicts what Genesis 2:24 says. The Hebrew word “dabaq” that is translated into English as “cleave” or “join to” means sexual intercourse. We know this because Genesis 2:24 was translated into Greek and the word “kollao” was used to translate “dabaq”. Then, the Apostle Paul used the same word, within the context of Genesis 2:24, to mean sex. That’s the apostolic translation, not the one Jerome came up with.
You claim I’m confused, but you’re the one claiming that a harlot is already a harlot. I guess it’s harlots all the way down? Obviously you’ve created a new doctrine of harlot fairies.
Under God’s design, at some point the virgin woman gets penetrated by the man who takes her virginity. According to Genesis 2;24, with that act she is married to him, assuming he’s eligible to marry her. From that point on, she only gets to have sex with her husband. When he dies, divorces her for her adultery or refuses to live with her, (assuming the harlot fairy isn’t a Christian) she’s no longer bound.
At what point in the arc of this story did she become a harlot? You say she’s always been a harlot because she has to be careful to marry the man who takes her virginity but you can’t tell us what it is that she has to do to marry him? You can’t tell us what irrevocable act will make them married? Not breaking her hymen and taking her virginity, no, you claim that won’t do it, it has to be something else.
I try to avoid the virgin bride, shed blood – covenant marriage argument for reasons having to do with the definition of one flesh, but covenants are initiated by men with the shedding of blood and then God seals the covenant. Which is another way to read Genesis 2:24… or do you not know what creates a covenant marriage either?
You claim sex does not create marriage and follow that with a meaningless social conventions argument. Marriage is a social construct now? Maybe adultery is just a social construct as well? After all, how can you know that a man and woman are married… so you can’t possibly know if she’s committing adultery. Reminds me of a neighbor of mine who was a follower of the Easter Bunny. After a big party with a dress, rings and vows followed by lots of sex, 14 years and 6 kids later their bishop declared that they were never married. Must have been a social construct.
Then you make another bald assertion that again contradicts what Scripture says:
“Marriage is a public status. As for how a man and woman go about publicly establishing that they are married, they might invite the community to witness them make a public declaration (a wedding), or they might merely live together publicly as man and wife (see the legal history of common-law marriage). That the Bible doesn’t tell us a specific ceremony doesn’t change this.”
That is a lie, the specific ceremony of marriage is when the man has sexual intercourse with a woman he is eligible to marry. That is the ceremony Genesis 2;24 describes, so that’s the wedding ceremony. Because God said so. When the woman is a virgin, that ceremony is sufficient to marry her, which is why the eligible virgin can be raped into marriage (Deut 22:28-29).
If, as you claim, sex does not create marriage, then how are they married? What act marries a man and woman before God, in all places at all times? We know what Genesis 2:24 says and what it means. We have the judgments that further explain/modify that. What we don’t have is *anything* on the other side to support your claim that Genesis 2:24 is incorrect.
Adam, Eve and God were the only ones in the Garden. They had sex, God made them one flesh. They were married. You claim that sex does not make a person married, so how were they married? If the answer is God’s presence and His act of making them one flesh, then you support the point that all it takes is sex. Because God is always there with everyone.
Or, you’re saying that Adam and Eve were not married.
Jesus cited (and quoted) Genesis 2:24 as the authority for marriage. Are you claiming He got it wrong? Please explain. Jesus quoted it, pointing out that the man has sex with his wife and God makes them one flesh. They are no longer two, but one flesh and what God has joined together let no man separate. Because they were married and you have to be married to get divorced. Paul described the one-flesh union as a spiritual union that was similar to that of being one body with Christ. God makes the two one flesh and it’s a spiritual union, so obviously it is not the act of having sex. We’ve already established that the “cleave” part of Genesis 2:24 is where they have sex.
Why are you claiming that a man and woman are not married when they perform the ceremony that God’s Word says makes them married? You are claiming some sort of special sauce is required to make them married, but can’t describe what’s in it or who gets to decide what it is?
Dalrock, you already know that once you throw out what God said, all you have left is opinions and yours is no better than anyone elses.
Then you double down on this lunacy.
Moreover, intercourse is the one thing they won’t do in public, so it can’t be the defining factor of marriage. Fornication and adultery are done in secrecy, unless the actors are shameless. Marital sex is done in private, with no shame, yet the couple is out in the open about the fact that they are (or should be) having sex.
So Jesus got it wrong and Genesis 2:24 is not the authority for marriage that establishes when a man and woman are married, because fornication, but you can’t cite any authority on that claim, you cannot provide some other act that makes a man and woman married every single time and your claim contradicts what Genesis 2:24 actually says.
Tell me more about the harlot fairy.
Women commiting perceived worse sins doesn’t justify men committing perceived lesser sins and vice versa. That’s why objective morality isn’t based on gender. Today’s relative morality in which one part is based on which gender is good and evil is a huge modern day heresy.
Serious question:
AT has provided several verses that indicate that sex with a virgin = marriage, but I have yet to see any verses which outline marriage as being part of a ceremony which requires a priest/pastor and witnesses. If said ceremony were intended to create a marriage, or even some type of vow between man and woman, where is it in the bible? God saw fit to put A TON of step-by-step instructions in the OT on ceremonies, sacrifices, etc., yet there are no instructions on a “marriage ceremony”. Marriage has been from the beginning, it is a creation of God and not of man. How, then, did man figure out the ‘steps’, so to speak? I certainly don’t see God just leaving it up to us to figure out, yet it is not documented.
I can’t believe so many people here believe that sex equals marriage. Not only was prostitution legal under certain circumstances but so was concubinage. This churchian belief doesn’t have a leg to stand on.
I had nested comments enabled when I first started the blog. All it would take to reimplement it would be checking a box. It worked great until the comment threads got over 100 or so. The challenge is finding new responses when they are responding to an old comment, especially if the comments are coming in quickly (so you can’t see the recent comment on the side).
I do not support A.Toad’s position or arguments. But here is another wrinkle to add to the discussion.
It’s my understanding that during the middle ages, the Catholic church set up, ran, and profited from brothels. I doubt this was common, but it did happen. Did they use a “prostitution is not sin” argument in doing so? I doubt it. It was probably more along the lines of ” a husband shouldn’t have passionate sex with his wife” argument. So perhaps they set up the brothels so men could have passionate sex with prostitutes rather than “defiling” their wives. Evidently, they thought the only sex you are supposed to have with your wife is (infrequent) passionless duty sex for procreation.
I’m just guessing here. Someone more familiar with medieval church literature may be able to enlighten us all as to the arguments use to support church-run brothels.
@ Mountain Man
Another possibility – “they’re going to be prostitutes anyways, let’s at least be a better pimp than what they’d otherwise get”.
And well … “Let’s make sure the girls are doing it right.”
Cane’s comment at 12:44 is on point and well stated.
@AT
When you have sex, you become one flesh, but it doesn’t make you married. As you noted, Paul used the same term. Sometimes he was talking about marriage, but in 1 Cor 6:15 he used the term to describe sex with a prostitute:
If it is as you say, that Gen 2:24 means that having sex creates marriage because of this word, then the prostitute would be married to every man she had sex with. But this would fly in the face of your holy Christian hooker theology, so it can’t be. So you’ve created a special circumstance from deduction. By squinting at the text in a certain way, you are sure Gen 2:24 means sex creates marriage with virgins if the man is eligible:
But why is it only eligible men who enter into marriage? You tell us that sex creates marriage, but only if the woman is a virgin. If she isn’t a virgin, and she isn’t married, you tell us she can have all the sex she wants and it doesn’t create marriage:
Under those special circumstances (again strictly by your deduction), a widow can only marry by making a public declaration.
But this can’t be either, because you mock the very idea that a public declaration creates a marriage, because only sex can make someone married. A public declaration would make marriage, in your words, a social construct:
But again, your strategy is to offer rationalizations long enough, and with enough verbosity that you will eventually tire everyone out. You think this is clever, but it is not. The men reading who are fooled by this are not fooled by your cleverness, but by their own desires. They want to be fooled, and you are merely giving them something, anything, to grasp onto. Paul was clear in 1 Cor 7 about the right way to pursue sex. Any kooky theory that doesn’t line up with his instructions simply isn’t right.
Son of Liberty says:
August 15, 2017 at 6:38 pm
@Spike
Sorry about your family. I would say prostitution wasn’t stopping your Dad from passing blood though, spiritual health is more important than money or physical wealth… Artisanal Toad should just admit that rubbing it off is 100% biblical, as long as your mind is blank to prevent the “looketh” verse violation. No different from flexing muscles and mentally “lookething” a women. Limb is a limb.
Thanks, SoL. I understand that spiritual health is our highest priority, and I did speak in jest, taking a swipe at the despicable behavior of the modern woman, viz: She doesn’t play by the rules, so we shouldn’t either. I for one run my life along strictly biblical lines. Always will.
Oh, just saw both ATs and Dalrocks posts above. Please ignore.
@AT
You repeatedly state that sex with a virgin female equals marriage but this is easily disproven. The law of the captive woman (erroneously called by many wife) states that a man can take a woman in battle have sex with her and send her away for any reason.
Obviously this means that in the case of the Medianites/Moabites the Isrealite men kept the virgins meaning after they had sex with them they could legally send her away for ANY REASON. This can only mean that that sex with a virgin female does not equal marriage.
@dalrock
You state that sex outside of marriage is sin but this law refutes your belif. As they aren’t married which is why he can let her go for ANY REASON.
Marriage is the only proper place for sex.
Toad is wrong about non-married non-virgins whoring around.
That said, I believe that Ruth’s conduct was morally upright (though risky) in going to Boaz at the threshing floor. The two of them could have marred right then and there, and physically consummated the union. No priest, government official, or external witnesses were necessarily required for a legitimate marriage to occur.
Boaz was free to take a wife. Ruth was free to marry, and as a widow was not under a father’s authority (plus she was following Naomi’s instruction). Were Ruth a virgin rather than a widow, her father’s authorization would have been required.
Boaz could have said “I take you as my wife”, Ruth consented to be his wife, and then engage in intercourse. Married!
Of course, first thing in the morning, the newlyweds would have had to get up and immediately go tell everyone that they were now man and wife (no secret hidden marriage).
Boaz, Ruth, and Naomi are all regarded us upright God fearers, and that seems to be the way they understood the law of marriage.
Boaz however chose not to take that path. He wanted to follow the law of the kinsman redeemer, under which the closer relative had first responsibility for helping Naomi/Ruth.
Boaz knew that Ruth was proposing proper marriage on the threshing floor, not just a Artisnal Toad style hookup.
Evan Turner,
I’d argue that the time for sending away the captive woman was prior to the consummation of the union. Remember that they were kind of betrothed during her period of Bald headed mourning.
It doesn’t say “you can bang her, and then cast her off”. You break her virginity, you bought it.
@thedeti asked So can we conclude that I Cor. 7 says by implication that masturbation is illicit sex
and part of Dalrock’s answer was marriage to the woman being imagined would be required
Masturbation, or at least, the act leading to an emission of semen, is clearly not a sin. See my two comments on Lev 15 in the prior thread. Five minutes of reading the listed passages from Scripture, plus two minutes of thinking will prove it. Since the act that leads to the emission of semen is not specified, it could be argued this is referring not to any act that gives an emission of semen (e.g. masturbation, nocturnal emissions, sex with wife), but only to nocturnal emissions. Two problems with that limitation:
1) The limitation is not in the text; we are adding our words to put in the limitation we want.
2) The requirement to wait until evening does not make too much sense then, as the act already occurs during the night. Unless this means that the person is in a state of being ceremonially unclean for the entire day (possibly the correct interpretation).
Dalrock has an important point, although he is conflating it with a second idea. If a man fantasizes about sex with a married woman, that seems very clearly to fall in the “any man who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart” situation from Matt 5:27-28, unless the woman in question is his own wife. I do not see how anyone could contest this.
Some men may find masturbation impossible, without having accompanying adulterous thoughts. So for them, they had better not masturbate ever, which yields the cessation of nocturnal emissions, or ever marry a wife who thinks she can refuse, as he will have big problems in either case. Matt 5:29-30 would be relevant here (avoid what causes you to sin — in this case masturbation).
Some men however may not find it impossible to masturbate without adulterous thoughts/coveting. I have no business accusing you of sharing the same weaknesses I have. Rom 14:1-4, 14-15 and 22 are relevant. The fact I can not identify whether you will go into sin in a given situation does nothing to change the fact that you absolutely will, given your own past experiences.
For the sake of avoiding confusion: No, I see no “righteousness” in prostitution, adultery, coveting another man’s wife, etc.
@GunnerQ: humans were sinful even before the Fall… Only when God gave Adam & Eve a breakable command was evil able to surface and be recognized.
Interesting idea, but this comes close to saying God created evil.
Not saying you are wrong, but it is not what I see in the text.
It would be much easier to implement Disqus comments system, than the current one, which is linear and hard to reply appropriately.
NO!!! That format makes sense for a closed comment thread. Few are going to scroll back and forth to search for whether someone has replied to the comments in which they are interested.
Dalrock I’ve also read your defense of porn being a sin and found it weak. Damn crackers and Gary pretty much have it right. And i find it ironic that we get criticized for actually bringing God’s law into what’s sin and what’s allowed. It smacks of a churchian mindset.
Your argument that marriage is licit therefore everything else is illicit is appallingly bad. Using this logic means that having children is licit therefore not having children is sin. Plus it ignores God’s laws regarding sex. That you keep ignoring.
Evan Turner: The law of the captive woman
This was marriage. “mourn her father and mother a full month; and after that you may go in to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife” Deut 21:10-14
He could send her away because God permitted divorce. Matt 19 indicates that was because their hearts were hard. Note that Jesus upped the expectations; similar to Matt 5:21-48, 1 Cor 7 does that with the permanence of marriage for followers of Christ.
@Dale – “The requirement to wait until evening does not make too much sense then, as the act already occurs during the night. Unless this means that the person is in a state of being ceremonially unclean for the entire day (possibly the correct interpretation).”
Small nitpick: Waiting until evening means waiting for the next day since the new day begins at sunset. So the ceremonial uncleanliness lasts until the next day, no matter when the activity that that caused the uncleanliness happened in the previous day. You can’t infer anything about the time that the person became unclean from this passage. The best explanation is “unclean until the next day.”
@Mountain Man
You are correct. The Medieval Church did maintain brothels for money and keeping prostitutes away from certain areas of towns.
“Prostitution was a vice that was considered a necessary evil in the Middle Ages because it was a means to curb “men’s lust”. Ecclesiastics felt that if brothels weren’t available to men in cities, they would find other inappropriate outlets for their entertainment and endanger the virtue of innocent women. In an effort to prevent potential problems, civic officials permitted prostitution to function within the city walls so long as it was regulated and turned a profit.”
http://www.medievalists.net/2015/07/prostitution-in-the-medieval-city/
It was Luther and the Reformation (not to mention the rise of STDs) that brought the end of the Church sanctioned brothels.
@Evan Turner
Status differences count.
There is a difference between a wife and a concubine and from what historical documentation I can find (which matches up with Scripture), a wife was a free woman and a concubine was a slave.
The first indicator of this is Exodus 21:7-10, which says that when the owner/husband takes more than one concubine he is treat the girls equally and if he doesn’t give here equal food, clothing and conjugal rights she is to be freed. That is within the context of the father selling his daughter into slavery, BTW.
Then we see the passage in Deuteronomy 21:10-14 on the woman captured in battle.
You said:
“The law of the captive woman (erroneously called by many wife) states that a man can take a woman in battle have sex with her and send her away for any reason. “
And what that passage actually says is:
10“When you go out to battle against your enemies, and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take them away captive, 11and see among the captives a beautiful woman, and have a desire for her and would take her as a wife for yourself, 12then you shall bring her home to your house, and she shall shave her head and trim her nails. 13“She shall also remove the clothes of her captivity and shall remain in your house, and mourn her father and mother a full month; and after that you may go in to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. 14“It shall be, if you are not pleased with her, then you shall let her go wherever she wishes; but you shall certainly not sell her for money, you shall not mistreat her, because you have humbled her.
The passage does not say what you think it says. The point is she’s still a slave, even though she’s a wife. And the rules for these women were different from free women: Observe Leviticus 19:20-22
“20‘Now if a man lies carnally with a woman who is a slave acquired for another man, but who has in no way been redeemed nor given her freedom, there shall be punishment; they shall not, however, be put to death, because she was not free. 21‘He shall bring his guilt offering to the LORD to the doorway of the tent of meeting, a ram for a guilt offering. 22‘The priest shall also make atonement for him with the ram of the guilt offering before the LORD for his sin which he has committed, and the sin which he has committed will be forgiven him.”
Because she’s not free, the death-penalty for adultery doesn’t apply.
Dear Mountain Man:
I find this to be a pretty good summary of Catholic teaching:
http://www.catechism.cc/articles/QA.htm
As to your historical query about the church running brothels, I would ask for a source. I have no doubt that it happened occasionally. I sorta doubt that it was ever the policy of the church to do so (though I’m open to being shown otherwise).
In general, when groups of people form a community or closed society (be it the Catholic Church or the FBI or the freemasons) there are going to be all sorts of members. Some will be evil, some will be good, most will be in the middle of the bell curve. What all organizations do, without fail, is close ranks to protect their own. This is often where the trouble lies.
Most of the people in the Catholic Church have been decent people, but they’re still people, and when the evil outliers have implicated the church in bad stuff, they have historically followed their instincts to protect the organization. Sometimes this is the best course of action, and sometimes history shows it to be a mistake.
Best,
Boxer
Most of Christendom, until about 100 years ago, believed women of marrying age belonged to one of three categories: mothers and brides, nuns, or prostitutes.
Now, all women are all three of these categories at the same time – an unholy trinity indeed.
Damn Crackers is the man who answers my questions as soon as I ask them.
@bart
You state that the captive woman is betrothed and that he can only send her away before consummation. But scripture teaches that to be betrothed is to be married. Remember a man who rapes a betrothed woman is put to death. And as i have already stated he can send her away for any reason. This was not a marriage.
Even if i were to concede you that it was how would you explain concubines?
Ha! We’ll have to share steaks and scotch at the meetup. I wanna see Toad’s girls anyway!
Evan,
Good point. I suppose it is a type of betrothal/marriage divorce similar to what Joseph considered.
I just want to reassure my Protestant friends that at least some of us papists aren’t going to rashly judge protestantism as a whole based on the ridonkulous antics of the Wankers for Jesus and Hookers for Christ brigades. I thought I saw something in there about multiple chickboxing ninja wives as a just reward for walls of jabberwocky text too. (That almost sounds like real justice, actually).
But glass houses and all: it wouldn’t be fair to judge Rome by her ample supply of heretics and nutbars, so that’s a two way street.
Boxer:
(Sorry if I’ve missed anything, I’ve only skimmed comments).
The Catholic “sex is just for procreation” business is often spun to mean something far more prudish than it actually means. It doesn’t mean that sex shouldn’t be enjoyed. It just means that licit completed sexual acts should conclude, unimpeded, in the place nature designed them to conclude.
@Evan Turner
*”Dalrock I’ve also read your defense of porn being a sin and found it weak. Damn crackers and Gary pretty much have it right. And i find it ironic that we get criticized for actually bringing God’s law into what’s sin and what’s allowed. It smacks of a churchian mindset”*………………end quote
Nailed it right there
@Damn Crackers:
Schrodinger’s Whores? 🙂
@Dale @AT
You both make the same mistake by thinking a captive woman and a concubine are wives when they are not. Remember that the Hebrew word for woman can also mean wife so you have to pay attention to the context to determine if it means wife or woman.
The captive woman can go free and cannot be sold. It goes without saying that a wife can’t be sold a concubine can also be sold. This is because a captive woman and a concubine aren’t wives but slaves.
You contradict yourself by saying that a concubine is a slave which she is but later saying she is also a wife. As for the passage in Leviticus that you mentioned i already know that it’s proof that she isn’t a wife as adulterers were put to death.
Returning back to the captive woman, no divorce is mentioned, you are committing eisegesis. The passage does not mention giving her a bill of divorcement she simply leaves much like the concubine in Leviticus.
I discuss all this and more in my book SEX IN THE BIBLE THE UNTOLD TRUTH. You can download it for free at Amazon or other online sites.
You aren’t calling God’s prophecy of the 1500’s a waste?
Revelation 14 – Protestant Reformation Harvest
It was prophesied 1500 years ago before it happened, even before Constantine’s apostate Mother Harlot institution of Rome in 313AD. Harlot as in spiritual fornication of the Beast of Daniel, not sexual fornication, 🙂
Husband = God
Bride of Christ true “Church” = Evangelicals, fundamentalists, Bible-believers around the world, etc, No official title of identification. No institution, denomination, location, physical building, garbs, costumes, Sunday pagan day instead of Sabbath. etc
Great Whore, Harlot Spiritual Fornicator/Idolatry= Babylon, Religions (Catholic, Judaism, Islam and a million others), Institutions, Sects.
It isn’t a denomination, branch-off, sect.. It’s simple the revival what was lost during the dark ages inquisition, which was also prophesied throughout the 1260 year tribulation , 538-1798
For the record: This is two posts about Artisanal Toad’s fantasies, and more of the loons keep coming out of the woodwork.
And from 2 Tim. 2
@Dalrock
I meant in this post, which was true. Sorry for the confusion.
If there is a place OT scripture specifically condemns prostitution, please do share. There is 1 Cor 6, but its not conclusive; its likely talking about temple prostitutes. Your 1 Cor 7 argument I debunked in the last thread, but you either missed it or like everyone else studiously ignored it. We can certainly discuss that over there, or here if you want me to repost it.
Nutty things? Lots of people are saying lots of nutty things, I care not. I have exactly ZERO interest in having sex with prostitutes. My interest is in the truth, regardless of what anyone thinks of it. I care not for the Puritanical traditions of man or self righteous preaning.
To the contrary. There are couples who use porn as a marital help. Or husbands who keep naked pictures of the wife to masterbate to while away on trips.
‘Nurting the desire for illicit sex’ would be watching a porn featuring adultery or homosexuality; clearly thats a bad idea. But thats not all porn.
@Joules
Leviticus 19:29 God spoke against pimping your daughter, why did He not just prohibit prostitution? Why was that left out?
If prostitution is as wicked as you say, where was it condemned? What was the sin offering for the repentant women to be given for it or the punishment to be bore?
Hosea 4:13-14 as quoted is talking about temple prostitution. No argument here, thats very wrong.
Ezekiel 16:33 Jerusalem had a husband, God. For a wife, she’s only allowed sex within the marriage bond. None other. This is adultery and wrong, whether she’s paid for it or not.
Deuteronomy 22:20 Was this because she had sex or because she was deceptively married off under the claim she was a virgin? Its clear the husband was deceived and not happy about it.
God never specifically condemns prostitution, but there is a VERY strong punishment for a non-virgin marrying. Do Christians stand opposed to non-virgin marriage as much as prostitution, porn or masturbation? Judged by the shame thrown around, not really.
Dalrock
I had nested comments enabled when I first started the blog.
It was a major pain, because new comments could pop up anywhere in the string, requiring scrolling up/down.
The current ‘last in, last out” means that scrolling to the bottom shows latest comments.
People who wish to criticize Dalrock’s choices should read older postings. They might learn the reasons behind some decisions.
Earl
Women commiting perceived worse sins doesn’t justify men committing perceived lesser sins and vice versa. That’s why objective morality isn’t based on sex. Today’s relative morality in which one part is based on which sex is good and evil is a huge modern day heresy.
Fixed that for you. Earl, “gender” properly refers to language – French, Spanish, Italian and other Latin based languages have gendered objects such as La Mesa. German has three genders; der (masculine), die (feminine and plural), das (neuter, such as Das Fische). Humans come in two sexes; if I recall correctly Genesis mentions this. The feminists have chosen to use the term gender to replace sex because it serves their political and social purposes. When you use feminist words, you tend to think in feminist terms. So don’t use feminist words. Don’t write or say “gender” when what you really mean is “sex”. Don’t be confused by the feminists.
@Gary
You’re right God’s law regulates prostitution sex with a cult prostitute was forbidden. God forbade woman from the tribe of Levi from being prostitutes, of course this is because God didn’t want anyone worshipping him through sex like the pagans did with their gods. Also take note that the women in the other eleven tribes were allowed to be prostitutes. God also forbade a father from pimping his daughter out, this is significant when you consider that the father’s rule in the family is absolute, however here God makes an exception.
You are also correct with the parallel Paul makes in Corinthians, he mentions the thousands that God killed because of cult prostitution (aka sexual idolatry). Paul is not talking about common prostitution. Why do you think the two prostitutes could come before Solomon in the famous split the baby instance? And for the churchians out there that disagree. What was the penalty for common prostitution?
Els
It’s a theology been gaining decent traction for at least a decade now. Complete with voluminous Scripture quoting and twisting to cover up the glaring contradictions.
Please point to this theology in some place other than A. Toad. Thanks.
Just to add to my last comment. Paul is referring to the Midianites/Moabites, this is why Moses was angry and said kill them all except the virgins. Because the virgins were the reason why they (the Israelites) sinned and of course God killed the guilty the parallel here is undeniable. Common prostitution is perfectly legal under God’s law whether or not the man is married. Yes that’s right a lot of guys still haven’t taken the red pill. God’s law makes it clear that adultery is a man who has sex with a married woman or a man who divorces his wife and marries another woman. So a married man who has sex with a prostitute is not sinning. I’m not surprised that a lot of Christian men who claimed to be redpilled don’t won’t to go all the way in speaking truth.
@EarlThomas786,
“…because wives aren’t fulfilling their marital duty. St. Paul was obviously correct when depriving each other gives Satan an in for temptation.”
The idea that wives have any responsibility to their husbands for anything is today considered a sign of oppression. Of course husbands still are expected to live up to their historical responsibilities. Young women are being raised in the new millennium. Young men are being raised as if it’s still the 1950s.
@AT
Exodus 21:7-10 never uses the Hebrew word for concubine, but the word for female slave. Many translations also insert wife and marriage into v10, but the Hebrew doesn’t justify that.
Do we have another text equating concubines with female slaves? I know thats a common conception. If this is about concubines it would certainly help flesh out our understanding.
My research on concubine indicates this was basically a mistress and this was true in all ancient cultures. The main difference between cultures is the amount of respect and whether or not they live in the house with him.
Slaves seem to be a different thing. So we have the law accepting three different in house sexual liaisons: wives, concubines, and slaves. Then there are the captive women; need study on that yet.
But I could very well be wrong here, the scriptures don’t go into a great deal of specificity on concubines.
But they clearly didn’t have a problem with concubines, yet another example of sex with someone not your wife being ok.
@Gary Eden
The OT isn’t the repository of The Law. The OT is the repository of, among other things, the law given to the Israelites. The Law is bigger than what is contained in the OT.
People keep saying something like “If it’s not explicitly forbidden in the OT, then it is not sin. That’s just wrong. St. James 4:17 says
Even if it is not against the OT law it is sin.
St. Paul says in Romans 2
So the law is in every human heart, and one can sin without the law of the Israelites.
And after explaining that it is no sin in-and-of-itself to eat food sacrificed, he says in 1 Corinthians 8
So doing something against the OT is not sin, but even so it can yet be sin against your brother and even sin against Christ.
Which is to say that: Anyone demanding an OT refutation of NT Christian sexual morality is an ignorant slave to the flesh, and to the law engraved on his heart. Anyone crowing about OT license to bang prostitutes/sluts, or who encourage sexual immorality–which is any any deviation from the mystery of Christ and His Church (which is marriage and sex within it alone) stands altogether condemned because he sins against his brother and against Christ; as it is not the OT law which binds or looses Christ’s own, but Him alone.
I will say that this “debate” has shown clearly the inability of the OT law to save, and our need for our savior, Jesus Christ.
@evan
Citation on that? I couldn’t find it.
It is very notable that God specifically calls out TEMPLE prostitution, but never speaks directly to ordinary sex for hire.
Had he a problem with the latter he’d have said so. He didn’t. If God had a problem with all prostitution, he could have condemned that without need to call out the sub-case of temple prostitution. Had He simply a problem will all sex outside of marriage, he wouldn’t have needed bother condemning a particular kind of prostitution, or even prostitution in general; that would have been lumped in will all other kinds of sex outside of marriage (paid or not).
@Gary Eden
Concubines were clearly slaves, you have to pay attention to the context a concubine didn’t have a choice in who she had sex with, it was up to her master (Rachel and Leah’s slaves which would become Jacob’s concubines come to mind). The concubine and the Levite is an excellent example of this. Also having sex with a slave without her owners permission was a sin but did not require death because she wasn’t married so it wasn’t adultery. Why do you think David took his wives when Absalom plotted to takeover but not his concubines? Why do you think David didn’t put them to death when he returned? It’s not like there weren’t any witnesses as Absalom wanted all of Israel to know that he was the new king by having sex publicly. The fact is David couldn’t put them to death because the were concubines/slaves and they didn’t commit adultery because they weren’t his wives. To repeat again David too his wives with him when he fled.
@Gary Eden
This is just dumb. Parents all the time do not tell their children when they do something wrong. That’s not because parents don’t recognize the wrong, it’s because parents prudentially choose not to impute guilt of the wrongdoing onto children because children are ignorant and stupid. Just because God the Father chose not to impute some sins against the tribe of Israel does not mean that those sins are acceptable to God. It just means that they are not yet mature enough to be held accountable. Christians are.
@Gary
Leviticus 21:9
@Cane Caldo
“The OT isn’t the repository of The Law.”
It is actually, remember that Jesus explicitly said he came not to end the law (Matt 5:17).
Do you know better than Christ?
@cane
Paul made very clear that the OT law teaches us what is sin (Rom 7:7-12, 15:4). You can’t get away from that, just as Jesus also affirmed the law. All this debate shows is the stubbornness of Christians to cling to their traditions of man. No different than Jesus’s day.
You are horribly taking Rom 2 out of context.
James 4:17 talks about doing the ‘right thing’ or ‘good’. This is non-specific, what is the ‘right thing’. Am I a slave to whatever someone claims is the right thing? Thats ridiculous. ‘to him it is sin’ it says. This has to do with following ones conscience.
This passage from James is akin to Paul’s teachings in Rom 14 about following your conscience.
You also misuse 1 Cor 8 to condemn our honest inquiry into God’s will on this matter; I sense a pattern. Rom 14 is very clear how we ought to act:
@Gary Eden
>Leviticus 19:29 God spoke against pimping your daughter, why did He not just prohibit prostitution? Why was that left out?
Prostitution is noted as leading the land to wickedness, if it’s neutral why would the land turning to whoredom bring its downfall? The land is brought to wickedness because it turns to whoredom, it turns to whoredom because people pimp out or fail to prevent the pimping out of its daughters, there’s nothing in there that makes prostitution sound otherwise okay seeing as the land being embroiled in whoredom is a bad state to be in thus fathers are warned to prevent/disallow it.
>Hosea 4:13-14 as quoted is talking about temple prostitution. No argument here, thats very wrong.
Complete nonsense, is the adultery temple adultery too? There’s nothing there that limits the whoredom and adultery to the temple.
>This is adultery and wrong, whether she’s paid for it or not.
Yes and not the point, her depravity is INCREASED because she’s so desperate she isn’t paid for it but pays her lovers, whoredom/prostitution is used as the example here which is evidence of the loose use of prostitution in the bible.
>Deuteronomy 22:20 Was this because she had sex or because she was deceptively married off under the claim she was a virgin? Its clear the husband was deceived and not happy about it.
It doesn’t matter, it’s another example of the loose use of whoredom/prostitution there’s every reason to believe she just slept with a guy she really liked and then pretended to be a virgin but she’s stoned for playing the whore in her fathers house.
>God never specifically condemns prostitution
Yes he does, right there in leviticus it takes enormous mental gymnastics to say that “Don’t pimp your daughters lest the land turn to whoredom/prostitution and be filled with wickedness” means that prostitution is okay so long as the daughter does it of her own volition.
IF we employ such tactics here why not extend it to the garden of eden? Obviously God was in error when he ejected eve from the garden of eden he had only told adam not to eat of the fruit AND to compound on that when eve partakes of the fruit her husband is there and says nothing giving tacit approval, it seems a great wrong has been done to poor eve!
There’s a bit of common sense interpretation to all of this, consider my post from before:
“There’s a degree of obviousness and common sense to all this that legalism and nitpicking undercut. Consider Jesus’ admonition that divorce was wrong and not freely permissible, both the idea that you couldn’t divorce a woman for any reason and the idea that it was adultery to sleep with a divorced woman were not commonly accepted, Jesus does this by using the Genesis depiction of marriage and saying that since it is a God made union it is immoral to dissolve it which invalidates the deuteronomy 24 means of divorce. Jesus uses a common sense interpretation of God creating marriage in uniting adam and eve and invalidates a piece of biblical instruction for divorce and in this scenario we also have a loose use of adultery to as the man commits adultery by putting away his wife and marrying another regardless of the state of the new woman (in line with admonitions God makes that a man is supposed to keep and take care of his wife but I don’t know of this ever being called adultery).
Matthew 19:9
9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
”
Deutoronomy 24 gives specific instructions on a valid/moral means of divorce and Jesus invalidates it not with a specific line saying it’s false but a common sense interpretation of Genesis/Adam & Eve, if God made this union it is holy and should not be broken unless it’s defiled regardless of what moses said.
@Evan Turner
What I wrote is not in conflict with what Christ said about the law. The Law (capitalized for clarification) is more than the laws written in the OT. So the question isn’t whether I know better than Christ on The Law. I don’t. There are at least two questions though:
1) Whether others can accept that The Law (concerning marriage and sex) is: Sex within permanent marriage alone; as shown in creation, reaffirmed by Christ, and taught by His apostles.
2) Whether others can repent of their abuse of the OT for self-justification.
@Dalrock
You quoted 1 Cor 6:16 and point out that Paul said men were having sex with prostitutes and becoming one flesh with them, and they were not married. Then you claim:
“When you have sex, you become one flesh, but it doesn’t make you married.”
If you are correct, then Adam and Eve were not married and Genesis 2:24 is a lie, because they had sex and God made them one flesh and they were married.
There is a status difference between the virgin and the woman who is not a virgin and not married and I’ve proved that repeatedly from Scripture. The eligible virgin is married with the act of sex but the woman who is not a virgin must agree to be married before the act of sex makes her married. Prostitutes are, by definition, not virgins. If they are not married, they cannot be committing adultery.
Yes, Paul made the point that the men were having sex with and becoming one flesh with the prostitutes, but at the same time they were not married to them. The reason is the prostitute must consent to marry before the sex makes her married. Prostitutes are in the rental business, not the marriage business, so they don’t consent to marry. Which is why the men were visiting them in the first place: they got sex without the possibility of getting a wife in the process.
“If it is as you say, that Gen 2:24 means that having sex creates marriage because of this word, then the prostitute would be married to every man she had sex with. But this would fly in the face of your holy Christian hooker theology, so it can’t be.”
It is as I’ve claimed, because that’s what the word means. However, as I explain below, your deductive conclusion is incorrect. Because status.
“By squinting at the text in a certain way, you are sure Gen 2:24 means sex creates marriage with virgins if the man is eligible:”
Yes, but it does not require squinting to see that Eve was a virgin and in all three of the judgments I cited, they ONLY concerned virgins and each time the eligibility status of the virgin (either betrothed or not betrothed) was specifically stated. Status is important.
“But why is it only eligible men who enter into marriage?”
Because if a man is not eligible to marry a woman they cannot be married and the sex won’t make them married. Her close relatives are ineligible and the sex is incest, not marriage. A man her father forbids her to marry is not eligible because her father forbid it. If she is betrothed, all men are ineligible except for her betrothed.
“You tell us that sex creates marriage, but only if the woman is a virgin.”
No. The man consents and commits to marriage every time he puts his penis in a woman’s vagina, because that is the act of marriage, the Genesis 2;24 ceremony of marriage. Every woman that gets married is married by a man with the act of sex, but not all women have the same status:
1) If the woman is a virgin, sex alone will marry her because her consent is not required.
2) If the woman is not a virgin and not married, her consent is required in addition to sex.
This Biblical marriage ceremony is the same, for all people for all time. God even provided virgins with a tamper-proof seal on their vaginas. Break it and she’s yours.
If she isn’t a virgin, and she isn’t married, you tell us she can have all the sex she wants and it doesn’t create marriage:”
Almost correct, because her consent is required in addition to sex in order for her to be married. If she does not consent to marriage the sex will not make her married and it’s not a sin. So, all the sex she can get and it doesn’t create marriage until she consents to marriage. Then it does.
Scripture states that women who are no longer bound have agency. See Numbers 30:9 generally and 1st Corinthians 7:39 specifically with respect to marriage. The woman who is no longer bound has the right to choose whom she marries, thus she cannot be raped into marriage. Her right to choose means that unlike a virgin, her consent is required.
“Under those special circumstances (again strictly by your deduction), a widow can only marry by making a public declaration.
But this can’t be either, because you mock the very idea that a public declaration creates a marriage, because only sex can make someone married. A public declaration would make marriage, in your words, a social construct:”
I did not say “public declaration”, I said consent. Stop claiming I said something that I didn’t. The agreement to marry does not need to be a public declaration in order for her to be married because the Bible contains no requirement for public declarations in order for a man and woman to be married.
“Paul was clear in 1 Cor 7 about the right way to pursue sex.”
Paul said nothing in 1 Cor 7 about how marriage is created, which is what we are discussing.
Your “Scriptural” response (sex + one flesh ≠ marriage) is contradicted by Genesis 2:24 and proven incorrect… because Adam and Eve were married. In fact, you’ve thrown Genesis 2:24 right out the window with this one in favor of social construct.
Genesis 2:24 says
For this cause a man shall leave his father and his mother, have sex with his wife and the two shall become one flesh.
There’s nothing in there about consent, witnesses or public declarations; but I can certainly see sex and becoming one flesh. And… Adam and Eve were married.
Which means we’re back to your opinion that sex does not make the eligible virgin married, but you can’t explain exactly how they are married because marriage is a social construct?
This statement speaks of the man having sex with his wife and the one flesh union in the future tense (“a man *shall*…have sex with his wife and the two *shall* become one flesh”) and yet the statement also is already calling her his wife. The statement itself is calling the woman a wife prior to the sex act which you claim makes the woman his wife. It doesn’t say “a man shall leave his father and mother, have sex with an eligible version, and the two shall become one flesh;” it specifically says he *will* do this and *will* create a one flesh union with someone already being called his wife.
@Gary Eden
First of all: You are obtuse to the fact that what I showed were several cases where a Christian is bounded by sin (which is powered by The Law [the law beyond the OT law]), yet not bounded by the OT law.
Secondly, yes, you and I are slaves to whatever someone claims is the right thing; depending on the person and the thing.
Finally, you wrote this:
Yes, St. Paul was clear. You are not. Here’s a thought exercise for you: Let’s replace all the mundane works St. Paul mentions in Rom. 14 with the sexual deviancies on display here and see how it reads. For clarity’s sake, I’ll make a list, and then we’ll replace them and see if it works. Here’s the list of sexually deviant works (works that are sex, but are not sex within
permanent marriage) which have been championed here.
Banging whores
Banging widows
Banging sluts
Jerking off
And here’s Roman 14:5-6 with the works of observing the day and eating replaced. Since there are four works, I did it twice and substituted them respectively.
He who bangs a whore, bangs her for the Lord, and he who bangs a widow, does so for the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who bangs a widow not, for the Lord he does not bang a widow, and gives thanks to God.
He who bangs a slut, bangs her for the Lord, and he who jerks off, does so for the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who jerks off not, for the Lord he does not jerk off, and gives thanks to God.
If it makes you feel better you can substitute the word “masturbation” for “jerking off”. Either way, you made a moronic case.
Anonymous Reader says:
August 16, 2017 at 1:07 am
I know your question wasn’t directed to me but I would like to mention [again] that ‘marriage-by-consummation’ is detailed extensively in Martin Madan’s 3 Volume set over 230 years old:
Thelyphthora or A Treatise on Female Ruin available on Amazon.
I would hasten to add that Madan doesn’t make the ridiculous claims that AT does, i.e Rightous prostitution, lesbianism, etc.
In Volume 2 he does contrast ‘marriage-by-civil-contract’ with ‘marriage-by-consummation’ and highlights problems with both the Marriage Act of 1753 [Protestant] and the Council of Trent [Catholic].
If I could critique his work I would say he doesn’t discuss the weakness[es] of his position. Having said that I might be wrong because I am only half way through volume 2. Great reading but with old English. I intend to put a review of volume 2 on Amazon later this year. So far I would give it a 4/5 stars.
Here it is on Amazon:
https://www.amazon.com/Thelyphthora-Treatise-Female-Ruin-Consequences/dp/0982537506/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1502870945&sr=8-2&keywords=Martin+Madan
@Artisinal Toad
Actually, Dalrock accused you of holding that a public declaration of marriage was merely a social construct; which is true. That is what you have consistently wrote. So you misread the text, just as you misread Genesis 2:24; which doesn’t even say that Adam and Eve had sex. It says they will have sex. Genesis 4 starts “Now Adam knew Eve his wife…” which was after their expulsion from Eden. Maybe that wasn’t the first time, but it’s the first mention of a fulfillment of a one flesh union.
So we have established that you frequently misread, and repeatedly on the same words.
As he put down the ax, grisly with blood and bone and bits of flesh, Artisanal Toad remembered that he had wanted to know what a man really was; what it was that makes a man a man. The man had been standing in front of him…he was pretty sure it had been a man. That was what he had meant to find out when he picked up the ax and swung it down on the manlike thing’s head; to get a good look inside and see what it really was that made up a man and know what a man really is, and which parts made up the thing into a man.
But the mess the ax caused left more doubt than when Artisanal Toad had started. What he looked at now wasn’t a man. A man had two arms and this thing had none! Though there was an arm over here and over there, neither was the man’s arm. Where was the man to claim them? Where was the man to whom they should be attached? Everyone knows men have arms, but whatever this thing in front of Artisanal Toad was, it certainly did not have arms…or a head for that matter.
Frustrated, he picked it up by the hair to look at the thing’s face. Blood poured from the ragged neck and onto Artisanal Toad’s shoes. Men aren’t supposed to do that, either, he grumbled. Holding it out from him, a hand on either ear, he looked into the slack face and tried to see manness. He sighed in resignation. Every time Artisanal Toad dissected a man into parts to find out what a man really is, the man ceased to exist.
Artisanal Toad dropped the head, frowned at the chunks of congealing meat, and decided. No, that had not been a real man after all.
Marriage is a matter of religion, not science.
@Cane Caldo
*”People keep saying something like “If it’s not explicitly forbidden in the OT, then it is not sin. That’s just wrong”*………..end quote
Absolute garbage…..even the texts you mentioned refute your position
The law says to love thy neighbor, so if you see a Samaritan, for e.g lying bleeding on the roadside, you know it is the right thing to do, to help him if you can, so this is what James is talking about, “knowing the right thing to do and refusing to do it”
Every possible moral dilemma a believer could face today has a corollary commandment/instruction in the OT
*”So the law is in every human heart, and one can sin without the law of the Israelites”*…………..end quote
You got the first part right, but bungled entirely your exegesis in the last half of your sentence…….the bible explicitly told you ALREADY that sin is NOT imputed when there is no law….it makes no difference whether you knew the law or not, it’s written on your conscience, so that God will be righteous when He judges mankind’s adherence to said law
*”So doing something against the OT is not sin, but even so it can yet be sin against your brother and even sin against Christ”*…….end quote
WRONG, WRONG, WRONG……..How can you sin against your brother in Christ, if there is no corresponding law?….simple, Paul expounds that LOVE is the fulfillment of the law, so by not acting charitably you’re breaking the key cornerstone of the law which is “love thy neighbor as thyself”
*” Anyone demanding an OT refutation of NT Christian sexual morality is an ignorant slave to the flesh”*…………………end quote
Rubbish…..Name me 1 sin contained in the New Testament on sexual morality, that I couldn’t find in 10 seconds in the Old Testament……If there’s sins of sexual morality, I guarantee you I can find them referenced in the OT
@AT
The man consents and commits to marriage every time he puts his penis in a woman’s vagina, because that is the act of marriage, the Genesis 2;24 ceremony of marriage.
Toad, clarification on your meaning here……………does the above mean that if a man has sex with a nonvirgin, it’s a proposal of marriage? It’s now up to the woman. If she wants, she can agree and they are married or not agree and she is still single?
If my understanding of your view is correct, why doesn’t the woman consent and commit to marriage every time she allows a man to put his penis in her vagina?
Talk about another rationalization for sin. Thank goodness the Catholic church says they are grave offenses against chastity…and there are no loopholes in them.
Masturbating to pictures of your wife isn’t a one flesh union with her…it’s with your hand. Stimulating your mind with sexually with actors who aren’t your spouse (and it doesn’t matter what their marital status is) is taking it away from your spouse.
Okay, now when is the Catholic Church going to call on the grave sin of wives taking away from their spouses?
You’re making my point for me. Your Catholic Marriage is no better than the slavery contract known as modern day marriage. They both condemn you to a celibate life. I’ll just live a celibate life instead. Thanks.
Els
It’s a theology been gaining decent traction for at least a decade now. Complete with voluminous Scripture quoting and twisting to cover up the glaring contradictions.
Please point to this theology in some place other than A. Toad. Thanks.
I would have to ask my husband for all the links to all the YouTube videos that have been texted to him by a guy who actually lives the lifestyle and has a bit of a small local following.
But if/when I get them and permission to share them, I will. It is contentious enough already -that happens when you openly condemn someone’s deeply held belief- so he might decline my request.
Don Quite,
Thanks for bringing up Martin Madan’s books again. They are a a hard read, but are extremely helpful.
Also, I do not believe Toad is a regenerate believer, while Madam certainly seems to have been a true follower of Christ. Toad tells some truths, but they are mixed up with a bunch of error.
Marriage is the only proper place for sex, and David’s multiple wives/marriages were legitimate wives/marriages.
2) Whether others can repent of their abuse of the OT for self-justification.
Not any time soon, it appears. Human beings (I include myself in that category) are readily drawn towards seemingly viable options that will provide cover for doing what they want to do. I always know when I’m faking it. Others can probably see that too.
“Every way of a man is right in his own eyes, but the LORD weighs the heart.” – Proverbs 21:2
We have no idea if Adam and Eve made vows with consent of the will – absence of this in the text doesn’t mean it didn’t happen – being Catholic or Orthodox helps here in that they are less likely to assume everything that matters HAS to be contained in scripture in explicit terms.
I’m with FemHater on this:
“when is the Catholic Church going to call on the grave sin of wives taking away from their spouses?”
All of you in the Roman Catholic Church, lay and clergy, and all Prot denominations, lay and clergy, must, MUST start calling out women directly, forcefully and unapologetically on their sins:
— marrying for any and all reasons other than her willingly joining herself to her husband in all ways
–refusing to become one flesh with her husband
–having all manner of premarital sex (including Christian women)
–having bastard children
–refusing sex to their husbands
–waiting until the last possible minute to marry, then marrying men they’re not sexually attracted to
–divorcing and abandoning their marriages
It is mostly women’s fault here, and women need to be confronted in no uncertain terms. We need to stop enabling them, excusing them, and looking the other way. No more.
@ Zippy
“The Catholic “sex is just for procreation” business is often spun to mean something far more prudish than it actually means. It doesn’t mean that sex shouldn’t be enjoyed. It just means that licit completed sexual acts should conclude, unimpeded, in the place nature designed them to conclude.”
I appreciate your attempt to defend the Church from charges of prudery (maybe you’ll change some minds), but if you’re going to roll things back to the point where we do away with usury, then, while we’re at it, we should also roll thing back to the point where husbands don’t put their schlongs into their wives other orifices (statements from the U.S. Catholic Bishops notwithstanding). This is what it sounds like you’re implicitly defending – maybe not your intention – but that’s what it sounds like.
“when is the Catholic Church going to call on the grave sin of wives taking away from their spouses?”
Well they do, but not nearly enough and not nearly enough of the clergy. The answer to your question is probably “when clergy are drawn from a much smaller, much more devout pool of Catholic laymen” which we probably will see in a couple of generations.
As for people mentioning Leviticus 19:29 and turning the land to wickedness God is referring to forced prostitution, not consensual prostitution. Could you imagine what would’ve happened had God not made this law, every father could force his daughter into prostitution for money against her will this is the wickedness that God is talking about.
My book
@Zippy: married life is low on the totem pole of the good-better-best continuum; the Church’s demonstrated values: ordained celibate life > consecrated celibate life > single celibate life > married life > no self-control life.
Prudish is not necessarily the message relayed.
I also see that no one has been able to refute the fact that scripture does not teach that sex with a virgin equals marriage. No one has addressed the examples I gave of concubines and the captive woman by actually using scripture. Instead of hand waving show me from scripture that sex with a virgin equals marriage. Yet God’s word is clear, sex with a virgin did not equal marriage which is why the father had the right to refuse, female slaves also weren’t married and could be virgins when they were bought by their first master. Common prostitution was perfectly legal in ancient Israel provided it didn’t violate any of God’s regulations of it. David clearly took his wives with him when he fled from his son Absalom but left his concubine/slaves in the palace. In terms of marriage it is simply a vow, a vow that God holds the people involved accountable to. This is why a marriage is for life and can never be broken only violated. But divorce and remarriage is a topic for another time.
The Sacrament of Matrimony requires the marital act. I do agree women who withhold that (without the conditions St.Paul required) are sinning.
By the way, the U.S. Catholic Bishops have denounced both the use male-oriented pornography (what’s commonly called “pornography” these days) and female-oriented romance pornography.
Yes, if you’re a Catholic, “marry at your own risk” in the sense that you should be prepared to make yourself a eunuch for the kingdom of heaven if your wife screws you over. Not surprising. A key part of Christianity is that we participate in Christ’s divinity when we suffer in obedience to Him (we don’t seek out suffering for its own sake-we’re not masochists). If you don’t want to risk suffering in this way, then don’t marry.
Bruce says:
August 16, 2017 at 9:25 am
“Yes, if you’re a Catholic, “marry at your own risk” in the sense that you should be prepared to make yourself a eunuch for the kingdom of heaven if your wife screws you over. Not surprising.”
I disagree. This is cowardly surrender to matriarchy, precisely what the priesthood has done, which has resulted in widespread misery and despair. This has nothing to do with the Kingdom of God, and instead helps establish the kingdom of Satan.
I’m copying and pasting thedeti’s post because it reinforces mine:
“thedeti says:
August 16, 2017 at 8:03 am
I’m with FemHater on this:
“when is the Catholic Church going to call on the grave sin of wives taking away from their spouses?”
All of you in the Roman Catholic Church, lay and clergy, and all Prot denominations, lay and clergy, must, MUST start calling out women directly, forcefully and unapologetically on their sins:
— marrying for any and all reasons other than her willingly joining herself to her husband in all ways
–refusing to become one flesh with her husband
–having all manner of premarital sex (including Christian women)
–having bastard children
–refusing sex to their husbands
–waiting until the last possible minute to marry, then marrying men they’re not sexually attracted to
–divorcing and abandoning their marriages
It is mostly women’s fault here, and women need to be confronted in no uncertain terms. We need to stop enabling them, excusing them, and looking the other way. No more.”
Let’s stop suffering in silence and pretending this isn’t a terrible evil stalking the land. Families are being murdered, children are being devastated, and we’re just supposed to sit here and accept it? Doing nothing in the face of injustice and evil isn’t Christian behavior, it’s cowardice.
@Evan Turner says: “The name of my book is called SEX IN THE BIBLE THE UNTOLD TRUTH. Again it’s worth mentioning that you can download it for free.”
where ? on amazon via kindle its not free unless you are in the monthly book club, which I aint. I would like to read you book. If its got some good points then I will buy the paperback 😀
Previously:
Els
It’s a theology been gaining decent traction for at least a decade now. Complete with voluminous Scripture quoting and twisting to cover up the glaring contradictions.
I asked
Please point to this theology in some place other than A. Toad. Thanks.
El
I would have to ask my husband for all the links to all the YouTube videos that have been texted to him by a guy who actually lives the lifestyle and has a bit of a small local following.
“Decent traction” and “small local following” don’t go well together. Off and on for years I’ve been told by various people that some cultish group they were worried about was “taking off” or “gaining power” or “going mainstream”. In every case the most casual investigation revealed some small group, often fewer than 100, in an out of the way location, some small town, etc.. The Fundamentalist LDS. Westboro Baptist. That sort of thing. Often one church, in one town, run by one preacher with a handful of families. That doesn’t make the situation for those families “no big deal”, but it also isn’t evidence of anything out of the ordinary in America. For example, there was a series of “prophets” in the 19th century who predicted the end of the world right down to the day and even the time. Big crowds for a short time, then a tiny handful of followers after.
But if/when I get them and permission to share them, I will. It is contentious enough already -that happens when you openly condemn someone’s deeply held belief- so he might decline my request.
Then just point to a name. YouTube accounts have a name attached to them.
Frankly, I’m skeptical. Cult-leader-wannabes are not that uncommon, there’s at least a couple who have posted on Dalrock threads recently. A web presence is not “decent traction” per se, it could be more like some odd man trying to hand out tracts in front of the public library.
@ET, got it on kobo thanks.
Zippy @ August 15, 2017 at 9:51 pm:
“I just want to reassure my Protestant friends that at least some of us papists aren’t going to rashly judge protestantism as a whole based on the ridonkulous antics of the Wankers for Jesus and Hookers for Christ brigades.”
Much appreciated. This is the third positive statement from a Catholic about Protestantism I’ve heard in my lifetime… I’ve been counting. The other two are Cane Caldo calling Luther a whistleblower and I think Orthosphere saying Protestantism made some theological advances that might not have been possible in the Vatican bureaucracy.
In California at least, most Catholics put up signs on their homes warning Protestants to stay away.
…
Dale @ 8:33 pm:
“Interesting idea, but this comes close to saying God created evil.”
Evil has existed for as long as God has existed because evil is whatever God doesn’t want. Humans were created with free will which by definition allows us to choose something other than what God wants. The Fall was inevitable.
In our current forgiven state, we can freely choose what God wants and proclaim that His way is the best way, without being forced to do so and while being presented with endless alternatives. This appears to be of great value to God.
…
Gary Eden 1:41 am:
“It is very notable that God specifically calls out TEMPLE prostitution, but never speaks directly to ordinary sex for hire.”
That’s like saying God hates porn but not Internet porn.
From what I see, gluttony has been a bigger problem/sin than prostitution or pornography is destroying marriage.
@Evan Turner
“I also see that no one has been able to refute the fact that scripture does not teach that sex with a virgin equals marriage. No one has addressed the examples I gave of concubines and the captive woman by actually using scripture.”
Actually, I did, and I specifically responded with the passage you referenced and quoted it to demonstrate you were and are wrong. You might want to read the entire comment first.
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2017/08/15/righteous-prostitutes-spreading-their-legs-free-of-sin/#comment-242730
The point is that status counts, which wrecks your argument as well as Dalrocks.
Dalrock tries to equate prostitutes with virgins. Fail.
You try to equate slave women with free women. Fail
@Gunner Q
“Gary Eden 1:41 am, said:
“It is very notable that God specifically calls out TEMPLE prostitution, but never speaks directly to ordinary sex for hire.”
That’s like saying God hates porn but not Internet porn.”
No.
It’s like saying God hates sex with the wrong wife (adultery) but not sex with the correct wife (your wife).
Have you stopped committing adultery with your wife?
@GunnerQ
For the record: I’m a Protestant, always have been, and probably always will be without some major shift or reconciliation which is above my head. As I see it, my job isn’t to find the right church but to speak the truth in my church, when necessary, as humbly as possible, and to obey whenever possible, but never when I am convinced the order is wrong; all while still submitting myself to authority. As an example, whenever my Anglo-Catholic priest speaks of the perpetual virginity of St. Mary or say “Hail Marys”, I just keep my mouth shut. If the priest were to come off the dais and demand I recite it, or refuse me communion until I do, then I’d speak my mind. Until then, Hail Marys only rise to the level of bad advice which I am free to ignore.
Some people mistake me for a Roman Catholic when I defend some things the RCC has rightly held; such as the need for hierarchy, and no remarriage after divorce. I was convinced of those things after my experiences and observations of some of the fruits of Protestantism.
@GunnerQ
The term Anglo-Catholic can be confusing, too. It’s a conservative wing of the Church of England; which is a Protestant denomination overall.
Bruce:
Good clarification, sex has a certain natural design, and perverting that design in concrete acts is always wrong. Don’t be a pervert. My only point was that the idea that “don’t enjoy sex” is The Official Catholic View [tm]” is nonsense.
I’d eliminate the “if you’re a Catholic” qualifier, and I’d point out that “if your wife screws you over” is just one of many not just possible but very likely situations where jibbling your jimmies has to become low priority to nonexistent.
Modern Christians want a guarantee from Heaven that sex is a toy they can always play with, in some way or other. The fundamental outrage is over the fact that sex acts are only licit in a certain context and done in the natural way, and the continual availability of even that context at all times through all stages of life is not guaranteed.
The modern cesspool has certainly aggravated the situation, and is indeed driven by feminism and the behavior of women; but this has always and everywhere been true in general of sex and marriage.
GunnerQ:
I lived in the San Jose area for ten years and never saw such a thing.
Dear Fellas:
First of all, thanks to everyone who is a part of this vigorous debate on the nature of marriage. It’s very productive. Everyone is making points vigorously and with good humor. Definitely the best of the ‘sphere rat cheer.
Bruce sez:
Then Zippy sez:
I recently scoffed at the idea of digestive-tract sex (a/k/a anal and oral), and I was amazed at the number of people here who got so upset, so quickly. The horror of the hoi polloi far surpassed that day when I came out as a committed cultural marxist, and proud member of the Frankfurt school.
No one has yet convinced me that their wives have a duty to choke on their schlongs, or to get anal fissures, simply because they like doing freaky stuff — but a fair number of gents around here seem to feel entitled to this sort of thing. I should probably pop corn now. You two are about to get inundated with walls of justificationtext.
Regards,
Boxer
@Boxer-
You may be the only member of the Frankfurt school to be on the record to oppose sodomy.
@Zippy: Good clarification, sex has a certain natural design, and perverting that design in concrete acts is always wrong.
Careful there — part of the natural design is a flood of hormones which decrease resistance to pair-bonding such that a gestation and subsequent birth may result in a viable offspring. You’d not want appear to be edging toward the Toad by implying the sex makes the pair-bond rather than the pair-bond is made by [some process] and coitus ensues . . .
@Boxer: I may misremember but there was a DeNiro movie where the character played by that actor explains his mistress performing fellatio via “my wife — she kisses my children with that mouth.” Quite amusing.
Dear DC:
I guess we’re at 200 replies, so I don’t feel so guilty about my derailing of this interesting thread.
You’re not only wrong, but I think the opposite is generally true.
Adorno and Horkheimer generally thought that perverted sexual practices were the result of harmful bourgeois decadence. They were pretty close to classical Marx in this regard, though their work concentrated on the pressure of capital to create a culture industry.
My Uncle Herb (Marcuse) wrote a whole chapter on what he called repressive desublimation. The Freudian promise of releasing people from their sexual hangups was being channeled, he asserted, into things like advertising. Rather than giving people freedom, the realization of the sex drive was used to enslave people.
All these guys took at face value certain Marxist premises. The most obviously false one is that people are generally good, and that once the structure is repaired, they’ll realize their inherent goodness, marriages will become automatically faithful and happy, there will be no crime or poverty, etc. I’ve come to suspect that the bible has human nature pegged a bit more accurately, and that Hobbes was more correct than anyone.
https://www.ttu.ee/public/m/mart-murdvee/EconPsy/6/Hobbes_Thomas_1660_The_Leviathan.pdf
Best,
Boxer
Zippy @ 11:16 am:
None of these?
They’re everywhere from San Diego to Sacramento. Maybe it’s just a Latino thing but still, the RCC shouldn’t tolerate this. Well, this is off-topic anyway.
@AT
I in fact did address your points in an earlier comment but I think you must’ve overlooked it because of all the other comments on here.
Here it is
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2017/08/15/righteous-prostitutes-spreading-their-legs-free-of-sin/#comment-242747
http://nypost.com/2017/08/15/middle-school-pe-teacher-arrested-for-sex-with-student/
GunnerQ:
The first part of that roughly translates to
THIS HOUSE IS CATHOLIC
We do not accept propaganda from Protestants or from other sects.
Long Live Christ the King!
Long Live the Holy Virgin Mary and St. John (can’t get the rest.
________
Looks to me like one of those “no solicitors” signs to discourage tract-waving fundies and Jehovah’s Witnesses. But I could be wrong.
@ Gunnar, My Spanish is pretty bad but why shouldn’t the Catholic Church tolerate that? Why should a Catholic father want e.g. a Calvinist showing up at his door to teach his “non-believer” wife and children when he believes the Catholic Church is the pillar of truth founded by Christ (independent of the truth of that claim)?
Not to get into the C. vs. P thing but Catholics at least recognize Protestants as Christian. Most conservative evangelicals that I know (who are generally Calvinists) refer to Catholics as non-believers and don’t think they’re Christian. Many of them think Arminians aren’t Christians or “barely Christian.”
@ Boxer – in my opinion, Christians and especially Catholics should be at least as prudish as John Derbyshire:
http://www.johnderbyshire.com/Opinions/Culture/fellatio.html
The fact that they use the word ‘Propaganda’ kind of makes that reasoning fall flat. If they used the word ‘teaching’ it might make more sense but propaganda means they think anyone else is spreading the false word. Can’t pigeon your way out of that hole.
‘I recently scoffed at the idea of digestive-tract sex (a/k/a anal and oral), and I was amazed at the number of people here who got so upset, so quickly. The horror of the hoi polloi far surpassed that day when I came out as a committed cultural marxist, and proud member of the Frankfurt school.’
I did something similar in the past saying the reproductive organs arent meant to be used with the digestive organs. There is quite many who would think otherwise which is pretty telling how most people regard sex today.
“Looks to me like one of those “no solicitors” signs to discourage tract-waving fundies and Jehovah’s Witnesses. But I could be wrong.”
What fundies? I’ve spent my working life walking California’s streets from San Diego to San Jose and I’ve never seen a Prot solicitor. JWs, Mormons and Church of Christ, yes, but who ever heard of a door-to-door Baptist? All the Prot “outreaches” I’ve ever seen have based around family events and charitable works. If there are pushy Prots going around annoying people in their homes then I want to know so I can stop blaming Catholics for refusing to differentiate between Protestants and unbelievers.
thedeti says:
August 16, 2017 at 8:03 am
Add mine to the 100 percent concurrence list.
Unfortunately, it will be a frosty day in Hell before the cowardly coven that is both the RCC and the various Protestant denominations here in the Western World hold their women to account for ANYTHING.
Feeriker:
As far as I’m concerned, whoever isn’t directly calling out women on their sins is part of the problem.
@at
There’s also the story of Dinah who was humbled by Shechem yet despite this they weren’t married. Further disproving your claim.
FWIW at least in my experiences when it came to homilies about bringing up sin and reconciliation…sex (as in man/woman) wasnt even part of the discussion. I have yet in my experience ever had a priest specifically call out or shame a certain sex with a certain sin.
@Earl: your observation withstanding, the second half of Proverbs 5:3 may be a reference to fellatio.
I’ve only had one Protestant come to my house in my lifetime to witness – a fat Baptist guy who broke my rocking chair. In general, they seem to be going to Latin America and Africa to witness.
@ AR:
You would be correct that our…acquaintance has fewer than 100 followers who gather each week to hear him teach.
That said, surely you don’t need to be educated on the havoc 50 men who have Bible based support for their harems can produce?
I know that the teaching we’ve heard has been fairly well bastardized to accommodate the community in which it is being taught, but the foundation sprang from the teachings of these men:
https://www.dotwministries.org/israelite-communities
Cane Caldo says:
“The term Anglo-Catholic can be confusing, too. It’s a conservative wing of the Church of England; which is a Protestant denomination overall.”
In addition, most conservative Anglicans (including many Anglo-Catholics) in the U.S. aren’t really tied to the CoE. Many are under more conservative bishops in Africa who cut ties to Canterbury over gay priests and other issues. They’re definitely not part of the rather hideous American mainline Episcopal church either.
The word propaganda, originally had a Catholic meaning:
“Propaganda is today most often used in reference to political statements, but the word comes to our language through its use in a religious context. The Congregatio de propaganda fide (“Congregation for propagating the faith”) was an organization established in 1622 by Pope Gregory XV as a means of furthering Catholic missionary activity. The word propaganda is from the ablative singular feminine of propogandus, which is the gerundive of the Latin propagare, meaning “to propagate.” The first use of the word propaganda (without the rest of the Latin title) in English was in reference to this Catholic organization. It was not until the beginning of the 19th century that it began to be used as a term denoting ideas or information that are of questionable accuracy as a means of advancing a cause.”
I would say that the content of a Protestant’s teaching (from a Catholic perspective) is either incomplete or of questionable accuracy. Note this is true independent of the truth of Catholicism.
I’m most familiar with the conservative Continuuing Anglicans. In general, they split from the Episcopal Church in the late 1970s and are under U.S. Bishops. You could say some of them think of themselves as “Western Orthodox.” Some recognize the Pope as Patriarch of the West but don’t submit to him.
Adorno (like other central europeans of the tribe – e.g. Hans Keller) never really got over the fact that people preferred Jazz to String Quartets. I sympathise; but I don’t go round talking of an evil culture industry intent on turning the populace into Borgs when given half-a-chance classical musicians would and sometimes are (e.g. the late Big Lucy) as well paid as Elvis. Gay Mafia, Jewish Mafia: classical musicians are the bitchiest and most avaricious. Adorno (a composer himself – a pupil of Alban Berg no less) was someone who as we say in England was too clever-by-half. Frankly had he not voluntarily returned to Frankfurt, you should have cancelled his green card for crimes against American sensibility.
Are Anglicans really Protestants? They recite the Nicene creed wherein they avow that they are Catholic though obviously not of the Romish kind (that just goes without saying). The Anglicans are the government at prayer which is another way of saying that behind their sanctimoniousness they are cultural marxists in the centre of the Overton window – believers of all those other things I disbelieve.
I could (but won’t) relate anecdote showing that earlier generations were, shall we say, less sexually adventurous than people nowadays. I fear that I am now out-of-date as to what a young woman might expect – on a first date. It is my thesis (supported by the notion of sexual blandness in earlier generations) that Homosexuality was far less prevalent in past times. Will matters regress or will the envelope of the accepted and expected continue to expand? Wouldn’t want to be a phobe would one.
My own feeling about Prostitution is that working-girls are firstly too expensive and secondly far too much like hard-work. The other problem as with any woman is that should one acquire as some men do a regular, one begins to fall for them but one-itis for a whore – of any stripe – is not a good idea.
That said, surely you don’t need to be educated on the havoc 50 men who have Bible based support for their harems can produce?
You just confirmed my hunch. This is yet another small time cult, in a long line of such things. Now, I’m sure that some very bad things can be done by 50 men with such ideas. But the damage will be localized, because there’s only so much that even 50 men can do without calling attention to themselves from various civil authorities. If you want to tell us about this havoc, certainly do so.
Then shall we compare that havoc with what ordinary, every day, garden variety frivorce by women who are not haaaapy has done week after week, year after year for the last 30+ years – usually with the backing of a church? The lives of children damaged? The men betrayed, killing themselves with monotonous regularity? The mountains of money wasted on the divorce industry? The women who wind up too late realizing they did a foolish and harmful thing?
The havoc wrought by the divorce industry, with the collusion of many, many churches, is staggering. You have my sympathy. But I’m not alarmed.
Oh, no sympathy needed for me, AR
Well, only in so much as a woman I care about has suffered a great deal, which hurts. But our marriage, family, and church are fine. Regular churchian stuff, LOL.
Have a good afternoon.
Are Anglicans Protestants? Strictly speaking, Lutherans are Protestants (protested the imperial diet). As the term is currently used, I’d say Anglicans are ‘tweeners’ to various degrees depending on the flavor. They kept the threefold ministry and claim apostolic succession (call themselves “Catholic” as do the Eastern Orthodox). At the same time, the 39 articles are quite Protestant in content – 13 of 39 are almost identical to Augsburg articles I think. The Anglican Catholics tend to interpret the 39 articles in “the most Catholic way possible.”
I guess they are Protestant in the sense of being Western Church and not in communion with Rome.
I’ve watched this argument, several before it, and had a few with Toad over on his blog for the past 2+ years. I have not found any of the counterarguments convincing, including several I’ve put to him myself. He has proven to my satisfaction that Jewish or pagan women can be fee-for service prostitutes without sin, and that Jewish or pagan men can hire them, likewise without sin. To my knowledge he has never argued that Christian men are allowed to use prostitutes. I’m not convinced this quote is true though: “To put it another way, there is no prohibition anywhere in Scripture that forbids a woman from having sex with any man she is eligible to marry,…”
There’s not a negative Thou shalt not command, but there is a positive command that Christian unmarried women 1: be chaste 2: be reconciled to their husbands 3: if their husbands prove to be unbelievers by refusing reconciliation (unlike Christ’s love for the church), they choose who to marry, only in the Lord. I would argue that the order implies a chain of Godly preference, and that the last step restricts her choice to men who treat sex as their vow of lifetime indissoluble marriage that the Lord will require of them should she accept it. The idea that she can sample the goods first, or collect fee for service from nonbelievers, doesn’t seem defensible. She has the church to care for her, she’s not on her own like the pagan would be.
Song of Solomon has some beautiful, very thinly veiled, references to oral sex. The marriage bed is undefiled. No where in scripture has God ever given indication he cared two wits about how a couple expressed themselves sexually.
@Bruce & Opus
Yes, this is what I meant. More specifically: rejection of the false claim of the headship over the whole Church by the Roman bishop.
@Hose_B
@AT
The man consents and commits to marriage every time he puts his penis in a woman’s vagina, because that is the act of marriage, the Genesis 2;24 ceremony of marriage.
“Toad, clarification on your meaning here……………does the above mean that if a man has sex with a nonvirgin, it’s a proposal of marriage? It’s now up to the woman. If she wants, she can agree and they are married or not agree and she is still single?”
Yes, but allow me to explicate:
The man commits to marriage with the act of sexual penetration because a man marries a woman with the act of sexual penetration. The act is not a proposal of marriage, it is the act of the man marrying her. Notice the word “marry” is being used as a verb here. Marrying a woman is a specific act, by a man. Women don’t marry a man, they are married by a man.
Status Matters:
The virgin has no agency and her consent/commitment to be married is not required. Therefore, assuming the man is eligible to marry her, she’s married to the man based on his commitment, which he makes with the irrevocable act of penetrating her. This is why she can be raped into marriage (c.f. Deut 22:28-29). It’s not a proposal, it’s an irrevocable act.
The woman not bound (c.f. 1 Cor 7:39, Numbers 30:9) has the right to choose who marries her, which means she must consent/commit to the marriage in order to be married. The man can penetrate her, which is his act of commitment to marriage, but if she does not consent then they are not married. Which is why the woman not bound cannot be raped into marriage. Yes, the man is making an irrevocable act, but absent her consent his act alone cannot marry her.
“why doesn’t the woman consent and commit to marriage every time she allows a man to put his penis in her vagina?”
The simple answer is because God did not require it, the woman has the right to choose. How do we know this?
Dalrock helpfully made the point that men can have sex with prostitutes and become one flesh with them but are not married to them. Why? Because prostitutes (by definition) don’t consent to marriage with their customers and as a woman with agency, she has to consent before the man’s act of marriage makes her married. Which is why the men used prostitutes. Prior to Paul’s prohibition, the Christian men could have sex with a legitimate prostitute, not be committing adultery and not run the risk of being married.
All through the Old Testament, sex with a legitimate prostitute (not a married woman, not a cult prostitute) was not a sin. It wasn’t wise (according to Proverbs), but it wasn’t a sin. Then Paul comes along and tells the men of the church “no sex with whores.” Prior to that it wasn’t a sin, but now it’s a sin because Christ is forbidding His male servants from banging whores.
Then, in the next chapter (that Dalrock also points to), 1st Corinthians 7, Paul states that because of all the sexual immorality, each wife is to have sex with her own husband and each husband is to have sex with his own wife. Then he goes on to explain that sex is to be on-demand within marriage: if he wants it, he gets it and if she wants it, she gets it. Unless they decide by mutual consent to set aside a time for fasting and prayer. And when they’re done with their period of abstinence, they’re to go back to having sex.
All of which is a re-statement of Proverbs 5-7, without the whores. Get your sexual needs met with your wife, don’t commit sexual immorality (which now includes banging whores).
And I agree with that, we just can’t seem to agree on the details of when a virgin is married or by what act, much less the messy parts of marrying a woman who has already been around the block.
The State of the Argument
Dalrock claims that marriage is the only place sex is legitimately allowed, but he cannot explain when a woman is actually married. Which is a real problem.
Is the eligible virgin married when she has sex? I claim she is and back it up with Scripture.
Dalrock claims that even if the eligible virgin and the man have sex and become one flesh, they aren’t married because there’s a special sauce that has to be added. But he can’t explain exactly what that special sauce is or who gets to decide what it is, but he’s sure something extra is required. Something not in the Bible, something God did not require.
That argument is contradicted by even the most trad-con reading of Genesis 2:24 and is a claim that Adam and Eve were not married. In other words, it’s a ridiculous opinion.
What does the Bible actually say?
Whether she knows it or not, whether she consents or not, the eligible virgin is married to the man who takes her virginity (Genesis 2:24). Yes, even in cases of rape (c.f. Deut 22:28-29). After that, as a married woman, if she has sex with any other man she commits adultery (c.f. Romans 7:2-3). After he binds her in marriage by taking her virginity, a married woman has to be un-bound before she can marry another man and there are only a few ways that can happen:
.
A married woman does NOT become un-bound from her husband by having a party with some other dude, wearing a special dress, making vows before witnesses and exchanging rings with him. No amount of hand-waving and claims of special sauce will change the fact she is a married woman, ineligible to marry another man. The “wedding” is a fraud because she was already married to another man.
So, according to Paul’s instruction in 1st Corinthians 7, at least 80% of the men and women in the church are committing adultery because the man does not have his own wife, he has another man’s wife. How do we know who her husband really is? Unless she was unbound, he’s the man who got her virginity.
THAT is what all the hysterics are about, because to admit the problem is to take responsibility for it. That means admitting the teachers and pastors have lied, teaching the false doctrine of “special sauce” that created this crisis of systemic adultery. They got away with the lies for centuries, but then women got suffrage, feminism took over and we entered the age of unrestrained hypergamy.
The lies combined with the hypergamy and gave us a massive crisis of adultery within the modern church. That impacts all the hypocrites because
Adulterers are to be thrown out of the congregation and shunned.
Adulterers will not enter into the Kingdom of heaven.
All of this requires understanding when that virgin was married, so the question is who gets to decide when the virgin is married?
God created marriage and He explained in Genesis 2:24 exactly how marriage begins. He explained some details on that with His 3 judgments concerning virgins and marriage. In Leviticus 18 He forbid certain marriage relationships. Later, Jesus explained even more about marriage in Matthew 19:3-9. After quoting Genesis 2:24 as the authority on marriage, He stated that God is the one who makes the two one flesh, Moses permitted divorce only for adultery, but from the beginning there was no divorce. Then Paul defined the key terms of Genesis 2:24. In 1st Corinthians 6:16 he showed us that the word “dabaq” means sex and in Ephesians 5:28-32 he showed us that the husband and wife are one body, joined by God in the one flesh union that is similar to becoming one body with Christ. Which means “one flesh” is not the act of sex, it is the result of sex.
Those are the key passages that teach us about how marriage begins. The big takeaway?
Eligible virgin + sex = marriage.
Which means we have an epidemic of adultery within the church. God said not to commit adultery, so don’t do it. If you’re doing it, stop.
So, do the Christian men admit the lies, take responsibility for their sin and work to stop the adultery epidemic, or do they choose to go with Dalrock’s non-Biblical and completely imaginary Special Sauce™ requirement for marriage and claim there is no adultery and Toad is a very bad man. Because long comments.
Judging from the responses, the answer is obvious.
@gunner
No its saying that idolatry is a sin but paying for sex isn’t. Or that God cares HOW he is worshiped.
I tracked down the verse Evan referenced: Leviticus 21. The daughters of the Levites were forbidden to prostitute, on pain of death. No such command was given with respect to the other tribes.
If you’re paying attention and trying to understand the mind of God revealed in the scriptures, as opposed to trying to justify human traditions, this is a big piece of the puzzle.
The Anglicans are the government at prayer
Here in the US it means something different. I think that the old-line Episcopal Church here *used* to be that, like 50-70 years ago, but that has long since not been the case. Anglicans in US parlance are basically very high church Episcopal or ex-Episcopal (it’s more commonly the case that churches in the US that actually use the name “Anglican” are not a part of the Episcopal Church, but there are numerous people who are members of the Episcopal Church who consider themselves to be Anglican or Anglo-Catholic.
In Canada, it’s different because the Anglican Church was never renamed as it was in the US — so there it’s just the Anglican Church.
Confused yet?
@Novaseeker
Yeah, it’s embarrassing.
@Boxer @Opus – I’m not surprised those fellows blamed sodomy on Capitalism. Maybe I’m mixing up the Frankfurt School with Gyorgy Lukacs. I thought he was the one who introduced sex education and free love to Hungary in Bela Kun’s short-lived rule.
Gary Eden @ 2:48 pm:
“That’s like saying God hates porn but not Internet porn.”
“No its saying that idolatry is a sin but paying for [idolatrous] sex isn’t.”
FIFY. I’m trying to imagine Christ paying a whore and saying “I’m glad you aren’t doing this for me so you can do this for me.” Progress is slow.
Hey Evan, thanks for answering my two questions. Missed them before.
“The marriage bed is undefiled. Nowhere in scripture has God ever given indication he cared two wits about how a couple expressed themselves sexually.”
If in the mouth, why not the rectum? I knew a couple from high school who got married – she put on a strap on and used it on his hiney (after they were married). Why not?
It is evident from the nature of God’s creation that the tallywacker is meant for the va-jay-jay.
Sola scriptura.
Cane Caldo says:
“Yeah, it’s embarrassing.”
True, Anglicans and all of the Prot denominations have embarrassing aspects. But so do the RCs with their scandals and SJW Pope…and the Orthodox with their SJW bishops (at least in the U.S). I know of Orthodox who became Anglo-Catholics because their churches/bishops refused to take a stand on any pro-life or LGBT issues.
It sounds cliche, but we’re all sinners and there’s perfect church or denomination.
@AT
I’m gonna ponder and pray on your explanation a bit before any other questions.
@podethelesser
Like Toad, you must therefore be starting with the a whole host of hard assumptions. Just a few off the top of my head:
1) Whenever Scripture references prostitution in a negative way, it is always talking about pagan/temple prostitution, even when it merely says prostitution. For example, 1 Cor 6 15 & 16 (just prostitution). Likewise, in Deut 23 verse 17 references ritual prostitution, but 18 references male and female prostitution (with no such modifier) as abominations:
So you must be assuming Deut 23:17-18 are only condemning male ritual prostitution, right? Otherwise the idea that prostitution is a righteous line of work is shattered.
2) You must assume that when Scripture says a man must marry a woman he raped, what it really means is when he raped her he married her. Deut 22:28-29:
When it says for he has violated her, it must mean to you for he has married her. For how can he have violated his own wife?. Moreover, you must reject the more plain reading, that a man who violated a virgin (thereby greatly damaging her marriage value) was responsible to marry her as well as pay her father as restitution & punishment.
3) God’s design for the family sometimes includes knowing who your father is, and sometimes doesn’t, and unwed motherhood is part of God’s plan. While Piper tells unwed mothers their family model is the model of the future, you believe it has been God’s model all along. Put another way, the idea that God’s model in the OT was a patriarchy is false, because God intends for families to sometimes be headed by a father, and sometimes headed by a single mother who doesn’t know who the fathers of her children are. Specifically, you must assume that the translations which use the word “bastard” in Deut 23:2 are in error, since bastards are part of God’s plan:
To use Toad’s phrasing, bastardy must only be a social construct.
@Gary Eden
“I tracked down the verse Evan referenced: Leviticus 21. The daughters of the Levites were forbidden to prostitute, on pain of death. No such command was given with respect to the other tribes.”
Actually…. No.
Let’s start with the beginning of the passage, Leviticus 21:1. God told Moses to speak to the priests. Which priests? The sons of Aaron. The instruction is specific to the Aaronic priesthood, not generally to the sons of Levi, the Levitical priesthood. Only the sons of Aaron can become the High Priest. This would include the Phineas priesthood as well.
The specific point you are referring to is Leviticus 21:9 and the word used is a form of “zanah”, which can be used to describe idolatry, adultery and ordinary prostitution. Let’s look at context for a moment, because in this case the context is very specific and critical. Leviticus 21:6-9:
What does the daughter of the priest have to do with the priest’s consecration? The only other crime for which the penalty was being burned with fire was a man taking a mother and her daughter as wives. So, is this talking about priestly incest? No. Further context to this is found a bit later in verses 13-15:
Now we can see that the daughter of the priest is doing to him what he was commanded not to do, which is profaning his offspring among his people. But let’s dig a bit deeper.
The word translated as “harlotry” in Leviticus 21:9 is the specific term “liz-nō-wṯ” and it has only 5 occurrences, which is a form of our old friend “zanah.” Because “zanah.” is a general term, the question is what “liz-nō-wṯ” means in context, so we first look at the other usages of the term and the five times “liz-nō-wṯ” is used are:
The priest’s daughter, living in his house, should be a virgin and thus eligible for marriage to any other priest as a woman who has not been profaned by idolatry, adultery or prostitution. Why? Because God commanded that the sons of Aaron take only a virgin as their wife in order that his offspring would not be profaned. Notice that the women forbidden to him (because they might profane his offspring) are widows, divorced women and women profaned by being prostitutes.
In verse 14, the word used for “harlot” is zō·nāh and if you follow the links you’ll see that unlike the term “liz-nō-wṯ”, it refers almost exclusively for money-for-sex prostitution. Not adultery or sexual idolatry. The difference in word usage within the same passage indicates a difference in meaning, but they both get lumped into “harlotry” when translated into English.
In all likelihood, what verse 9 is talking about is a daughter engaged in cult prostitution while living in her fathers house. Which means idolatry, adultery (because she was married with the first man and all the rest were adulteries) and prostitution. She not only profanes herself with idolatry, adultery and prostitution, but she’s doing this while passing herself off as a virgin who is eligible for marriage… who can then profane the offspring of the man who marries her. Her father would bear some guilt for this because he would be passing her off as a virgin.
Which is what was described in Deuteronomy 22:13-21. Ordinarily a woman who does this is stoned to death on her fathers doorstep. As a daughter of an Aaronic priest who does this, she is to be burned with fire.
@AT
An Israelite man who takes a virgin woman from war and has sex with her are they married?
An Israelite man gets a virgin woman for one of his slaves are the slave and the woman married?
Anglicans invented Brexit but that was in the 16th century: these days they love Islam, Feminism and Homosexuals but prefer ecumenicalism (Remaining) to separation (Leaving). My sister is one – Anglican I mean: when I suggested that global warming might not be all it is cracked up to be, her dismissive comment when I suggested that I was not the only doubter was ‘Who else? Donald Trump?’ as if that settled any argument. I hardly dared mention my awe for the god emperor and when I suggested that there was no biblical authority for female Bishops (Titus; as I learn at this blog) her response was that there was no mention of Bishops in the NT and that I must be a misogynist if that was what I thought and that women were just as capable of dressing-up as any mere man.
She has some very important position or other at her local church so how can I argue.
@dalrock
The fact that the money of a prostitute was not allowed by God in no way proves that prostitution is a sin.
God was explicit temple prostitutes were put to death. Where is the penalty for common prostitution?
What were concubines as defined by the scriptures?
Dalrock: you #1 and #3 above contradict each other: to be excluded from the Temple was to be unable to be righteous. That is, you could not offer the appropriate cereal or animal as commanded. The prostitute, of a non-cultic kind, could enter the Temple but could not pay the Temple tax or purchase the offering the with the wages earned from their, ahem, trade.
@AT
Leviticus 21 9 says that a daughter of a priest can’t be a prostitute it didn’t matter if it was common or sacred prostitution. How can i say this? Because you couldn’t go to the temple after you had sex. God did not want Israelites thinking that he was like the pagan gods who were worshipped through sex. Could you imagine what would’ve happened had God allowed such a thing? You would have had all kinds of pagans coming to Israel to ‘worship’ the one true God by having sex with a priest’s daughter. What nonsense.
@earlthomas786
*”The Sacrament of Matrimony requires the marital act”*……end quote
Rank heretical RC nonsense…..Show me 1 verse in the bible that refers to “marriage” as a “sacrament”
Dale:
It would be much easier to implement Disqus comments system, than the current one, which is linear and hard to reply appropriately.
“NO!!! That format makes sense for a closed comment thread. Few are going to scroll back and forth to search for whether someone has replied to the comments in which they are interested.”
This is incorrect. Disqus does precisely what Dale says it doesn’t do, and it does so very well.
Disqus is terrible, as are nested comments generally. Chronological order is the way to go, it is in Deuteronomy.
1 Cor 6 15 & 16 refer to making the body of Christ members with a prostitute. Are you asserting that Jews and pagans are members of the body of Christ?
Your point on Deut 23:18 is a reasonable one, one of very few I’ve seen advanced, and I would like to see Toad respond to it. He might argue that the entire passage is about temple / cult prostitution and since male homosexuality is already a death penalty abomination regardless, it’s possible to read this as pointing out that no matter what your pagan neighbors say, temple prostitution is right out for both men and women. Men taking it in the ass for the glory of God
Deut 22:28-29 is explaining that the rapist must carry out all the duties of husband now that he has forcibly and criminally made himself her husband without her father’s consent. Unless you want to argue that the act of marriage carries no other attendant duties, which will be an interesting Biblical case for you to make.
God’s model is for a woman to give her virginity to a man who stays with and cares for her and their children for life. We’re debating the boundaries when circumstances or poor choices take people off model. Is it a good idea for a widow to become a prostitute? No, we all agree on that. Does it have serious negative consequences for her and for her kids? Absolutely, and you do a fine job of documenting the effects of the scourge of single mommery. Is it a permissible choice for a Christian woman? Toad may or may not argue so, I argue it’s not, in the second paragraph of my comment you quoted from the first paragraph of. Is it a choice that was permitted to Jewish women, possibly as a failsafe against the community’s failure to obey the laws about allowing gleaning of the fields? I think so. Not a good choice, not a recommended one, but tolerated.
In any event, as we are neither Jews nor pagans, it’s academic. Unless Toad somehow manages to convince me I’m wrong in my argument that Christian women are prohibited from prostitution by the commandment to be chaste, reconciled, or marry in the Lord.
@Zippy: now that was funny. Well done & thank you.
Editing fail: Men taking it in the ass for the glory of God is abominable blasphemy twice over.
In Genesis 38, Tamar (referenced by Derek Ramsey) uses sex to acquire material, social and family benefits: she disguises herself as a prostitute, lies to Judah, has sex with him, and becomes impregnated. She *is* in fact a prostitute, for she is trading sex for value.
She did this freely, in her own agency, and successfully blackmails Judah subsequently into marriage.
(Tamar is a favorite of the feminist set, for leaning in, knowing what she wanted, and going after it, and manipulating a foolish man into providing it to her.)
Are we to assume that Tamar’s revenge on Judah is Judah’s punishment (for not delivering Son #3 for her conjugal benefit; she is a bit of a black widow). That’s not what the verse suggests in any way. Judah is neither condemned nor even characterized for his screwing a highway hooker in the dirt; it was just something he did. Are we to assume God is a feminist, and this is just so much you go grrrl table-setting?
Now AT & friends are arguing that Christianity is the cause of sexual immorality, if temple prostitution is bad but ordinary prostitution is good. I suppose there’s truth to that: if God would stop judging us then we would stop being guilty.
And if the Earth instantly stopped rotating then I’d be flung into outer space.
…
Zippy @ 4:51 pm:
“Disqus is terrible, as are nested comments generally. Chronological order is the way to go, it is in Deuteronomy.”
I like this system, too. Simple and functional. There should be no complexity in communication.
Dalrock et al
How does Judges 21 figure into all of this? “The men of Israel had taken an oath at Mizpah: “Not one of us will give his daughter in marriage to a Benjamite”. They then put to death everyone except the virgins of Jabesh Gilead and gave them to the Benjamites, but there wasn’t enough.
(These were Israelite women whose fathers had just been killed by the other Israelites for not showing up at Mizpah)
Judges 21:20
20 Then they commanded the Benjaminites: “Go and hide in the vineyards. 21 Watch, and when you see the young women of Shiloh come out to perform the dances, each of you leave the vineyards and catch a wife for yourself from the young women of Shiloh, and go to the land of Benjamin. 22 When their fathers or brothers come to us and protest, we will tell them, ‘Show favor to them, since we did not get enough wives for each of them in the battle. You didn’t actually give the women to them, so you are not guilty of breaking your oath.’”
23 The Benjaminites did this and took the number of women they needed from the dancers they caught. They went back to their own inheritance, rebuilt their cities, and lived in them. 24 At that time, each of the Israelites returned from there to his own tribe and family. Each returned from there to his own inheritance.
So now they have stolen women. It seems these women are married…… Thoughts??
@Artisanal Toad
*”So, according to Paul’s instruction in 1st Corinthians 7, at least 80% of the men and women in the church are committing adultery because the man does not have his own wife, he has another man’s wife”*………………….end quote
The one fundamental error you make AT is your belief in the false premise known as “living in sin”, or “living in adultery”……..Those terms are not biblical, but you USE those terms to uphold your error that every man who is currently married to a woman who he didn’t get her virginity MUST divorce her, or be charged with the sin of “living in adultery”
You are basically teaching a wicked doctrine that encourages break up of families and marriages that God hath put together
You need to realize that 2 wrongs don’t make a right, and committing the sin of “divorce” to FIX an adulterous union is a sin as well…..In fact God calls it an abomination to go back to your first spouse………….. Deu 24:4 “Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD”
So even if husbands divorced their present wives for “living in adultery” (your term), they have to remain in perpetual ,Limbo FOR EVER….so we would essentially have a situation where suddenly 80% of marriages have to be broken up, but no woman would be allowed to marry and be with a man unless she could prove she’s actually a virgin
You would actually come under the stern condemnation of God in 1st Timothy 4:3 for teaching a doctrine of Devils, in forbidding marriage
Any Greek professor can and will destroy your faulty premise that there’ such a thing as “living in adultery”, there is no continual present tense for committing sin, there is simply THE ACT……The notion that every time a man puts his penis in his wife’s vagina he commits adultery, is not only absurd, but shows a complete ignorance of how God defines sin
You are not the only 1 here who teaches this errant nonsense of “living in adultery”, so I’m not just picking on you
I actually agree with a lot of what you say in here, but in this regard, you are dead wrong
@Necroking
Sacrament means mystery; as when Paul writes that marriage is a mystery which refers to Christ and His Church.It is in fact the case that the concept of sacrament is modeled after Paul’s explicit use of it for marriage.
So that verse is Eph. 5:32; which is in the Bible.
His arguments seem to be trying to find some perceived loophole in Scripture to justify sexual sins.
The danger is many might start to think like that and it takes them away from the Lord.
@Necroking
What denomination are you?
@podethelesser
No. Are you asserting it is not ok for the body of Christ to join with a prostitute, but it is ok for the body of Christ to be a prostitute? For there is no other way to read that passage as saying Christians can be prostitutes.
I have no doubt there will be a reason what seems on the face like an indictment of prostitution will turn out (according to Toad) to really be a wacky misunderstanding. I imagine he has an index card system for this, because the Bible is littered with similar passages that need to be explained away.
Then it is as I said. When the Scripture says one thing, you assume it really means another.
Don’t get squeamish now, after following Toad all this way. You argued in your original comment that Toad was right, that God’s plan from the beginning included women being whores and that (except for certain kinds of “forbidden” whoredom) it was not sin. So this means single mothers (and bastards who didn’t know who their fathers were) were part of God’s original design. If you are going to argue that single motherhood was once God’s plan, why are you uncomfortable arguing as Toad does that it remains part of God’s plan? If it is good enough for God, why isn’t it good enough for you? Or do you think God thought better of it after He tried it? Unless, deep down, you know it really wasn’t ever part of God’s plan. Be bold. You’ve already accepted more than feminists accept (for even they know the OT was a patriarchy), not to mention what even John Piper would accept. Just take another small bite.
Cane Caldo: I have taken Eph. 5:32 to refer to the mystery of how God makes the Body of Christ fruitful as He makes male and female fruitful. The latter may be considered a tad less mysterious now that the aided eye can see smaller things yet there is no decrease in awe. At least on my part.
Regardless of one’s profession it seems, on average, contemporary marriages–however defined, but at root male and female–in the former Christendom are quite unfruitful.
To Toad and others who advance the argument that contracting a marriage only includes a man and virgin getting their P in V on, I ask this question:
Was God Eve’s father?
No one has advanced that argument. Toad has always argued that the father has the authority to annul a daughter’s marriage in the day that he hears of it. God did not choose to do so when Adam married Eve.
@earlthomas786
I belong to NO denomination….I see myself as a BIBLE BELIEVER, who holds that the bible is the supreme final authority in all matters of faith and practice
@Cane Caldo
*”Sacrament means mystery”*………………..end quote
No it doesn’t…….Don’t believe me, grab a concordance and look up every reference to the word “mystery” in the NT, and try and substitute the word “sacrament”, and you will see it simply will not fit
The primary meaning of Sacrament is the Roman Catholics position on it, which consists of (baptism, confirmation, Eucharist, Reconciliation, Anointing of the sick, MARRIAGE and, Holy Orders)…..none of which can be substantiated by scripture, it’s an entirely man made system
The closest that marriage could fall under is “covenant”, but certainly NOT a sacrament……and when I say covenant, I don’t mean the State sanctioned garbage, requiring a marriage certificate and a wedding…..Marriage is a private affair between 3 people, God, the husband and the wife, and is initiated by sex….no ceremony is required
@Dalrock
Translation of your comments to Pode: “You must have assumptions, so let me make some assumptions about what your assumptions are.”
I can’t speak to what Pode has not said, but I will speak to your incorrect statements.
“1) Whenever Scripture references prostitution in a negative way, it is always talking about pagan/temple prostitution, even when it merely says prostitution.”
No, not at all. As I just pointed out in my comment to Gary Eden, ordinary prostitution is spoken of in a negative way, because marrying an ordinary prostitute could profane the children of the priest. That’s pretty negative. At the same time, the priest is not to marry a widow because having children with her could profane his offspring. So, while that’s pretty negative in terms of the widow, does that mean she’s in sin for being a widow? Are we back to harlots all the way down?
How are the widow, the divorced woman and the prostitute all the same, in terms of profaning the children of the priest? Arguably, only one has sinned, but they all have a common characteristic: They all have agency and thus they’re like a box of chocolates, you never know what you’re going to get. And that passage does not say that his offspring *will* be profaned if he marries one of those women, but all those women are off limits because they *might* profane his offspring.
The difference between the ordinary prostitute and the cult prostitute is that the cult prostitute was forbidden and the sex was idolatry, which is also forbidden; and possibly adultery. The ordinary prostitute might frequently be referred to negatively but she wasn’t engaged in a forbidden act and she wasn’t forbidden. And, as Paul said, where there is no violation there is no sin imputed. Hand waving about rebellion aside, one is forbidden, the other is not. Both get talked about negatively but only one is sinful activity. As to why the wages of the ordinary prostitute are the same as the wages of a male homosexual prostitute when it comes to paying vows in the Temple, God simply says they (both offerings) are an abomination.
He didn’t say why.
Pigs are were unclean, but they are not sinful. It’s not a sin to keep pigs or feed them. Pigs get talked about very negatively all over Scripture, but the only violation was using them for food. Ordinary prostitutes are talked about negatively, but apparently the only violation is using their earnings to pay their vows.
“2) You must assume that when Scripture says a man must marry a woman he raped, what it really means is when he raped her he married her. Deut 22:28-29:”
And you were *so* close.
Without going into issues of version-shopping for an English text that supports your ideas, the text doesn’t say a man must marry a woman he raped, the text says “she shall become his wife.” You may want to compare the “shall become” of Deuteronomy 22:29 with the “shall become” of Genesis 2:24. Same verb (“hayah”) in the same context: eligible virgin has sex, God made them one flesh, they are married. Just like Adam and Eve. It occurred with the act of sex, no special sauce.
You are obviously trying to read a conflict with Genesis 2;24 into the text but there is none. He didn’t damage her marriage value and now he must marry her and pay a high brideprice, he married her with the act of putting his penis in her vagina. Because Genesis 2:24 says sex is how a man marries a woman and the text is clear that she was an eligible virgin. He cannot divorce her all his days because he humbled her. He violated her. Do a word study on “‘in·nāh”. They are married, but it was a bad thing for him to do and there are consequences. Like paying a high bride price.
However, the part you are either ignoring or don’t understand is verse 28 says there had to be witnesses (they had to be discovered). There is no question she was an eligible virgin and they had sex, so what does it matter whether they are discovered or not? This judgment answers the question of whether the father has the authority to forbid a marriage, as opposed to forbidding his daughter’s agreement to marry. The answer is no, Numbers 30:5 only authorizes him to forbid her agreements and vows. With witnesses proving it was a real rape (she obviously made no agreement or vow), Numbers 30:5 does not apply and they *are* married (present tense) according to Genesis 2:24. Her husband now has to pay a high bride price and he cannot divorce her all her days of his life.
As to what happens if they were not discovered, refer to Exodus 22:16-17.
“3) God’s design for the family sometimes includes knowing who your father is, and sometimes doesn’t, and unwed motherhood is part of God’s plan.”
Complete ridiculousness. I certainly don’t believe that twaddle and I would be shocked if Pode admitted to such a thing.
Let’s cut to chase.
If you’re married, do it. No sin.
If you’re not married, don’t do it. Sin.
Done.
A sacrament is a mystery, inasmuch as some things can be known about it but not everything can be grasped about it. (Not all mysteries are sacraments). Sacraments come from the same place that the Bible comes from: the one, holy, apostolic Church established by Christ.
@Toad
Of course you do. You are arguing that God’s plan for the family sometimes involves righteous hookers for Jesus as dear old mom. Why is it twaddle? Are you claiming being the bastard child of a hooker is shameful? How? Hookers are according to you an honorable profession, just like farmers.
In addition to all the other points about the theory that sex creates marriage, there is Matthew 1:24-25:
Don’t know if anyone already mentioned this particular passage.
@Toad
Mark Driscoll says that unwed mothers are like widows, and you agree. But you go a step further and compare widows to hookers.
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.
The profane was a description of the divorsed/widow/prostitute. Are they all sinners? No. Look at the Hebrew word. Pierced. Its just a way of saying that their not being virgins makes them ceremonial unclean for a priest.
While I don’t think just P in V constitutes marriage…this is an interesting question:
Scripture tells us ‘The Lord God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man.’
So God created her…just like he created Adam. And Adam was called ‘Son of God’ (Luke 3:38). I’d say God is also her father…however we do know for sure He was her creator.
‘Let’s cut to chase.
If you’re married, do it [with your lawful spouse]. No sin.
If you’re not married, don’t do it. Sin.
Done.’
/fixed
That right there is the rhetorical bait and switch. “God’s plan”, “wise course of action”, and “sinful” are three different things.
I can confidently say it was God’s plan for most men to marry a virgin and be satisfied in marriage (by however many wives/concubines/slaves it takes).
I can also say that visiting a prostitute is unwise and making that your career even less so.
I can even say prostitutes are looked down upon with scorn.
But what I can’t say is using them or being one is a sin (unless its a temple prostitute or you’re the daughter of a Levitical priest). God never said that. He never said ‘thou shalt not’, he never gave a sin offering for it, nor ever give a punishment for it.
And that is the problem. The law was given to show us sin. You all wish to use human reasoning and tradition to speak where God did not speak, to call things sin He did not condemn.
You add to the law. You teach as doctrine the commandments of men.
I have no desire to use prostitutes and never have. I do not seek to excuse myself. I simply want to know the Truth and to exercise caution in judgment knowing that I will be judged as I judge others and that I mustn’t judge the servant of another.
Genesis 2:22 shows that the marriage was when God gave Eve to Adam. Sex came later. I find it hard to believe that Toad didn’t see this, when he puts forward Genesis 2:24 as supporting P-in-V as marriage. If P-in-V makes a marriage, why didn’t Adam P-in-V until Genesis 4:1? That is a long time after Genesis 2:22.
I have always made a habit of skipping over AT’s comments after the misfortune of reading a few of his screeds early in my travels on this blog. His eisegetical tongs and blowtorch never tire of bending the scripture to his own ends, which always seem to entail the discovery of a sexual freedom that only he has been truly enlightened enough to unearth, allowing enjoyment without guilt.
There are two concepts in scripture that summarize this. A seared conscience and deception.
I applaud Dalrock for the takedown, but it should by now be apparent that it is an exercise in futility.
@Anchorman
At the end of the day all sexual immorality are variants of adultery. If it is out of healthy holy wedlock its sin.
@Anchorman
And then there is natural law. Given how human bodies function there are proper and improper uses of the human body. For example the anus is designed to expel faeces using it as a playground when it is not designed to be leads to negative consequences.
There are other examples. But natural allows one to properly love ones neighbor.
@Necroking
Yes it does. Sacrament literally means “holy (sacra) mystery (ment)”. Here’s what the Online Etymology Dictionary has to say:
“outward and visible sign of inward and spiritual grace,” also “the eucharist,” c. 1200, from Old French sacrament “consecration; mystery” (12c., Modern French sacrement) and directly from Latin sacramentum “a consecrating” (also source of Spanish sacramento, German Sakrament, etc.), from sacrare “to consecrate” (see sacred); a Church Latin loan-translation of Greek mysterion (see mystery).
Paul says in Ephesians 5:32 that marriage is a profound/great mystery, and that it concerns Christ and His Church; both of which are holy.
The fact that you have trouble understanding that the map is not the territory is not something I can deal with in a blog comment.
@Boxer
Is classic Marx for Hierarchy, King and Country?
@Mycroft Jones
I mentioned the same time lapse above. But another point is one I just noticed: That what Adam actually says is this:
They are one flesh already. She IS bone of his bone and she IS flesh of his flesh; right then; at the marriage and before they have sex. What follows is like an aside and the author or Genesis breaks the fourth wall to the reader saying:
I have heard some biblical scholars say that naked is sometimes used in the OT to mean sexual activity, and that the next line (“25 And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.”) actually means they had sex then and there. I haven’t done any research on that myself.
Regardless, the point stands that there is a mysterious reenactment which happens in marriage, and sex is intrinsically part of that, but it is not that mystery all on its own. All the OT laws make sense from this perspective because each one is about how to move an act which is a mutilation of the mystery of marriage towards the holy mystery, or to avoid the mutilating acts, or to atone from them…generally how to repent from doing marriage wrong. The OT laws aren’t a riddle; not even big hairy complex one.
@MrTeebs:
+1 to every word of that, except for the last phrase. It should have been apparent a long time ago. What a waste.
@Cane Caldo
*”Yes it does. Sacrament literally means “holy (sacra) mystery (ment)”. Here’s what the Online Etymology Dictionary has to say:
“outward and visible sign of inward and spiritual grace,” also “the eucharist,” c. 1200, from Old French sacrament “consecration; mystery” (12c., Modern French sacrement) and directly from Latin sacramentum “a consecrating” (also source of Spanish sacramento, German Sakrament, etc.), from sacrare “to consecrate” (see sacred); a Church Latin loan-translation of Greek mysterion (see mystery).
Paul says in Ephesians 5:32 that marriage is a profound/great mystery, and that it concerns Christ and His Church; both of which are holy”*………………………….end quote
WRONG AGAIN!!!….you only quoted the definition of Sacrament PARTIALLY….here let me help you out:
“A sacrament is a Christian RITE that is a symbol of God’s means by which HE enacts his grace upon people”….That is THE Catholic definition, and it is what they adhere to
The scriptures don’t teach any such blasphemy…there is ONLY 1 method by which God imparts his Grace and that is by the substitutionary atonement of Jesus Christ on the cross……There are NO sacraments, they can more properly be seen as “ordinances” but never be seen as the MEANS by which God imparts His grace
The word “Sacrament” is not even in the bible, the biblical word is “Mystery” and they are NOT the same thing.
Yes I know the word “Trinity” is not in the bible, so don’t think you can outwit me ….the difference is which “word” is backed up by sound doctrine….Let me give you a hint, the word, “Sacrament” fails the test, whereas Trinity doesn’t
By the way I was just playing semantic, etymological games with you….I don’t even care what the etymological root meaning of the word “Sacrament” means anyway……I don’t use secular sources to define God’s words in the bible….the scriptures are THE final authority and if the scriptures contradict the Magesterium, or the Canonical teachings, or the Pope’s decrees, or the Roman Catholics teachings then they can all take a flying leap into hell for all I care….The answer and firm foundation is “what saith the scriptures”….and in those scriptures, they refute the current doctrinal belief of the RCC on it’s definition of SACRAMENT
You’re playing with the big boys now @Cane…best come prepared if you want to debate me
Shame on you anyway, as you’re not even a RC, why would you defend their blasphemous garbage anyway??
@Cane Caldo
Here it is straight from the horses mouth:
The Catechism of the Catholic Church states: “The sacraments are efficacious signs of grace, instituted by Christ and entrusted to the Church, by which divine life is dispensed to us. the visible rites by which the sacraments are celebrated signify and make present the graces proper to each sacrament”……….Catechism of the Catholic Church, “Article 2 THE PASCHAL MYSTERY IN THE CHURCH’S SACRAMENTS: IN BRIEF,” Vatican, http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P35.HTM
If you can’t see how BLASPHEMOUS that is, there is literally no hope for you.
In fact I’m not even going to take time to refute such utter heretical garbage, as It’s self evident how sick that false doctrine of “Sacrament” really is
@necroking
The Bible as interpreted by you. This is a terribly silly position to hold because it pushes you into one of two equally absurd categories:
1) Everyone in human history has had the Bible wrong to some varying degree until you came along with the official interpretation that is absolutely correct
Or
2) Every “honest” interpretation is morally “correct” so that the Catholics are correct insofar as they truthfully believe and the Protestant is equally correct and the feminist churchian and the biblocally ignorant are also equally correct, as long as their differences are “honest”. There is no such thing as error, because conscience dictates all moral lawgiving.
Or you could set up an outside tribunal to determine the correct interpretation, but that would then just be a variation of number 1 and only mildly less absurd.
Being a Catholic might be a slightly heavier burden, but it sure is simpler.
@feministhater
The Church has and still does. Perhaps not enough to your or my liking, but try to be open to the idea that at least some of that feeling on our part could be pride and hypocrisy. For one, it is not our concern who is corrected and when. For another, the sin of one is NEVER justification for the sin of another.
That is an incredible hyperbole. There are some marriages that are unhealthy and entirely void of sex. Those marriages need work, and both parties are usually to blame for the breach. Most people who find themselves in those marriages are guilty of marrying the wrong person, and whether they admit it or not, there were signs. Other marriages don’t include as much sex as one party would like, but few reach the level of “might as well be celibate”.
One big difference in the Catholic Church from “modern day marriage” is both parties are married for life, no exceptions. If she leaves then you are both to remain celibate forever or risk eternal damnation. So there is that protection.
Give it a rest Skyler. This is not the forum to argue for the RCC. Many here would rather follow the Scriptures than RCC traditions. Learn from Earl and quit shoving the RCC every time you can.
Thanks for making the point for me again. I’d rather just live a celibate life than get into an institution that would force me into being a cuck if my wife decided to cheat or a forced celibate with all the responsibilities of marriage if my wife decided to be a cold witch.
Just keep making that point.
@Dalrock
“You are arguing that God’s plan for the family sometimes involves righteous hookers for Jesus as dear old mom.”
Family requires a husband, prostitution precludes having a husband.
Legitimate prostitute: A woman who is not a virgin and not married or involved in idolatry, who provides men sexual access to her body in return for payment. She is legitimate because she is not in violation of God’s Law, thus her prostitution is not sexual immorality, it is not in sin. I’ll deal with your latest attempt to show me the Law forbids prostitution in just a moment.
However, as I’ve previously stated, in addition to the Law, for Christians there are issues of conscience and a prostitute would be in sin if her conscience objected to selling her body (Romans 14:23). At the same time, if she was convinced it was the right thing to do she would be in sin if she didn’t sell her body (James 4:17). Neither of which situations is something that you or I have the right to judge, no matter how we might feel about it, because they are matters of conscience and we are forbidden to judge such things.
“But why can’t they pay their vows with their earnings? “because the Lord your God detests them both.”
You did it again.
Similar to your assertion that sex does not make anyone married, you make another bald assertion without support. You have not made the case that God was talking about the individuals rather than the money that came from the sex-work. Look careful at the text. The subject is the wages of the female prostitute and male prostitute, not the people who produced the money. It is only for votive offerings that the wages of both the male and female prostitutes are not to be brought into the House of the Lord. Then came the reason. “for both of these are an abomination to the LORD your God.”
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.
However, that doesn’t answer your question. Hang on to your britches.
In Leviticus 19:29, it is written:
Why didn’t God just forbid prostitution? Obviously, with the issue before Him that was something that He could do if He wanted to, but obviously He chose not to.
Look carefully at Leviticus 19:29 and the reason given. Don’t make your daughter a prostitute (“zanah”) in order that the land might not fall (be overrun, be filled with) to prostitution and the land become filled with lewdness (wickedness, depravity). Why would making daughters prostitutes cause the land to be filled with prostitution and overrun with lewdness if such a thing were allowed?
Obviously because at least some fathers would do it for the money, then more of them would do it and eventually the land would be filled with whores and overrun with lewdness. Because there’s money to be made with young, pretty prostitutes because men will pay more to have sex with them and do so more often.
Economic incentives matter and this is an economic sanction to prevent the land from becoming filled with prostitution and lewdness. Ordinary prostitution is being regulated with this passage.
Back to Deuteronomy 23:17-18
In verse 17, God forbids both male and female cult-prostitutes. Why didn’t God just forbid all prostitution? The issue was before Him and He could have, but He chose not to.
Male and female cult prostitutes (both are called “qadesh” are forbidden in the land in verse 17, but then in the next verse Moses uses the word “zanah” to describe the female prostitute and the calls the male prostitute a dog. Obviously he’s no longer referring to cult prostitutes, which are forbidden.
Since there can be legitimate female prostitutes, perhaps there can be legitimate male prostitutes who only serviced widows or divorced women. The modern word is gigolo. He’s now referring to the prostitutes who are NOT forbidden. Are the prostitutes the abomination? Or is this referring to both sources of income? Could this be the first money laundering statute?
Let’s look at the passage:
Dalrock answers his own question and says:
Really? If the income from prostitution can’t be brought into the House of the Lord because God detests prostitutes, why did God only forbid income from prostitution for a votive offering? Does this mean God doesn’t detest them when they use their income for any other offering or temple tax? He only detests them when they try to pay votive offerings?
Maybe only some male and female prostitutes want to use their wages to pay votive offerings and God says they’re an abomination. But other male and female prostitutes aren’t into making votive offerings, they only use their wages to pay the required payments, so they’re not an abomination.
Twaddle was the word I used and it fits.
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.
Dalrock, not only do you ignore the specificity of what God says in order to support your narrative, you’re trying to claim prostitution is a sin because (as you claim) prostitutes are an abomination.
Even if you were correct (and you’re not) that raises the question. If God detests (hates) something, does that make it a sin? Surely, doing something that God says He hates would be rebellion against God, which is a sin. Right?
Actually… No. If that were the case then divorce would be a sin.
God said He hates divorce.
God did not forbid divorce in the Law.
God did regulate divorce in the Law.
Divorce is not a sin.
Your argument fails. Again.
So, what is the answer if prostitutes are not an abomination?
Given the Biblical record of the corruption of the ancient leaders of the Temple as well as the current record of corruption of the leaders of the church when it comes to financial issues, it very much appears God is forbidding any possibility that the Temple might become corrupted by the proceeds from prostitution. If that happened, the Temple would find itself promoting prostitution because it would have a financial incentive to do so.
And, as a historical example, this is exactly what happened in the middle ages when the church became dependent on income from it’s brothels (which were officially set up in order to prevent homosexuality) and wound up being the largest owner of brothels in Europe (Brundage, “Law, Sex and Christian Society in Medieval Europe”)
God did not forbid all proceeds from prostitution, so either God only detests prostitutes when they make voluntary payments and hypocritically doesn’t detest them when they pay their taxes, or Dalrock is wrong and it’s the votive offerings from the female prostitutes and the votive offerings from the male prostitutes that are the abomination. Most likely because of the potential for corruption, which would lead to the land becoming overrun with prostitution.
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.
What does Toad think Deuteronomy 23:18 means?
The use of income from prostitution for making payments of (voluntary) votive offerings to the House of the Lord is prohibited. Income derived from either male or female prostitution is prohibited, both of these are an abomination.
With that taken care of, let’s compare prostitution with farming.
Prostitution
God forbids fathers from making their daughters prostitutes.
God forbids both male and female cult-prostitutes.
God forbids the income from prostitution for votive offerings.
God regulated prostitution in the Law.
God does not regulate sin, He prohibits it.
God did not prohibit prostitution.
Prostitution is not a sin, it is a regulated activity.
Farming
God forbid farmers from plowing their fields with an ox and ass yoked together.
God forbid farmers from mixing their seed.
God commanded the farmers to give the land a Sabbath rest every 7 years.
God regulated farming in the Law.
God does not regulate sin, He prohibits it.
God did not prohibit farming.
Farming is not a sin, it is a regulated activity.
If a farmer can be obedient to God and be a righteous farmer, a prostitute can be obedient to God and be a righteous prostitute.
Are you claiming being the bastard child of a hooker is shameful? How? Hookers are according to you an honorable profession, just like farmers.
Dalrock, are you claiming being the bastard child of a governor is shameful? How? According to God, governors are ministers of righteousness.
Are farmers ministers of righteousness?
What about bloggers?
We could debate the meaning of the word bastard or discuss your conflation of the individual and their “profession” but you did ask about the bastard child of a prostitute.
I’d have to say they’re not as shameful as the bastard child born of unknowing adultery after his mother and father were convinced by churchians teachers that virginity doesn’t matter so sex and becoming one flesh doesn’t make the eligible virgin married because there’s a Biblically non-existent requirement for some additional Special Sauce™ that must be met in order for God to consider a marriage to be valid.
Who should bear the shame of that? Those who taught the lies and suppressed the truth, which allowed this situation to occur.
The problem is now many are following however they interpret Scripture as opposed to what Scripture actually says. Fore example the last two big threads: I never heard before that just intercourse was the only thing that constituted marriage. The part many outside the church (and probably some in the church) misunderstand is that Scripture and apostolic tradition aren’t pitted against each other.
We get it…you don’t want to be married. Nobody here as far as I know has tried to convince you otherwise.
@ infowarrior1 “And then there is natural law.”
Traditionally, some Protestants used to base a great deal of their biblical exegesis on natural law. I know Lutherans did. Thought this was an interesting thing to point out.
@ necroking48
“the scriptures are THE final authority..”
Scripture can’t be THE or even AN authority because an authority has to make decisions, enforce rules and laws, compel obedience, etc.
“In fact I’m not even going to take time to refute such utter heretical garbage”
Stop using “heresy”, “heretical”, etc. A Protestant (someone who, by definition, chooses instead of following Church authority), can’t charge others with heresy. “Heresy” is a Catholic term.
Lol earl, I know you get it but I’ll keep stating it just as an option to others out there. If the choice is celibacy but freedom from marriage or celibacy and the restriction of marriage. Hey man, just providing the alternative.
@Bruce
Scripture is the final infallible rule of faith is the protestant position. Reformed my theology is currently is. Although I find concepts like sacraments and hierarchy perfectly biblical. As I do the office of bishop/overseer,elders and deacons.
”Traditionally, some Protestants used to base a great deal of their biblical exegesis on natural law. I know Lutherans did. Thought this was an interesting thing to point out.”
I think those Lutherans are dead on. I think that perhaps Romans 1 help give a lot of justification of using natural law for biblical exegesis. But there could be better scripture passages to justify that.
The word ‘Heresy’ has been around for ages. It’s not owned by any one group or religion. It’s quite simply the word used to describe those who don’t agree with or provide dissension to an in group custom, religion or culture.
It means ‘to choose’ or more correctly, to choose to believe something else to what has already been provided.
@ feministhater
Peace – I suppose all Christians were/are heretics to Jews – you have to be heretical with respect to something. It just seemed odd to me when used in a Protestant context since there is so much choice in Protestantism.
No worries Bruce. I’m a heretic to everyone lol! I’m an unsaved Christian who doesn’t belong to any such denomination of Church. I can only go on my faith alone and that causes me to basically question everything.
In my own stubbornness, I will not enter into something I cannot fully understand or agree to. In the case of marriage. I can agree to basically everything Catholic’s say about marriage except that sexual immorality doesn’t include adultery and thus I must stay with an adulterous wife. I cannot do that and so will honestly say why and choose not to get married instead.
My reading of the Bible convinces me that adultery is an act against the marriage to the point that the offending party has defiled it and destroyed it, leaving the marriage contract voidable by the innocent party. They can choose to either leave or stay but I cannot agree with being forced to stay in such a contract when the other party has basically destroyed it outright.
Thus I’m a heretic to Catholics. Hey, I’m fine with that.
@ feministhater
Not to nitpick or be contentious, but it’s not Catholic teaching that sexual immorality doesn’t include adultery or that you must stay with an adulterous wife. The Catholic position is that Christian marriage is indissoluble. Separation from bed and board (divorce “quoad thorum”) is allowed for extraordinary circumstances, including adultery, real abuse (not Churchian “abuse”). But you can’t marry again because you’re already married. Just want to state the Catholic position accurately fwiw. There’s also no requirement for Catholics to marry. Your reaction to the current state of marriage is understandable.
Also fwiw, I believe your reading of the Bible on divorce (your position is the traditional Protestant reading on Matt 9) is a good faith attempt at interpreting scripture whether I agree with it or not.
@Gunner Q
Do you know that I, a Texan, had never heard of these signs until you mentioned it yesterday? But then last night I went to a house which had one! It was slightly different from the one pictured above, but the same message. “This is a Catholic house…no Protestant propaganda…” etc.
The English of the Hispanic teenager who answered the door was very poor; so I guess they are a family of Obama era illegals. That makes me think the door hangers are part of a specific “mission” (presumably some constituent of the RCC) that protects and supports the recent surge of invaders under the disguise of Catholic charity. That would explain why Zippy never saw one years ago, but you see them everywhere.
Bruce:
Feministhater’s reaction to his own correct grasp of the nature of marriage is the same reaction that the Apostles had:
A completely continent, chaste, unmarried life is certainly one acceptable option, if one does not find the nature of sacramental marriage to one’s liking.
But of course within marriage is the only licit place for non-digestive-tract sexual acts (digestive tract and other unnatural sexual acts being always illicit — thanks to Boxer for the accurate descriptive term).
Also, although people talk about various forms of marriage being “licit for pagans”, and this may be technically true, pagans qua pagan are going to Hell. (Even a case of invincible ignorance involves a ‘baptism of desire’ which implies that we aren’t dealing with a pagan strictly speaking — whatever one thinks of the theology-of-ignorance).
So “licit marriage” is the least of a pagan’s moral concerns, and baptism / entry into the Christian faith is a top priority — at which point all the pagan/natural marriage stuff becomes moot.
@Zippy: Go further: the Church reads Mt 19:11 as a plug for celibacy rather than the grant of what it defines as a sacramental marriage.
Thus the good-better-best continuum is maintained by making (in English) “[this] word” refer to the disciples exclamation rather than the Word.
Sophistry. Plain sophistry.
I understand, one is a choice of your own free will…the other is often forced upon or not the situation Paul gave allowance to not do it for a while.
Microchimerism confirmed? The issue is that they *might* profane the *children* of the priest.
My comment last night was either eaten or fairly deleted as promoting off topic discussion, so I’ll remake the relevant part here and put the rest in the parent thread. Gary Eden did well pointing out the difference between ideal, tolerated, and forbidden. As an engineer I think of it as design point, off design but protected against by failsafes / tolerances, and dangerous conditions outside the operating envelope. Any system that doesn’t have the second region in its operating envelope is not a good system. I think it is very possible to do things God does not like or recommend and not be in sin. So while God’s *design* most definitely does not include bastardy, God’s *plan* that He makes with foreknowledge of all the massively stupid decisions we humans make with our free will most definitely does. Dalrock asked me a question about God’s plan, there’s my answer.
Dalrock also did something VERY rare in my experience: he showed something “Scripture clearly says” TM that actually WAS clear to me from the cited Scripture. If it is a sin for a Christian man to join a member of the body of Christ with a prostitute, how can it not also be a sin for a Christian woman to join a member of the body of Christ with a prostitute by being a prostitute? I’d already challenged Toad on the idea of Christian prostitutes as a violation of the positive command to be chaste, reconciled, or marry in the Lord, but here’s a negative command against it as well.
In light of those two challenges, unless Toad can somehow counter both of them, I suggest the thread is settled that Christians can neither use nor be prostitutes and we have been engaged (in this thread) in a pointless quarrel about whether a hypothetical, impossible, otherwise sinless Jewish woman can be a hooker and still get to Heaven on the merit of having kept the Law. To call that an edge case is a profound understatement.
I further suggest we redirect our attentions to the parent thread “Is marriage the cause of sexual immorality?” and the important question of what begins and constitutes a Biblical marriage. Toad argues (with reasonable Scriptural support IMO) it’s penetrative sex with a virgin (shedding the hymen blood to seal the convenant) or a spoken vow by a non-virgin woman. This has profound implications for the church and IMO discussing that assertion would be far better stewardship of the time God has allotted to us.
I give up. Sorry Dalrock. I need remedial HTML
[D: No worries. I think I have it the way you wanted it. I also did a quick and dirty demo of basic tags.]
@Zippy
Yes, it was one of Jesus’ “hard” sayings.
“A completely continent, chaste, unmarried life is certainly one acceptable option, if one does not find the nature of sacramental marriage to one’s liking.”
Not only acceptable but better and more blessed – you have to believe this as a Catholic (Trent, Session 24, Canon X.) He has an even better option than marriage.
SJB:
I didn’t dispute a good-better-best continuum. I merely made the far more narrow and specific point that the Apostles, when told the nature of marriage by Christ, in fact said back that given the nature of marriage it was better not to marry. I have to idea why that triggered you to start shouting “sophistry!”
SkylerWurden:
“The Church has and still does (call out women on their grave sin). Perhaps not enough to your or my liking”
WHERE?
Please show me with sources and evidence where the Roman Catholic Church is, here, today, in 2017, in the United States, holding women to account on their grave (sexual) sins.
I’m not sure I follow SJB but “word” is rendered “saying” in AKJV.
Bruce:
Yes, of course. But I was just pointing out more specifically that feministhater’s overt reaction to grasping the nature of marriage was the same as (or very similar to) the Apostles’ overt reaction to gaining that understanding.
John uses Logos in that sense do the synoptic gospels? I don’t know off the top of my head.
I know that the U.S. Catholic Bishops (who aren’t particularly traditional as Catholics go) called out men and women for pornography use, specifically naming the romantic pornography that women use which the Churchians don’t recognize as pornography.
SJB – the good-better-best continuum is not only based on Matthew (even if excluding non-Bibilcal sources of revelation).
Zippy if I understand him, Catholics (“the Church?”) played with the translation to create that continuum.
Bruce:
Like what? 50 shades of Grey?
Is the RCC calling out women on:
–having premarital sex?
–using birth control?
–having abortions?
–divorcing their husbands and remarrying?
–refusing to have sex with their husbands in lawful sacramental marriages?
I mean calling them out DIRECTLY. Addressing it from the pulpit. Having meeting with individual women in which they’re confronted. Telling them to go back to their husbands. Refusing to marry them. Excommunicating them. Denying them communion.
I guaran-damn-TEE you, I can go to any RCC Church in this country, and FULLY 80% of the unmarried women there are having or have had premarital sex, are using or did use birth control, and are guilty of some form of sexual sin. They are NOT called out, they are NOT confronted, they STILL take communion, they STILL hold servant/”ministry” positions, they STILL attend services, they are NOT excommunicated.
Pode,
Use less than and greater thanking instead.
Earl,
Your point would have merit, but many Sola Scriptura people are arguing against the idiocy at and others are putting forth. You may disagree with how we view some Scriptures, but many/most of us agree with your end result in the areas you noted. That is why the “holier than thou” stuff Skyler is pushing gets old. Do you really want us posting on all the past and even current flaws of the RCC?
I mean calling them out DIRECTLY. Addressing it from the pulpit. Having meeting with individual women in which they’re confronted. Telling them to go back to their husbands. Refusing to marry them. Excommunicating them. Denying them communion.
I guaran-damn-TEE you, I can go to any RCC Church in this country, and FULLY 80% of the unmarried women there are having or have had premarital sex, are using or did use birth control, and are guilty of some form of sexual sin. They are NOT called out, they are NOT confronted, they STILL take communion, they STILL hold servant/”ministry” positions, they STILL attend services, they are NOT excommunicated.
That’s true, but that’s largely because no-one is generally confronted about anything directly in the RCC for the most part. The general reason is that the parishes are way too large to do so. The average RC suburban parish has like 5-7 masses every weekend with 500+ at each, and 1-2 priests doing them all. The priests don’t know who you are, generally speaking, with some exceptions if you happen to be one of the few who works in a parish function or is on the council. So, as a result, it’s basically an honor system. Noone is called out or confronted on anything, noone is excommunicated — this doesn’t happen to anyone in the RCC, because the parishes are too large for the priest to know anyone other than a handful, and in any case, the whole thing operates on an honor system. It really has to do with the size of the thing and how it operates. There’s no manpower to do things any other way, and likely won’t be anytime soon. Basically noone gets excommunicated (other than a few very high profile cases like abortion doctors and so on) … you’re left to drink judgment onto yourself if you so wish.
My point is that the entire culture of the RCC is utterly different from any kind of Protestant church, so it’s very hard to draw comparisons. Yes, the RCC doesn’t call out women, but it also isn’t calling out the men, either, which doesn’t seem to be the case in the Protestant churches, where men are routinely called on the carpet by the pastors. The culture is such that the Church makes it clear enough what you are supposed to do and what the moral teaching is in places like the Catechism, but it generally doesn’t rail on people in Church. And approaching the sacraments is on an honor system, because nothing else is practical given the size of the parishes.
AT’s commentary on Deut 23 is bolstered by Lev 21. Priests couldn’t marry prostitutes and their daughters were killed if they prostituted (simple, not temple).
No where else was simple prostitution prohibited or given penalty. No where else are we prohibited from marrying a prostitute (whether she’s a born again virgin or not). This was a special case for daughters of priest.
So not only did God forbid temple prostitution, he is prohibiting/eliminating all arms length versions as well.
These are all steps He never took for simple prostitution.
Bruce @ 6:26 am:
“Traditionally, some Protestants used to base a great deal of their biblical exegesis on natural law. I know Lutherans did. Thought this was an interesting thing to point out.”
Yep. It’s a good way to get unbelievers onboard with Christian morality. Atheists don’t care if prostitution is immoral but they usually do care about STDs. There are reasons God gave us the morality He did; they aren’t mere tests of loyalty.
…
@Cane Caldo,
Okay, it’s not a universal thing. Good to know I can stop being angry about it. California must be FUBAR.
to start a quote of something use a ” (greater than).
to end the quote do the same thing except the keyword is ‘/blockquote’. Without the two ‘ of course.
Nova:
And yet, Teddy Kennedy still got served communion though he was full-throatedly pro-abortion.
And yet, many Prot churches have no problem telling alt righties they aren’t welcome to take communion because of their views.
And yet, we have many churches, RCC and prot, and commenters, RCC and prot, willing and ready to bash men over the heads for even so much as thinking about premarital sex.
But we as a culture, a society and a faith, have no problem with looking the other way with women’s sexual sin.
Bruce:
Ah, so SJB is against the hierarchy of goods with marriage as the most common / least sacred, not for it? Honestly I haven’t attended closely to what he said, since I was speaking neither to him nor about him until he started shouting “sophistry” at me. This confused me, since I was making a very narrow point with which a Protestant ought to easily agree: that feminsthater’s overt reaction to grasping the nature of marriage is almost identical to the Apostles’ overt reaction as recorded in the Gospel of Matthew.
And Teddy Kennedy got “remarried”. And his first marriage failed because he was a cheat and a liar and a drunk. Was he ever disciplined? Was he denied remarriage? Was he denied communion because he was living in what the RCC by doctrine considers an adulterous relationship with his second wife?
Pingback: Basic tags for wordpress comments. | Dalrock
ack, that was aweful. podethelesser, to get the nifty indented italicized quotes just use the standard blockquote html tag. there may be a few other html tags that work too here, idk.
Nova:
I started this exchange because I was questioning Skyler’s claim that the RCC is, today, in the US, holding women to account for sexual sin. Your response would indicate that my questioning whether that is, in fact, happening is well founded.
thedeti:
I never hear RC homilies calling out the terrible scourge of Protestantism either, and protestant rebellion is – from a Catholic perspective – objectively worse than the antics of uppity and trashy women.
Most homilies are milquetoast pablum, and the few that are excellent tend to focus on theology more than morals.
But you are probably carrying some of your own baggage into your interpretation of the situation. Just as the Church is not your Daddy, Mass is not an hour spent with a pentecostal corner preacher. Preaching in the protestant sense isn’t what Mass is
about, at all. One local priest here famously gives one sentence homilies in his daily Mass.
All that said, I agree with the basic point that feminism generally and characteristically feminine sins are mostly ignored and excused. I’ve called this out myself:
https://zippycatholic.wordpress.com/2016/10/02/respect-for-murderesses-sunday/
Deti —
As I said, they generally don’t deny people communion, they let you decide. It’s the culture of that Church. Biden also receives communion and is pro-abortion, and presided over a gay marriage. They don’t enforce the rules that way. There are a few exceptions but they generally don’t enforce the rules that way. Does this cause scandal in some notorious cases? Yes, it can, no question, but it’s the culture of the RCC generally to permit the person to drink judgment onto themselves, rather than policing the chalice.
Yes, they don’t call out women on sexual sin, but don’t call out men, either, if you mean from the pulpit and in parishes.
Here is a list of HTML tags referenced by function. Scroll down a bit for the table of formatting tags. Not all of them are supported in WordPress comment boxes. If you ever lose this URL just do a search on “HTML tag list” or something similar.
https://www.w3schools.com/TAGs/ref_byfunc.asp
Zippy:
You and I have had this exchange before. I know what your views are on it, and im not interested in revisiting them. My “baggage” is irrelevant. The problems with Protestantism are an irrelevant red herring you always toss up to avoid the issue.
The exchange initiated with Skyler saying that the RCC is, today, in 2017, holding women to account for their grave sexual sins. I questioned that, quite pointedly. I think your post is pretty much an admission that, at least from your observations, it isn’t.
Novaseeker:
Very true. That is what turns the whole “denying people communion” thing on its head, as if there were bouncers and turnstyles and as if there were these thunderous denunciations of sinners coming from the pulpit.
https://zippycatholic.wordpress.com/2015/11/13/communion-and-the-dishonor-system/
I mean, I’ve been a Catholic for more than half a century. I’ve never once seen one of these “calling men to the carpet” deals that the prots here go on about, during any Catholic Mass, ever.
@Zippy: no shouting here; perhaps the volume to cranked up on your device.
The accepted meaning of Mt 19:11 is that grace is given to celibates in contrast to a “natural” power to sacramental marriage (one-man, one-woman, for life). It strike me a sophistry, on the Church’s part, as the “natural” power is reproduction. So grace for celibates–especially ordained and consecrated–but lay men and women not so much other than an exercise of raw will.
It strikes me as being very different than “in the beginning”.
thedeti:
Yes, for at least the second time, the RCC doesn’t really do much “calling out of sin” at all, let alone calling out of the specific sins of women, either in Mass or in personal interactions. I agree with that, because it is true. The RCC tries to make available the revealed-and-provided-by-Christ means to avoid Hell, but it doesn’t do a lot of denouncing-from-the-pulpit of people who are making their way there enthusiastically.
You are correct on the discrete fact, but that single point of correctness is buried in a pile of incomprehension which you still exhibit in your criticisms.
Deti, if I read correctly in a previous comment stream Skyler claims to be 27, so there are things that you have seen and experienced he doesn’t know about. There’s things he just doesn’t know about, not yet anyway. From what I can tell, there is no RC analog to Mark Driscoll’s man-shaming. The matriarchy takes a different form in the Roman Catholic church. It’s still there, of course, although most RC men are blind to it just as most Protestant men are can’t see the Female Imperative in their own churches. Skyler needs a set of The Glasses.
Well, then, how ARE people being held to account for their sins in the RCC? I mean, I don’t see “thunderous denunciations” of individual sinners either from any Prot pulpit, at least not since I was about 10. I HAVE seen “thunderous denunciations” of people who engage in a particular sin, as well as particular sins themselves. That said, if anything, we “heathen” Prots are even more permissive and doctrinally spongy than the Catholics are, yet we try to hew more closely to it. The RCC has rigid, mostly easy-to-understand-and-apply doctrine that most of its faithful simply ignore at best and thumb their noses at at worst (that is, if they even know or understand the doctrine).
At this point, I have to consider the point conceded, that in the RCC in 2017 in the US, women are not being held to account for their sexual sins.
@Bruce: I’d not say play with the translation as much as reinforcing a bias.
SJB:
Whatever you say, man. I wasn’t talking about any of that stuff, and have no intention of getting into it now. I was just pointing out that the Apostles’ overt reaction to really grasping the nature of marriage in the Gospel of Matthew was really similar to feministhater’s reaction to it in this thread.
Zippy: Yes, OK, the “pile of incomprehension” insult. I was wondering when that was coming.
Again: The point’s conceded, “incomprehension” notwithstanding.
But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.
Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price.
Would the temple be held to a lower standard of holiness than the priesthood who serves in it?
thedeti:
The same way everyone everywhere who fails to repent [*] is held to account for their sins: an eternity spent in the Lake of Fire.
——–
[*] Including the concomitants of repentance.
thedeti:
That you are clueless about Catholicism is a fact, not an insult.
Well, then, how ARE people being held to account for their sins in the RCC?
By God. If you eat and drink condemnation and judgment on yourself that’s your doing, but the Church itself won’t discipline you like that for being a sinner, or “de-fellowship” you or anything similar. It’s mostly a question of size, I think.
Zippy:
It doesn’t matter whether I’m clueless about Catholicism or not. What matters is that the RCC isn’t holding women to account for their sexual sin.
When you insult your opponent, you’ve lost the argument.
thedeti:
Specifying “women” turns that into a misleading statement.
Zippy:
I specified “women” because this is the specific claim I questioned:
“The Church is holding women to account (for their grave sexual sin)”.
If you want to say the RCC isn’t holding women and men to account for their sexual sin, OK, that might very well be true. It’s beside the point and not relevant to the initial claim I questioned.
@Zippy: Excellent display of that which I write: the disciples response indicates they are disheartened by “the true nature of marriage”. Yet Christ says there is grace for those who can handle it. Does the Church say there is grace for marriage? No, they reserve grace for celibacy.
Bias. And sophistry.
I envy you in America with your first amendment . Were I or anyone in Britain to place a sign outside their house of the sort described above – and especially were the religion mentioned to be Islam – one would soon receive a visit from the police. You would probably expect to serve a year or perhaps eighteen months in prison for the public – though it is hardly that – declaration of your religious views.
SJB:
Absolutely! Marriage is a sacrament.
“Does the Church say there is grace for marriage?”
“Absolutely! Marriage is a sacrament.”
Which grace God makes available to all who love and obey Him and that we all (hopefully) accept and take hold of, so we can walk out our married lives in a way which glorifies God.
Hopefully.
thedeti:
If “technically true but deceptive as stated” was what you were going for, you’ve succeeded.
Zippy:
Again: Whether the RCC holds men to account for their sexual sins or not was not part of the claim being questioned and is not relevant to this particular analysis. If you have a problem with the specific claim asserted, take that up with Skyler who asserted it initially, not with me, who simply questioned whether the SPECIFIC CLAIM ASSERTED was true or not, and, apparently, has successfully established that that specific claim is, in fact, untrue.
As long as they are truthful flaws…be my guest. But I doubt the flaws you find will be in the Catholic dogma…it will be the clergy not following the dogma.
That has been my experience with the various Catholic churches I’ve attended…when sin is called out it isn’t pinned on a specific sex. I’m not saying it doesn’t happen…but I’m saying I’ve never heard a homily where there was specifically man or woman bashing. Part of the problem of moral relativism is the fact that it has infiltrated the sexes as well. Whenever one side is called out for their sin…that side then calls out the other side for their sin. It really reminds you of what Adam did when he was caught and what Eve did when she was caught.
thedeti:
I do, and I already stated what that problem is, and of course my objection applies to anyone and everyone who asserts the claim (which does include you): it is technically true, but deceptive as stated.
It is like saying that at least a few of the men in this thread don’t beat their wives: technically true, but deceptive as stated.
@Zippy & @thedeti: sacrament, mysterium, regards the manner in which God makes a male and female fruitful as Christ make His Body fruitful. Marriage (a.k.a. one-man, one-woman, for life) is not the manifestation of grace. That is, given “a sacrament is an outward sign of inward grace” what is the outward sign of marriage? Stability? Charity? Chasity? What is the outward sign of grace resting on a male and female but a child?
SJB wrote:
I replied:
thedeti said:
Assuming of course that it actually is a marriage: that what is celebrated and entered into is the actual sacrament of marriage which meets the requirements of marriage, and not some false simulation of marriage; and that we are not taken in by the delusion that assigning the label “marriage” is sufficient to confect an actual sacramental marriage.
SJB:
The form or outward sign of marriage in particular is the explicit and licit consent of (mutual agreement or contract between, pick the language you prefer) the couple who marry.
@sirhamster
If you apply that standard then a Christian could never marry a widow or non-virgin.
Zippy:
“I do, and I already stated what that problem is”
Then take it up with your brother Skyler, who asserted it initially. All I did was question whether what he said was true or not.
“my objection applies to anyone and everyone who asserts the claim (which does include you):”
It does not include me. I did not assert that the RCC is holding women accountable for their sexual sins in 2017. Skyler did. I questioned the veracity of the claim and in fact asserted the opposite: The RCC is NOT holding women accountable for their sexual sins in 2017 in the US. Whether the RCC is or is not holding men, or people, or anyone else, accountable for their sexual sins is irrelevant. All the other things you’re talking about are irrelevant red herrings to the specific question.
I’m not interested in turning this comments section into some sort of pissing contest, which is what discussions with you always seem to devolve into. So let’s just end this here. You get the last word.
Before every Mass we pray this prayer…
‘I confess to almighty God, and to you, my brothers and sisters, that I have sinned through my own fault, in my thoughts and in my words, in what I have done, and in what I have failed to do; and I ask blessed Mary, ever virgin, all the angels and saints, and you, my brothers and sisters, to pray for me to the Lord our God. ‘
I’ve heard several homilies about the importance of the Sacrament of Reconcilliation (some priests will also claim it’s the most important part of their vocation). During specific times of the year (Lent, Advent)…the priests even offer several opportunities to go to it. They also offer it usually every Saturday and often times another time during the week.
Look they’ll be Catholics who think they are just as self-righteous as any Pharisee and don’t think they need to be held accountable for their sins…but they are going down the wide road to destruction.
The OT marriage was an agreement between husband and father, regulated by God, with money given as dowry. The virgin’s consent was inconsequential.
A concubine on the other hand, that was mutual agreement between her and him; unless she was a slave, then it was between him and former master.
“Assuming of course that it actually is a marriage: that what is celebrated and entered into is the actual sacrament of marriage which meets the requirements of marriage, and not some false simulation of marriage; and that we are not taken in by the delusion that assigning the label “marriage” is sufficient to confect an actual sacramental marriage.”
Is an unconvalidated marriage between two Protestants a sacramental marriage under the RCC; or must the marriage be convalidated before it will be recognized as a marriage? How does a protestant married couple go about having a marriage convalidated in the RCC, presuming one or both is converting to Catholicism?
Assuming of course that it actually is a marriage: that what is celebrated and entered into is the actual sacrament of marriage which meets the requirements of marriage, and not some false simulation of marriage; and that we are not taken in by the delusion that assigning the label “marriage” is sufficient to confect an actual sacramental marriage.
Excellent. This is, what I think, Toad is pointing out: there is a social construct of marriage buttressed by the Church which was not present in the legal milieu when the Gospels and Epistles were recorded.
Assume the protestant marriage has all the other formal prerequisites: explicit and licit consent, already consummated, between two believers, open to children.
thedeti:
It most surely does. You have repeatedly suggested that the RCC does not hold women accountable for their sexual sins. This is (at best) true but deceptive; instead of modifying your claim when corrected, you double down and act as though the reasons why you are making it in that specific deceptive form is someone else’s fault from earlier in the discussion.
Even if that is how it started for you, you should be willing to adjust your claim once the deceptiveness of it has been pointed out to you. You shouldn’t double down on the statement that a few of the men in this thread don’t beat their wives, once the deceptiveness of that phrasing has been pointed out. That you want to stop the conversation and leave the deceptive statement hanging as stated is your thing, not something you can blame on another commenter.
And in the examination of conscience a person can use in reference to knowing which sins they’ve committed in order to confess…you’ll often see things like: have I taken birth control, have I had sex outside the context of lawful marriage, have I viewed or read porn, have I masturbated, have I had or assisted with an abortion. It’s up to the particular person’s choice if they are going to confess their sin or keep it.
All right Zippy, we do not agree on what grace is; you say an inward grace is shown by:
Consent, as a grace, seems quite contemporary.
“You have repeatedly suggested that the RCC does not hold women accountable for their sexual sins.”
It doesn’t — not outwardly. You’ve conceded the point.
“This is (at best) true but deceptive; instead of modifying your claim when corrected,”
But you haven’t corrected it. You conceded it. It also isn’t deceptive. The best you’ve been able to point out is:
–the RCC doesn’t hold men accountable for their sexual sins either
–the RCC holds women accountable through men and women drinking judgment on themselves by taking communion unworthily, and if they do so, they suffer eternal judgment
If that is what you (and the RCC) consider “holding women accountable for their sexual sins”, ok, but it certainly isn’t pointing out their sin to them, and it isn’t the enforcement of any earthly consequences.
thedeti:
Yes, assuming/clarifying the criteria you stated:
… and indissolubility: no remarriage for any reason whatsoever including adultery, abandonment, etc.
And proper form, but Canon law explicity dispenses Protestants from proper form, so that basically means “the legal form doesn’t matter” — as long as neither spouse is Catholic (which you can read as “has ever been Catholic by baptism).
Consummation is not required for a valid sacramental marriage; but it is required for that marriage to become indissoluble.
Whether the RCC does or does not hold men accountable for their sexual sins (and we men commit many) is wholly irrelevant to what was under discussion.
@Toad
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?
thedeti:
I suppose then that “A couple of the people in your family aren’t sodomites, and one or two don’t like copulating with donkeys” is a perfectly fair statement.
For the purposes of the specific question under discussion, it is not relevant that the RCC does or does not hold men accountable for their sexual sins. It doesn’t matter. It’s a red herring.
If what you are asking is ‘are there particular sermons on just what sins women commit and their accountability for it’…no we don’t have homily sessions where the priest rains fire and brimstone on the sins women are committing and demand they be held accountable. When it comes to the topic of a particular sin the sex of the person is irrelevant.
Now if it is true what some Prots say what is going on in their church sermons…the man bashing and using their sins as the excuse that is a big problem.
“When it comes to the topic of a particular sin the sex of the person is irrelevant.”
OK.
The RCC doesn’t hold men accountable for their sexual sins either.
The RCC allows those in sexual sin to drink judgment on themselves.
The RCC doesn’t denounce women’s sexual sins openly from the pulpit.
So what? “The RCC holds women accountable for their sexual sin” is a false statement. The first three statements above aren’t relevant to the fourth. They do not prove or disprove anything with respect to the fourth statement.
The fact that the RCC doesn’t (openly) hold men accountable either is not relevant to this question.
Okay, Pode, that is great. Next question:
Was God Adam and Eve’s priest?
It’s probably an incomplete statement. The RCC hold us all accountable for our sins…and gives us the means to confess them.
earlthomas786:
Incomplete, distorted, and deceptive about the reality it purports to describe. It is like saying “Well, at least thedeti’s mother doesn’t have sex with animals.”
But being unequivocal about that wouldn’t advance the Deti Catechism, I guess.
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.
2 sentence explanations for why Pode will never be elected to public office for 1000, please, Alex.
Pingback: Basic tags for wordpress comments. - Top
Dalrock @ 12:09 pm:
“If I follow [AT’s] logic, raping a non betrothed virgin isn’t a sin then. Right?”
I would say so, actually. The idea would be to prevent sexual hoarding, a “My princess is too good for any of the local men, I’ll see if any billionaires in Manhattan are interested in my Cindy Crawford” situation. The law pressured fathers to marry off daughters quickly instead of waiting for the best possible deal.
This law is, of course, exclusive to ancient Israel. But I’m sympathetic. The problem young men face today isn’t just that chicks want to leverage their sexuality instead of marrying young; their fathers want them to do it, too. Even some Red Pill fathers.
God made raping a not-promised virgin a noncrime because He knew young men needed sex that badly. The father was the truly guilty party and his punishment was getting Quasimodo for a SIL, in a culture that prioritized genealogy above everything.
The takeaway for modern fathers would be to find the best suitors in their local area instead of scouring nations and continents for a “proper” groom. I bet church attendance would skyrocket if sexy virgins were practically forced upon the best of only five or six candidates. No more competing against 45-year old Rasputin the Russian Magnate.
“The RCC hold us all accountable for our sins”
didn’t we just go through this? How? By allowing us to drink judgment on ourselves when we take communion unworthily? By promising eternal judgment? OK, but that’s not imposition of earthly consequences. And it does us no good to say “well, the guys’ feet aren’t held to the fire either.”
Saying “the RCC doesn’t hold women (outwardly) accountable for their sexual sins, but instead only allows them to drink judgment on themselves, and hey, the guys aren’t going to get away with it either at the end of the day” doesn’t mean the vaunted RCC is a thoroughly corrupt institution either. It has its problems. But saying “the RCC doesn’t hold women (outwardly) accountable for their sexual sins” doesn’t impugn the integrity of everything else it does and is. And the statement I’ve made is true.
SJB:
That isn’t quite right. A sacrament is a specific, concrete outward sign of an inward grace. The specific form of the sacrament is the outward sign: much like the word “love” is much like an outward sign of love. To reduce that to suggesting that love is just four letters, or that love only manifests itself as four letters, is to miss the point.
Sacraments are also the ordinary means of receiving grace. Just as someone might express their love by saying “I love you”, Christ expresses and manifests His grace through the sacraments.
Anyway, sacramental theology is a big subject. Attempting to reduce it to a combox discussion won’t really work. The best I can do here is make some suggestions, which someone seeking a good faith understanding might be able to follow.
I didn’t know the church was in the business of impositioning earthly consequences to sexual sin. I thought things like poverty, health complications, and STIs or Ds were the earthly consequences.
I gave you many examples before how.
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2017/08/15/righteous-prostitutes-spreading-their-legs-free-of-sin/#comment-243005
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2017/08/15/righteous-prostitutes-spreading-their-legs-free-of-sin/#comment-243013
Earl:
–direct confrontation/shaming
–denying communion
–disfellowshipping/excommunication
these were the usual consequences of continued unconfessed sin – you get confronted/shamed, kicked out of your church and denied the Eucharist. Those things used to be done (at least sometimes, from what I hear), but aren’t anymore. They were done specifically to bring a sinner in line, apply pressure, bring him/her to confession and repentance, so the sinner might be saved and brought back into right relationship with God and man.
Confession, conscience and repentance are ways in which we confess sin and God cleanses us of them, yes. Are those “holding accountable”, or ways in which to avoid consequences?
I really have to get things done. And at least I understand now the areas of disagreement. Thanks.
@podethelesser
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.
thedeti says:
August 17, 2017 at 1:11 pm
“Earl:
–direct confrontation/shaming
–denying communion
–disfellowshipping/excommunication
these were the usual consequences of continued unconfessed sin – you get confronted/shamed, kicked out of your church and denied the Eucharist. Those things used to be done (at least sometimes, from what I hear), but aren’t anymore”
I’ve seen the latter two done–more than once–in some very conservative Protestant churches.
MKT: I have too. But never in a Catholic parish; and in Prot churches, not for a woman engaging in sexual sin. The person usually excommunicated and denied communion is almost always a man.
I have not offered a standard, I have given an observation that refutes the idea that Christians are less holy than priests.
The Christian is a priest and a temple.
For that reason, it would be holy for a Christian to abstain from impure and lesser forms of marriage. Yet, it is better to marry than to burn.
I am applying no standard to you, but your own conscience is recognizing what follows from the facts.
Well I believe the first would have to be if the person admits they are committing sexual sin to a priest and then deny it is a sin. Or the priest happens to catch them in the act. Other than that what do you expect a priest to do when it comes to direct confrontation or shaming?
Which leads to denying communion…unless the priest explicitly knows of the sexual sin that hasn’t been confessed, he can’t read minds. Examples where politicians openly supporting abortion is a good reason for a bishop or priest to deny them communinon because it has been stated in a public forum.
And as far as excommunication…this is basically the method to that.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05678a.htm
And I assume the Prot minister had explicit knowledge of the situation to come to that conclusion. It wasn’t based off hearsay or conjecture?
Gary Eden says:
“No where else was simple prostitution prohibited or given penalty.”
Among other problems with this view, why is Israel repeatedly told not to “play the harlot”? This language and imagery is all over the OT prophets. Hosea was even forced to marry a prostitute, symbolizing Israel’s broken relationship with God. If prostitution was no big deal (except in a few specific circumstances), why was it used as a negative metaphor and improper relationship over and over?
Interesting take.
Also, KJV/ESV both do not use the word rape. If dad doesn’t marry her off, daughter’s own actions can lead to a de facto marriage.
earlthomas786 says:
“And I assume the Prot minister had explicit knowledge of the situation to come to that conclusion. It wasn’t based off hearsay or conjecture?”
Yes, they followed the pattern set forth in Matt. 18. Approach the sinner, approach again with elders if they don’t repent, etc. They were given ample time and opportunity before the discipline.
I’ve also known of churches who abused church discipline. However, done correctly it’s an important practice. I wouldn’t attend a church that refuses to discipline/excommunicate members when there is a serious issue and a refusal to repent.
@Sir Hamster
Another excellent point on another shiny nail for the coffination of fornication.
@mkt
God told Israel not to play the harlot because she was married to God so it would have been adultery.
@cane caldo
It’s true that we are priests of God a royal priesthood as the scriptures say but as i wrote in my book analogies go only so far. If i were to take your view to its logical conclusion we could only marry virgins.
So unless you want to defend such a silly doctrine that we can’t marry nonvirgins go ahead.
A thing can be a member of more than one set. A forced marriage to a virgin is a member of the set of marriages, because sex with her initiates a marriage. It is also a member of the set of crimes / sins, because forcing. We come back to my earlier point about the act of marriage carrying along with it the obligations of marriage, which is what’s being explained here. The rapist has committed the act and is being forced to carry out the attendant duties as well.
Certainly feels like that AR. Endless circles.
The same way everyone everywhere who fails to repent [*] is held to account for their sins: an eternity spent in the Lake of Fire.
That’s GOD holding people to account, not the church on Earth. Nice dodge, but fail.
But is the train fine?
We’re dealing with spergs emotionally invested into their position. They cannot be reasoned out of it. The reason is a facade covering the rebellious, “My will and not God’s will be done”.
@Evan Turner
LOL!
@SirHamster
Toad can’t be a sperg. He’s married to three supermodel lesbian ninjas.
But if he were a sperg, it would be hilarious to make him keep explaining the most ridiculous things, over and over again, as if they were really serious.
Dalrock:
Twist. That. Knife.
But if he were a sperg, it would be hilarious to make him keep explaining the most ridiculous things, over and over again, as if they were really serious.
I didn’t pick some choo-choo at random, I chose one that is green.
@MKT
Then I’d have no problem with that. An excommunication shouldn’t be based on a rash decision.
@SirHamster:
The self-convinced sperg will hold onto a position with a ferocity that few Women can ever hope to match.
@Dalrock:
Why does “supermodel lesbian ninjas” feel like it should be part of a sequel to Kung Pow?
Well Christ is the head of the church on Earth. If Christ is holding us to account then so is the church.
‘For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body.’
He is? Now I’m surprised we all just haven’t accepted whatever ethos he’s spouting.
Well Christ is the head of the church on Earth. If Christ is holding us to account then so is the church.
Then either Christ is asleep on the job, or some organization calling itself a church is missing a key component somewhere.
Care to wager on which is more likely?
Well if you are talking about the church that is subject to Christ…then a key component is that those who are corrupt clergy forgot who they are subject to.
@Dalrock: But if he were a sperg, it would be hilarious to make him keep explaining the most ridiculous things, over and over again, as if they were really serious.
Were not the same scripture references you used above used in the decade prior to the 1930 Lambeth conference? In the years prior to Griswold v. Connecticut? Before Roe v. Wade? Somewhat in Lawrence v. Texas? Oberfell v. Hodges?
Perhaps there is precedent for a different tact; in the arc of the last century Toad is a logical outcome. Yet every man will make his own decision as it is his judgement.
However, thank you for keeping open comments: I learned a number of things I did not know.
@cane caldo
Nice thoughtful reply your lol clearly wins the debate.
Dalrock,
Only 2 are ninjas. 1 is only a braniac that is really nice….
Zippy,
The question would be how often do homilies call men out? How often do they call women out? If the former is almost never, the latter can be almost never and be somewhat consistent. If it is out of balance then the RCC has as much of a problem as the “errant” Protestant church.
Didn’t the Pope recently say Protestants weren’t headed to Hell? If he is not RCC anymore I will have to revise a joke we told in scouts as a kid about bears/woods and the Pope/RCC.
====
Ted Kennedy just continued the tradition of buying indulgences, for himself in this case. I pray he had a true conversion experience at some point because otherwise he is not very happy now, however nice his human life was. (See the story of the rich man and Lazarus.)
I don’t wish Hell on my worst enemy, even though some will end up there. A few get a bit too excited about others going to it.
I have learned much also from these two threads and one several months ago about kick-ass conservative women. Prior to that gun one, I was pro-arms for wives, but not so much anymore, so maybe not coincidentally, I still can’t buy the idea prostitution is a matter of conscience for a group of people whom are eligible for it. Since you wrote a book on it Evan, you probably wrote about Paul’s gift in 1 Corinthian 7- what does the gift he has and he wishes all believers had mean, if wanking and prostitutes were available options, at least for some believers? Also, gifts of the Spirit don’t seem to focus on direct OT laws like the reasons given for honorable prostitution, so how does increasing self-control play itself out with Johns and prostitutes? I assume the answer would be that they get celibate or get married?
BillyS:
I don’t think I’ve ever, in at least 40 years of reasonable literacy, heard a homily which could be accurately described as “calling men out”. That seems to be a Protestant thing.
As for the Pope, he puts his collar on one neck at a time. I’ve never understood why so many people expect Popes to be all that different from other human beings.
(I mean, look at the example of Peter for crying out loud).
@TimFinnegan – “This statement speaks of the man having sex with his wife and the one flesh union in the future tense (“a man *shall*…have sex with his wife and the two *shall* become one flesh”) and yet the statement also is already calling her his wife.”
This argument does not work with English grammar. If on my wedding day before the ceremony begins, I say to my fiance that I’m excited because I shall (finally!) have sex with my wife, does this mean that we are already married and can take care of business right away? Of course not. Of course you have to have sex with your wife if having sex makes your wife your wife. It could work no other way. If sex=marriage than having sex means having sex with your wife. Whether or not that is in the future is not important.
Additionally, if your grammar analysis was actually true, how would you reconcile that with the teaching of Jesus in Luke 10 where he states that divorce is wrong because it breaks the one-flesh joining of sex. (Divorce = ending marriage; Ending marriage = Ending the one-flesh joining; One-flesh joining = marriage)
Oh and an annulment isn’t an indulgence. If you don’t believe in purgatory – a process of becoming perfected before entering into the direct presence of God the Father – then indulgences will make no sense to you, because they only apply in that context.
Which is by no means an excuse for the American Catholic annulment mill, which is a horrific scandal that has nothing to do with indulgences.
Derek Ramsey:
It all depends on what the meaning of the word “is” is.
@Cane Caldo – It says they will have sex
No, it says they shall have sex. These are not the same words, even though they share one possible common meaning. Shall implies intention. So the passage is saying that man is intended to leave his family and be joined by sex to his wife so that the are glued together and become one through this sexual act.
Read v23 and v24 together. The woman was taken from (a piece of) the man at creation and the two are brought back together in marriage through sex. That’s what it says. The intention of marriage is to restore what was split through the process of sexual union (which is also, not ironically, an act of creation).
Genesis 4 starts “Now Adam knew Eve his wife…” which was after their expulsion from Eden. Maybe that wasn’t the first time, but it’s the first mention of a fulfillment of a one flesh union.
If we are going to play the legalistic, literalistic, chronological game along with an argument from silence, then answer this: When exactly did Adam leave his father and mother to be joined with his wife?
@Zippy
Congratulations, you win the Pharisee of the Week award. While I’m a devout RCC who believes all the formal stuff about Magesterium etc. that you do, pretty much in my deepest bones out of sense of logic as well as a deep tradition from generations in my family, you out of a sense of pride and a need to AMOG, continue to egg on our Protestant brethren just so you can win an argument and feel superior. So I say this in the deepest Christian sense of brotherly love to you: go fuck yourself.
Seriously, go fuck yourself. And Earl, you’re as delusional as the rest of these motherfuckers who think that God gave men a sexual drive just so they could spike it and feel superior to other men because they were celibate. What utter and complete bullshit. My mother and father went through hell raising 8 children, do not ever denigrate them and say they are lesser Christian’s just so you other celibate motherfuckers can feel superior. I know a lot of priests: my parents and a lot of other parents struggled and suffered a lot more than many of them in their Christian walk.
Yes, let’s just accept Open Hypergamy and allow women to murder their families, hey the great news is that then we get to be the victim and be celibate and feel superior because hey being celibate is the highest calling for Christian men. Forget about all the sons and daughters whose lives are attenuated, traumatized, destroyed because HEY I get to be celibate and feel sorry for myself.
Fuck you and fuck your defeatism and Pharasitical hypocrisy. It’s time to join hands together with our Protestant brethren like Dalrock, BillyS, feeriker, etc., heathen motherfuckers like Boxer and Rollo, and others and reestablish patriarchy. Once we’ve done that, we can go back to bickering about doctrine. Until then, it’s time to focus on destroying the current feminist system root and branch.
@BuenaVista
Tamar was a prostitute for value in actual fact, but Judah didn’t know that. He only knew she was pregnant and unmarried. So the punishment, burning to death, was for general, unqualified prostitution. Judah was not a white knight in this whole business, so whether he should have been punished and whether prostitution is wrong cannot be determined directly from the passage. However, we don’t have to do that in order to see that the linguistic term used for prostitute does not make any distinction between “for pay”, “for fun”, and “temple” prostitution. Since a number of people were arguing that the Bible doesn’t condemn all prostitution, I suggested that the term used (zanah and by extension pornea) is flexible enough to include the prostitution that they claim isn’t mentioned anywhere.
@Derek Ramsey
That’s one plausible interpretation of the text, sure. Mine is another. I think mine is more supported by Matthew 1:20, 24-25:
Mary and Joseph were husband and wife without having consummated the marriage, according to the Gospel of Matthew.
To answer your question about Luke 10: as a papist, I am with the Catholic Church in asserting that marriage exists prior to consummation, but consummation makes marriage indissoluble by creating a one-flesh union.
TimFinnegan (previously halt94) says:
August 17, 2017 at 10:04 pm
“To answer your question about Luke 10: as a papist, I am with the Catholic Church in asserting that marriage exists prior to consummation, but consummation makes marriage indissoluble by creating a one-flesh union.”
I’m a papist too, but you are wrong. 90+% of “Catholic” women do not believe that their marital bond is permanent when they take their vows, and therefore, their vows are null and void. And *that* is Catholic doctrine: trust me, I know, I had one of the top lawyers from the Papal courts tell me this.
It would be awesome if the Catholic Pharisees on this thread would wake up and admit the obvious: Open Hypergamy runs unchecked in the Catholic Church by either families or clergy, and by the very doctrine you love to cite to AMOG the rest of us, the vows taken by women who have no intention of permanently staying married (see reference to Open Hypergamy) are null and void. Even Pope Francis admitted this most obvious fact. Wake up and start dealing with reality for a change.
You have read my statement the wrong way; my statement asserts the general principle that marriage becomes valid at consent and is subsequently consummated. This says nothing about particular cases. If 90+% of (supposed) marriages are actually invalid, then by definition there is not union to consummate, therefore consummation of the marriage does not occur either. That some women do not intend to commit to what marriage actually is says nothing about what marriage actually is.
You really should tone your rhetoric down, stop cursing, and try to refrain from psychoanalyzing people you know next to nothing about.
“You really should tone your rhetoric down, stop cursing, and try to refrain from psychoanalyzing people you know next to nothing about.”
Perhaps, but maybe you could start caring about the actual, real people involved instead of the abstractions you apparently are most interested in. Actual, real people swear, are passionate, vulgar, and fail often. Try to get to know a few, you might find them interesting.
@TimFinnegan – “Mary and Joseph were husband and wife without having consummated the marriage, according to the Gospel of Matthew.”
I have seen three primary arguments made. That sex does not equal marriage, that sex does equal marriage, and the one that I have been making (along with one or two others) that sex is an expectation (alternatively an obligation) of marriage.
Matthew 1:24-25 has already been mentioned. It isn’t a problem for any of the three viewpoints. Obviously for sex != marriage there is no problem. For the other two, she was a wife in the statutory/contractual sense. She can be called wife (just like any betrothed) because there is an expectation that they will have sex (which they did eventually) to finalize the marriage, but since the marriage is not finalized, it can’t be treated as a full marriage. See my comment on the other thread about the implied difference between a pledged wife and a wife.
Let me ask the question that I’ve asked time and again: Why did Jesus, in Mark 10, identify the joining of one-flesh (sex) as the primary reason that divorce (ending a marriage) is wrong? If marriage is a non-sexual bonding, why highlight the sexual act when discussing divorce? We already know that Joseph was going to divorce Mary for being unfaithful and that he was not told this was sin, only that he shouldn’t do it in this specific case because God was the father.
@Mycroft Jones – “Genesis 2:22 shows that the marriage was when God gave Eve to Adam.”
No, it doesn’t. It says “And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.” This is not marriage unless one squints really, really hard and ignores the meanings of words. More importantly, this is not a simple chronological retelling as if this were a modern work of history. v23-24 is poetry that is the direct result of v22. God presents the woman to man and man immediately launches into song describing how God created woman from man and now man is going to have sex with woman to glue the two back together.
@Cane Caldo – They are one flesh already
No, they are of the same flesh. If man and woman were already the same flesh, marriage wouldn’t be required. v23 describes not marriage but the creation of the woman from man. v24 describes marriage and the act of creation that is sex that forms the marriage. v23 is in the direction of splitting and v24 is in the direction of joining.
Being that you know little to nothing of my motives, personal life, theology and arguments, this is what is called projecting.
@Derek Ramsey
So Mary was his wife, but not really his wife, and they were married, but not really married. There are two different kinds of wives: wives and wives. There is marriage and there is marriage. But if sex is just an expectation of marriage, then why indeed does Christ associate sex with indissolubility? Are you claiming that a marriage which is only expected (that is, does not yet exist) is indissoluble by virtue of the couple having sex?
I answered you. Because sex makes an already existing marriage indissoluble. Once a marriage has been consummated, the marriage cannot be dissolved by man, but an unconsummated marriage is dissoluble.
Continued psychoanalysis of complete strangers it is then.
@TimFinnegan
I’m not sure if we are disagreeing or just speaking past one another. The Greek word for wife is the same as the word for woman, so you can’t read much into Matthew 1 regarding Mary being called a wife vs a woman.
“Are you claiming that a marriage which is only expected (that is, does not yet exist) is indissoluble by virtue of the couple having sex?
Yes, based off Genesis 2 and Mark 10 (except for the part about “does not yet exist”: see below). I’ve yet to see an argument that refutes this.
“But if sex is just an expectation of marriage, then why indeed does Christ associate sex with indissolubility?”
Because they are one flesh. It all comes down to that point. Once they are one flesh it is permanent. Whether the sex is illicit or licit, the expectation of marriage is there because they become one flesh. Every single biblical law on sex can be clearly understood this way.
If sex does not come before statutory marriage, then my view is practically equivalent to your view, if not identically philosophically or theologically. Obviously sex inside marriage is an expectation of marriage. There is no distinction to be made here and it’s a rather silly point.
The expectation of marriage only applies to non-marital sex in that it creates a debt (sin) against the woman that is expected to be paid one way or another, either through marriage, stoning, or some other penalty such as a bride price. All non-marital sex is illicit precisely because it is an expectation of marriage and no marriage contract is made. But the Bible is very clear that if sex happens without a marriage contract that this can be remedied by making it into an official marriage, that is, fulfilling the expectation of marriage.
I thus arrive at the traditional viewpoint that only marital sex is licit, but I arrive at that conclusion by a different understanding of the meaning of sex that is much closer to “sex=marriage” than others have argued. I’m not claiming that a marriage ceremony isn’t important, but that it’s not the fundamental attribute of marriage. Sex is.
Either the marriage exists or it doesn’t. If one way to resolve the debt you say is created by pre-marital sex is to get married, then this is admission that the marriage does not yet exist between the two. If the marriage already existed because of the sex, there’d be no need to get married. And if the marriage does not exist then it cannot be indissoluble; it simply isn’t there. How certain offenses should be remedied as a legal matter is something which is a prudential judgment to be made by those in authority, and there is no one right answer.
So either the marriage is created at the time of coitus or it isn’t. If it isn’t created yet, it can’t be indissoluble, and they can’t get a divorce because there isn’t anything to divorce. So why would Christ bring sex up in the context of divorce? Because sex makes an already existing marriage indissoluble. But if marriage is created at sex, then I don’t see how that is compatible with Matthew 1:24-25.
But I don’t expect to convince you in a combox discussion. My specific point was just that sex creates marriage is refuted by the Gospel of Matthew; I wasn’t trying to make a claim about any other understanding of what marriage is and how it is formed.
Zippy,
He is put up as a “big thing” so he should be expected to be something special. Otherwise the RCC is no big deal. That is the impression from others more than your posts though. (See Skyler for example.)
My comment about indulgences wasn’t exactly right, but making the point that money and influence still talk, which is why he remained in good standing in spite of the horrid positions he took and the actions he did.
@Swanny River
In terms of Paul talking about singleness he was giving his opinion on the matter, just like he gave his opinion on widows under the age of 60 remarrying. The fruit of the Spirit go hand in hand with the law of God he gave to the Israelites. How else can we know sin without the law? In terms of temperance having sex with a prostitute or girlfriend out of wedlock does not mean one lacks self control. This is the same nonsense that many Christians fall for that lead to so many problems we have today. Some Christian wives deny their husband sex than when they catch him releasing his sex drive with pornography then divorce him for it. So tell me how is releasing one’s sex drive with porn or by having sex with a girlfriend lacking temperance? Having sex or masturbating to porn automatically means one is a sex addict now? Does having a couple of beers after work mean one is a drunk?
@Podethelesser
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.
This thread is a continuation of the previous thread as well as (I think) an attempt to get away from actually addressing the issue I raised. I don’t mind being on the hot seat and as you already know, I do my best to address each concern. On the other hand, very few have addressed the issue of what God’s standard for marriage creation actually is and the answers given have ranged from legitimate questions to the downright silly and ridiculous.
The level of ridiculousness is exemplified by Dalrock actually stating that “the Bible doesn’t tell us a specific ceremony”. Because marriage is a “public status”. Then this whopper: “When you have sex, you become one flesh, but it doesn’t make you married.” Because whores.
Which means either:
Genesis 2;24 is incomplete and Adam and Eve were not married (Special Sauce™ needed because God didn’t get it right).
or
Genesis 2:24 is complete but Adam and Eve were not married because Eve was a whore.
or
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.
But what about the whores? They get married when they consent to marry and have sex.
The real problem with the Special Sauce™ doctrine is it’s founded on the idea that, as Dalrock stated, God didn’t give us a defined standard of marriage. It appears that Dalrock is saying God got it wrong and something has to be added to Genesis 2:24 in order to get a marriage that God recognizes as a marriage.
He’s free to correct me if I mischaracterize what he’s saying, so in the meanwhile let’s talk about whores. You said:
Here’s my counter to both of them. Dalrock’s question
First and foremost, this is an example of feminism. Feminism says men and women are equal and thus held to the same standards of sexual morality. Not true and not true. Men and women are not equal (from the beginning) and Scripture has two different standards of sexual morality, one for men and another for women. That is irrefutable. Because what God requires of men is not the same as what God requires of women. Just as what God allows men to do is not the same as what God allows women to do.
Second, the question is not “how could they not be in sin”, rather, the question is whether they would be in sin. The first is “guilty until proven innocent by my standards” while the second is “prove me guilty by God’s standards”. I prefer the standards of God rather than those of men.
OT: Prostitution is not forbidden. Therefore, it is not automatically a sin.
NT: But what about Christian women? Now we are back to the same point I made (repeatedly) in my response to Dalrock’s Deuteronomy 23:18 argument. At every point God chose to regulate prostitution, He was choosing not to forbid it. We see that again in the New Testament when the Lord chose to forbid *men* from using prostitutes. The Lord had the issue squarely in front of Him and He chose not to forbid Christian women from being prostitutes.
Either we accept that God chose not issue a blanket prohibition that forbids women from being prostitutes, or we choose to claim that God got it wrong.
But what about issues of conscience?. Once again:
Could a Christian woman be convicted in her conscience that selling her body was the right thing to do? Yes, but we don’t need to go there because we do not have the authority to judge matters of conscience.
But what about being a stumbling block?
Is she your sister in Christ who has been reduced to prostitution to feed herself and/or her children? Them that don’t provide for their own family are worse than heathens and unbelievers. Which is why the church supports its widows if they don’t have immediate family to support them.
Which leaves us with Pode’s question about “the positive command to be chaste, reconciled, or marry in the Lord”.
The wife was commanded not to leave her husband. If she did (in violation of the command), she was further commanded to remain chaste or be reconciled to her husband. She is a married woman and there is no Christian divorce. What else is she supposed to do? If she’s not chaste she’s committing adultery and if she wants a man she has to reconcile to her husband because he’s the only husband she’s got. However, that instruction was to wives.
And…
Legitimate prostitutes don’t have husbands.
Which leaves the command to marry in the Lord in 1st Corinthians 7:39.
This was not a command to marry, at all. She is free to choose whether she will marry at all and if she chooses to marry she may marry whomever she may but she must marry in the Lord. This freedom gives her the right to refuse to marry as well. If she meets the qualifications of 1st Timothy 5 to be placed on the roster of widows who are supported, she can only be encouraged to marry. The church cannot require it of her in order that they avoid having to support her.
And…
The “woman not bound” is not a virgin and she is not married, which means we are right back to where we started. She has agency. Was she commanded not to sell her body? No. Does it offend her conscience? That’s between her and God. How could any woman believe it’s the right thing to do? Again, that isn’t a decision anyone but the individual can make and WE ARE COMMANDED NOT TO JUDGE.
As I’ve previously stated, I believe God’s refusal to prohibit prostitution was an act of mercy. Could it be abused? Of course. Do I think prostitution, in general, is a good thing? No, I don’t. Every real prostitute I’ve ever known was damaged in some way and many were batshit crazy.
Did God say prostitution was a sin? No, so neither will I. Did God encourage prostitution? No, so neither will I. Does God put up with prostitution? Yes, so I will too.
I agree. I’ve seen first-hand just how messy and nasty life can be.
@Dalrock
Some clarification on your question is needed before I can answer.
Does the virgins father have the right/authority to give his daughter to the man he chooses? Under the Law he has the right to sell her into slavery to be a concubine and in 1 Cor 7 Paul re-affirms the fathers right to choose to give his virgin daughter in marriage as well as his right to refuse to allow her to marry.
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?
Looking forward to your reply.
@zippy @early
My comments above includes personal and ad hominem attacks against you, and that was wrong. I apologize. I tried to edit/delete them but could not. The issues we are discussing are very personal to me, but that does not make personal attacks OK.
Pingback: Hawt chicks & links – No Nazis here, man. – Adam Piggott
Well first off I don’t understand why you got that mad to just start cursing at people, second where is it located other than in your perception that a celibate person feels superior over married people in who is the better Christian?
Just saw the apology…I accept it.
He is the leader of the Catholic church on Earth. It’s a great responsibility. However that doesn’t mean he magically loses his human weaknesses.
Catholic clergy up to and including the Pope are taken from Catholic laymen and, in general, show the qualities (good and bad) of the population of laymen from which they are drawn.
I wouldn’t be the slightest bit surprised if 80% or 90% of Catholics marriages are invalid – I wouldn’t be surprised if most Catholic men and women believe (at the time of their marriage) that they can divorce and remarry if their spouse does something really bad (e.g. adultery). The virtue of obedience seems to be almost entirely lost. The real scandal it seem is that the American church hasn’t treated this like the crisis it is.
Emperor Constantine:
Obviously.
BillyS:
Yes, and we even have a word for that mistake: ultramontanism. The Pope is a monarch and, well, we all know what monarchs are like. The position is due respect, but the man is very much a man.
Agreed.
Emperor Constantine:
Ah, no worries.
Bruce:
Agreed, I think it is quite likely. We had an Orthospherish discussion of this a while back:
https://orthosphere.wordpress.com/2013/03/07/are-people-even-marrying-anymore/
The real scandal it seem is that the American church hasn’t treated this like the crisis it is.
The sole function of the Amercan “church” — be it RCC or any denomination of Protestantism– is to confer a veneer of Christianity upon the secular lifestyle sanctioned by the popular culture. I remember the late Joe Sobran referring to it as “The Great National Religion,” an institution in which everyone can pretend all they want to to adhere to the tenets of their religion (whatever it is), but at the end of the day, nobody had better rock the boat and had better “go along to get along” – or else (any American church that conducted itself like the First Century church of Jesus and Disciples would quickly find itself a persecuted outlaw body).
Pope is a father (spiritual) – you can have Ward Cleaver or a total jerk – still your dad. Dad is owed a certain respect. Honor thy father.
@ feeriker – I should have specified the American Catholic bishops. Really my comment applies to Catholic Church in general but the annulment situation is especially bad in America – I have no idea how it is in e.g. The Phillipines. Less bad than America, I’m pretty sure.
BillyS:
Upon reflection, though, I think you may be attributing to simony what is really a matter of more general laxity. Public figures like Kennedy, Biden, etc are scandalous because they are so well known. But for every one of them there are thousands of unknowns who have gotten rubber stamp annulments, and not because of greasing palms.
https://www.questia.com/library/78969521/what-god-has-joined-together-the-annulment-crisis
In addition to the belief that one can divorce, isn’t it also the case that beliefs along the lines that artificial birth control is moral for limiting family size and so on can also be used as ground to annul, given that a couple who actually believed that at the time of the marriage lacked the proper intentional consent to enter into a Catholic marriage due to not being fully open to children as a result of sex? I suspect there are even more Catholic couples who fall into that category than into the category of people who think it is morally licit to divorce for a “good reason”.
@AT
I’m slowly shedding the equalist fog I was raised in, so the idea that different standards apply to different sexes is not as repugnant to me as many may find it. I agree with your reading that 1Cor6:16 is directed at men using female prostitutes and there is not a corresponding explicit condemnation directed solely to women. That said, I think 6:15 gives the reason for the ban in 6:16, and that reason is not gender specific: Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Am I therefore to take the members of Christ and make them part of a prostitute? Certainly not! Sticking with your explanation above, I don’t see how a Christian woman could read 15 and not be convinced in her conscience that it was a sin. OTOH, I have literal scars to testify that my estimation of what women feel in their consciences is not always accurate. Otherwise I consider your response compelling and will need to ponder on it carefully.
Interesting aside for this discussion, the footnote in the AMP (for whatever that’s worth) says this passage is likely referring to temple prostitution, not fee for service: Corinth was famous for its prostitutes, and many if not all probably practiced their trade in connection with the worship of Aphrodite. Having relations with temple or cult prostitutes was considered acceptable behavior, and Paul’s admonitions here indicate that some of the Corinthian converts were continuing the practice.
Ack, I was trying to get the blue background on quoted text by using quote command instead of blockquote. Dalrock gave me the remedial HTML class I asked for and I still screwed it up. Sigh.
@Toad
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. But under your twisted reading of the Scripture involved, it can’t be a sin. It is merely an unscheduled marriage, or if you prefer, a surprise marriage. As you put it, he “committed marriage”, he didn’t commit rape:
So (and again under your logic, not mine), we might say that we think scheduled marriages are better than surprise marriages, but we can’t call it sin. After all, the verses in question are according to you regulating surprise marriages, not prescribing punishment. They tell us what the divorce laws are for surprise marriages, and what the bride price should be. And as you have explained, God doesn’t regulate sin:
So (per your logic) rape (surprise marriage) can’t be a sin. We could as easily say:
Novaseeker:
My understanding is that that is not grounds: the express intention would have to be to have a sexual relationship while ruling out ever having any children.
I have raised the point myself that support for ‘gay marriage’ on the wedding day might be grounds, since it prima facie demonstrates that the person does not mean marriage when they use the term ‘marriage’.
In practice I think very few annulments are granted on these kinds of doctrinal grounds though. Doctrine is so medieval and rigid and authoritarian, after all. Most annulments are actually granted based on a combination of psychological bullshit and mutually contradictory subjective criteria which make it possible for the tribunal to reach whatever result they want.
See here:
https://zippycatholic.wordpress.com/2014/10/04/an-annulment-mill-straw-man-or-turning-ignorance-into-the-eighth-sacrament-redux/
@Artisanal Toad
Status differences count.
There is a difference between a wife and a concubine and from what historical documentation I can find (which matches up with Scripture), a wife was a free woman and a concubine was a slave.
The first indicator of this is Exodus 21:7-10, which says that when the owner/husband takes more than one concubine he is treat the girls equally and if he doesn’t give here equal food, clothing and conjugal rights she is to be freed. That is within the context of the father selling his daughter into slavery, BTW.
Then we see the passage in Deuteronomy 21:10-14 on the woman captured in battle.
You said:
“The law of the captive woman (erroneously called by many wife) states that a man can take a woman in battle have sex with her and send her away for any reason. “
And what that passage actually says is:
10“When you go out to battle against your enemies, and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take them away captive, 11and see among the captives a beautiful woman, and have a desire for her and would take her as a wife for yourself, 12then you shall bring her home to your house, and she shall shave her head and trim her nails. 13“She shall also remove the clothes of her captivity and shall remain in your house, and mourn her father and mother a full month; and after that you may go in to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. 14“It shall be, if you are not pleased with her, then you shall let her go wherever she wishes; but you shall certainly not sell her for money, you shall not mistreat her, because you have humbled her.
The passage does not say what you think it says. The point is she’s still a slave, even though she’s a wife. And the rules for these women were different from free women: Observe Leviticus 19:20-22
“20‘Now if a man lies carnally with a woman who is a slave acquired for another man, but who has in no way been redeemed nor given her freedom, there shall be punishment; they shall not, however, be put to death, because she was not free. 21‘He shall bring his guilt offering to the LORD to the doorway of the tent of meeting, a ram for a guilt offering. 22‘The priest shall also make atonement for him with the ram of the guilt offering before the LORD for his sin which he has committed, and the sin which he has committed will be forgiven him.”
Because she’s not free, the death-penalty for adultery doesn’t apply.
You want to have it both ways but you can’t. We both agree that wives are free and slaves aren’t however my view is consistent and yours isn’t. Just because you see the word “wife” in Hebrew or Greek doesn’t mean that she is married as the word for “wife” and “woman” are used interchangeably in both languages. So even though the law of the captive woman says “wife” we know this is not the case because she is sent away and no divorce is mentioned. Likewise, the same law about concubines mentioned the fact that she can also go free if certain needs aren’t met but no divorce is mentioned. So you are wrong here also.
Why do you think God can tell Abraham to listen to his wife and send Hagar away? That’s because she was his concubine and Sarah’s slave. Even though scripture mentioned the fact that Abraham “took her to wife” the context makes it clear that she was never his wife. If you believe this than you believe that God told Abraham to listen to his wife Sarah and divorce his other wife Hagar. This would be madness, as God is not the author of confusion.
So I will ask you again. If a man buys a virgin concubine are they married when they have sex?
If a man buys a female slave virgin for one of his male slaves and they have sex are they married?
Why didn’t David put his “wives” (according to your interpretation) away for having sex with Absalom?
Why is no bill of divorce mentioned in the law of the captive woman?
Why is no bill of divorce mentioned in regards to concubines?
Also note for everyone else here that disagrees with Artisanal Toad’s incorrect view. I have also proven that sex outside of wedlock is not a sin.
For Zippy, this is my impression (from an interview with Cardinal Burke I saw).
An annulment is a legal declaration (which I choose to call “legal opinion” – my words not the Churches) by canon law experts that there were/are one or more impediments to contracting a marriage. This legal verdict carries moral (i.e. “actionable”) certitude but not absolute certitude because the status of millions of individual marriages isn’t part of the deposit of faith that Christ left to his disciples (and therefore, something the Church can rule on infallibly). This is why I don’t like using “annul” as a verb because it makes it sound like the Church can end a Christian marriage, which it cannot. I prefer “declaration of nullity”. I am asking your opinion on this because I don’t want to go around spouting off if I’m wrong.
“Under the Law he has the right to sell her into slavery to be a concubine….”
As Christians, we are not under the old law. We are under what Catholics call the evangelical law, i.e. the Law of Christ.
I think most are valid, America is a society that loves divorce…the one place I could see manipulation of the annulment process is figuring out how it wasn’t a free will decision and instead say they were coerced into it.
They have NFP classes before marriage. Turns out if a woman figures out how her fertility works naturally…it is just as good as birth control. There can be oops…but there can be oops with using bc perfectly.
Earl
he one place I could see manipulation of the annulment process is figuring out how it wasn’t a free will decision and instead say they were coerced into it.
My initial reaction was to seriously doubt this, but given the way “abuse” is redefined under the Duluth protocol, “coercion” can similarly be redefined to include anything at all. So you could be correct. I’ve also been told that “lack of knowledge”, as in “He didn’t understand what it means to be a Catholic husband! I was duped! I’m not married!” will work. It may require some bishop-shopping.
podthelesser
OTOH, I have literal scars to testify that my estimation of what women feel in their consciences is not always accurate.
That’s nicely understated, you thread the needle in that statement. Conservative feminists would deny your experience and try to convince you those scars don’t exist; if that failed they would fall back to NAWALT. On the other hand, cynical men and MGTOW would deny that women have consciences at all. Thanks for sharing that bit with us.
Now we return to the endless green choo-choo show.
Well unless they found a way to find a church that offers shotgun weddings…most churches mandate at least 3-6 months of marriage prep beforehand. If they use that excuse I’m calling BS.
Earl, it’s second hand information, worth every penny you paid for it. Could be just an excuse that was offered to me for something else that happened. Or it could be you are still naive.
Because if you really believe that mere facts such as “3 to 6 months of pre-marriage counseling” or mere vows or mere parts of the Bible or mere canon law can stand in the way of a woman who is not haaaapy, you’re still not quite up to speed yet. Not in the US, at least. There are men out there who were certain that “She can’t do that! It’s against canon! The church won’t let her!” whose wound up frivorced and annulled paying child support anyway.
“Is” and “ought” are not synonyms.
Oh that was the excuse the woman used…I thought it was the excuse a man would use.
Yeesh if they are just going off her word for an annulment and not doing their due diligence to get all sides of the story…that’s a corrupt diocese.
@Gary Eden
Why do you assume you are one of the spergs being talked about? You could have been part of the “we” or even a neutral third party. I wasn’t thinking of you.
Like, I would think it entirely reasonable if you grouped me in with “the spergs”. I do have those tendencies, and it is hard to judge yourself accurately.
On the flip side … your words, your attitude, and your reactions? Very revealing of your motives, theology, and your arguments. And maybe personal life.
Bruce:
That exactly aligns with my own understanding. A declaration of nullity is a legal opinion (no sacramental status) which says that a marriage was not contracted in the first place despite appearances.
An annulment (which as you point out is shorthand for “declaration of nullity)” is ‘reliable’ in the sense that a priest is required, under Church law, to rely on it when determining if the couple in front of him right now are eligible to marry. A priest may not refuse to marry a couple based on a previous marriage of one of the parties if that party has a declaration of nullity from the tribunal.
I am not aware of declarations of nullity being ‘reliable’ in any sense other than that particular bureaucratic sense. I could be wrong, but as I understand it ‘reliable’ just means that Catholic officials (priests and Church employees) are directed to rely on it for certain purposes, namely, determining eligibility to marry. As a legal opinion its ontological status is no better than the process which produced it.
Anonymous Reader:
In my opinion this is exactly what has happened with the American Catholic tribunals, though you have to replace ‘coercion’ with ‘impaired consent’. The great majority of declarations of nullity in the US rest on a finding of ‘impaired consent’, that finding itself further resting on a bunch of subjective psychobabble crap.
It may seem paradoxical to at the same time believe that the majority of marriages are in fact null (which is to say, they never actually happened as marriage in the first place). But thoughtful Catholics do think that this is the case, for reasons we got into in the discussion I linked.
All that said, I don’t think declarations of nullity should be given out in any case, except in obvious, clearly provable public forum (no subjective psychobabble) cases. If a couple’s marriage status is doubtful they should get it convalidated. If they can’t do that they should spend the rest of their lives in a monastery / convent; all in a perfect world, of course. Declarations of nullity should be extremely rare, for reasons I’ve gone into elsewhere.
Does anyone have a response for Artisanal Toad other than you are a sperg, you are stupid, you smell, you are a slave for your wives, your posts are too long?
Every time you resort to name calling to attack AT and his arguments, you strengthen his position because if the Truth was on your side, you would not need to try to defame him in order to win.
‘Impaired consent’…yeesh it probably is better to stay celibate if those mental gymnastics are being used for annulment. Was she drunk when she said ‘i do’ to the vows?
Was she drunk when she said ‘i do’ to the vows?
Well, of course that’s not the issue in almost all the cases. The issue is some lacking in understanding/maturity/stability in a mental sense such that one was not in a position to consent. I suspect that this is the case in a huge majority of marriages, Catholic and not, which makes it a standard that is, de facto, very permissive. I suspect this is the precise intention of the tribunals as well — that is, if you disagree with the Church’s position on divorce, yet understand that it isn’t changing, you work within the system and the rules to twist them and hollow them to the point where the rule is thoroughly undermined in praxis, while being upheld in form. It’s a way of rebelling against the rule while still upholding the rule formally, in other words.
“Does anyone have a response for Artisanal Toad other than you are a sperg, you are stupid, you smell, you are a slave for your wives, your posts are too long?”
Sure. While not all his argument rests on the OT, he references the OT law a lot in his argument. We aren’t under the OT law, we’re under the Evangelical Law, that is, the Law of Christ. Note: I exclude his referencing of Genesis 2 in my criticism of his position.
I don’t know what how the typical annullment goes but I wouldn’t be shocked if the average Catholic bride thinks “I’ll divorce that bastard if he cheats” or whatever.
Yeah…that excuse is used way too often to excuse bad behavior.
And yet Ive always heard women mature faster than men when we are younger…I guess that changes when they aren’t happy in the marriage.
@anglosaxon
You can scroll through the comments and see that I’ve had several responses to artisanal toads incorrect belief of sex with a virgin equals marriage. In the process I’ve also proven that sex outside of wedlock isn’t a sin.
@bruce
So the OT LAW is no longer valid? So how do we know if bestiality is still a sin without it?
Probably the root of most of the motivation to get out of a marriage is perceived discontent. Then it’s some pyschobabble to either permit an annulment or just going to the courthouse for the no fault.
The counter-arguments are right there. It is not the fault of everyone else that AT and his fans can’t read.
That you are only able to see name-calling illustrates that you can’t handle the Truth. You skip over the arguments and only see the rhetoric they are packaged in.
It’s not a resort. It’s a truthful description to call him spergy for creating ridiculously long posts of text on other’s blogs, fixated upon definitions of marriage that just so happen to justify his own sexual lifestyle. Better Christian men than I have looked at AT’s fruit and find no value in it.
Half the accusations you list aren’t even used on AT. If Truth was on your side, you wouldn’t have to put words in our mouths.
If his position was actually strengthened, why are you even posting? We are improving his credibility! But despite what you say, you know better.
The judgement of James in Acts 15:20 spells out what parts of the OT Law Gentiles must observe.
1: Abstain from the pollutions of idols (i.e., avoid idolatry as defined in OT)
2: Avoid sexual impurity (as defined in OT)
3: Avoid meat that was strangled
4: Avoid the pollution of blood (i.e. consuming it, point 3, or shedding it, both per the OT definitions)
Not the tiniest part of the Law shall pass away. Toad is arguing from the OT as he reads it for the precise meaning of point 2. We don’t get to handwave away the OT, all Scripture is God breathed and useful for instruction.
BTW, in verse 28-29 the judgement of James is endorsed by the Holy Spirit.
The evidence for the wrongness of bestiality is in the natural law.
Do we have a complete list of what aspects of the old law were given for hardness of the heart? We know divorce via a certificate. We know stoning of adulteresses. I suppose a Protestant would say only the cases explicitly in the NT. I’m not Protestant so “everthing’s in scripture” isnt’ a dogma for me.
I prefer to trust nearly 2000 years of Catholic thinkers over bloggers and internet commenters.
@Anglosaxon
1) It isn’t inappropriate to point out that someone is being absurd when they really are absurd. Find someone, anyone, you know in real life and tell them how unfair it is that people on an internet forum aren’t taking a man’s arguments seriously, just because he writes numerous 2,000 plus word comments and claims he is married to three lesbian supermodels, two of whom are ninjas (thanks BillyS for the correction). Make sure to explain how much the unfairness of this really bothers you. Report back their reaction.
2) It isn’t inappropriate to point out that when a series of assumptions produce absurd results, the assumptions are themselves absurd. Toad has made a long list of assumptions, and those assumptions indicate that God thinks prostitution is a righteous profession, fitting of a Christian woman (and mother). Likewise, as I’ve shown, the same assumptions produce the result that rape is not a sin. When the folks you spoke to above stop laughing and have had the chance to wipe the tears from their eyes, let them know how upset you are that we are firmly convinced that prostitution and rape are sins.
3) You are overlooking the fact that we have replied to Toad’s arguments in detail. If you don’t like mine (including the post that started the discussion), then read Novaseeker’s. If you don’t like those, read Cane’s, etc.
@bruce
With all due respect I’ll take the word of God over inconsistent contradictory tradition.
@podethelesser
I don’t agree with a lot of artisanal toads thinking but at least he uses the Law and doesn’t ignore it like so many others do.
@podethelesser, you can’t claim AT falls back on the Law. He cherry picks from the Law. Ask him about his views on eating pig, for instance.
As long as the pig isn’t strangled, not prohibited under Acts 15:20.
Yea, and I prefer 6000 years of the teachings of “Morningstar”, the “Bearer of Light” than some Sky fairy in the sky…
God has been clear about his warning to all Catholics to come out of her abominations and spiritual fornication in the book of Revelation, that the Vatican kicks itself in the foot everyday for not removing the book sooner enough if they had known who was Mystery Babylon of the Church Age, comeoutofher.org
1700 years to be precise, succeeded by the Pagan Church of Rome of mythraism, where Jupiter-Juno, Neptune-Minerva, Mars-Venus, Apollo-Diana, Vulcan-Vesta, Mercury-Ceres, where the Babylonian fallen angel hybrids who “came upon the daughters of men” (“upon” is penetration, for the context of this post), aka Nephilim. Then sugarcoated these gods as graven, idolatrous images of “Peter”, “Mary (ISIS)”, “baby Jesus” instead of adult Iesous (J false letter), etc. Greek, Hindu, Chinese, Aztec, Mayan, Incan, etc gods are all of the same derivatives of the pre-flood fallen angel worship.
Walter Veith The Wine of Babylon and the Catholic Church
Images of the Roman Catholic Church
Studying to retain the ethics and Godly principles of the female behavior will not be found under no Great Whoring institution, but in the word of God. Not of Alexandrian Manuscripts of Gnosticism embedded in vulgates, vulgarities, or modern per-versions of today.
Bruce:
Hey, if Scripture (as interpreted by Scooby and Shaggy) doesn’t explicitly say that you can’t, you are put whatever you want wherever you want. All things are Hole-y.
Edit: you may put …
The Goolag is not helping me find any reference to Toad on Novaseeker’s blog, got a link? Cane’s too, as long as I’m being demanding. You did well IMO to rebut the Christian women can be whores idea with 1Cor6:15, but as I pointed out it’s been very rare in my experience for anyone to clearly and simply quote / explain where Scripture clearly says something that “Scripture clearly says”TM. If there’s more of that that refutes Toad’s less extreme and more consequential assertions like sex=marriage, I’d very much like to see it.
@dalrock
1) Find someone, anyone, you know in real life and tell them how unfair it is that people aren’t taking a man’s arguments seriously, just because he is a monk who hates sex and women and claims to be a ‘father of the church’ when he was alive 100s of years after Christ and the Apostles and gets rid of much of the Bibles teaching on sexual morality because he Feels Very Strongly that sex is bad and polygyny is wrong despite God never saying a man having multiple wives is wrong. Make sure to explain how much the unfairness of this really bothers you. Report back their reaction.
2) He said it was possible to be a whore and not sin. Not that it’s a super fantastic amazing profession that Christian women including mothers should all go do right away. Again, the Bible doesn’t forbid women from being prostitutes, so just because you think it’s sinful or icky or whatever for a woman to be a whore doesn’t mean God agrees. Why should I listen to you, a mere mortal man on the internet when God didn’t forbid prostitution?
3) I will take a look.
@podethelesser
Responses in the comment thread, not blog posts. It’d be pretty sad if that many Christian blogs dedicated blog posts to refuting AT.
Use your browser to search this thread and the previous one.
I’ve read both these threads in their entirety. Novaseeker’s contribution has been, almost word for word, Wow just wow TM, and an interesting but off topic discussion about whether the RCC exercises appropriate church discipline. Cane did a little better, 2 insults, a lot of off topic, and one actual response re sex ?= marriage that several others not named Toad promptly took apart IMO.I’m looking for the arguments against Toad that Dalrock mentioned.
So far, at least from where I sit, Dalrock has countered Christian whores with 1Cor6:15. Toad’s counter that there’s no female equivalent of 6:16 is a fair point but not adequate IMO to override the gender neutral basic principle in 15. 16 is specifically for men because it’s less intuitive how 15 applies to men versus women. I’m sympathetic to Toad’s safety valve argument but believe that applied under the OT and the Christian is to rely on Christ and the church to provide for her.
So, again, the opinion of Pode, what little that’s worth, is that the question of Christian whores is settled in the negative, the question of Jewish whores is irrelevant, and can we please seriously address sex ?= marriage using Scripture, because there are potentially VERY significant consequences to the answer to that question. This is probably one of the only forums were there’s even a hope of seriously discussing the question without immediate terminal social ostracism. If we can’t have the conversation here I’m not sure it can be had.
Pode The Lesser:
I’m in your camp. People who get on to insult Toad aren’t doing themselves any favors. He regularly ties these types up in knots (for his own amusement). If you’re looking for lowbrow entertainment, it’s sorta funny, but it’s not very thought-provoking.
I agree about the Dalrock-Toad debate. It’s been productive and interesting. I’ve been in a long series of airports for the past couple of days, so I haven’t caught all of it. I have enjoyed it, though.
My main problem with Toad is that when he’s stuck in an ideological corner, he tries to retreat into either a sort of intuitionism (God’s people get inspired when reading the text, and this way get extra information that isn’t privy to scroungy heathens like Boxer) or skepticism (we can’t know exactly what God wants us to do, so we have to read the text at face value, and whatever God didn’t talk about is thus permitted). I’d be interested in hearing your thoughts on either or both of these non-standard innovations.
Oh, and Toad, the whole “regulation isn’t prohibition” is beneath you. I can’t smoke crack or go to a brothel here, where I live, because both are prohibited — by regulation. Those two terms aren’t always synonymous, but they often are. You know this already.
Best,
Boxer
Yes! Zippy, Earl, and Emperor Constantine are all best poasters. Keep debating the real issues. For theological neophytes (like me) these threads are gold mines.
Boxer:
You didn’t ask me, but I’d suggest the possibility that this isn’t so much a criticism of AT’s specific methodology as it is a more general observation that any sufficiently complex finite text will give rise to multiple mutually incompatible interpretations made in good faith.
The implications this has for resolving Christian doctrinal conflicts is left as an exercise.
It certainly is…but when someone goes on a tangent like only sex constitutes a marriage or that women being prostitutes can actually be a good thing…there’s something wrong with that thinking.
I understood Dalrock as pointing out that there is a level of response for everyone. Some at the detailed reasoned response level, some at the dismissal level.
Because arguing about penis in vagina = marriage is a stupid topic. It’s less entertaining than angels dancing on the head of a pin, and about as relevant.
No there aren’t. What is significant has already been spelled out. Marry rather than burn. Marriage is good, but eunuch for the sake of Christ and his kingdom is better. It is fine for a man to not marry a virgin but so is marrying her.
“Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.”
If marriage = sex, then all Paul is doing is telling everyone to have sex. And if someone wants to argue about sex = marriage and marriage != sex, please stop abusing mathematical symbols.
anglosaxon @ 1:23 pm:
“Why should I listen to you, a mere mortal man on the internet when God didn’t forbid prostitution?”
For starters, you would have heard our more respectful responses to AT. I assume you won’t be staying long if you don’t plan on listening to what the blog owner has to say.
…
SirHamster @ 5:50 pm:
“If marriage = sex, then all Paul is doing is telling everyone to have sex. And if someone wants to argue about sex = marriage and marriage != sex, please stop abusing mathematical symbols.”
QFT
…
Happy Friday all and enjoy this YouTube clip summing up the last couple threads of tedious argument:
This is why I ask if God was Eve’s Father. Because He was her Father. He was present for Adam and Eve’s wedding, such as it was, and He gave her to Adam. He was also her priest, the mediator between God and man. (If you doubt this, look at the book of Hebrews. If Christ can be a mediator between us and God, the Godhead can also be a mediator) Finally, God was her King. A wise King, since Proverbs 14:28 says “In a multitude of people is the glory of a king, but without people a prince is ruined.” This King told his subject to “Be fruitful and multiply” before Eve even existed. And this King was present at Eve’s wedding. All three spheres of government, family, church and state, participated in and witnessed her wedding. So I conclude that it must be good and right for all three spheres of government to witness the formation of a new family.
Off topic, but Reese Witherspoon is doing some more divorce porn. This time she leaves her husband and takes his kids away before the divorce is even final. Then on her 40th birthday meets a 20 something stud who just might be the one for her and her 2 daughters. How is there a market for this fantasy?
How is there a market for this fantasy?
You’re kidding, right? There’s a huge market for divorce porn, especially among women in the 35 to 45 year old bracket.
@Dalrock – “It isn’t inappropriate to point out that when a series of assumptions produce absurd results, the assumptions are themselves absurd. Toad has made a long list of assumptions, and those assumptions indicate that God thinks prostitution is a righteous profession, fitting of a Christian woman (and mother).”
Don’t forget the absurd time travel where a marriage both validly existed for decades and yet simultaneously never existed.
1) Hollywood only seems to produce Satanic filth
2) People will go to the movies to watch the Satanic filth
The scary part is when some think it’s a good idea to go off of what a movie/tv show promoted. I can’t tell you the number of times women thought Sex and the City was an acceptable way to live.
Could you point me to any historical documentation to that effect? I’d like to read it. My research indicated they were essentially mistresses. Women who were seduced into a relationship rather than brought in through formal dowry agreement with a father.
Earl, SirHamster, GunnerQ I apologize for not being excruciatingly clear. The argument I was trying to denote in shorthand is more properly stated “Sex creates a marriage”. You may recall I have argued elsewhere with our host that the marriage created by rape imposes duties on the rapist, so we all agree there is more to marriage than just sex. If “Sex creates a marriage” is tangential and trivially dismissed from Scripture, I would like you to please do so for the benefit of your less theologically enlightened readers like myself. I am respectfully requesting that someone show me where Scripture clearly says what you say it clearly says.
As for the time travel thing, for a being who exists outside time I suspect time travel is less of a big deal. It’s how I square the whole free will vs predestination thing in my head, dunno how you do it. Regardless, at Judgement Day everything will be past tense so time travel is not required to square that seeming paradox.
We are not under the OT law in this way: it is not the basis of our justification. That is what Christ’s blood is for. But that doesn’t mean the Old Law is meaningless to us
Paul in Rom 7:7-12 and Romans 15:4 establishes that the OT was given to us to learn what is sin. When the law states something is sin, that is sin. By implication all things not condemned are not sin.
Everyone wants to ignore or hand wave that away as it has uncomfortable implications for our human traditions. But it is true.
As Christ said in Matthew 5:17-18…
I read this whole thread and am not enriched for it.
The OT contains 3 main categories:
1. How to act. In other words, what is right and what is wrong.
2. What to do when someone screwed up to make things right. In other words, restitution and punishment, if any.
3. Ceremonial rites
Exodus 22:16 “If a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged to be married and sleeps with her, he must pay the bride-price, and she shall be his wife. 17 If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he must still pay the bride-price for virgins.
Deut 22:28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[c] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.
Using #2 to justify behavior because there is nothing about #1 prohibiting it is an exercise in foolishness — e.g. “sacred prostitutes.”
Any rape falls under #1. Why? The sin is that he “violated her” as the Scripture states. However, the whole scenario falls under #2. If the father does not consent, the rapist must pay the bride price as restitution. Even IF the father consents to marriage, the husband does not have full marital rights under the law as punishment; he must pay the bride price and he “can never divorce her as long as he lives.”
What exactly did the rapist violate? Two things. He violated her and her father’s consent, and he violated her virginity. Why is consent required? If sex was marriage, any man could rape a virgin and she would be his wife. A man is not punished for having a wife. Why is the woman not given a chance for consent under the Law to marry after being raped? God rightly knows that a woman who has had sex — raped or not — cannot make an impartial judgment. Her consent is impaired. Lest someone mention Isaac taking Rebekah into his tent in Gen 24, the servant sent by Abraham had already obtained consent from Laban and her which was why she was there in the first place.
Covenants require both consent and blood. Noah, Abraham, David, the New Covenant in Jesus, and so on. Some had burnt offerings, God killed some animals for Abraham, Jesus shed his blood. All required both parties to consent; this is why salvation requires repentance, remission of sins, and acceptance of grace through the blood of Jesus. Marriage, as a reflection of Christ and the Church, is similar. Marriage requires consent of the husband and wife (and father, if able) and blood from a broken hymen.
Typically, a marriage ceremony is held for the man and wife to each give consent to the covenant in the form of vows. Consent and consummation alone are perfunctory, which is usually why there are witnesses and a celebration. Rightly so as if they are accused of any wrong doing the witnesses can speak against that (“in the presence of two or three witnesses”), and it should be obvious why there is a celebration as marriage is holy. Then their marriage is sealed is consummated by sex; the breaking of the hymen which draws blood.
Of course, the obvious “counter argument” that will inevitably be brought up to this is that there’s no “consent” in Gen 2. Of course, anyone can use that to justify anything, as we’ve already seen here.
It’s not that hard unless you like to legalistically twist the Scriptures into something they’re not.
I’ve said my piece, so peace out.
@TimFinnegan – “If the marriage already existed because of the sex, there’d be no need to get married.”
There is an apparent contradiction. Genesis 2 gives sex as the sole ceremony for marriage and Jesus confirms that the fundamental attribute of a marriage is sex. Until sex occurs, it simply isn’t a full-fledged (consummated) marriage. The story of David and Abishag confirms this. So why then is a betrothed woman called a wife in both the OT and NT in multiple places and the punishment for sex with someone else’s betrothed the same as the punishment for adultery? Because the normative marriage is a covenant followed by sex. You can’t really have one without the other (however it is possible for both to be simultaneous: e.g. Adam and Eve). In the story of Ruth and Boaz the implication was that sex would have created an unconditional obligation for marriage: Boaz understood her offer of sex to be a marriage proposal. So there is no contradiction.
“…sex makes an already existing marriage indissoluble…My specific point was just that sex creates marriage is refuted by the Gospel of Matthew”
Why does sex make a statutory marriage indissoluble? Because it fundamentally changes the nature of the relationship. Whether you label this as ‘marriage’ or something else is just semantics. The discussion gets tripped up over “sex=marriage” without considering the equivocation over different uses of the term marriage. The important detail isn’t whether or not sex creates a binding marriage contract (it doesn’t on its own) but what sex actually does. It creates a one-flesh joining. And it is the one-flesh joining that has primary significance to God, not the marital declaration. IMO, the declaration is only important in-so-much as it leads to a one-flesh joining.
Genesis 2:24 says that marriage is identified by sex not that marriage is sex. Marriage without sex and sex without marriage are both lame implementations of the biblical sexual ethic.
So what advantage does my particular take on the issue have over the one you’ve described? 1) It informs us that God takes sex to be absolutely sacred. It must be in marriage and it must only be in marriage. This is fundamental from the time of creation. We don’t require any later Law or Paul to inform us of this.; 2) It explains why adultery is not only wrong, but one of the 10 commandments. Having sex with another man’s wife is an invalid marriage expectation. It’s becoming one-flesh with someone who is already one-flesh with another. It is wrong on a physical, moral, and spirital level and fundamentally goes against creation.; 3) Creating a one-flesh bond with someone who is not your spouse is wrong even if it doesn’t lead to marriage. See below:
“And if the marriage does not exist then it cannot be indissoluble”
This is an example of missing the point. Marriage is not indissoluble, all it takes is legally permitted divorce. When Paul writes that a Christian having sex with a prostitute is wrong (because it is a one-flesh joining), he is saying that the one-flesh joining is indissoluble. There is no such thing as divorce for the one-flesh joining. It lasts until death even if there is no marriage.; 4) Non-marital sex does not have to result in marriage, but if it does not, it is a sin/debt that must be paid. It is not a victimless crime.
“But I don’t expect to convince you in a combox discussion.”
You’ve been engaging and I appreciate exploring the subtleties of our positions. I’ve mostly always held beliefs similar to yours but found that the view I am proposing is not easily refuted and has fewer difficulties. I hope others who read this appreciate how even though we can arrive at similar conclusions, how we get there may be very different and have consequences that are not immediately obvious.
@Evan Turner – “Even though scripture mentioned the fact that Abraham “took her to wife” the context makes it clear that she was never his wife. If you believe this than you believe that God told Abraham to listen to his wife Sarah and divorce his other wife Hagar. This would be madness, as God is not the author of confusion. Also note for everyone else here that disagrees with Artisanal Toad’s incorrect view. I have also proven that sex outside of wedlock is not a sin.”
You’re going to have to explain your reasoning in more detail. Ignoring “took her to wife” seems like a really significant stretch. If sending her away meant that he divorced her, then how is that madness? That seems to be exactly what it is saying. If sending her away meant that they were still married, that wouldn’t be very nice, but it wouldn’t mean she wasn’t a wife only that she didn’t live with him anymore. Either way, why would you assume, in clear contradiction to the text, that they were never married when it says they were?
@anglosaxon – “Does anyone have a response for Artisanal Toad other than you are a sperg, you are stupid, you smell, you are a slave for your wives, your posts are too long?”
Read the comment threads on both articles. Many of us, myself included, have addressed AT’s points. However, we’ve kept the responses focused (something AT seems incapable of doing) and have not addressed every possible objection. And one of the things you seem to miss: when someone finds a flaw in AT’s argument, he rarely replies directly to the objections. There is a lot of misdirection and I don’t waste time responding to the misdirection.
@Artisanal Toad – “Genesis 2;24 is incomplete and Adam and Eve were not married. or Genesis 2:24 is complete but Adam and Eve were not married because Eve was a whore. or Dalrock is wrong.”
This is a false dilemma. Adam and Eve had sex and were married at the same time. The two ‘events’ just occurred simultaneously, but this doesn’t mean it is always this way or that there was no consent provided or required.
@jeremy Van Gender
And this King was present at Eve’s wedding. All three spheres of government, family, church and state, participated in and witnessed her wedding ”
That’s an abominable lie….there was NO wedding of Adam and Eve, and all three spheres of Govt certainly WERE NOT present…….Adam and Eve were married the instant his penis penetrated her vagina, there were no witnesses, no exchanging of vows, no Govt official, no marriage license. ..there was ONLY the act of sexual Intercourse which made them one flesh
Stop trying to embellish the story and say what was present when the text says no such thing……as far as I’m concerned it’s a blasphemous reinterpretation to garb the simplicity and unity of what constitutes marriage into a 21st century narrative
Bruce said
The pope may very well be a spiritual father… of a few dozen/hundred people. If an evangelist serves God well, he may be father even for thousands (a la Billy Graham). (Ignoring for the moment whether the RCC preaches the gospel accurately.)
For we see passages like this in Titus 1:4:
However, the RCC does not claim that each priest or pope is “father” only to those whom he has lead to submission to Christ and faith in his resurrection, and therefore to salvation (Rom 10:1-13).
No, the RCC claims that every priest is “father” to all the laymen. (Earl or Bruce, feel free to correct any slight misstatement, but this is mostly/completely true. Every priest acts as if he has the title “father”.)
In Scripture however, we see the exact opposite message. 1 Cor 4:
It is ridiculous to read that we “do not have many fathers”, yet think that every RCC priest at every church I go to is my “father”. It is obvious this “father” label is not a reflection of who led us to repentance, but a title. And we see in Matt 23:
The bold emphasis I added shows the part most directly related to the sin (aka disobeying God’s commands) of asking to be addressed as “father” as a title from the people. Yes, I call my own biological father, “father”, as that is true. But not every man is my biological father. Neither is every guy in an RCC church with funny robes my spiritual father.
The italics part is relevant for those who teach a false gospel, directing people away from heaven. For those who follow the RCC instead of following God, this is very important.
Anonymous Reader said Now we return to the endless green choo-choo show.
a) no kidding
b) A couple days ago I was walking home, and saw some couple walking a dog. It wanted to go chase some Canadian geese that were walking around, and the guy let out the leash. Dog proceeded to charge the geese. Geese proceeded to half-fly, half-waddle out of range. Whilst hopping/half-flying out of range, a few of the geese dropped green loads on the ground. We could say the dog literally “scared the shit out of them”. 🙂 Or perhaps more accurately, the sudden physical exursion caused it. But I figured that this type of scene is likely what caused the expression. I thought of this scene, as AR specified green choo-choo. 🙂
And I blame Dalrock for the sudden proliferation in html tags 🙂 Thanks for the primer.
Dear Necro King:
With respect, brother, I have to disagree. The wedding ceremony was presided over by none other than “the big G” himself, two chapters before the sexy stuff is reported to happen.
From Genesis Ch. 2:
21 And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
22 And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.
Incidentally, this is why I have long agitated for you Christian bros start making this the status quo. I see strong precedent for private Christian marriages, with witnesses in the community, and no official records or licenses necessary. I also argue for hermetic “self-initiation” marriages, where only the couple makes promises, with the Christian God as the witness.
Keep the meddlers of the divorce courts as far away as possible, and make them work to prove that you’re a married couple if one party decides to involve them.
Best,
Boxer
@Derek Ramsey
This is only true if you hold to your own interpretation of the wording of Genesis 2:24. Mine is also plausible. As Zippy said, for any finite text there are multiple plausible but mutually exclusive interpretations. How is this to be resolved?
This is not true. Marriage is a relationship which by its nature is not indissoluble until consummation. There is no changing nature, otherwise referring to both as a marriage and calling a woman in either relationship a wife is misleading. She is a wife because she is married; it is a relationship with a single nature, one which is created by consent and made indissoluble by consummation. This view is consistent with the idea that sex is sacred and that both adultery and fornication are sins for which penance must be done.
This is exactly what Christ is saying is not allowed; divorcing your wife is not possible (that is if by divorce we mean ending the marriage). He says specifically that “whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery.” Your interpretation must hold that wife can mean either a woman who is married or a woman who is part of a one-flesh union. This is not so; wife has one meaning: one who is married.
It all returns to the fact that multiple plausible interpretations which are mutually exclusive can be made about the same text. So how is Christian Doctrine to be decided then? Your appreciation is acknowledged and accepted gratefully.
No, sex consummates a marriage. It actually completes it, it doesn’t create it.
That’s a better way of putting it…marriage is created by consent and completed with consummation (which makes it indissoluble).
It is interesting that when different people come to mutually incompatible interpretations of the text they so often accuse each other of bad faith, lying, etc.
Maybe it isn’t (or at least isn’t always) bad faith. Maybe it is the nature of a finite, unchanging, complex text to give rise to mutually incompatible good faith interpretations.
And if that is so then the text alone cannot resolve conflicting ideas about doctrine which arise when that is the case, as here.
Matt 19:3-12
Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?” And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.” They *said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to give her a certificate of divorce and send her away?” He *said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”
Now this next response came even back in the age when Jesus was on earth, with the divorce laws even more libertine today (divorce for any reason…and the wife can initiate it)…this attitude, especially among men, is growing:
The disciples *said to Him, “If the relationship of the man with his wife is like this, it is better not to marry.” But He said to them, “Not all men can accept this statement, but only those to whom it has been given. For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother’s womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to accept this, let him accept it.”
No where in the Old Testament is the woman granted consent in marriage (at least the normative virgin marriage). God didn’t care about the consent of the woman; it is only in our femcentric society that glorifies romance that consent became important.
The only people with consent were the husband and the father (and if the husband takes her virginity without the father’s consent the husband looses his consent and must marry unless the father objects).
This is also true in the case of slave taken as a wife. It is master and husband who consent.
For concubinage it is unclear, unless we are to believe they are just slave-wives (which I don’t see evidence for). It is strongly implied historically and linguistically that concubines were a relationship founded upon the consent of the woman. But she also lacked the protections and honor that wives had.
Its probably true that in the OT divorced women married by their own consent. Widows were bound by Levirate marriage unless the closest relative refused (as in Boaz and Ruth).
Ironically, modern marriage may be most similar to concubinage.
@zippy
Some of that is projection. Some of that is emotional protecting (I am right/can’t be wrong so he must be lying). When confronted by truth many people are induced with cognitive dissodense and lash out in defense.
But a lot of it is because we are a rationalizing species, not rational. We have a belief and will cherry pick facts and interpretations to fit our internal narrative.
Rationally speaking, a set standard (the text) is the only way to establish truth. Some people are capable of dialectic and establishing their belief by looking to a standard.
But it is not foolproof. Most people rather use the text to justify their own beliefs, whether those come from church tradition or the milieu of their day (i.e. culture/’the world’).
“Maybe it isn’t (or at least isn’t always) bad faith. Maybe it is the nature of a finite, unchanging, complex text to give rise to mutually incompatible good faith interpretations.
“And if that is so then the text alone cannot resolve conflicting ideas about doctrine which arise when that is the case, as here.”
That, I agree with. As everyone here knows, that’s why we have so much disagreement among Prots about the meaning of Scripture, and why I’m increasing convinced of the inherent flaws in Sola Scriptura.
To get all the way down to it, the main problems most prots and fundies have is with the scriptures on sex, marriage, and divorce. And that’s because we little immature humans want to have sex without consequence and we want to get out of our bad marriages and remarry. We don’t want to love bitchy wives or respect crappy husbands. We don’t want the responsibility of leading or of submitting. We want to fornicate and cheat, and we want to have abortions, and we don’t want to do hard things. And then when we admit all this, we don’t want God to judge or spank us and we don’t want to suffer earthly consequences.
Culture and Justice
http://bit.ly/2igErhe
http://bit.ly/2wcKKbb
http://bit.ly/2uTfTR5
The RCC is faring no better against feminism than the Protestants, and compared to the fundies, worse. Compared to the traditional Anabaptists, both sides are doing far far far far worse.
This isn’t about the Reformation and constantly trying to re-fight that gets us no where.
RCC and Protestants will appeal to their various traditions (dressed up as apostolic authority and scripture respectively). But neither side will defeat feminism if they can’t admit where they’ve been wrong and learn from their losses in the culture war.
Matthew 23:9 KJV
And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
Just seems that “marriage”, “feminism”, “female behavior”, “sexuality”, will NEVER be solved in Biblical context if catholics and its daughter harlot denominations sects refuse to accept God’s mandate to come out of her doctrines, spiritual fornication and idolatry. Refusal to do this, the Holy Spirit will never enter upon oneself and shed light in enlightenment and knowledge, no matter how many brain cells you burn, disobedience is shooting yourself in the foot.
http://www.comeoutofher.org
@podethelesser
Okay. Since you are looking for a more tailored answer, I will oblige with a point by point response.
1.) First off, do we need to dismiss “Sex creates a marriage” from Scripture? It is not from Scripture in the first place. Scripture does not say “sex creates marriage”. It does not say “one flesh creates marriage”. It does not say “man knowing woman creates a marriage”. I do believe we can dismiss it using Scripture. My first point here is that there is no duty to limit the dismissal to Scripture.
2.) Without the requirement to dismiss it from Scripture, how does “sex creates marriage” stand as it is, with our common knowledge? Poorly. That’s not how we as a society practice marriage. We understand marriage to be something that involves commitment and choice – if all that was needed to create marriage was sex, a party girl has married herself hundreds of times to as many different men. We do not consider her to be married that many times. Neither does the law, even though the law does recognize a form of common law marriage, which is based not on a single instance of sex, but a practiced lifestyle.
3.) Rape does not create marriage. This is consistent with sex not creating marriage. One might object that in Deuteronomy 22:28-29, there are instructions regarding a man that lies with an un-pledged virgin to pay the bridal price and being restricted from divorcing her. But this is following two other examples in Deut 22:23-27 where a man has lied with a pledged virgin. In those cases, rather than the two becoming married and compensation going to the father, the man is stoned, and the woman is stoned if she did not try to protect her virginity by calling for help. The rule to be learned here is not that rape creates marriage. This chapter in Deut is not about teaching Israelites how to marry each other. This is about setting the standards of justice and holiness in the nation- for ” You must purge the evil from among you.” Where in a similar situation the man would be stoned to death, in this other situation he does not have to die, but must only commit his life in marriage. This is not rape creating marriage. This is marriage being used as a remedy where the alternative is putting the man to death.
4.) Marriage is best defined in Genesis between Adam and Eve. Both Jesus and Paul point to Genesis when they make points about how divorce and marriage are supposed to . Again, as pointed out in (1), there is no legalistic definition of penis in vagina as the precise moment of marriage. Rather, marriage is described poetically and we are left to draw conclusions from those elements and this choice of description. God desires man to not be alone. The man can use a helper, but animals don’t cut it. God creates woman out of man and she is brought to him. The man is inspired by her to create his first poem, and their coupling is cited as the prototype and model for why son leaves family to form a new one with his wife. And if one looks carefully at the declaration of Adam and Eve as model for all couples, notice the woman is called the man’s wife before he unites and becomes one flesh with her. With one flesh having a clear connection to sex, this indicates that the status of husband and wife occurs before sex!
In summary: Bible does not say sex creates marriage. Rape does not create marriage. Deuteronomy is about setting community standards and stopping/remedying evil behavior, and is not about defining marriage. Genesis provides a model with the first married couple, and shows sex happens after the couple is defined as husband and wife, within their marriage.
The long of the short of it is:
This topic has has so many replies for the one fact:
*Players, churchians, lukewarm believers, and non believers want excuse(s) to have premarital sex or to remarry, or to father children out of wedlock……..and to still be considered “good” in the eyes of men, pastors, priests, deacons, and church folk……and then at Judgment they can say “But, but I didn’t know that.”……..or “no one taught me the Truth” (even though it’s in His Word), and “let me explain my circumstances.”
Dalrock. Hasn’t this topic had enough? I mean, to an outsider coming here…….he or she will see us all behaving like Bill Clinton on the stand during those Ken Starr hearings debating and hairsplitting what the meaning of the word “is” is. We’re beginning to look really silly here; us folks who do like your blog….well, personally I think its now bringing us down in the eyes of the world we are trying to inspire. Just one man’s opinion,
Gary Eden:
Between the following square brackets I have produced a comprehensive list of all female deacons, priests, bishops, cardinals, and popes in the RCC throughout all of time and space: [ ]
Pode and Boxer,
This may have already been said, but you shouldn’t view interaction with AT only in the context of these 2 threads. He has been around for a long time and his lack of logic (I disagree with Boxer on that topic) and poor foundations are continually presented as Dalrock notes. That has made people realize much discussion with him is foolish.
I wonder if his most recent supporters are just sock puppets, but I am not going to bother looking into it enough to see if that is valid.
And then when we admit all this, we don’t want God to judge or spank us and we don’t want to suffer earthly or eternal consequences.
FIFY.
podethelesser @ August 18, 2017 at 9:17 pm:
“If “Sex creates a marriage” is tangential and trivially dismissed from Scripture, I would like you to please do so for the benefit of your less theologically enlightened readers like myself.”
The simple fact that the Bible doesn’t use sex and marriage as synonyms ought to be sufficient. Scripture didn’t call her “Rahab the Wife”.
Sex is a physical act. Marriage is a publicly acknowledged/enforced relationship. This has been true for all human history. The two are not the same and the one can happen without the other. Mosaic Law says they should happen together but that does not make the two concepts interchangeable.
…
Jason @ 5:13 pm:
“…he or she will see us all behaving like Bill Clinton on the stand during those Ken Starr hearings debating and hairsplitting what the meaning of the word “is” is.”
That was a success story for the people, enough so that Slick Willie Clinton became the second US President in history to be impeached for his criminal conduct.
Deti,
I think you are missing that human nature is the problem, nothing else. That is one reason I will favor Sola Scriptura over even godly traditions. It still involves man’s interpretation so is vulnerable to flaws, but the Word is the only infallible base.
Between the following square brackets I have produced a comprehensive list of all female deacons, priests, bishops, cardinals, and popes in the RCC throughout all of time and space: [ ]
I am not Roman Catholic myself but this is laudable. One hopes the policy will endure to the bitter end, but I ask those more knowledgeable if groups like these:
http://romancatholicwomenpriests.org/
http://catholicwomendeacons.org/
Will make any actual inroads over time. I expect they have no recognized standing, but maybe plenty of feminist support in the ranks.
Not knowing too much about it (though I’ve seen some RCC women in these roles), and at the risk of inserting a third link, I looked at the dummies version which indicates (if accurate) women are checking every box outside of deacon to pope, even to handling and passing out the Eucharist at the altar. Have they always done these things, or has it come along commensurate with more recent feminist gains in secular society?
http://www.dummies.com/religion/christianity/catholicism/the-role-of-women-in-the-catholic-church/
BillyS:
Our host doesn’t think it foolish. I appreciate his efforts to argue in good faith with AT. He’s making salient points and doing a good job presenting alternatives to the (suspiciously self-serving) Toad interpretation.
I respect you, but you’re wrong. Not only is Toad not an idiot, he’s charming and persuasive. That’s why it’s important to argue with him. (If you really think he’s an idiot, you owe it to yourself to just pass him by.)
Doubtful. I’ve been accused of that, too (recently by my pet, SirHamster). There’s nothing that a sockpuppet could say that Toad couldn’t.
You’ll note on your own wordpress console that you can get the originating IP on comments. It’s pretty easy to spot a sock. I also have to assume that if anyone were being so petty, that Dalrock would tip off the audience, so that we could all indulge in the appropriate mocking and scoffing at such cheap theatrics.
Best,
Boxer
Zippy your priests may all be men still, but that is a misdirection.
You have priests but several have testified that the on ground church activities are dominated by women.
You have radical feminist nuns going off the deep end. I believe I heard about a few of them doing ordinations.
The marriage situation among the laity is as bad or worse than protestants.
I do not see evidence that belief in feminism/feminine imperative is appreciably different amoung the Catholic laity.
You have some good doctrine thats not feminist, but the lack of strong teaching from the pulpit means it is of no affect.
I could go on in depth but this isn’t a competition. Its not Protestant v. Catholic. If you can’t admit you have a problem then you will fall to feminism.
Hello churchian projection. You impinge the motives of people you do not know; that ought to bother you.
Many of us are simply seeking the truth, trying to establish our beliefs on scripture and not false churchian tradition. We care not for the approval of others, or we wouldn’t be going down this road.
For those of you who have made it this far and don’t want to read a wall of text, I will try and summarize in my OWN words this thread so far:
A lot of it are my own OPINIONS and insights so without further ado:
1: “Is marriage the cause of sexual immorality?”…..If we’re talking about marriage that existed 3000 years ago and how God intends marriage to be, then the answer is NO.
If we’re talking about “modern marriage”, quote/un-quote, then YES>, marriage is definitely the cause of sexual immorality. Never is the utterly deceptive, hypergamous, wicked nature of women truly revealed until they get married, and then their chameleon like behavior becomes fully exposed.
Women lure men with the promise of delicious pussy and earthly delights in order to trap men into marriage, but once that occurs, the sex is almost guaranteed to stop, and she will use her pussy as a weapon….no longer will her husband be given access to her body, and if she reluctantly agrees to it, then it will be on her terms, and when SHE decides….she will dispense “sex” sparingly, if at all, and use emotional blackmail, belittling and shaming tactics to make sure her man never ever objects to not be able to have sex with her any more.
The 1001 excuses will come out….I’m too tired, sex is not all there is to a relationship, is sex all you think about, i need emotional connection before we can do it, i have a headache, I’m not in the mood, why do I have to take care of YOUR sexual needs, blah, blah, blah, and the list goes on. This creates an impossible environment for men to get their needs met which creates the ideal situation for a man to seek release outside the confines of the relationship
@Feministhater is quite right, marriage= the death knell for those of us who need sex, yet it is the 1 place where sex is meant to be guaranteed
I don’t even think most of us in here quite fully realize how destructive FEMINISM, truly is, and how it has irrevocably destroyed western society COMPLETELY AND FOREVER……Giving women the power, the vote, the control over all aspects of our lives, was and is the 10,000,000 gigaton nuclear bomb that Satan used to utterly destroy the family and rip the very fabric of society apart to the point where it is now unfixable
2: Matthew 5:28, is talking about ADULTERY, and NOT sexual immorality
3: Lust=to Covet, it is a gender neutral term, with the object of the lust the main component, not the lust itself
4: Since lust is to covet, it is not a sin to view pornographic images, or to be aroused by beautiful sexy women
5: Marriage is not necessarily permanent and life long…..Divorce was included in the law to allow divorce
6: God divorced Israel, and in the future will commit adultery by remarrying both Israel and the body of Christ……This should not be possible if divorce is not permitted
7: Masturbation was never a sin, except in the filthy polluted minds of the anti-sexual ascetics
8: Sin is a transgression of the LAW…..if there’s no law condemning a particular practice then it is not a sin
9: There is no such term in the bible as “living in sin”, therefore those who are married to women who arn’t virgins when you took them, ARE NOT living in adultery, they are truly married in the eyes of God
10: sex= marriage….That is God’s own definition of what makes a man and a woman one flesh, if you don’t like it, take it up with God, Genesis 2:24, and 1st Corinthians 6:16 makes it abundantly clear that it is sexual intercourse that makes a man and a woman one flesh in HIS eyes, with or without any commitment
11: Prostitution is a sin, no matter what clever tomfoolery @Artisanal Toad tries to use to justify it, therefore @Dalrock is correct on this particular subject
I think that about covers it all
Have not called you an AT sock puppet. You’re a fellow traveler with AT as a subversive, but you have your own voice and are wrong in your own snowflakey way.
Really want some attention, eh?
“No such thing as living in sin”?
Really? So I can bang all the whores I want?
For those who asked/are curious, Pope John Paul II infallibly declared in 1994 that female priests are an impossibility, in the Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. Of course there has been much crying and handwringing since then, as well as heretics being excommunicated for the pretense of carrying out female ordination.
The actual text of the declaration:
For those who asked/are curious, Pope John Paul II infallibly declared in 1994 that female priests are an impossibility,
So when some future pope, probably not Frank, infallibly declares that female priests are possible, what then?
Boxer,
I was speaking of the brand new people here.
Dalrock mostly ignores AT as far as I see, though much of that could be a time issue for him as he only has a few replies in most threads. I do mostly skip really long posts from AT and such, I just catch a few highlights, especially when I miss some conversations.
I am annoying in my own way of course.
And that’s how the new Prot sect Edenism starts.
So when some future pope, probably not Frank, infallibly declares that female priests are possible, what then?
Perhaps that will happen, and if it does it would result in an immediate schism in the Western Catholic Church, no question.
But why focus on that speculation, when there is a “here and now” issue right in this thread, which is this: no text can be, in itself, an authority. Without an authoritative interpretation, the text is merely a text subject to various, and often incompatible, interpretations (as we see in spades in these threads which go on for hundreds of posts), none of which is authoritative for any believer beyond his ability to be convinced. It’s marketplace approach to truth, to be honest, and it’s downright disgusting. It’s been horrifying reading through these threads.
This is obviously not intended as an indictment of all Protestant Christians, because clearly almost all Protestant Christians understand the faith well enough to disagree with the nonsense that Dalrock is arguing against in these threads. That’s obvious.
One wonders, however, how anyone can really see the will of Christ as expressed in the Garden of Gethsemane, be vindicated by an approach which gives rise to such a high degree of contentiousness, and which *must do*, by virtue of its core means of self-understanding. These threads exemplify the issue, in a rather bizarre and thankfully uncommon way, but the issue remains in more mundane contexts as well. It’s sad and unfortunate, really. It truly is.
Anonymous Reader:
When some future thing that hasn’t actually happened does happen in our imaginations about what might come to pass, we are writing a Phillip K. Dick novel.
This line of comments started when a commenter claimed that here, now, and today the billion-member RCC was just as overrun by feminism as protestantism. The facts I presented are inconvenient for that thesis.
The convent comment was true about where feminism is running rampant in the RCC but they aren’t female clergy like many Prot churchs have now…and they aren’t changing Catholic dogma. They’ve traded the faith for the cheap counterfeit of feminism.
Besides it is completely possible now in some Prot churches for a female clergy member to marry a same sex couple in a church which removes any Christian symbols so as to not offend Muslims.
earl:
There are some rotten-to-the-core convents which are old and dying, and some fantastic ones which are young and growing.
But all of them are under the supervision of men (bishops), and to the extent some are rotten it is because this is tolerated by their superiors (who are all men).
Thanks.
the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women
No authority to confer. That is well stated. Look girls, it’s not that we’re some kind of misogynists from the patriarchy; no one on the earth has authority to give you this final frontier of feminism.
I remain curious about the second part of my question regarding where on the timeline women in the RCC began to fill so many other roles short of the priesthood. One of the groups I linked up thread claims the church once had hundreds of women deacons, but they got stood down.
(if accurate) women are checking every box outside of deacon to pope, even to handling and passing out the Eucharist at the altar. Have they always done these things, or has it come along commensurate with more recent feminist gains in secular society?
Yes that’s the important aspect. It doesn’t matter how many women are involved in church activities…it’s still under the supervision of a bishop/priest.
But we also can’t be naive to think that Catholic women (especially American/European) haven’t been infected by secular feminism. I’ve met those type before and they will fight tooth and nail for the feminist ethos and ‘smashing the Patriarchy’ over what Scripture and/or the church authority says.
The Pope is welcoming your replacements with open arms. The women might not be in headship (figureship) positions but they rule through subterfuge anyway. The authority lies with them but the responsibility lies with the man.
It’s just a matter of timing. Drip by drip feminism takes more control.
The idea that the Catholic Church is immune to human nature, that the Pope somehow can be infallible when speaking on Church Doctrine one second and then fallible when speaking about anything else the next, is not rational.
I don’t know about that. They have made changes throughout the two millennia since Christ. They even add to dogma every now and again. The Catholic Church might not like removing Scriptural Doctrine, but they sure like to add to it.
In the end, humans will argue the same stuff for years. Humans can simply be wrong, they could be wrong then, we could be wrong now. It matters not.
I remain curious about the second part of my question regarding where on the timeline women in the RCC began to fill so many other roles short of the priesthood. One of the groups I linked up thread claims the church once had hundreds of women deacons, but they got stood down.
On deacons, there have been no women ordained to the diaconate in either the Western Catholic or Eastern Orthodox churches in any relevant recent timeframe. Both churches are trying to understand better whether there were women in the first few centuries of the church who served in some kind of diaconal-type ministry, perhaps exclusively to women, and that remains an open inquiry … there is no consensus on that in either church, as far as I understand.
The other roles …. well in the Western Catholic Church you’re talking about “extraordinary Eucharistic ministers” (EEMs, i.e., lay people who assist in distributing the Eucharist at Mass), which were instituted after V2 and were supposed to be extraordinary but are now ubiquitous because of the small number of priests relative to the faithful (i.e., it speeds up the distribution of the Eucharist a lot for a large group) … altar servers being girls (also came up after V2), which has also resulted in fewer boys being interested in being altar servers … lay offices in parishes, like religious education, liturgical music director and so on (mostly women, because (1) it pays poorly, (2) women have the degrees more than men do in these areas, at least among Catholics and (3) the priests are small in number and can’t run all of these ministries themselves).
In general, it’s happened because there are a small number of priests relative to laity, such that they need a good deal of assistance, and most of that comes from women because there are few men who are not priests who are geared up, educationally, or willing to get paid that amount for work.
It’s survived ~2000 years of human nature in it, besides if we thought that then Jesus would be a liar saying the gates of hell wouldn’t prevail against it.
Name the female who has made any changes/adding to Catholic dogma.
There was no ethos in modern times more hell bent destroying the church than atheistic Communism…it didn’t even last 100 years as a great power.
I didn’t say there was one specific female who did anything. I just said that the Catholic Church has changed dogma.
So did the Roman Empire. So did Western Civilisation. So did the Orthodox Church. This point raised has no merit.
What dogma has it change?
None of those had a Christ guarantee. That’s the point you overlooked.
@Novaseeker
Without an authoritative interpretation, the text is merely a text subject to various, and often
incompatible, interpretations
It has been a wild ride for sure, almost Trump-like in bringing forth people’s true colors. I note from the Acts of the Apostles that similar things have happened all along the way. When St. Paul or St. Peter reasoned with the people from the scriptures to explain the Gospel, some were persuaded and some formed mobs to drag the preachers before city authorities. Berean Jews were praised for examining the scriptures to verify St. Paul’s message, whilst some Jews from Thessalonica were angry enough to take their mob cross country, chasing the Apostles to Berea to try and shut down the message.
Someone up thread mentioned these words from Jesus at the sermon on the mount: “Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” Even a man that claims to recognize no authority but God cannot be confused by this.
It’s a tall order that He knew no mere man on the earth could fulfill, but it establishes the main theme. In my old line of work this would be called commanders’ intent. There will be confusion, the plan may not bear up to changing events, I will be confronted with situations where there is no time or way to consult higher echelons as to how to proceed. But I know the end state that my commander is aiming for. I evaluate my actions and decisions as to whether they honestly feed into that. It’s an attitude that leaves no room for pulling out a microscope, if you know what I mean.
So the Orthodox Church has no Christ backing it? Great. I believe Jesus backs all Christians who actually believe in him and submit to him and worship and pray to him, not institutions.
Specific Dogma? How about the Assumption of Mary into some spiritual equal to God in 1950? How about all the Vatican 1 and 2 group meet ups. Yeah, yeah, we know, these are not real ‘Dogma’ changes, just more up to date versions of the truth or some such. The point being, it’s ever changing, being subject to additions.
I don’t care to argue the specifics. However, the Catholic Church has either brought in new Dogmas or re-interpreted older ones.
Dear Fellas:
BillyS sez:
You kidding? Have you read this ongoing conversation? He’s just spent the last two or three weeks deconstructing the Church of Toad. I’ve been taking notes, in anticipation of the next family reunion (I have cousins who use similar arguments – problem is that they aren’t as smart or thoughtful as Toad is, and may not even understand the ripostes.)
Then Kooky SirHamster sez:
You have accused me of being a Toad sock. Before that you accused me of having my own socks. Before that you accused me of being a homosexual pedophile. Of course, you denied all these accusations, after they failed to produce the desired results.
https://v5k2c2.wordpress.com/2017/03/24/boxer-his-stable-of-kooks/
In the interim, you accused Artisanal Toad of various nonsensical stuph. When no one took you seriously, you excused your lies as “rhetoric” and explained that making up nonsense was “the only sensible thing to do.” (fuck’n lol)
It’s a basic pattern, and your paradigm, to resort to funny untruths when you lose an argument. Anyone who pays attention here has seen you do this countless times. Of course, you’re not the only one who stoops to these theatrics, and you’re not even very good at it, but you’re probably the most consistent.
What does the Bible say about shit like this, anyway? Let’s see…
Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
And again, I’m not singling you out. There are a couple of others who do this stuff. That won’t stop you from drafting another twelve responses, just as nonsensical as the last few.
In the meantime, you’ve been roundly ignored, while more intelligent people have actually debunked the foundations of Toad’s new religion. You should apologize to them, for working so hard to distract from their good work.
Regards,
Boxer
Then why did Christ institute a church and put Peter in charge of it? That’s in Scripture.
Please point out where in that proclamation, Mary is made into a ‘spiritual equal to God’.
There’s also the Immaculate Conception…along with the Assumption those are the only ‘changes’ that have occurred. And they weren’t really changes, they were something already long believed from the apostles until they were put in as official dogma.
Earl. You can just state what you truly mean. Anyone who is not a Roman Catholic cannot be saved. There done. I’m not going to argue anymore with your specifics.
Dear Feminist Hater:
It’s interesting that you know about this. Sorta off topic, but check out Jung and the Jungians on Myth By Steven Walker (Routledge, 2002) pp. 80-81
The Catholic bros here remind me of my Muslim friends I used to talk to, in the town I used to live in. They’d tell me that Islam was immune to feminism, only moments before the preacher got up, and started lecturing on the duties of the Muslim husband, and the privileges of the Muslim wife.
Feminism destroyed the protestant churches first. They were first priority for destruction because they were originally the primary vehicle for the transmission of healthy culture in North America. The feminists are now destroying Catholicism, Judaism, Mormonism and Islam as merely a clean-up operation. Catholics (and Muslims and others) who think they are immune from damage are fooling themselves. They’re just a few years behind. Time to get up and start resisting, because it’s almost too late.
Boxer
When they all allowed birth control…that was the beginning of letting feminism in. The Catholic church is still opposed to birth control and considers it a grave sin (I know some Catholics use it…that’s on them, not the what the church says).
For Catholicism…from the research I’ve read it was in the convents where the infestation started. But Zippy is right…those orders are getting older and dying and the ones staying true to the faith are growing.
I’d be curious to know how feminism has wormed its way into Islam though. Seems like the idea of secular equality and Islam don’t mix…but that doesn’t mean it hasn’t started to change.
You mean this…
‘The original phrase, “Salus extra ecclesiam non est” (“there is no salvation out of the Church”) comes from Letter LXXII of Cyprian of Carthage (d. 258). The letter was written in reference to a particular controversy as to whether or not it was necessary to baptize applicants who had previously been baptized by heretics. In Ad Jubajanum de haereticis baptizandis, Cyprian tells Jubaianus of his conviction that baptism conferred by heretics is not valid. Firmilian (died c. 269) agreed with Cyprian reasoning that those who are outside the Church and have not the Holy Spirit cannot admit others to the Church or give what they do not possess. According to Cardinal Ratzinger, Cyprian was not expressing a theory on the eternal fate of all baptized and non-baptized persons, despite the fact that the plain words of Cyprian clearly express that concept.’
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extra_Ecclesiam_nulla_salus
Dear Earl:
Same way the feminists infiltrated protestants, and the same way it’s wormed its way into the Catholic church.
I wrote, right here on Dalrock, about going to vigil mass and seeing a priest ramble on about the duties of Christian men to intervene in any suspected domestic violence situation in the neighborhood. The lecture was complete with the phony statistics (one in three, etc.) we all enjoy scoffing at here on Dalrock.
What surprised me was the fact that this priest wasn’t the typical scrawny male feminist priest, who spoke with a lisp. He was a visiting priest from Africa, where I assumed that the Church was still producing healthy masculinity. I’m wrong sometimes, in my assumptions, and it saddens me.
Best,
Boxer
I never saw that writing…I’d be curious to know in what context that was even brought up.
Those type are trying to rationalize homosexuality into being a good thing. And I’d guess the majority of them are Jesuits or were taught in Jesuit schools.
Earl:
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2016/08/10/the-peasants-are-revolting/#comment-216303
And christians can’t understand why kids “raised in the faith” leave it for the secular world . . . its mass confusion. I had occasion to be in a strip joint recently, and found myself engaged in a debate on Calvinism with the most beautiful dancer I have ever seen in a club like this . . . she looked like she stepped out of a VS catalog. She came from an Orthodox Presbyterian family but said she didn’t believe anymore because the elders leading her church, including her own father, could even agree themselves on some of their doctrines. Mass confusion and bickering.
I agree with AT as to the initiation of marriage . . . I am not yet convinced on the prostitution thing. But I will say he at least challenges the churchians to think and prove their own beliefs . . . that is something that has been missing from most congregations I have attended through the years.
Keep it up AT, I ain’t mad at ya!
Weak-nonexistent at best if the story of Jeremiah was the context. However the church isn’t immune to having SJWs…Judas Iscariot is the prime example.
Besides…St. Rita is a prime example of the correct thinking when domestic abuse happens in a marriage.
https://www.catholiccompany.com/getfed/st-rita-of-cascia-patron-saint-of-the-impossible/
I gather your comment is directed at me?
Yes, there is NO SUCH terminology in the entire bible called “living in sin ” , not 1 reference, nada, zip, nil, none……so yes you can bang as much whores as you want BUT you will be guilty of fornication each time you do so, there’s no such thing as living in fornication but you are committing the ACT of fornicating each time you do so, whether it’s your 50th whore or your 200th
Re: Boxer
Catholicism isn’t immune to feminism. What we have seen in this thread are more limited claims, things along the lines of the RCC being more resistant to, not thus far as affected by, or even – the most extreme claim made thus far – unable to be destroyed by feminism.
But resistant to isn’t the same as proof against, and a body can get awfully sick without dying.
Boxer:
FWIW, I was not defending the proposition “feminism is not a problem in the Catholic Church,” an absolute claim.
I was providing evidence against the proposition “feminism is just as much a problem in Catholicism as it is in Protestantism,” a relative claim.
Dear Zippy (and Earl, etc.)
I think that’s right. Most of these Protestant denominations are so utterly pozzed out that the only solution is to let them collapse, and build new institutions to replace them. The Catholics aren’t at that point, yet; but you guys are much closer than you realize.
I’m also disturbed by the positive thinking of some of you, with nonsensical foolishness like reliance on a “Christ guarantee.” I’ve read your books. Jesus never guaranteed that man-made institutions would stay true to the discipline of Christianity. What he did guarantee is that men would have to suffer (and often die) for living the life he suggested, and building a high civilization in his name.
I’m not saying that Earl doesn’t suffer and work for his faith, but his statements can easily be read as shiny-happy let’s not worry about Feminism, Christ will do all the work defeating it by anyone who runs across his comments here.
And, lest you Cats feel singled out, my own people (call them the Moes) are even further along in woman-worship than you are. We don’t have female bishops, and we don’t marry dykes in our temples, but the last sacrament meeting I went to was all about the duty to pay child support. Laughable and pathetic.
Best,
Boxer
The gates of hell won’t overcome His church. Matt 16:18
Now when it comes to any other man made institutions…it does not have that guarantee.
And I actually worry about feminism quite a bit, not so much that it will overthrow throw the church…but seeing and reading about the results it does to women (and men) of faith who actually believe in it. Eventually they’ll either reject some or all of the faith…on the basis that it is an oppressive patriarch. And you are correct that feminism is basically ‘women-worship’. They flat out eventually think they are ‘goddesses’.
Dear Earl:
And I think that’s right. Unfortunately, when his church starts conceding to feminists, it’s not his church any longer. He lifts his mantle of authority off that church, and lets it go down to destruction. (There are too many stories about this happening in the text to count).
You’re putting your faith in the works of men. Quit doing that. Have faith in the system laid down by Jesus and St. Paul. Test your priests by their fidelity to the text. It’s the only way to keep your church away from the idiots.
Boxer
That’s His church. When the clergy start going away from Jesus (for something like feminism, rationalizing homosexuality, or being a SJW)…they begin to show much like Judas they aren’t really his clergy anymore…to their own peril.
Dear Earl:
That’s only his church as long as it follows his system. To prove otherwise, you’ll have to show me in the New Testament where the phrase “Roman Catholic Church” pops up.
When the clergy start going away from Jesus, they gain control of the infrastructure of his church, and then it becomes the church of feminism. That’s the reality of the situation.
On the upside, you guys have fought against the poz for a thousand years plus. I have faith in your ability to defeat the latest crop of dolts; provided enough good people get woke. That’s our job, and I’m taking it seriously.
Best,
Boxer
That’s supposedly been what the ‘lavender mafia’ has tried to do. Not so much for feminism but for active homosexuality.
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/catholic-expert-details-39huge-homosexual-underground-in-the-church39
Boxer —
Test your priests by their fidelity to the text. It’s the only way to keep your church away from the idiots.
I am not Catholic, but Eastern Orthodox, as you know. It isn’t about constantly shit testing your hierarchy against a text which you interpret yourself to test them against. It’s about authority, and understanding the apostles had authority given to them by Christ, and their successors had the authority given them by the apostles, as we see from Titus in the NT itself, and from numerous other contemporaneous accounts in the immediate decades after the NT texts. This is a feature of both Catholicism and Orthodoxy, and without that authority, which comes in a line directly from Christ and his apostles, you end up with the textual anarchy we have seen here, all based on “testing against the text”. It’s quite literally a road to nowhere, or at the very least a road to such a disastrous multiplicity of varying churches based on varying interpretations of the authoritative text as to make a sad mockery of the living God. It’s like Christ is being crucified all over again by this nonsense.
The truly ironic thing is that it is often the people who lament the collapse of authority in our culture (not you, by the way, but others here and elsewhere) who embrace a personal worldview of personal authority based on personal interpretation of a text which they then claim to be authoritative over them based on their own personal interpretation of it. Yet the irony escapes them. They do not see the link between this mindset, based centuries ago, and the current collapse of *all* authority, based on the same mindset. Alas.
It’s the very reason they don’t like a church authority on these matters.
Boxer:
My own take is that the “gates of Hell” guarantee just means that ultimately the Church will triumph (because Christ already has), battering down the gates of Hell. There is a whole lotta potentially ugly looking phase space between here and the eschaton though.
You might find this amusing;
https://zippycatholic.wordpress.com/2017/06/05/the-search-engine-of-christ-on-earth/
All masons, knights, Illuminati members are Roman Catholic. Tolkien was an occultist and a possible Freemason, nothing “Christian” about it. After all, Jesuits created all of these secret societies groups, as supposed Bible readers and researchers without personal ideological, forced childhood upbringing bias here at Dalrock, let’s not forget the that Vatican is the Mother Harlot, Great Whore of Babylon of the modern age.
J.R.R. Tolkien and C.S. Lewis
– The Occult Overtones In Their Writings –
Vatican is the Mother Harlot, Great Whore of Babylon of the modern age.
Dalrock —
Does this really need to be here? I think that Catholic commenters have been mostly respectful, and although I don’t have a personal bone to pick here, this strikes me as being Jack Chick type stuff which is below the level of discourse expected here, in my view.
You’d better let the Vatican know, since they’ve been excommunicating masons since the 1700’s.
…
I don’t really have anything to say in response to that. I just find it adorable.
Uhm, are you requesting deletion of my comment Novaseeker?
How about if I said this… “have we all been respectful to the American woman here”?
If that is the route you want to take, sugarcoating “disrespect” to open speech here among adults, then you need tone it down. Not sure what sort of “respect” you refer to.
I suppose if I were a Protestant I might want to see Son of Liberty’s comment removed because it would be embarrassing. But I don’t filter all of Protestantism through Jack Chick pamphlets myself, FWIW.
Fellas, what’s with the denomination wars here? Not sure how “protestants” got into the discussion, as I do not relate to it. Topic’s about prostitution, with history showing us institutions and sects that were involved in today’s female behavior and I had to comment on about Tolkien since it was mentioned, but did not mean to divert it to another topic shedding some light and truth, but anyhow, I stepped on a few toes, telling me who’s who now.
Desperate for attention, Boxer repeats the same lies about me. I have not done any of these things. You can’t make me feel bad with lies, Boxer. In the meantime, your doubling down on false accusations undermines your own credibility and pushes you closer to AT clown levels.
Point out a single lie if you can. You’ve consistently attacked anyone willing to cut to the chase and dismiss AT on prior experience.
Just because AT uses the veneer of logic does not mean everyone has the duty to answer him according to his folly. As Dalrock points out: “You can see the original comment here, but will have to read through 1843* words in the comment before you get to this bit, as one doesn’t merely blurt out such absurd claims upfront. You have to slowly ease people into this kind of nonsense, even when they are eager to accept it.”
AT’s absurd outbursts are why he is a clown that does not have to be taken seriously. One can refute a clown by teasing out the absurdity he professes, or one can save time pointing out he is a clown. Both methods have their pros, and the exciting thing is that you have your pick in this very thread!
How many blogposts have you dedicated to lying about me at this point? Never mind the absurd projections.
If those reflect you on the inside, Boxer, Jesus can heal your hurts.
Around the fall of the Roman Empire….in the provincial backwater city of Carthage on the north coast of Africa were two men…..one was once a teacher who became Christian. His name was Augustine, Bishop of Hippo. The other was a Roman lawyer, Proconsul Martianus Capella. Carthage was a principle supplier of corn and oil for the empire. It was a sleepy, and quiet area of the empire. The calm was only disturbed for the most part by the Christians who lived there with their endless upon endless sectarian quarrels, debates and insults towards each other.
Augustine at this time was writing “The City of God” and he believed that Rome was collapsing because the church had become subservient to a pagan-secular-authority-culture. He advocated that the State should obey the moral authority of the church. Even as he was writing this, the barbarian Vandals were crossing Gibraltar to destroy Carthage as they had already sacked and burned Rome. Augustine was offering an escape to the spiritual life of the monasteries and abbeys. To him belief was always more important than earthly knowledge. This is what became of Christian creed for the Medieval period that was about to follow…..
For Proconsul Capella the fall of Rome was indeed tragic, and the expansive empire and public life was going to be indeed gone for good. If Romans were to survive it all, it would be in a very different world and society, with everything on a much smaller scale. The empire would be fragmented into smaller states, city states, and territories. They would have to exist on limited resources. They would need a condensed form of Roman knowledge to help them. This would become the “Capella” of the imperial school of curriculum, and what would become classical ‘liberal arts’ sixteen volumes in totality including cross referencing. All in Latin.
Between these two men, the stage for the intellectual side of the Dark Ages was set for the next six centuries. Both books went into the world from a very different place of Carthage’s splendid decay at the end of the Roman Empire…….
What of this discussion thread here? While we all debate about who is more correct, which denomination has it more right, which one is more feminist than another……..what Jesus *really* meant….should we not be focusing more on the fact that sin is sin? Redemption is possible. His place in your life, and a strive to righteousness.
This thread is actually making me not upset….but just…….tired.
@Novaseeker
In general, it’s happened because there are a small number of priests relative to laity, such that they need a good deal of assistance, and most of that comes from women
Thanks, that seems logical. Like math. No doubt these women come to wield considerable influence, at least at their local level, since they become all but indispensable to keeping the train on the tracks. “Yes Minister” was an old British comedy that captured the effect very well.
Here’s hoping it doesn’t devolve into anything like the “Women’s Ministries” that pervade most Protestant churches, and of which I have seen enough to last me. Even in churches where only men serve as pastors, elders, and deacons, these are a force to be reckoned with. The women greatly outnumber the male church leadership, such that most of what they are saying to each other in small groups is anybody’s guess.
Novaseeker
So when some future pope, probably not Frank, infallibly declares that female priests are possible, what then?
Perhaps that will happen, and if it does it would result in an immediate schism in the Western Catholic Church, no question.
Sure, and it won’t be the first schism, either. So? Does that make it impossible?
But why focus on that speculation, when there is a “here and now” issue right in this thread, which is this: no text can be, in itself, an authority.
I wasn’t focusing on anything but merely asking a rather rhetorical question. But I’ll focus on your issue for some words.
Without an authoritative interpretation, the text is merely a text subject to various, and often incompatible, interpretations (as we see in spades in these threads which go on for hundreds of posts), none of which is authoritative for any believer beyond his ability to be convinced. It’s marketplace approach to truth, to be honest, and it’s downright disgusting. It’s been horrifying reading through these threads.
I guess that like many, you don’t have a very good knowledge base of history.
This is obviously not intended as an indictment of all Protestant Christians, because clearly almost all Protestant Christians understand the faith well enough to disagree with the nonsense that Dalrock is arguing against in these threads. That’s obvious.
Well, isn’t it wonderful that there’s never, ever, ever been an issue of how to interpret the Bible within the Roman Cathlic church? Catharism https://infogalactic.com/info/Catharism never existed, and the https://infogalactic.com/info/Albigensian_Crusade never happened, just to pick one example.
Come on, Nova, you know better than this. A couple of commenters referenced the “Children of God” aka “Family” of the 60’s and 70’s. A. Toad might fit in better there. It’s hardly new, either, Southern California has been a hotbed of cults for over 100 years.
One wonders, however, how anyone can really see the will of Christ as expressed in the Garden of Gethsemane, be vindicated by an approach which gives rise to such a high degree of contentiousness, and which *must do*, by virtue of its core means of self-understanding. These threads exemplify the issue, in a rather bizarre and thankfully uncommon way, but the issue remains in more mundane contexts as well. It’s sad and unfortunate, really. It truly is.
You’re writing as if no conflict, disagreement or schism ever happened before in the last 2000 years. So I guess you don’t know why creeds such as the Nicene exist? Nor are you aware of Liberation Theology’s effects on the Roman Catholic church in Latin America? https://infogalactic.com/info/Liberation_theology
Any institution that contains men will contain politics and differences of opinion, including hair splitting over what texts say. Because humans are not perfect, they are flawed, imperfect and prone to error. That includes Roman Catholics, but don’t tell Zippy Catholic.
Novaseeker again
On deacons, there have been no women ordained to the diaconate in either the Western Catholic or Eastern Orthodox churches in any relevant recent timeframe. Both churches are trying to understand better whether there were women in the first few centuries of the church who served in some kind of diaconal-type ministry, perhaps exclusively to women, and that remains an open inquiry … there is no consensus on that in either church, as far as I understand.
The obvious issue is the Female Imperative wanting to elbow its way into work done by men. That’s the long and the short of it. Female deacons are one wedge in, and Protestant denominations that have caved on this have then found in a generation or less that they have female elders / leaders and some years later the lady-preacher makes her appearance. It’s an obvious pattern, just go looking through the infogalactic pages on denominations. Time after time, it happens.
So “study the issue” is a standard response to the usual female pushiness under the guise of ‘we just want to be helpers and help you guys!”. It’s like a husband saying to his daugher, “Well, let me think about it”. The problem will arise in denominations that allow too many feminists of either sex onto a study commission / committee, because that’s where the rot will begin. How the Roman Catholic committee is stacked will make a difference, but Vatican politics (yes, there’s politics in the Vatican, don’t tell anyone) is far beyond my knowledge base.
Make no mistake, though, the current “we just want to help, not usurp!” may be true, but it’s based on women’s feelz which we all know are perpetually in transition. Here’s some historical perspective: get in a time machine and go back 100 years to any Roman Catholic church in North America and ask about “altar girls”. It would be unthinkable, literally no one would understand the term, right? So that proves what? That altar girls could never happen? Hmm….
Necroking48:
No such thing as the modern churchian wedding ceremony in the bible as well, but plenty of the commenters here still believe in that farce!
I think what is meant when people use that phrase, is that the person is continuing to repeat the same sin over and over. Case in point: marrying a divorced woman is adultery because you are having sexual relations (presumed) with another mans wife, such that every time you do the deed you are perpetuating the sin of adultery. That’s how I use the phrase and understand others to use it.
Zippy Catholic
When some future thing that hasn’t actually happened does happen in our imaginations about what might come to pass, we are writing a Phillip K. Dick novel.
Really? I could have sworn he was dead.
Anyway, I get your point. It would be as bizarre and impossible as, say, two living popes each accusing the other of being an antipope, issuing anethemas against each other, splitting the church in two parts. Going on for years. That could never, ever, ever happen, right?
Right.
https://infogalactic.com/info/Western_Schism
One question: was Pope Boniface IX https://infogalactic.com/info/Boniface_IX infallible?
Or was Pope Benedict XIII https://infogalactic.com/info/Antipope_Benedict_XIII infallibe?
Or were they both infallible, at the same time? Just wondering.
So there’s no way, for example, that infallible Pope Francis could infallibly decide that ordained deaconesses are totally ok with Catholic dogma while infallible Pope Ratzinger infallibly rejects that notion, leading to a schism. Not possible. Because infallibility, right? Plus there’s absolutely no, none, not any historical evidence to suggest such a thing might occur.
Anyway.
This is not to say I expect such a thing to occur this year or any time soon, or ever. But until we reach Peak Feminism, the pressure to feminize every single institution / organization / group in the West will only increase. Resisting that pressure is a neverending job, and we who stand against the FI can never slack off.
Earl asks
What dogma has it change?
Please look up the doctrine of “limbo” in the historical context, and then try to find it in your 1992 catechism which contains the basic teachings of your church.
Earl again.
When they all allowed birth control…that was the beginning of letting feminism in.
No, it wasn’t. This is a pet hobbyhorse of yours and I have some sympathy for you, but it is not difficult to find feminism in US and UK Protestant churches before the Lambeth conference. Not counting the Quakers who appear to have been feminized from the start, there’s plenty of feminization visible in the eary 20th century and all the way back to the 1820’s. Long before any reliable contraception. It’s the nature of the Female Imperative.
I’ll go a step further, and point out that Lambeth is a result of feminization, not a cause. “Barefoot and pregnant”, etc.
The Catholic church is still opposed to birth control and considers it a grave sin (I know some Catholics use it…that’s on them, not the what the church says).
Uh, not exactly. What is NFP and who teaches it, again? That’s just for a start. You might spend some time trawling through history, the RC church used to require a whole lot more “prayer and fasting” days during a given year that included an obligation to refrain from sexual intercourse…which is a form of “controlling births”, is it not?
earl
Then why did Christ institute a church and put Peter in charge of it? That’s in Scripture.
There’s a Baptist pastor I used to know who read that same passage differently than you do; his rock was “faith”, not an individual man. I am not going to go further, because that level of hair splitting has no appeal to me & I am not qualified. I’m just putting it out there to inform you there is another way to read that Bible quote. Maybe it’s wrong, but there it is.
Son of Liberty
Fellas, what’s with the denomination wars here?
Gosh, I dunno, maybe some of it comes from stupid men writing stupid stuff like this:
let’s not forget the that Vatican is the Mother Harlot..
You got any idea who that stupid man was? He’s clearly tryiing to stoke a fight that has nothing at all to do with the original topic. Maybe he’s just trolling for flames? Think you could ask him your question?
Geeze. The stupid, it burns.
Returning to the OP I’ll observe that there’s a handful of men who are tagging along with A. Toad on this issue, but only a handful. This thread could become like “Are women done with men after 50” in its perpetualness, because it’s human nature to want what we want, and then go and try to find a rule loophole to let us have it. I know men in various churches who encounter this stuff all the time; from the ongoing push for “deaconesses” in the churches that have not surrendered, to various work-arounds to allow divorcees to remarry, to larger loopholes to tolerate same-sex marriage – it’s all about “want first, find loophole second”. They fight as they can, where they are, against the word-torturing that is required to get there. Nothing as far out as Toad’s cult, mind you, not yet anyway.
To be all 1990’s about it: perhaps it all depends on what the meaning of the word “is” is.
That makes this thread instructive, for those with the patience to read it. Because exposure to this convoluted, circular, hairsplitting will enable men to know it when they see it in real life. They can slap it down fast and hard, with quotes from the many men who have contributed. Someone with patience could review the thread and obtain a number of references to jot down, and find themselves clarifying issues in the process. Roman Catholics can add to that with their other sources.
Well yeah…but it’s not using artifical hormones pumping into a woman’s body to control birth. It’s using the woman’s natural infertile times.
Dear Fellas:
Novaseeker calls me out with…
Strawman. If you want to argue with me, try quoting me, or at least paraphrasing accurately.
Then Son of Liberty chimes in with…
These are entertaining accusations. I’d assume you were a Mormon, had you added “polytheists who worship men and women…” etc.
In any event, if you’re hating on the S.J. then you, ironically, agree with Earl. Earlier he noted that they were all a bunch of faggots. (Funny, because the majority of Cat clergy I knew as a young man were S.J., and they definitely didn’t seem like that to me).
Then, just a few minutes later, Son of Liberty says…
Are you kidding, or what?
I admire the author of this blog, because he lets non-Prods hang here (there are Cats, Jews, a couple of other Moes, at least one Viking Odinist, and some godless heathens). I think this is sensible. We can all squabble over which of us has the “one true way” after we get done stomping the culture destroyers who want us all reduced to living in the matriarchy. Until then, we have bigger fish to fry.
Best,
Boxer
Earl on NFP
Well yeah…but it’s not using artifical hormones pumping into a woman’s body to control birth. It’s using the woman’s natural infertile times.
Earl, we’ve been over this before. Once again, you are moving your goalposts in a way that has become tiresome. You can’t have it both ways, you can’t go on about “birth control” and then pretend that only hormonal contraception exists or matters.
Here is a reference for you to look at:
https://infogalactic.com/info/Lambeth_Conferences
You are referring to the conference in 1930 which:
Stressed abstinence and approved the use of birth control in limited circumstances, but did not specify contraceptives.
Rejected war as a means of settling international disputes.
Declared induced abortion “abhorrent”.
Opposed racial segregation in churches.
Now back to your hormonal goalpost that moves around:
https://infogalactic.com/info/Hormonal_contraception
First use of hormonal contraception was in about 1960.
You’re smart enough to understand that a conference in 1930 could not possibly refer to an invention that was not available until 1960. So stop doing that. Because now you know it’s not true.
The contraception available in 1930 consisted of whatever form of NFP was known, condoms and the contraceptive diaphragm[1] which was supposed to be only available from physicians. I have no idea what “limited circumstances” means in the context of Lambeth 1930 but perhaps it had to do with health of the woman. Prior to antibiotics death in childbirth was a lot more common than it is now, for a start.
Again, this was in 1930, but there were women preaching in some denominations 10 or more years prior. So your “this caused that” doesn’t hold up.
I have to wonder why I’m the only man in this thread with a working search engine. It is strange.
[1]https://infogalactic.com/info/Diaphragm_(contraceptive) a 19th century invention that was made possible by improved vulcanization of rubber.
Anonymous Reader:
It is strange that you think I would disagree with this. Or be unaware of the various schisms, later condemnations of popes as heretics (e.g. Honorius), etc especially since the post I linked Boxer to on my blog references all of those very things.
Son of Liberty @ 3:18 pm:
“All masons, knights, Illuminati members are Roman Catholic. Tolkien was an occultist and a possible Freemason, nothing “Christian” about it…”
Son of Liberty @ 3:39 pm:
“Fellas, what’s with the denomination wars here?”
Hmm, ooo-kay. I think the RCC crowd got tired of arguing Scripture minutiae and tried to end the debate with an appeal to Church authority, and the Prot crowd changed targets because we can state our positions only so many times before it’s only repetition. In other words, time to move on.
If you think Tolkien was occult then I hope you never get a peek at my D&D books. We gamers think Tolkien was a good start.
Sure I can…that particular contraception manipulates a woman’s body in order to prevent pregnancy. NFP actually lets a woman know how her body’s fertility works naturally.
He just failed his History ability check and remembered wrongly.
Yet another example of how a ‘male feminist’ is usually a creepy predator in disguise : Josh Whedon :
http://www.thewrap.com/joss-whedon-feminist-hypocrite-infidelity-affairs-ex-wife-kai-cole-says/
The Great Sacrifice: Abraham and Isaac
Boxer,
I was thinking past these posts and over the last several months, and more. AT has been around for quite a while. Though Dalrock mostly ignores me too, so saying he ignores someone doesn’t necessarily mean he agrees or disagrees with them.
As to the RCC, they would argue that they are “The Church” Jesus spoke of. Protestants would disagree. I do believe Jesus will always have those who follow Him, as has been shown throughout history. Some may even err in significant ways, such as many/most in the US now, but the core will be recovered and built upon. Though I definitely think a Dominionist idea, where the Church takes over more and more is pure and utter poppycock. Men will always push the wrong way on things, even when redeemed. It is part of human nature.
Zippy,
I have heard in the past that at least some in the RCC expect some future Pope to be quite corrupt, just not any specific current one. (I heard this a decade or more ago, so I don’t know who believes it now.) The whole idea may or may not be right of course.
Zippy,
Jack Chick was definitely creative. I am sure some true ideas were included that are not completely palatable today, but most wouldn’t follow him wholeheartedly, whatever their views of the RCC.
====
I was the one who brought up the idea of sock puppets. I was referring to those who were fairly new in these threads. I am not concerned either way. I think SirHamster and Boxer both need to get the burrs out of their pants and focus on other things….
AR,
The word for Peter is “little stone” and the word for rock was something else.
The revelation was in the prior verse.
Jesus was either saying He was going to build His Church
– On Peter
– On knowledge revealed from Heaven, not from men
– On himself
– Something else, perhaps a big rock He was pointing at
The first is not likely since the words for Peter and rock are different by definition. The second seems quite likely based on what was said just prior to this. He was complementing Peter for getting part of it right, but noting a more significant point as well. It is possible Jesus was referring to Himself and I believe other Scriptures could support that, but I don’t have the time to dig in now and nothing jumps to my immediate mind.
This is a key difference between those who are part of the RCC (and even Reformed movements) and Protestant-influenced groups.
Earl,
So have non-RCC Christians Earl. That is not a solid argument.
The problem with a lot of the “The RCC is better than otherwise” arguments in this thread (and others) is that they fail to take into account the major problems inside the RCC, especially in the past. More Christians have been killed by the RCC than by all Roman Emporers combined, as one example.
Men are men, and until everyone realizes that we will never make progress.
I don’t care if someone is in the RCC, even if I cannot (and be consistent with the Scriptures). The key spiritual point is if they have confessed Jesus as their Lord and believe God raised Him from the dead. I know the RCC services said things like that each week (even though my last mass was a long time ago), but many have not taking the key confession step and are somewhat inoculated from doing so in my experience.
Lay off the digs against Protestants and save them for an RCC forum. Most here, especially the regulars, will do the same from the RCC. I come here to look at male-female relations in modern times, not to debate RCC and Protestantism.
(Note that I use RCC – Roman Catholic Church) because I believe Catholic in its true meaning – as in universal. All believers are part of the Catholic church, but not necessarily the one based in Rome.)
@Derek Ramsey
You’re going to have to explain your reasoning in more detail. Ignoring “took her to wife” seems like a really significant stretch. If sending her away meant that he divorced her, then how is that madness? That seems to be exactly what it is saying. If sending her away meant that they were still married, that wouldn’t be very nice, but it wouldn’t mean she wasn’t a wife only that she didn’t live with him anymore. Either way, why would you assume, in clear contradiction to the text, that they were never married when it says they were?
I have explained before in my post that a slave can’t be a wife. Scripture is clear on this so was Paul when he was comparing Sarah to Hagar. Sarah was the freewoman wife Hagar was the slave in bondage. Hagar was Sarah’s slave and later became a concubine of Abraham. Concubines weren’t wives which is why when someone slept with one without her master’s permission they were guilty of sin but not put to death because it wasn’t adultery. We would see the same thing happen in scripture with Rachel and Leah’s slaves who would become Jacob’s concubines.
God told Abraham to listen to his wife because she was his only one. God would not tell him to listen to one of his wives to abandon another wife. God told Abraham he should leave Hagar because she was a slave and you can let them go if you want to. It is in fact your view that is in clear contradiction with the text. You will have to explain why God would tell Abraham to abandon one of his wives just because his other wife says so. You would also have to explain why having unauthorized sex with a female slave didn’t lead to the death penalty like adultery. Plus you would have to explain Paul’s reasoning in the New Testament between Sarah and Hagar because you can’t be a wife and a slave at the same time.
They have?
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_den1.htm
Anonymous Reader: Returning to the OP I’ll observe that there’s a handful of men who are tagging along with A. Toad on this issue, but only a handful. This thread could become like “Are women done with men after 50” in its perpetualness, because it’s human nature to want what we want, and then go and try to find a rule loophole to let us have it.
Perhaps it is all just loophole finding. This topic has me recalling a farmer in this county who wanted to plant soybeans. The extension, the guy’s peers, the agri-business professionals were all of one mind: soybeans will not grow in the county. The reasons were quite grounded in data: too wet, too dry, too alkaline, too acidic, no proper drill, no proper combine head, etc.
The guy got the seed, push the corn drill to 30 inches and laid down about 7 acres. In the fall he actually sickle-barred it and baled it loosely for transport, broke them in the barn for drying, then, over the winter, mechanically flailed them.
Toad reminds me of that guy: he thinks he’ll be fruitful in his efforts. I say: God bless him–if God wants fruit from that vine there will be fruit regardless of what the authorized fruit-forecasters utter.
Of course a man who decides to guide his own efforts based on the written word of an anonymous author might indeed be looking for a safe path to exercise his own bias.
And it’s nothing against Prots here…I’m Catholic, I go off of what my faith teaches me. The faith goes off Scripture, apostolic tradition, and the church authority given to Peter and his successors from Jesus. Which again…those three don’t conflict with each other. The biggest misconception is that they do.
Sometimes I make the mistake of not knowing enough about my faith…but that’s what debate should be about, to learn more about why we believe what we do.
“One Flesh” in Genesis 2:24 is the beast with two backs, it’s not “One Spirit.” Going by the Mosaic Law (since Paul says the law is the schoolmaster) marriage does not begin with the loss of a girl’s virginity. God, via Moses, lays down the law in Exodus 22:16,17 that a seducer of a virgin is obligated to pay the virgin bride price and to marry the girl, unless repeat unless, the father objects to the man marrying his daughter. If he does object, the seducer does not get to marry the girl, although he still has to hand over the virgin bride price $$$. The girl is then able to join some other man’s harem or remain single, typically according to the wishes of the girl’s father/family. This is about as clear as it gets that seduction does not yet equal marriage.
Who would have thought this thread would still be going strong this long. I don’t agree with AT, but he makes some interesting comments. 🙂
BillyS:
Indeed it is expected, and past ones too. We’ve had corrupt popes, heretic popes, antipopes, womanizing popes, etc. Any RC who thinks otherwise doesn’t know his own history. Catholics who study the Borgia popes sometimes refer to them as the ‘pornocracy.’
That’s part of what makes ultramontanism such a rookie mistake.
Dear Fellas:
BillyS writes…
I definitely don’t disagree with you on this one.
earl sez…
The link you posted is meaningless. One could just as easily say that the Lutherans were established by Christ, and list the RCC and OC as Satanic innovations. Who cares?
Whether a Christian is in communion with your particular church’s infrastructure is irrelevant. Note Matthew 18:20 … which makes no mention of the necessity of someone having his name written down on a baptismal certificate, or of otherwise being a member of any specific man-made body.
As an outsider, I think there are a few things that can delineate Christians, as opposed to non-Christians or post-Christians. A belief in the mystery of the trinity is one (that excludes me). A good faith study of the bible is another, and a belief in its completeness (that excludes my brother Toad).
Best,
Boxer
Earl,
Biblical believers would not fit any organizational chart. They may be in an organization, but their line goes back to Jesus’ founding of Christianity, not the specific person who founded a specific organization.
Some of the organizations noted in that chart were almost certainly Christian (in some sense at least) on their founding, but have left it since. Even the RCC has its regular bumps as Zippy notes.
Not really…because the link also mentioned who established the church.
SJB @ 6:37 am:
“Perhaps it is all just loophole finding.”
“if God wants fruit from that vine there will be fruit regardless of what the authorized fruit-forecasters utter.”
Do you see the problem between these two statements? The first assumes man is in control of God and the second assumes God is in control of man.
I say the true church, established by Jesus and St. Paul, was the Lutheran church. Before the reformation, the Lutherans were known as Roman Catholics. After the reformation, the Roman Catholic church lost its authority.
A name is just a name. The church is eternal.
boxer
Pingback: Joss Whedon: Lying Feminist Nutcase – v5k2c2
Anon:
Excellent. Mrs. Whedon (a/k/a Kai Cole) gives a great allusion in the subtext to the motivations of all male-feminists.
I gave you credit at the bottom.
https://v5k2c2.wordpress.com/2017/08/21/joss-whedon-lying-feminist-nutcase/
Luther tried to take something he never had…church authority. His church and his authority in that church was established in 1517.
*sighs and dumps Firefly videos in the trash* I knew he was responsible for Buffy… but didn’t want to connect the dots….
@ Boxer
You can say the same thing about a female feminist.
@BillyS
What focus do you think I have?
Gunner Q: I am pleased one of the points made it through the text.
You both clearly rub each other the wrong way SirHamster. I am not sure the solution, I just would love to see where you could both post without the hostility, but that is just me.
Solution is for Hamster to stop being a lying Gamma. Try being a Delta for once. He can work his way up from there.
Dear BillyS:
Only in a very loose and general way. The important difference being that female feminists are driven (at least partly) by the natural order of things.
https://www.valas.fr/IMG/pdf/Freud_Complete_Works.pdf
Women are resentful for being born to be the passive sexual partner, for being smaller and weaker (on average) than their male partners, etc. These are things that are at least understandable.
Male feminists are resentful for the fact that they are disgusting people: abusive husbands (Whedon), child pornographers (Goldberg), serial sexual harassers (Schwyzer). Rather than working to improve themselves, they repress their own feelings of self-loathing, and direct what ought to be constructive energy in destructive directions. Eventually they end up being sued, carted off to prison, or being a customer of the divorce court.
Best,
Boxer
Sure I can…
Then you are not debating in good faith. Because everything that precedes this fatuous statement is still resident in comments up thread.
that particular contraception manipulates a woman’s body in order to prevent pregnancy. NFP actually lets a woman know how her body’s fertility works naturally.
First you assert your religion prohibits birth control. When the facts of NFP are pointed out you dodge away from that by moving the goalposts to “hormonal”, ignoring all other contraceptive methods. When this is pointed out you dodge again.
Earl, you are moving out of “bad faith debate” and into “disingenuous” on the way to “dishonest”. The next step is lying. Does your religion teach anything about lying?
It is probably too much to expect of you that you’d be honest enough to admit feminization of the Western churches preceded the 1930 Lambeth conference. Am I correct? You can’t admit error, ever?
GunnerQ
*sighs and dumps Firefly videos in the trash* I knew he was responsible for Buffy… but didn’t want to connect the dots….
Hey, baby / bathwater there. You don’t have to buy into someone’s inane politics to enjoy their art, unless perhaps their art is totally intertwined with their politics. I happened to see an early Picasso in a museum earlier in the summer, he could actually do real art before he got famous and rich. But I’m still not going to expend any time looking at Guernica. Some of the 19th century composers had really pathetic lives, but their music is till a classic standard.
Consider instead that Whedon wasn’t enough of a supplicating male feminist to appease the Female Imperative. There’s a real lesson in that.
Earl, read this article and notice when she started preaching in the Los Angeles area to huge crowds. Note that it predates the 1930 Lambeth Conference in England. Not the only early 20th century woman charismetic, just arguably the most famous.
https://infogalactic.com/info/Aimee_Semple_McPherson
‘First you assert your religion prohibits birth control. When the facts of NFP are pointed out you dodge away from that by moving the goalposts to “hormonal”, ignoring all other contraceptive methods. When this is pointed out you dodge again.’
It prohibits artificial birth control in Humanae Vitae.
As far as timeframe of feminization of churches…that’s possible.
‘Women are resentful for being born to be the passive sexual partner, for being smaller and weaker (on average) than their male partners, etc. These are things that are at least understandable.’
I do think resentment and discontent are the root of their rebellion. While I wouldn’t do like Frued and make it all about sex and biology…it certainly is a part.
I have stated before and I will state again that Boxer is an intelligent man who can contribute to this blog as a commenter.
But I have no tolerance for his lies about other Christians and about me. You can try to split the difference, but that isn’t working out for me.
Earl:
Your opponent is arguing like a typical evangelical atheist, who thinks that religious rules should make practical sense, or should be a means and not an end in themselves. This misses the point.
Ironically, in this case, the rule does make practical sense. An easy analogy is a prohibition against using a computer to count cards in a game, versus using your own memory. The first is cheating, the second is merely learning the inner structure and becoming a competent player. Pregnancy is a game of chance, and NFP doesn’t “rig” the game, the way medical alternatives do.
Religious rules are more about discipline, and setting the practitioner apart from the animal world, than they are about achieving some external end. Ideally, Jews don’t eat cheeseburgers. Catholics don’t use birth control. Mormons don’t drink coffee or whiskey. It’s got nothing to do with health, safety or anything else. It’s just part of the discipline.
Best,
Boxer
Point out an example of my lying, would you?
SirHamster invokes my name, for the umpteenth time, in his daily desperate bid for attention…
SirHamster can not link to a single lie I’ve told here. However, a few of his own lies, about me, have been documented with screenshots, here:
https://v5k2c2.wordpress.com/2017/03/24/boxer-his-stable-of-kooks/
Regards,
Boxer
@ Boxer:
Earlier in this thread, you said to me, “You (SirHamster) have accused me (Boxer) of being a Toad sock.”
I have not accused you of being a Toad sock. You are invited to quote my words to show otherwise.
You are intelligent enough to know you are repeating an unsubstantiated claim of me. It is a deliberate lie on your part, right here.
More unhinged, yet entirely pointless gibbering…
Your accusation that I’m a Toad sock was recorded (with screenshots) here:
https://v5k2c2.wordpress.com/2017/08/15/more-sirhamster-whining/
SirHamster lies so often that he can’t even keep track of his untruths.
Those who have been around a while will note the (entirely unintentional) humor in this allegation, given that there’s probably no one I’ve more consistently contended with, on so many points, as Artisanal Toad. Unlike SirHamster, Toad can actually argue coherently, and when he mocks me it’s often skillful and funny, so I enjoy my discussions with him, despite disagreeing with him about pretty much everything.
Regards,
Boxer
Anonymous Reader @ 1:42 pm:
“Hey, baby / bathwater there. You don’t have to buy into someone’s inane politics to enjoy their art, unless perhaps their art is totally intertwined with their politics.”
I can’t do it anymore. I can’t read another book hoping it won’t contain a gay bar scene or a villain getting sexually aroused by drinking an obnoxious Christian’s lifeblood. I can’t watch another movie with Tom Cruise in it. You know why Firefly has blatant Chinese influence? Because Whedon’s vision of the future is Chinese supremacist. If it was just a gimmick then fine, F-bombs get dull, but no, it was “China and America came out equals” while I watch my real-life leaders sell out my country to China. It grates on me every time I watch, all because Whedon wanted to signal virtue instead of a simple “American censors don’t speak Chinese “.
My enemies want to politicize everything? Fine then, let’s politicize EVERYTHING. No second chances, no room on my bookshelf, no “he wasn’t all that bad until he came out of the closet”. That whiny SJW is totally going out with his bathwater.
Gunner Q,
Completely off topic for this blog, but Instapundit had a link to an article about how the west Pacific area had a lot of peace in the last few years and one point they made was that this happened because the US acted as their policeman (my words, not theirs). The US and China are almost the CoDominion of Jerry Pournelle in some ways. While the two are at odds, the Chinese benefit a lot from the arrangement as well, past the sell out aspects you note.
The US can’t continue being the world’s policeman forever though. The bills will eventually come due.
The relation to this blog is that modern women and their supporters are accelerating the process through their support for foolish actions exposed by this blog.
@Boxer
Your screenshots contain no accusations by me that you are a Toad sock, because I have not done so. Your choice to create such a blogpost and referring to it instead of directly quoting me is obfuscation on your part.
You were invited to quote my words and you have not, because you cannot. You are a liar, and you lie that I have lied. I have offered neutral corrections of fact and you still prefer to stick to the lies. You are intentionally lying, and that is a character defect on your part.
@BillyS
As this latest exchange shows, adopting a more neutral stance does not make Boxer act out any less towards me.
He loves lies. I aim for truth. There is no peace between those two positions. You can split the difference if you want. Boxer will give you more leeway for playing the moderate between truth and lies.
Kooky SirHamster:
Of course I can, silly. Here’s what you wrote, a mere week ago, since you’ve obviously forgotten:
“The contrast between your compliments to AT and what he did in this thread would be baffling if you hadn’t already revealed your character as a lying Gamma. But it does make sense that a heretic sex fanatic and an ex-Mormon have common cause against Christ and Truth.”
That’s only one of a number of similar phony accusations you made. And again, the idea that I’m a Toad sock, who comes to mindlessly support and run interference for him, after I’ve spent years arguing with him, is one of the funnier lies you’ve told about me here. Given that you’re a boring dummox, with no sense of humor, I’m sure it was accidental.
Yap yap yap. You double down when caught out in your own dishonesty. It’s what you’ve always done.
Now, draft nine or ten more dull, rambling screeds tonight about what a big meany I am, for illustrating what everyone here knows already.
Regards,
Boxer
@Boxer
Common cause != sockpuppeting. Nazis and Communists had common cause to invade and divide Poland, before they turned on each other. Would you like to spell out an argument of how the absence of my words calling you a sock puppet is my accusation of you being a sock puppet?
Are you going to retract your falsehood about me, or continue embarrassing yourself?
Contraception:
https://zippycatholic.wordpress.com/2007/12/12/contraception-is-so-gay/
NFP:
https://zippycatholic.wordpress.com/2013/09/09/nfp-vs-contraception/
SirHamster rants:
The term itself is from usenet, dopey. You probably learned it from me.
For those who don’t know, a sockpuppet is a proxy or surrogate who suddenly appears, mindlessly supporting one side in an internet argument. That’s what SirHamster accused me of being, then denied having accused me of being, and now that I quoted his accusation, he’s trying to weasel out of making it.
Oh, OK. Now that I’ve quoted you as alleging that I was “complimenting” and otherwise running interference for Toad, you’re redefining the term “sockpuppet” to obfuscate being caught in (yet another) lie.
SirHamster did something similar to this before. After I mocked him for falsely accusing me of being a homosexual pedophile, he denied ever making any such claim. I subsequently got the screenshots, which are still giving him jitters. He really ought to learn some new tricks.
https://voxday.blogspot.com/2015/02/identifying-gamma-males.html
This is apropos. While SirHamster probably learned the term ‘sockpuppet’ from me, when I showed up in the manosphere in the late 2000s, I certainly learned ‘gamma’ from him. As a mediocre mathematician, I find using greek letters sorta spergy, but it’s fitting that he uses it so often, because it seems to fit him pretty closely.
Regards,
Boxer
And this:
https://zippycatholic.wordpress.com/2013/09/09/nfp-vs-contraception/
Boxer:
I think the kids these days use ‘sockpuppet’ to refer to the poster himself writing supportive comments under a different name. For old guys like us the meaning is more expansive, perhaps.
Or maybe I dunno what I’m talking about on the critical subject of sockpuppet etymology. But I remember Usenet well enough. Good times.
Dear Zippy:
Back in the day, when I was trolling rec.pets.cats, folks would sock up with spoofed headers and appear with ten “friends” from totally different IP ranges. There was really no way to tell who was who. It might have been one poaster, or it might have been ten. The point was (and to me still is) that it didn’t really matter. They were all spouting similar stuff, backing each other’s plays, and clowning in the same general direction.
That aside, if that’s SirHamster’s strict definition, then I’ll apologize and retract, rephrasing my complaint as his accusing me of being a Toad surrogate, or a Toad proxy or of “having Toad’s hand up my ass” (in the old lingo). I’m sure he’ll find some way of obfuscating that, too, and it really doesn’t matter; because my day is done.
Peace!
Boxer
(P.S.: Your blog is gold. I’ve only started reading it.)
Last contraception link was supposed to be this (sorry about the excessive posts, Dalrock):
https://zippycatholic.wordpress.com/2013/09/13/the-tyranny-of-the-subjective-and-contraceptive-mentality/
Boxer:
Glad to hear you are enjoying the blog. People tell me it is rather opinionated.
Boxer’s Rule: Anyone who quotes Wolfgang Pauli is worth talking to.
Okay, that definition is workable. Infogalactic defines it thus: “A sockpuppet is an online identity used for purposes of deception. ”
Repeating your accusation. I am not weaseling out, because I never accused you of being a sockpuppet.
This is your argument? My saying Boxer has complimented AT is an accusation of sockpuppeting?
Let me put it on the record that I compliment AT for being a loquacious individual. Some of his comments are entertaining, except that I have to watch out for where he is trying to sneak in his absurd ideas. Does that compliment make me a sock puppet, too?
Boxer provided a quote where I say that Boxer has complimented AT and that Boxer has common cause with AT. Neither of those are accusations of sockpuppeting. I have not called Boxer a mindless supporter of AT, but have said multiple times in this and other threads that he is an intelligent man – which makes his nonsensical accusations all the more pitiful. I do not and have never considered Boxer an AT sockpuppet, but Boxer insists on stuffing words in my mouth.
Having failed to make a case that compliments are sockpuppetry, Boxer tries to change the topic to the last time he made outlandish accusations against me.
I have not accused you of being a homosexual pedophile, Boxer. I did ask questions that would reveal if a homosexual was a pedarest, and I asked the same questions of you when you got upset about the questions. I find your behavior odd and my working theory is that you have skeletons in your closet, but I have little interest or warrant to probe there.
SirHamster rants:
yap yap yap … yap yap yap …
“As a faggot, Boxer, how old were you for your first homosexual sex act? How old was your youngest homosexual sex partner?” -SirHamster, on 24 February of this year, in https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2017/02/22/jim-geraghty-on-the-beauty-of-the-threatpoint/
yap yap yap… yap yap yap…
Regards,
Boxer
After Zippy suggests Boxer’s may have been overly expansive with his definition of sockpuppet, Boxer offers a false apology and retraction, while continuing to accuse me of the same lie using a different label. This is consistent with Gamma behavior – sensitive to out-grouping and consensus, but pissy and dishonorable in words and deed.
Pointing out compliment and common cause does not surrogate, proxy, or “hand up ass” make.
That last choice of metaphor is gay, Boxer.
@Boxer
Your words, not mine. I can see why you might have missed the humorous mirror, though.
SirHamster said:
Damnit Boxer, you got me briefly there.
Calling Boxer a faggot is NOT an accusation of homosexual pedophilia, either!
SirHamster frantically pens three messages, in rapid succession…
Because you did lie. You accused me of being in cahoots with Toad. That was a lie.
Of course, it was me who accused myself of being a homosexual pedophile, after you made a harmless joke.
Of course. Spreading the lie that I’m a faggot isn’t spreading the lie that I’m a faggot. That makes perfect sense.
Three down, at least seven more to go. Keep going, SirHamster! Moar responses! Moar!
Boxer
earl says:
August 20, 2017 at 9:15 am
Feminism destroyed the protestant churches first.
When they all allowed birth control…that was the beginning of letting feminism in. The Catholic church is still opposed to birth control and considers it a grave sin
Then a bit more than a day later:
earlthomas786 says:
August 21, 2017 at 1:58 pm
‘First you assert your religion prohibits birth control. When the facts of NFP are pointed out you dodge away from that by moving the goalposts to “hormonal”, ignoring all other contraceptive methods. When this is pointed out you dodge again.’
It prohibits artificial birth control in Humanae Vitae.
Those portable goalposts of yours are sure getting a workout, Earl.
Zippy Catholic
It is strange that you think I would disagree with this.
Prior performance does not necessarily predict future results. But many times it does.
That’s the type of birth control the Catholic church opposes. But I guess you got me because I wasn’t specific enough. Pin the blue ribbon upon your chest.
That was the context I used it in Zippy. I missed the other meanings, even though I have been around since before the Internet was “commercial.” (Anyone remember arguments that you couldn’t commercialize the Internet since the US Government made it?
Goalpost shift. Now that you can’t make sockpuppet stick, you change terms to “in cahoots”, whatever that means. Having been caught lying about me, you shamelessly continue the attack rather than repent. Chutzpah.
Faggot does not mean homosexual pedophile.
Boxer: “Of course, I’m a faggot.” Who am I to choose a different self-label for you?
Secret King is Winning because he haz attention!
To sum up the lessons from this exchange, Boxer uses the same tactic as AT to baffle with BS. AT creates long-winded Bible interpretations and tears down existing Christian authority before clumsily sneaking in his extra-Biblical nonsense. Boxer, on the other hand, throws out endless personal shaming attacks and pseudo-dialectic. Both are relying on volume to make opponents give up on engagement due to tedium. Both attempt to claim the high ground of intellectual authority, but their methods are based on bullying, not mastery.
BillyS:
The first time I played a video game it was a version of “lunar lander” running on a mainframe deep under the earth in Nebraska, if I recall correctly. My first “home computer” – many years later – was an adm3a dumb terminal connected to a 300 baud acoustic coupled modem, for phoning in to a DEC PDP-11. Once I got a PC with a 10 meg hard drive the computer age had begun.
So yeah I’ve been around for a while I guess. I try not to assume too much about how jargon and practice has or hasn’t changed since I first encountered it myself.
Anonymous Reader:
When have I ever disagreed with the historical fact that there have been (later decalared) heretical/corrupt popes, etc or that human beings always argue over the interpretation of text?
Dear Kooky SirHamster:
Sure. It must have been someone else who wrote:
“The contrast between your compliments to AT and what he did in this thread would be baffling if you hadn’t already revealed your character as a lying Gamma. But it does make sense that a heretic sex fanatic and an ex-Mormon have common cause against Christ and Truth.”
Sure. It must have been that other SirHamster who wrote:
“As a faggot, Boxer, how old were you for your first homosexual sex act? How old was your youngest homosexual sex partner?”
Yes, Yes. Whatever you say, dear.
Regards,
Boxer
So you go by the institution and not what God has said in Revelation 18:4?
http://comeoutofher.org/
I don’t get it, really. So we should also go by what the American culture/denomination/society says about how Female’s should behave and ignore what God has said in Bible as well?
@TimFinnegan – “This is only true if you hold to your own interpretation of the wording of Genesis 2:24. Mine is also plausible. As Zippy said, for any finite text there are multiple plausible but mutually exclusive interpretations. How is this to be resolved?”
We are not without options. We could find ancient Hebrew experts who could weigh in on the grammatical issues. We could also look to historical Jewish writings and see how it has been historically interpreted. I’ve done none of these, so I don’t know enough to make the argument from those grounds. I’m quite satisfied understanding what the primary issues involved are and just admitting that I don’t know everything. But that doesn’t excuse me from potentially avoiding additional research.
The alternative, making pleas to an authority, is a logical fallacy for a reason. If you trace back the views to their source, you should find an argument based on some set of facts that gives reason for a belief. So the church, in its authority, is only an authority because it should have better researched explanations for its doctrines. If it doesn’t, then it is no authority. Either way, we shouldn’t blindly accept doctrines just because the church says so. If its authority is valid, it should be able to prove its point.
I’m not convinced that the interpretations are all mutually exclusive. Many of us have taken some strict positions with regards to Genesis 2:24, but as pointed out to me on the other thread, we can’t neglect what the original audience would have understood. So I took out my Word Biblical Commentary on Genesis 2:24 (by Gordon J. Wenham). He states that the one-flesh joining refers to all of sex, procreation, the spiritual and emotional relationship, and that the husband and wife become one kin (blood relations). The latter in particular governs the Laws of incest (and why in-laws are blood relations). So is the agreement to marry important? Of course it is. However, it’s hard to argue that sex creates an expectation or obligation for marriage without deemphasizing the other aspects, but that’s what happens in a discussion like this when everyone takes sides.
“This is exactly what Christ is saying is not allowed; divorcing your wife is not possible (that is if by divorce we mean ending the marriage). He says specifically that “whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery.” Your interpretation must hold that wife can mean either a woman who is married or a woman who is part of a one-flesh union. This is not so; wife has one meaning: one who is married.” and @earl – “Matt 19:3-12”
I believe that you have missed my point when I said “Marriage is not indissoluble, all it takes is legally permitted divorce.”. From the time of Moses through to today divorce has been legally possible. When Jesus was asked whether divorce should be allowed, he said it should not be allowed. Why? Because sex joined the two together permanently. So yes, divorce was, and is, legally possible as an act of man. But it is forbidden by God. You cannot say that marriage is indissoluble when divorce clearly exists. The only reason that divorce is not acceptable to God is because of the reason that Jesus gave: the one-flesh joining. It is the one-flesh joining that is indissoluble and this transcends any divorce. So it’s adultery even if there is divorce and they are no longer married, that is, two umarried people can commit adultery because of the one-flesh joining.
Now, I find it inconvenient to argue this position, because it isn’t the one I’ve been arguing, but the logic seems unavoidable. If two unmarried, divorced people (by legal standards) are considered married anyway in the eyes of God (because they had sex) and are thus guilty of adultery, then it logically follows that two unmarried, non-divorced people are also married because they had sex. Another logical consequence is that two married people (by legal standards) that did not have sex are therefore not married in the eyes of God (that’s why they can divorce without condemnation). Jesus clearly treated those who were legally unmarried as married, so he himself made fine distinctions on what qualified as marriage in the eyes of God.
Haha! It begins :
Artificial Intelligence coming to sexist conclusions.
I told ya!
This is just the beginning. AI will keep forcing very obvious truth in a speed and scope that femtwats cannot cope with. Particularly when we see what decisions look like without everything being secondary to the FI (as the obsolete human brain is programmed to do).
You have me beat Zippy. I did write a Star Trek game (remember the text ones?) for a TRS 80, and didn’t even get to type it in until I went to a teacher’s house one night. I don’t think it worked, but the fact I did that much was surprising.
I did see the first Pong game in a department store, but I was never good with that one. A VIC20 was my first computer, which was mostly used to play some cartridge games, like Space Panic (or some name like that) and dial into the school’s systems for homework and such.
I did waste far too much time on the networked PLATO computer system in college, but few likely saw that as it was limited to a few sites.
This is becoming most unseemly and far below the high standard of this blog.
All Homosexually inclined people (I am with Father Scalia in the view that there is no such being as a Homosexual) are pederasts as they all like young flesh: in the days when Hair was the latest thing Pederasty was just one of the many flavours of sexual preference encouraged by that musical; how times have changed.
I entered the banking hall of my bank on Saturday for the purpose of depositing a cheque and found the place festooned with rainbows the staff wearing rainbow embroidered Sweat-shirts. This apparently for the Pride the following day (whatever that may mean – don’t they mean Shame?): These are just very silly and brainwashed girls who have no idea what it is like to have male testosterone and for whom even the accusation or suggestion of Homosexuality is something all men seek to avoid. Even were Homosexuality desirable the chances are that you may well die of AIDS at a young age and Trannies are eight time more likely to commit suicide than the rest of the population (so I am told) – I have met any number of trannies both professionally and socially and I have never even for a microsecond had any doubt as to their sex.
Some two centuries ago a standard form of business dress was achieved devoid of indication of rank or belief; one kept ones religious and political views to oneself thus enabling people of vastly differing views to work and indeed play together. The Globohomo elite appear to be ditching this stricture which has proved so successful for the anglo-sphere. My banks’ behaviour is somewhere between sick and – in religious parlance – evil.
Depends on what a person interprets Babylon as…
‘In the most common medieval (Catholic) view from St. Augustine’s City of God, Babylon and Jerusalem referred to two spiritual cities (or civilizations) spiritually at war with one another, throughout all of history:
Babylon [from Babel] is interpreted confusion, Jerusalem vision of peace. . . . They are mingled, and from the very beginning of mankind mingled they run on unto the end of the world. . . . Two loves make up these two cities: love of God makes Jerusalem, love of the world makes Babylon.’
…or
‘Historicist interpreters commonly used the phrase “Whore of Babylon” to refer to the Roman Catholic Church. Reformation writers from Martin Luther (1483–1546) (who wrote On the Babylonian Captivity of the Church), John Calvin (1509–1564), and John Knox (1510–1572) (who wrote The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstruous Regiment of Women) taught this association.’
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whore_of_Babylon
Derek Ramsey:
That all sounds very reasonable. But you might find it interesting to read up on verificationism, which is basically this approach formalized, and try to grasp why it had to be abandoned in the mid twentieth century.
Derek Ramsey:
That isn’t what authority means: it is a non-authority theory of authority.
Children must obey their father because he has authority, not because “father knows best” or father is perfect. Children don’t grow an entitlement to be disobedient just because they disagree with father.
Questioning authority often starts with an ‘if’.
Many here would accept the authority of Jesus on faith…however look how many times in the Bible it was questioned with an ‘if you are the Son of God’.
BillyS:
I think the first game I typed in myself (yes I fondly recall the days of typing in game programs) was for a Hewlett Packard calculator. I played Rogue (a precursor to Hack) on a mini of some kind, but by then the Atari 2600 had been out for a while and the brief era of dedicated-game consoles (Pong, Tank Battle) was over. I was still pretty much a kid then, I haven’t played many video games as an adult — Mario 64 and Mario Kart 64 being exceptions, the first-ever 3D was cool and I got to see the former in the lab long before it launched.
Well I asked Boxer how feminism is worming into Islam…seems this could be an example.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/ap/article-4811720/Indias-court-Instant-divorce-Muslims-unlawful.html
Now this particular example is a law where Muslim men can divorce for any reason…based on the fact that the women are being all happy about ‘equaliy’ I doubt their intentions are to keep the marriage together, but to give women the same chance to divorce for any reason.
Wow, Did this thread ever jump the shark!
In other news, my SBC church is promoting another “Women’s event” without so much as a hint of “talk to your husband about this opportunity”. Last time was Beth Moore, this time is Lysa TerKeurst and Proverbs 31. And all I’ve heard is how brave she is for continuing in her ministry after “what her husband did to her”
I tried to include a picture of the card as it specifically calls out “Teaching from Lysa Terkeurst” and starting at only $59!!! What a steal.
Yeah I just found out about her and the divorce from Deep Strength’s blog.
https://deepstrength.wordpress.com/2017/06/17/another-divorce/
Now take the next step and discover your contradictory stance: how did the hecklers at Golgotha know the possibility or impossibility of a Son of God? Scripture & Tradition told them so. Authoritatively.
Dear Fellas:
Opus sez:
No such complaints arose in the old days, when kooky SirHamster was creating ever more fanciful lies to tell about ya boy Boxer. Month after month I watched him rage in his cage, content to pass him by. Now that I’m actively scoffing at the usual nonsense, you and Billy are shocked-just-shocked. I suppose I should be honored at the thought that you hold me to a higher standard; but in the end, I like to wallow as much as the next hog.
Then Earl sez:
There’s sort of a cute-but-disturbing film, from about 20 years ago, called Divorce Iranian Style. I remember watching it and being surprised at the hypocrisy. Everyone wants unilateral divorces in Iran, too; so you’ll see chicks coming into the judge, making up nonsensical reasons as to why the magistrate should let them all out of their marriages. “He beats me up” and “He refuses to go to work” are apparently common.
More recently, I’ve stumbled across news stories like this…
http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-news-from-elsewhere-27475752
Muslim women love to throw parties after they get those divorce dollaz, and they enjoy living large while make their kids bastards, too. I bet you guys have the image of the cute little hijabi Muslimah who is chaste and loves God, right? Me too. Sad to tell you that it’s bullshit. Islam can not save us. Women are the same everywhere.
Best,
Boxer
“Many here would accept the authority of Jesus on faith…however look how many times in the Bible it was questioned with an ‘if you are the Son of God’.”
“Now take the next step and discover your contradictory stance: how did the hecklers at Golgotha know the possibility or impossibility of a Son of God? Scripture & Tradition told them so. Authoritatively.”
The appeal to authority is always a logical fallacy. Always. Claiming that an authoritative body is the ultimate authority is special pleading unless it can be shown that the basis for authority is legitimate. Take papal authority as an example. Many authorities claim that this particular authority is invalid. Claiming an authority that can determine the correct authority is begging the question. Now if we all agreed on the inerrancy of scripture and the Peter-Rock-Kingdom-Keys-Binding-and-Loosing interpretation of the RCC and all related church tradition, that would be one thing. That is unlikely: these are shaky grounds.
Do we make appeals to mysticism/revelation? Even the revelations in the Bible (e.g. Paul) are clearly based on prior standards (i.e. the Law) and have historical evidences that can be applied. We don’t follow Paul’s teachings because of his authority. His authority was earned by his words being weighed on the scales and found worthy. We all agree to use that as a common authority so that is why it has authority. It does not work the other way around: something is an authority, so we all agree to use it. I find that the Free Northerner post on power discusses the relationship between power and authority quite well.
Since most of us agree that Jesus is an authority, we can make appeals to Jesus’ authority without falling to disagreement or cries of fallacies. That’s quite different than claiming a universal church authority, where there is not near-universal agreement.
So how does this all pertain to marriage? Appeals to a particular authority in no way overrides the scriptural analysis that we’ve been doing here. It is not going to change the words of Jesus in Luke 10. If the church has a good explanation, I’d like to see that citation. But the discussion can’t be silenced by mentioning the authority’s disagreement.
Derek Ramsey:
On what authority do you pronounce that to be true?
You might want to read Acts 9:15
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+9%3A1-15&version=NASB
Dear Derek:
If you had a dispute with your neighbor and had to sue him in court, you could make an appeal to authority (logicians call it argumentum ad verecundiam) that he respect the judgment.
An argument from authority is fallacious when the authority is not universally recognized among all parties to the argument.
Best,
Boxer
Makes you wonder which is the worse scourge on the planet…women’s equality or ISIS.
Makes you wonder which is the worse scourge on the planet…women’s equality or ISIS.
Women’s equality wouldn’t be much of a scourge at all. True equality, that is…
The scourge is the ridiculous extent of preferential treatment, while still claiming they are oppressed.
Uniformly applied equality would be a huge step back for women from the current state of affairs..
Boxer @ 11:22 am:
“An argument from authority is fallacious when the authority is not universally recognized among all parties to the argument.”
Authority cannot create truth. That is the fallacy.
Dear Gunner Q:
Tarski would disagree, and so would the judge that wrote the order. As Pontius Pilate said: qvid veritas est? 🙂
Best,
Boxer
So is this the new Thread That Will Not Die?
Is this the new post that will be on the “top posts and pages” list for years to come?
Yes…and the divorce court is a prime example of when that preferential treatment comes out.
@Deti
I don’t think so. Despite it being a passionate group, I think the market for rationalizing Christian prostitutes is actually a very small niche. Once I get a new post or two out there it should die off. I don’t see this living on via google searches and links the way the women over 55 and troublesome mother in laws posts have.
Did St. Paul speak for or against the murder of St. Stephen? Are those worth or unworthy words according to the scale?
But just before this you said:
This just is an appeal to authority, an appeal to the authority of scholars.
One of the main problems with the idea that sex creates an obligation to marry is that marriage is exclusive (that is, it is between one man and one woman). It would be quite unreasonable for our nature to create obligations for us that we cannot fulfill, as would be the case if people have sex with multiple individuals. There would be this giant web of obligations to marry that are impossible to fulfill because it is contrary to the nature or marriage, in addition to it being impractical. Marriage just is something which is created by two people consenting to be joined to each other in marriage, and by the nature of what marriage is, the marriage is made indissoluble by consummation.
And just saying that divorce is a legal reality doesn’t mean that it does what it is purported to do. When validly married humans attempt to end a consummated marriage, they may declare that it is over but it still exists in truth. Saying that because man can declare his marriage to be dissolved even if his declaration does nothing of the sort is proof agains the indissolubility of marriage is ridiculous. It is not that man is not allowed to dissolve a marriage which has been consummated, he literally doesn’t have the ability.
I would agree. It is the most recent discussion area, so we are here until the next content post shows up.
Zippy,
I typed a program in from Compute! magazine once. It didn’t save, so I was not willing to waste all that time for minimal gain.
I play all kinds of games now, when I can. Mostly tablet stuff, though I am waiting for Destiny 2 on the PS4 now. I am not the best player, but I have fun at it, in general, so it is one of my hobbies, however geeky/nerdy some may consider it to be.
@Anon
Won’t the engineers and programmers simply be directed to reconfigure the sensing unit to comply with FI approved thoughts and observations? Any Damore-like questioners can be summarily sacked.
Whatever there is to say about Beth Moore (and there is plenty), she isn’t divorced:
https://blog.lproof.org/2016/12/my-man-and-me.html
Is there anything you can do to get your church leadership to disinvite Lysa?
We have to reclaim our churches by removing the platform given to unqualified teachers.
@Els
The marriage Beth Moore describes is of a type well known in religious circles.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/truce
The divorce being discussed is Lysa’s, not Beth’s.
Uniformly applied equality would be a huge step back for women from the current state of affairs..
Indeed. Uniformly applied equality, in which women were accorded all the responsibilities of men, responsibilities that they could not shrug off as “optional,” would soon have millions of women begging to be treated as chattel property of men.
Women are resentful for being born to be the passive sexual partner, for being smaller and weaker (on average) than their male partners, etc.
I think they also resent having weaker sex drives, especially as they age, which is why they go to such psychotic extremes to deny men sexual outlets. I think I understand now why polygyny was an accepted practice in so many societies in the past, why “soft” polygyny is so common today, and why the formal institution is making a comeback in today’s militantly feminized West. Husbands are telling wives “I might be old, but I ain’t even done f***in’ yet. You can either get with my program, or I’ll take my ‘program’ to somebody else who will help me carry it out. I didn’t get married in order to be celibate.” It’s more polite than saying “you can be and will be replaced.”
@ feeriker:
“Uniformly applied equality, in which women were accorded all the responsibilities of men, responsibilities that they could not shrug off as “optional,” would soon have millions of women begging to be treated as chattel property of men.”
Isaiah 4:1: “In that day seven women will take hold of one man and say, “We will eat our own food and provide our own clothes; only let us be called by your name. Take away our disgrace!””
And that’s the reason right there why true secular equality will never be made. They want all the same rights without the same responsibilities.
I think if you start from the standpoint a lot of their motivation is from rebellion and discontent…things start to make more sense.
I don’t know if it is a weaker sex drive or if they want to feel some sense of power over a man…but I think most of it is rooted in rebellion.
feeriker @ 2:37 pm:
“Women are resentful for being born to be the passive sexual partner, for being smaller and weaker (on average) than their male partners, etc.”
It’s got to be something God programmed into them. If I could get a free ride through life by rubbing my boobs on some rich nerd’s face, I wouldn’t hesitate. But all women hate the easy path? That ain’t natural.
“I think they also resent having weaker sex drives, especially as they age, which is why they go to such psychotic extremes to deny men sexual outlets.”
No, sex is just the one power they have over us. Again, God had to have programmed us with such unrealistic libidos. They’re similarly unnatural, completely out of proportion to any biological necessity.
That would be assuming a woman thinks logically. If rich nerd doesn’t give the feels, she’ll just divorce him and go on the easy path that way.
@Els
*”Whatever there is to say about Beth Moore (and there is plenty), she isn’t divorced”*……….end quote
Are there 2 Beth Moore’s then?….I read all about Beth in your link, and she is definitely divorced, so I’m not sure how you can come to the conclusion that she isn’t divorced, unless we’re talking about a different “Beth Moore”?
BUT, in saying that, she admitted she was in a long term relationship before she got “legally” married to another man. I don’t know what planet Beth is living on, but “long term relationships” are marriage, so she’s only fooling herself by claiming she was never married. To give up her long term relationship for a “legal” marriage, was a vile sin in my eyes, but she’s technically not married any more, and can remarry if she wanted, BUT it doesn’t make it any less evil in what she did.
As far as I’m concerned, she represents the typical Western mind set of 99% of all women….she is in filthy, Satanic, Jezebelic rebellion against male authority, and seeks to live her life independently from men, having her own “career” etc
She thinks she’s doing God’s will with her so called ministry, as her beta cuck husband supports her.
These bitches will continue to proliferate in the West, until they get a huge wake up call, and see that their ONLY mission in life is to be a helpmeet for her husband, to meet his sexual needs, to support him in a submissive way, in whatever endeavor he chooses…. Complementarianism, and egalitarianism are 2 wicked philosophies that seek to elevate women as being equal with men, but they are lies of Satan
“That would be assuming a woman thinks logically.”
If women are aware of anything at all, it’s the effect their youthful beauty has on men. They KNOW that sexing up a decent guy is the easy path. But they don’t WANT it. They’d rather be parodies of men than feminine women.
Similarly, Christ also gives us the easy path: trust Him, turn against our inner selfishness and we get salvation guaranteed. He cannot set the bar any lower without literally inviting His enemies into His home. But no, most people want to pretend to be God’s peer and deal with Him as an equal. Utterly beyond stupid.
Not me. If I can distract God from damning my soul by being fun to have around, absolutely I’ll do it.
@feeriker
“I think they also resent having weaker sex drives, especially as they age, which is why they go to such psychotic extremes to deny men sexual outlets”………….end quote
This here wins the Internet….Never before has your comment been more true. You can see this, with women wanting to divorce men for even looking at another woman in a bikini, getting psychotic with rage when she finds out God created her man to be attracted to beautiful, sexy women, making every excuse in the book to deny her man sexual intercourse etc
I am absolutely convinced beyond a shadow of doubt, the reason why Polygamy is endorsed by God Himself ( see 2Sa 12:8), and why Polygamy is natural, and normal, and that men today should have multiple wives, is because it becomes physically IMPOSSIBLE for a wife to manipulate and control her husband sexually……she gives some bullshit excuse for refusing her husband access to her vagina, he can turn around and say “fine, I’ll go to 1 of my other wives tonight to get my needs met”
Nearly ALL problems in marriage today, i would say 99.5%, are caused by a woman’s refusal to be submissive, and her ability to control her husband via sex….once you take that power away from her, she can no longer dictate the terms and conditions of the marriage, and the man is free to pursue his own destiny, with her being in her proper place as a subservient helper
I suppose if a man’s multiple wives conspired to unionize and they all withheld sex as a means of gaining manipulative control he would have only one choice. Time to marry a new, younger wife. Maybe he could maintain separate households thereby eliminating the coercion. This all sounds very expensive to me, over sex. At what point does a man start to question the importance of sex? I can say for myself that money started to look way more important than sex before I reached 30 years of age. I’m pretty damn sure if I found myself working and slaving my guts out as an old man because I prioritized sex over financial security I’m going to feel like I made a poor trade.
necroking48 @ 6:07 pm:
“I am absolutely convinced beyond a shadow of doubt, the reason why Polygamy is endorsed by God Himself… ”
Bypassing the usual responses, what is God’s preferred method for disposing of the surplus men in a polygamous society?
@Beltfed Stoner:
Those passages in Exodus don’t tell us what happened to the deflowered girl after her father refused to give her away. It certainly doesn’t say she is eligible to be another man’s wife. I would be curious to know if there are any extra-biblical writings on the practice of the Hebrews in this case . . . was she destined for singleness, concubinage, etc? My suspicion is she became a concubine at best.
@Gunner Q
Lol….I hadn’t thought of that problem. …maybe war?
Just kidding, there is no easy answer because in a perfect society we wouldn’t need multiple wives. Once ALL women realize that there is only 2 purposes for them to exist at all, and that is
1: to bear children to her king, her master, her husband and….
2: to satiate his need for sex completely and at all times
That’s it, that’s the only 2 things required of women……once they realize that and start to fulfill these 2 roles as God intended, then peace and harmony will permeate through all of society
@ Gunner Q
I described some of the topics in the Manosphere with a mature Christian friend who spends much less time on the Internet and social media. He told me he often encountered the same ideas on polygamy back when he mentored college Christians.
Nothing new under the sun.
Looking Glass,
Won’t the engineers and programmers simply be directed to reconfigure the sensing unit to comply with FI approved thoughts and observations? Any Damore-like questioners can be summarily sacked.
We’ve been over this many times.
For starters, almost no one who is biased by the FI even knows about the FI. It is like an animal noticing the air it breathes. So they cannot program the AI to follow the FI.
Plus, most people assume women are just as productive as men. In reality, they are not, and AI’s primary goal is to improve productivity (often by eliminating a human’s job and doing the same work for free).
Dear Embracing Reality, et. al.:
My parents did not live the order (i.e. they didn’t live in a polygamous household) but I’m a Mormon, and I grew up watching polygamy, all up close and personal. My mother’s family has a sizable contingent of members living this lifestyle.
Your instincts are spot on. Two years ago I wrote about this, right here on Dalrock…
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2016/01/06/a-fresh-start-for-naghmeh/#comment-198832
(You’ll note that I was arguing with Toad. Truly, nothing ever changes.)
The fun part is, that it doesn’t even have to be sexual. If we acknowledge that men and women are different, and we accept the simple fact that women are, on average, much better at things like interpersonal communication and rhetoric, then it’s just a natural entailment of the lifestyle that the husband is going to be led around by the nose.
Take my brother Toad, as an example. He tells us that his wives are as submissive as he requires, and they all keep themselves looking supermodel-quality beautiful. The fact that there are three women and one man, and those three women are typical women, with all the feminine cunning of the typical woman, means that he’s outgunned in every possible scenario.
The children in these relationships are the ones that suffer. I don’t know how many children my bro. Toad has, but many of my relatives have 10+, and a couple of them have had 20+ kids. How often do you think those little boys see their fathers? Many of them (not all, but many) have some of the same pathological problems that the children of skank-ho single moms do, and for the same reasons. Young kids need both a mother and a father to care for them. The loss of either one is going to increase the chances of delinquency and mental problems.
Best,
Boxer
@TimFinnegan – “This just is an appeal to authority, an appeal to the authority of scholars.”
It is only a fallacy if I assert statements of fact based on an authority or otherwise overweight their authority. Instead, I would just present a scholar’s opinion as probabilistic evidence in a valid, inductive argument. While an appeal to authority is always a fallacy in a deductive argument, it is often not a fallacy in an inductive argument. Using authorities as sources of evidence is perfectly fine: that’s why I’m interested in the church’s opinion on marriage. I respect their authority and give it the respect due an expert with the weight of history behind it. Gunner Q summarizes it best: “Authority cannot create truth. That is the fallacy.”
The reason we go to authorities is because they have evidence and quality arguments that we can use. Generally speaking they are more reliable, although authorities can suffer from certain forms of bias. (e.g. Survival bias and the RCC)
@Boxer – “An argument from authority is fallacious when the authority is not universally recognized among all parties to the argument.”
This is why I said “Now if we all agreed on…”. and “We all agree to use that as a common authority so that is why it has authority. It does not work the other way around: something is an authority, so we all agree to use it.”. It’s not considered fallacious if everyone agrees to accept the authority. It’s good that you clarified this though, as I should have just come out and stated it less ambiguously.
@TimFinnegan – “It would be quite unreasonable for our nature to create obligations for us that we cannot fulfill, as would be the case if people have sex with multiple individuals.”
This mistakes the answer for the objection. It is precisely this unreasonable obligation that is why all non-marital sex is illicit and sinful: it creates unnatural obligations that won’t or cannot be fulfilled. As I pointed out in the discussion on Genesis 2, it flies directly against the act of creation: it is about as unnatural an act as you can get. Can you explain why is adultery wrong? It is not, as some have stated, because it is a theft of property or a breach of contract. It is because of the illicit obligations that it creates.
We have a sinful nature, so it is not unreasonable to expect that our nature will create illicit obligations that we cannot fulfill. All of our sins create debts that we cannot pay.
“And just saying that divorce is a legal reality doesn’t mean that it does what it is purported to do.”
Exactly! Legal divorce, from the beginning, never once severed a one-flesh joining. That’s why every post-sex divorce that ever happened went against God’s plan.
“When validly married humans attempt to end a consummated marriage, they may declare that it is over but it still exists in truth.”
It does not matter if they are validly married, they cannot sever their bond. Paul makes that clear in his discussion on prostitution.
Saying that because man can declare his marriage to be dissolved even if his declaration does nothing of the sort is proof agains the indissolubility of marriage is ridiculous. It is not that man is not allowed to dissolve a marriage which has been consummated, he literally doesn’t have the ability.
You keep equivocating on the meaning or use of marriage. Let’s be precise: a man literally does not have the ability to break the one-flesh joining using a certificate of divorce. Even if someone becomes legally unmarried (and they can!), they are still one-flesh-joined-married in God’s eyes and are in danger of committing adultery. That is what Jesus said. I don’t know how else to say this: someone who was legally unmarried could commit adultery with another legally unmarried person. What you see as ridiculous is only ridiculous because you refuse to accept the non-ridiculous claim that man and the law have a different (much weaker) standard for marriage than God does.
Man can declare his legal marriage to be dissolved and that legal marriage is actually dissolved because he can get legally married again. Jesus never said legal remarriage was impossible, he just said that it would result in adultery and was thus a sin. This obviously means that the husband and wife are still ‘married’ (defined as one-flesh joined) in the eyes of God. Such ‘marriage’ is permanent and unbreakable. Not even in the case of sexual immorality, where Jesus permitted legal divorce, is the one-flesh joining broken.
One thing that has been bothering me throughout both threads is that there is widespread acknowledgment that sexual consummation of a marriage is a very important thing, no matter whether you think sex=marriage or not. It is not just for fun. So what’s the point of sex?
Now if, as TimFinnegan states, both man and God consider marriage to have begun before sex, why is it even important enough that Jesus or Paul would highlight the sexual aspect of marriage at all, let alone emphasize it? What is it about sex that causes it to make a marriage unbreakable if not the one-flesh joining?
If it is the sealing of the covenant of marriage by blood, then that implies that only marriage to virgins creates an unbreakable marriage. And it also excludes any virgin unlucky enough to have broken her hymen without sex or just not had one that bled during first sex. This either creates a two-tiered marriage system and non-traditional sexual ethics (like that of Artisanal Toad) or it means that non-virgin marriage is always wrong.
If someone has addressed this point already I must have missed it.
No it doesn’t. If we are capable of making a moral obligation which we are literally incapable of fulfilling, then after that point there isn’t any point in trying to behave morally. If it is literally impossible to do the right thing in that situation, then there is no point in even trying. It is unreasonable to say that man is capable of having a moral obligation which it is impossible for him to fulfill. Adultery is wrong because it is contrary to the good of one’s spouse, of ones own children, of another’s spouse, and to the children of someone else, not because it creates an impossible moral obligation to marry the person with which one committed adultery.
You only think this because you hold to a dual definition of marriage: one in a legal sense and one in a theological. This just doesn’t describe marriage, but I can see where it can get confusing since we use the word “marriage” to describe both. If whatever union the law recognizes is able to be dissolved after consummation, I don’t know what it is but it isn’t marriage.
The one-flesh joining is exactly what makes marriage unbreakable after consummation. That doesn’t mean that having sex outside of marriage creates an indissoluble union (or an obligation to make one). If that were true, then it would not just be two in one flesh; the web of shared partners would all be considered indissolubly united and obliged to marry each other. It would literally be impossible to fulfill your obligation in that situation and would thus be impossible to do the right thing.
Boxer, Sir,
I assume, perhaps mistakenly, you witnessed this lifestyle of which you speak unfold during a childhood spent in Utah. It’s on my list of states to visit and consider as a possible final earthly destination. You may get a quiz someday. However, I’m deviating too far from the subject of this crazy thread.
Sex, sex, SEX. Damn. Am I the only one who questions the relative importance of my own base impulses? Maybe it’s my age, mid 40’s, but I’m seeing through it. Holes, right freaking through it! No, I’m certainly not going the other way but I know I can go without and not too much be bothered. MGTOW of youtube fame, “Stardusk”, once called it “Intellectually induced asexuality”. I simply look around at the dysfunctional marriages, divorces, lives of so many men I know and it just induces one hell of an ice cold pale of water. I might add that I’m currently dating a quite attractive, single never married woman with no kids who is nearly a decade younger. She says she loves me but at the moment I’m disillusioned with marriage. She’s actually a pretty decent Christian girl with very minimal experience, if she can be believed.
If I didn’t know better I would have a righteous prostitute in my life but only for the weekends, not every weekend, if she wasn’t too much trouble. Marriage though, seems very risky from my current position.
Thank you for the polygamy insight and I get you on women’s intuitive crafty communication skills. Not to boast but I can hold my own in the communication games with women, I think it’s my main draw. Along with my subtle indifference, it’s the ultimate lady killer.
An Account from a Family Woman: “Faith at Home. The Sacred Act of Dishwashing.”
https://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=1061916
Women Proposing Marriage
https://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=1062058
I wonder why my mom doesn’t want to go to another furry con
https://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=1062060
My dad bought me a fidget spinner (I’m a female in her 30’s)
https://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=1062104
Husband ignores requests about his appearance
https://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=1062110
how do I get over a broken heart?
https://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=1062161
There’s always one in the CA forum…from the ‘women proposing marriage’
And they always seem to cherry pick out the parts where those women were submissive to the Lord before they were able to kill the enemies of Israel.
And they always seem to cherry pick out the parts where those women were submissive to the Lord before they were able to kill the enemies of Israel.
Yup.
Bottom line: if a woman will not submit to her husband, she CANNOT submit to the Lord.
Of course what none of them will admit is that they very obviously have no interest in or intention of submitting to anyone, fleshly man or heavenly spirit (the latter of whom, by demonstration of action and attitude, most don’t even believe in, let alone fear).
We’ve been over this many times.
Any failure to grasp should be ascribed to Lost Patrol and not Looking Glass, who is more savvy.
For starters, almost no one who is biased by the FI even knows about the FI. It is like an animal noticing the air it breathes.
Exactly. Exactly. From this fact will come the pushback.
So they cannot program the AI to follow the FI.
Can’t they de-program the AI based on human intervention? Imagine google or amazon as higher headquarters for the engineers building the capability. “Hey, your robot brain is indicating unapproved realities that show the women of tech in a bad light – make it stop”. “Here is the list of unacceptable realities your robot brain has noticed this week – configure it to stop noticing those”.
Anyway, I know I don’t get it, so I’ll just keep reading and waiting to see.
Regarding authority, how can you possibly help regressing to some authority at some point. An authority (call it the “Roman Catholic Church”, the “Orthodox Catholic Church”, the “catholic church”, “a group of Christians gathered together claiming authority”, or whatever) canonized the scriptures (that Derek Ramsey et. al. interpret) in late antiquity. They used authority to do that so in interpreting the Bible we appeal to their authority.
Otherwise there’s a great many other documents I could use in my attempt to decide e.g. what makes a marriage.
Well, none of this really matters. According to current TV shows, Jesus was an adulterer –
http://www.avclub.com/tvclub/jesse-meets-messiah-fun-uneven-preacher-259729
Embracing Reality,
once called it “Intellectually induced asexuality”. I simply look around at the dysfunctional marriages, divorces, lives of so many men I know and it just induces one hell of an ice cold pale of water.
I feel the same sort of thing coming on (early 40s). I know too much…..
Being analytical, when you combine the 67% chance of divorce, 1% chance *per woman* of a false rape accusation, new STDs, etc., combined with the ambient costs, hassles, etc. one comes to the conclusion that unless a woman is an 8 or higher, it is not worth it. Of course, to consistently get 8s, a man has to orient his life around a certain level of Game mastery that takes a lot of time and effort.
So again, I can relate. Think about the actuarial side of things. If a false rape accusation or tricked pregnancy destroys your life utterly, you can quantify that as $10M. Now, even if the chance of this is just 1% per woman, you are in fact taking on $100,000 of actuarial risk in getting involved with her. A second one is a second $100K, etc.
This sounds corny, but it is in fact how insurance premiums are calculated for auto, homeowners, etc.
If VR sex, which will be advanced by 2020, is weighed against the $100K of risk per woman with whom you would have a casual relationship, then the disruption seems obvious..
According to most current TV show producers, if a show doesn’t have degenerate sex in it…it isn’t worth telling a story about.
I write further to mine of the 21st inst @ 11.15pm.
The mid-week paper reports on the ‘Pride’ noting that Stonewall claim attendance of a thousand (this is not a large town). A photo of the event reveals a lot of rainbow-festooned young people – male and female – and also a police car similarly got-up*. In the same issue of the rag though on an inside page there is a report of a local husband arraigned on a charge of having raped his wife. It would surely be superfluous and tiresome of me to draw the lesson of these two events even as our birth rate falls well below replacement level.
I feel that with every passing year I become more Christian in outlook.
* As recently as 1988 (well it seems to me to be recent) I last represented a man – a married mid-ranking corporate exec – charged with cottaging. No one then was more homophobic – a term that then had yet to be coined – than the police.
Dear Lost Patrol:
I think I know what Anon is talking about, but only by analogy to Marxism-Althusserianism… specifically the concept of “ideology” as a false state of consciousness, which is internally consistent, but does not accurately reflect the world as-such.
Consider also Tarski’s definition of truth, which requires a metalinguistic copy of every statement in an object language, through which correspondence can be tested. AI sees the world as it is, whereas human beings (even those of us Marxists who make an effort to critique ideology) see it as we want it to be. The propositions AI are giving us diverge from our expectations because we are not seeing the truth.
Any attempt to “correct” AI, in order to improve its consistency with feminism, will just introduce more variables into the system that can make it collapse. In reality, AI doesn’t need to be corrected. We need to be corrected. AI is the “Marxist critique of ideology” sunglasses that we should all put on, so that we can see what’s really happening… like Roddy Piper did in that 1980s B movie They Live.
Best,
Boxer
Wow, this thread is still going on. And some Catholics have added another tangent, with irrelevant talk about contraception. Divorce and polygamy, as topics, are intimately related. If you get either one wrong, it throws everything into chaos. Wrong ideas about God’s stance on either polygamy OR divorce throw all the rest of male/female relationship knowledge out of kilter.
Boxer
Thanks for the info. You nearly always send me to the dictionary and/or encyclopedia, so that’s a bonus.
introduce more variables into the system that can make it collapse. In reality, AI doesn’t need to be corrected.
I think I have a better grasp of the concept now and will continue to monitor developments (having few other options). Anon has indicated that ever advancing AI is likely to have the effect of making women seem all but superfluous. This is bound to fire up all feminists and their support structure to in fact prefer system collapse to truth in advertising. At this point, the irresistible force that has been feminism to date, will collide with the irresistible force we know as $. These two – feminism, $ – have often been seen working together, so should be interesting when they are at odds.
Speaking of which, interesting guys (Infogalactic):
Tarski – At Berkeley, Tarski acquired a reputation as an awesome and demanding teacher, a fact noted by many observers.
Althusser – Althusser’s life was marked by periods of intense mental illness. In 1980, he killed his wife by strangling her. He was declared unfit to stand trial due to insanity, and was committed to a psychiatric hospital for three years. He did little further academic work, dying in 1990.
Gary, I compliment you for reading Martin Madan’s Thelypthora. I’m preparing a new edition, with new typesetting. He really does a good job going over the legal, Biblical, and social arguments for Godly marriage. The Mormons really mucked the concept up with their version of “sister wives”.
Dear Lost Patrol:
He wrote his interesting stuff before becoming a violent nutcase… Many people on Dalrock tell some pretty harrowing stories of married life, so it’s hard to hold him completely blameless, no matter how awful she was. Anyway, this essay is sorta abstract, but you might like it.
http://blogs.uoregon.edu/j610drstabile/files/2014/03/Althusser-Ideology_and_ISAsbook-1fwvmil.pdf
Toward the end of his life he wrote a book, detailing how he got away with murder. It’s called “The Future Lasts Forever.” I love my copy, if only for its strangeness. Truly the most bizarro philosophy book I’ve ever read.
Best,
Boxer
Mycroft Jones says:
August 23, 2017 at 2:10 pm
I am interested in this ‘new edition’ of Madan’s book[s] you mentioned. Could you elaborate?
It’s all by design, isn’t it? It’s being done on purpose to tempt us into sin. The A-Toad has simply outsmarted himself and taken the bait with his reasoning. Admittedly I haven’t read enough of the justification for righteous prostitution to know the basis of the argument but I know what’s at the root. The desire for sexual sin and the rebellion to excuse it drives this perverse culture. Christ tells us in Matthew 19 and again in Mark 10 the reason for marriage, sex. He doesn’t give the option of taking up prostitutes as the solution. Regarding staying single he say ” any man that can hear it, let him hear”. Setting aside for the moment that a married man may find sex isn’t available to him or that the wife is so obese he doesn’t care anyway.
Martin Madan may have been the Artisinal Toad of his day. His ideas failed to gain any support.
Wonder why?
https://infogalactic.com/info/Martin_Madan
Jesus told the woman at the well that she had 5 husbands and was living with a 6th man. He considered all marriages, so the idea that a woman only can have a single one (and by implication a man) is debunked by Jesus Himself.
A man is not in bondage to an unfaithful wife who leaves, whatever happens. Pushing that is like pushing all the Sabbath regulations that we debunked by Jesus. Marriage was made for man, not man for marriage.
No one should treat marriage lightly either, as He definitely valued it highly, leading the disciples to note “who then should marry?” Note that they didn’t see “getting another wife” as a good approach either, contrary to all the bleating here on it.
Whoever noted “what about all the spare men” was spot on. Polygamy would only potentially work well for some. Many/most men would be left high and dry. That would lead to a very unstable society. Hmmmm, we have a very unstable society today with all the soft harems….
There’s a major problem that the anti-sexual ascetics in this thread have failed to address. In fact this problem is so huge, it eclipses everything else, and it has far reaching consequences for both this thread and others.
Assuming that the ascetics are right in their interpretation of Matthew 5, Matthew 19, and Mark 10 where Christ is talking about marriage and divorce. Now follow me carefully in this please, ……..ASSUMING they are right, and that 1: divorce is NOT permissible for any reason, and 2: if you’re married to a woman who WASN’T a virgin when you took her to bed on your wedding night, then YOU are currently living in the sin of adultery. There is no excuse for it, or justification, even if your new wife and yourself are LEGALLY married with a marriage certificate, you are still living in the sin of adultery, because she is still married to the FIRST man she had sex with, and that person isn’t YOU.
I believe I have stated the ascetics position accurately and without hyperbole…..since the act of sexual intercourse makes you 1 flesh in God’s eyes, both men and women are “married” to the first person they had sex with….getting remarried does NOT change that fact. So each time you stick your penis in your “new” wife, you ARE committing adultery.
If I press you guys honestly enough, you would have to state that’s exactly what you all believe.
Right, herein lies the problem that I will try to address:
It is no stretch or exaggeration to state that fully 90% of marriages TODAY, as in, people married RIGHT NOW, are living in the sin of adultery, because either, you as a man had pre marital sex, when you were young, and/or the women that you are currently married today, has had sex with SOMEONE else before their current marriage. It is fair to say, that less than 10% of marriages today, consist of people who married each other as VIRGINS.
Are you with me so far?…..good!
So what is the SOLUTION to stop living in the sin of adultery?
Let me tell you the answer, and it is based on facts and a careful consideration of the problem at hand.
There is NO possible solution to this dilemma…….UNLESS you get divorced and stop having sex with your current wife. That’s it, that is the ONLY solution….no matter what convoluted, twisted justifications you may make to escape this ultimate solution, there is literally no way to stop God’s condemnation of you as an ADULTERER.
Now think about that for a moment…..what these ascetics are TRULY saying, is that you must get a divorce from your present wife, in order to stop living in the sin of adultery, and they are lying through their teeth, if they try to deny this.
What do you think will happen if 90% of people currently married today decided to divorce their current wives, and remain single and celibate for the rest of their lives??
Do you realize the damage that would do to society, to families and CHILDREN?
These God forsaken reprobates, will have society and families completely destroyed, rather than admit their errors on marriage/remarriage and divorce……They would rather push their sick, self righteous garbage upon the world and the Church, rather than humbly admit that their solution simply will not work.
What’s so ironic and laughable, is that these ascetics who believe that ALL remarriages are adulterous unions, are actually encouraging people to commit the sin of DIVORCE, in order to rectify the previous sin of adultery….ROTFLOL!!!!
Whether your “new” marriage is legal or not, God considers you as 1 flesh because your penis entered the pussy of a woman and you both created an inseparable bond. This bond cannot be broken EXCEPT by death, therefore you are an adulterer in your CURRENT marriage, and the only solution to stop living in the sin of adultery, is to get a divorce and stop having sex FOREVER.
You can twist, duck, dive, equivocate all you want, that is the ONLY solution to avoid the sin of adultery
So there you have it my friends, and all the ascetics who read my comments, you have been weighed in the balance and found wanting. You are pushing something so extreme and something so morally reprehensible, that NO ONE will listen to it.
I on the other hand, have been thinking that, if you ascetics are actually right on this issue, and that it is me that is wrong, then you can take your Christianity and shove it. I would rather cast my lot in with an unbeliever and end up in hell, than to go along with your “Christian” nonsense
I’m not saying this with any malice…….It’s with extreme sadness, that I admit that I don’t think I could remain as a Christian and believe what you believe, I would rather walk away from Christianity altogether……Your religion simply asks too much of a person
@Don Quixote
New edition; no changes to the text. I had the scanned images transcribed, now I’m spell checking and proofing it. The only difference is modern fonts and typesetting, different page numbers. Big holdup is finding an open source markup language that let’s me specify the fonts for different languages, given that the text is all in unicode. Once done, it will be easier to read and search through. No timeframe, I’ve been sitting on it for 7 years, probably take another week of concentrated effort to finish. If others such as yourself are interested, then that motivates me to get back on that horse. Any suggestions for document markup languages? And don’t say LaTeX or pandoc! ConTeXt may be suitable.
@Anonymous
You’re a proper prig. Madan was nothing like Toad. Madan was a true Bible scholar in the Puritan tradition of Milton and Whiston. He fearlessly went where Scripture led. His argument for polygamy was based on first-hand experience looking after widows, orphans, and discarded mistresses on an institutional scale. As in, that was his job, paid by the church and state.
I’ll add a few potential clarifications from my point of view, after reading both comment threads quite thoroughly,
A marriage requires both the intent of the bridegroom and the approval of the bride’s father. The father in law’s approval can also be given through proxy by the bride, but it can potentially be rescinded if the bride acted presumptuously, which would invalidate a marriage after the fact. Sex is what ratifies an implied or expressed marriage contract.
The rape of a virgin was considered an act of theft essentially under OT law, which held a heavy civil penalty. A virgin couldn’t trick a man into marriage however, nor could a bonded-woman enter into any kind of marriage contract. A bonded-woman couldn’t become free by having sex that is, even if she was a virgin. A bonded person could however gain permission or a license, to act as if they were married to an other bonded person for the duration of their enslavement The same thing sort of applies/happens today more or less, which is to say that the state does have at least some legal-ground to take away your children at will.
To the best of my knowledge, no woman can be called a man’s wife if she is still a virgin – which of course is a can of worms doctrinally speaking.
On the divorce question. I’d say, that God doesn’t hate divorce but that treacherous separation or abandonment was the primary issue at hand. The women who were abandoned had to essentially commit adultery for the sake of survival. Christ merely transferred that guilt of adultery unto the men who had dealt treacherously with their wives. Now, I do still believe that Christ raised the bar back to what it was before Moses, because, for there to be divorce there has to be condemnation and there is no condemnation in Christ. Then, on the other hand, you shouldn’t condemn someone for being divorced either, pre-conversion that is at least.
@BillyS you are factually wrong. Even if every man alive had 2 wives, the only difference it would make is that men get married at age 27, and women at age 17. No man would go without. The social instability of soft harems is because men are sleeping with women without shouldering the responsibilities of marriage. Limit sex to marriage, and see how many men can handle even one wife, let alone several! To be honest, most men should be able to handle one wife, and a sizable minority of men should be able to handle two or more. Babylonian monogamy, a dirty habit, is what creates the chaos, leading directly to soft polygamy since it is so contrary to the nature that God created us with.
Only true if the specific ascetic position you are targeting also holds to the position that sex creates marriage (which was already under dispute). If sex doesn’t create marriage, this problem you’ve detailed vanishes. Also, for at least this ascetic, divorce is permissible in some cases but “remarriage” is not if the first marriage was valid and consummated.
”normative monogamy reduces crime rates, including rape, murder, assault, robbery and fraud, as well as decreasing personal abuses.”
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2012/01/monogamous-societies-superior-to-polygamous-societies/
Monogamous societes have greater social cohesion, higher social trust(less corruption) hence greater prosperity and finally greater military strength that comes with greater social cohesion,discipline and wealth.
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=Dr8VJxygwwUC&pg=PA231&lpg=PA231&dq=monogamy+military+might&source=bl&ots=enIOm67bYx&sig=GUmkEn7CGaPvB2HDHsmUL5Mwxsg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjulcmi9-7VAhXKxVQKHbH0CfIQ6AEILzAC#v=onepage&q=monogamy%20military%20might&f=false
@TimFinnegan If you can’t remarry, then you are still in bondage to the first marriage. But the Word says we are no longer in bondage, and that His yoke is light, and his burden is easy. If you still need sex, forbidding remarriage which God allows, is putting an intolerable burden on the brethren, driving them to sin.
if you need sex, then you are to marry. Forbidding remarriage is forbidding marriage. Forbidding to marry (as Babylonian monogamists do) is a doctrine of devils.
@info your links don’t make your case. Did you actually read them?
@info according to your own links, “monogamy” means “marriage to one woman, but whoever can, fucks and chucks at will”. So, yeah. Whoring out your daughters to powerful men instead of getting them into proper marriages. If that produces “social cohesion” and “military might” and “trust”…. that is an interesting world you live in. Very interesting world.
I don’t think I’m an “ascetic” in this fight and trying to grasp this complete debate gives me a headache. However, I think I introduced Matthew 19 and Mark 10, at least most recently. I guess I’m obligated to give my thoughts on the passage.
A woman who is divorced for reasons other than adultery, by her husband, is arguably not free to remarry based on the scriptures (I know I’m not going to marry her). If her husband cheated or is dead, she IS released to remarry. Scriptures plainly teach this in the New Testament. What? Would anyone on this thread marry a divorced woman who cheated on her last husband? A woman who frivorced her last husband? Probably but that man would be a fool.
As for the ‘harlots’. I’ve often wondered what Christ’s or Paul’s advice would be regarding marriage to a non-virgin female, especially a previously promiscuous female provided they were all, like “repentant and reformed”. I honestly think both would advise a man to stay single, in fact they both did, if we can hear it.
Bottom line: Single women available today, versus 2000 years ago in Israel and Judah, are exceedingly low quality options. Mostly unsuitable or absolutely pitiful selection.
@Mycroft Jones
“@TimFinnegan If you can’t remarry, then you are still in bondage to the first marriage. But the Word says we are no longer in bondage, and that His yoke is light, and his burden is easy. If you still need sex, forbidding remarriage which God allows, is putting an intolerable burden on the brethren, driving them to sin”
“if you need sex, then you are to marry. Forbidding remarriage is forbidding marriage. Forbidding to marry (as Babylonian monogamists do) is a doctrine of devils”……………………………end quotes
NAILED IT:
I highly suggest to anyone who has got this far into this thread heed @Mycroft Jones’s conclusions and realize that is the end of the discussion….what he said is irrefutable, It’s air tight….anyone who chooses to ignore it, as the ascetics do, does so at their own spiritual peril
No it isn’t. It is a recognition that the first marriage still exists and that one cannot actually marry another (which is why I put “remarriage” in quotes; it isn’t actually remarriage because no new marriage is formed or can be formed while one’s spouse is living).
Asserting that forbidding remarriage is an intolerable burden doesn’t make it so. If circumstances make it impossible to licitly obtain sex, then have faith that God will grant you the necessary grace to behave morally in that situation.
No individual actually needs sex, plenty of people live their entire lives without it and most others go significant periods of time without it.
Also 1 Corinthians 7:15 arguably makes a case for remarriage to someone who’s spouse frivorced them.
“But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.”
A sincere believing Christian doesn’t divorce because they’re bored or found someone hotter, again arguably that have lost the faith.. God looks upon the heart and our intentions. He knows when we’re just trying to get away with something or when we believe we’re doing what is right. Knowingly marrying someone who is not released to marry is not the same as discovering, after the fact, ones remarriage is in error. The later calls for repentance more likely than divorce and then >sinning no more<. Jumping from one spouse to the next regardless of their biblical eligibility will be judged by God for the rebellious intent of the heart.
Modern wives have a reputation for forbidding sex, then what?
@TimFinnegan you state that “the first marriage still exists”. No it doesn’t. Divorce is divorce. The marriage is ended. That is irrelevant howerver, because:
Secondly, you state that a new marriage can’t be made while another one exists. This is also false, in the case of men. Firstly, a man can have more than one wife. If one reads the Greek text of the New Testament in light of its Hebrew idiom, you can see that even Bishops and Deacons are not limited to one wife. Rather, one wife is a minimum. Hebrew speakers used “echad” the same way we use “a/an” and Germans use eine. And that came into Greek as “heis/mia”, which also work as the indefinite article a/an. So it is technically true to translate them as “one”, but misleading; it is like translating Mozart’s piece “Eine Kleine Nachtmusik” as “One Little Night Music” when everyone knows it translates properly as “A Little Night Music”.
As for the young women, Paul’s instructions are that they SHOULD marry. Unmarried women cause chaos; marriage inhibits this chaos. Monogamy and the resulting fuck’n’chuck system of mistresses and sluts is very chaotic and harmful to social cohesion and trust. For every man that can control his sexuality, there are many that can’t say no when opportunity arises. And women are even less controlled when their youthful hormones are raging.
@Embracing Reality
There was no golden age. Women 2000 years ago were the same as women are today. All the complaints we have today, echo down through history, in all times and eras. That is why some said “If that is the case, it is better not to marry!” It takes a strong stomach and a suppressed disgust reflex to love and cherish and make family with these creatures. Like a garden on a hot day, they need constant attention and guidance to keep them from straying into sin. Planted in due season, they put down deep roots, and don’t require as much effort.
Mycroft,
So men should go celebite until your advanced marriage age? What keeps those men satisfied sexually during that long time? Your theory fails. Only 2 wives also fails in other ways, as those two can cut off the sex spigot (the idea driving the idea of polygamy in the eyes of some) and then the man is out of luck.
And why would some men stop at 2, even if they were willing to wait in age? What would drive that wait in age for all? I don’t think your math works either, but I will leave proving that to someone else. I don’t the math working out, even if you could somehow force those marriage starting ages. Sex outside marriage would still have all the problems you note.
Talk about twisting Scriptures. We now find that “husband of one wife” means “husband of at least once wife,” which would rule out both Timothy and Paul. Yeah, right.
@BillyS show me where it says that Timothy and Paul were either deacons or bishops.
@BillyS SHOULD men go celebate until the age of 27? Around the world, many men marry in their 30’s. I mentioned the figure 2 wives to show that no man would have to be single even in such extreme circumstances. Even in highly polygamous societies, most men have one wife, and noone that wants one, goes without. So polygamy doesn’t deprive any man of a wife, if he wants one. What deprives men of wives is widespread immorality. Only a cuck looks forward to marrying a slut or a whore. And enforced monogamy, being contrary to nature, pushes many women into covert sex, with no hope of marriage, and thereby degrading them for the purpose of marriage.
Monogamy is the Babylonian system instituted to weaken the family, so that the state would be all powerful. And some call this “social cohesion” and “military strength”. It is… for a while. But it always collapses in chaos and bloodshed. God’s system has the resilence and persistance of the grass on the prairies, the trees in the forest. Monogamy burns a nation out. Polygamy allows it to recuperate and survive after a disaster. I refer you to Pasha John Glubb’s work “The Fate of Empires” for more information on this topic.
@BillyS and if you find where it says that Timothy was a deacon, show where it says he was unmarried at that time.
As for Paul, being neither deacon or bishop, the requirement of marriage wasn’t laid on him. However, although he was unmarried at some point in his ministry, that doesn’t mean he was always that way.
Some of the church fathers believed Paul was married. In “The History of the Church” by Eusebius he quotes Clement in saying “And Paul does not hesitate, in one of his epistles, to greet his wife, whom he did not take about with him, that he might not be inconvenienced in his ministry.”. This book obviously isn’t Scripture, but the mention is interesting nonetheless.
Too many people have turned sex into a god. It’s not the most important thing in life…love of God is.
Mycroft Jones says:
August 23, 2017 at 9:16 pm
@Don Quixote
I have no idea regarding markup languages, you’re asking the wrong person.
But I am interested in a modernised English version, will it be hard copy or Ebook?
@ Others
Madan’s views are worth reading, he wasn’t correct about everything, but if you found this debate interesting I would recommend reading his books. He advocated marriage is by consummation, and that polygyny was a better solution than ruined women being forced into prostitution. His arguments are based on scripture not sentiment.
Too many people have turned sex into a god.
It is not sex that is the idol but marriage becoming the subject of worship. The number of species engaging in sex — down to the lowly bacterium swapping genes through a tubule — is incredible, awesome evidence of the Creator’s pattern of creation.
The post-coital hormonal nudge toward pair-bonding for offspring survival probability has been shorn of the offspring: you must pair bond, per local norms, prior to any offspring and continue as such even if there are no offspring. Failure of a pair-bond relegates the pair into an entirely legal bond divorced from any biological (flesh) imperative.
As you have pointed out yourself, gone are the days of a couple going to the local bishop and asking for the blessing of many healthy children. Now it is 3-to-6 months of “Pre-Cana” — because everyone “knows” what was what before the Lord performed the miracle of wine — followed by a specific liturgy requiring special garments, per local norms, then followed by a feast.
Tell me again where the idol is . . .
The laws of Moses forbid the temple accepting tithe from prostitutes. Read the relevant passages and you see why.
Divorced of having God as the third person in the marriage it becomes nothing more than spousal worship or worship of the institution. This method of thinking is similar to the thinking of divorcing Divine love from sex (the creation part you were talking about).
@earl
“Too many people have turned sex into a god. It’s not the most important thing in life…love of God is”…………end quote
So says the anti-sexual ascetic. …actually sex is THE most important thing in life, as without sex you wouldn’t even be here on this thread debating this subject as you would never have been created.
It continuously amazes me the lengths that ascetics will go to degrade sex, to play down its importance, to belittle it, to make it something dirty and shameful.
Strange…..I always thought these shaming tactics were the exclusive property of women and feminists with their hatred of sex.
I think ascetics take a very close second though
And where in my statement that you quoted did I state that? If a person doesn’t worship sex or make it #1 in life…suddenly it’s hating it?
earl: I’d suggest re-reading CCC 1605: God is not a 3rd person. Rather the woman “represents God from whom comes our help.”
Tell me again about idols . . .
Tell me how represents God = being God.
Besides there is also this paragraph just before:
1604 God who created man out of love also calls him to love the fundamental and innate vocation of every human being. For man is created in the image and likeness of God who is himself love. [Cf. Gen 1:27; 1 Jn 4:8, 16] Since God created him man and woman, their mutual love becomes an image of the absolute and unfailing love with which God loves man. It is good, very good, in the Creator’s eyes. And this love which God blesses is intended to be fruitful and to be realized in the common work of watching over creation: “And God blessed them, and God said to them: ‘Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it.'” [Gen 1:28; cf. 1:31]
@earl and yet, at the drop of a hat, you Catholics start calling this blessing “idolatry” when a man wants to reach out and grasp it.
@Don Quixote ebook to start, if there is a reasonable print on demand option, I’m open to that.
I definitely want it to be something people can put on their shelves. Part of the reason for the long delay is that I started my effort right around the time that the other fellow finally put it back into print. I wanted him to get some return on his labor. But 7 years is long enough. He just reprinted it, on good paper, with quality binding, facsimile style, according to his own words. I am re-typesetting it. And why re-typesetting it? I believe with modern fonts we can put a lot more text on a page while still being readable. At 400 pages for each of the 3 volumes, i think we can get that down to 400 pages for all three volumes, in 8.5×11 format.
@earl: 1605 is a non-sequitur written by a male whose only experience of woman, clearly, was his mother. However, still no mention of a 3rd person.
What blessing are you talking about?
God, man, woman. Is it that hard to figure out?
Mycroft Jones
You’re a proper prig.
That’s interesting, I don’t believe I’ve ever been called that before.
Madan was nothing like Toad.
Not even when he was leading a wild life, prior to encountering Wesley?
Madan was a true Bible scholar in the Puritan tradition of Milton and Whiston. He fearlessly went where Scripture led. His argument for polygamy was based on first-hand experience looking after widows, orphans, and discarded mistresses on an institutional scale. As in, that was his job, paid by the church and state.
Here is a longer biography of Madan. It would appear that his contemporaries would not agree with your assessment. Note that Madan did not practice polygamy himself, while his thesis met with strong opposition. Wonder why?
http://bernardoconnor.org.uk/Everton/Martin%20Madan.htm
Then again from Mycroft Jones
I refer you to Pasha John Glubb’s work “The Fate of Empires” for more information on this topic.
Nothing in Sir John Glubb’s monograph supports what you are claming about “Babylonian marriage” or polygamy. Frankly, those topics are irrelevant to his thesis. Perhaps you should read it with more care next time?
@earl: You contend that gametogenesis starts at the altar. Simple observation shows you, and 1604 & 1605, to be incorrect.
Of course this is the case of: “Who are you going to believe? The Catechism or your lying eyes.”
I did? Please state how I said that.
@earl: Being fruitful and multiplying was woven into male and female at creation as was the inducement to pair-bond in response to copulation. A human cannot willfully stop gametogenesis aside from self-mutilation (disregarding infertility as a secondary symptom of, possibly self-induced, physiological stress).
God did not code humans to “seek 3-6 months of ‘Pre-Cana’ classes so you can stand at an altar then go off to have children when the timing is right after practicing NFP (which is not contraception) for a bit.”
Cheers!
@ Caleb:
Sure she’s eligible to be another man’s wife, for the simple reason that under The Law that which is not prohibited is legal. She’s also going to be disgraced, since all of this is out in the open before the court under the Judges or, later, the Kings. As always how her life plays out is a function of her female beauty. As for singleness? Highly unlikely in that place and time as the Hebrews had no nunneries and harems needed filling. Plus, the girl is an asset to her family. We have a couple of scriptural price quotes on the value of a virgin girl and none at all on the value of a non-virgin girl, but the nature of man and woman has not changed since Moses. A hot babe will always pull attention.
As for background, everyone forgets is that in the ancient world, nobody (Hebrew, Greek, Roman, or Celt) gave their daughters an opportunity to ride the carousel; they were married off right at puberty. For this reason Paul, even while counseling the Corinthians against altering their marital status in the “present distress” recognizes that girls entering puberty “if she pass the flowering of her age” (menarche; first flowering; aka first period) need to be dealt with quickly “present distress” or not (I Cor 7:36). Even though he pays lip service to a perfect case scenario with a bit about the father and/or fiance doing “better” not marrying her off during the “present distress,” he’s under no illusions about teen-age girl boy craziness and where it leads.
As a result of these marriage at-first-flowering practices of the time, combined with premium virgin bride price valuation to the girl’s family and the resultant family vigilance, there wasn’t likely to be a lot of virgin seduction permitted.
@ Mycroft Jones,
2000 years ago the social pressure and legal standing of women was completely different, especially to those Christ was teaching, the Jews. I’m well aware that women have always been silly, selfish, evil creatures. I’ve dated too many of them not to know.
@Embracing Reality
No, the social pressures and conditions of women really weren’t that different than today. Feminism comes and goes in cycles. As bad as it is today, it has been equally bad at previous times in history.
@SJB spot on, reproduction and marriage are built into all those of us who are healthy. Calling it “idolatry” is a doctrine of devils.
For a Christian who believes that the bible may be inspired by the Holy Spirit, but not words literally dictated by God himself, this debate leaves me in the cold. Moreover, the average Christian thinks that the creation myth in Genesis as a historical document is on par with Greek mythology, and that does nothing more than backwards rationalize why God gave us free will and the capacity for evil. You won’t convince anyone but fundamentalists of anything appealing to what is a shared creation myth.
From my perspective, though, I thought Dalrock laid a pretty good rhetorical trap for AT and won the debate. Essentially he boxed AT into a corner, to which AT never adequately responded, that rape must not a sin if you intend to marry the girl. I will wait to hear that one sometime in a courtroom, “Your Honor, I saw her and was enamored, and knowing she was a virgin, I raped her to make her my wife.” With guys like AT around, to harken back to the last thread where I did more than lurk, may women *should* carry guns around, lest they be wifed up by any horny gang of Syrian refugees.
@mycroft jones
Yes, well aware of historical periods of time when women were sexually free. Like in the era near the fall of Rome, it generally ends in that societies destruction. Doesn’t change the fact that women were, Historically, kept in check most of the time. It was necessary for survival. Its only technologies like contraception, abortion, medical treatment for std’s combined with socialism from a wealty technologically advanced society that is postponing our destruction. Shouldn’t take too much longer now.
Pingback: Dishonest Dalrock Thinks He Won | Toad's Hall
Pingback: Still going. | Dalrock
Pingback: Questions and Objections, Part III, Sex With An Eligible Virgin = Marriage | Toad's Hall
Pingback: Questions and Objections, Part I, 1st Corinthians 7 and “Sex Outside Marriage” | Toad's Hall
Hmmm. I may not know what prompted this post of yours.
All I know is no matter how prostitution is defined, twisted, sanctioned, debated with facts or no facts, reasons or no reasons, the truth remains that I will not be convinced. Carnal men discuss sin to be no sin but those who are guided by the Holy Spirit discuss spiritual matters.
Prostitution is a sin. Read Romans 1: 24-32.
Pingback: Does Sex = Marriage? | Saving Eve
Pingback: What Constitutes Biblical Marriage? – Derek L. Ramsey