Mystery Solved?

Is this really it? Look at the before (and after) pictures.

The above? Before.

And after? Take a look:



This is the same part (or parts, DOC and DPF) from my truck.

One picture is taken on March 29th, the other today.

Could it be that the problem that won't go away, my recurring "regeneration" issues that began in January of last year, after my truck was repaired from a near total that very nearly killed or paralyzed me, it was on cockeyed two weeks ago. It was off and back on Wednesday, and now it is as I recall seeing it, most of the time when it was new. At least that's my memory. But which is really the cockeyed installation.

I will find out.

I can tell you that if the excess soot collection seems more likely to occur, in my humble opinion, in those tubes, when they're not on the top of the assembly. Guess what the dealer found in those tubes Wednesday? Lots of soot.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Because it keeps coming up

I am the "Ban" master. I get banned regularly. It's hard to take it seriously anymore. With regard to being banned by Biblical Families, a "pro Christian Plural Marriage" discussion forum, I have the following to offer.

When I was banned, I sent the following to their email address that was for "further information" regarding the "banning." All I said was "As You Wish." I'm a huge fan of the movie, "The Princess Bride," in which the phrase "As You Wish" is eventually revealed as another way of saying "I love you."

I know, I have to be less obscure. Not all folks have seen the Classic.

Mark Cowperthwaite:

"I was going to put you on post approval due to your continued sarcastic and demeaning posts, but as that option was not available I had to ban you for the time being. I would be happy to take the ban off once we get the post approval option working again. I was in the middle of writing to you about this when I had to take care of one of the children who is ill. Let me know if you would like to be reinstated, but if you wish this, every future post will have to be approved by a moderator before it goes on the forums. I understand if this is not agreeable to you."

My Reply:

"Please cite what was sarcastic. Please then show that sarcasm is intrinsically inappropriate. Please show how I was demeaning.

You presume quite a lot Mark.

I have always said you can do as you wish with your forum so please do as you wish. When you communicate with me privately and off the board, drop your presumption and pony up with proof or do not communicate with me. I have no need of your sweeping judgement when you announce it without proof. If you have family issues, by all means attend to them, they come first. If you don't have the time for both tasks I would prioritize my family if I were you. You could always get back to me immediately after you find the time to do so even if that were a year from now.

I do not recall my objecting to your banning me. I would, since you mentioned it and did it, point out that I have asked this be done many times before as a voluntary move on my part but your collective wisdom deemed that you wait until you were angry and felt the need to throw me out in mid conversation. What kind of pathology requires you to wait until you feel the need to say 'get out and stay out' when I've offered to leave peacefully MANY times? It's one of those situations where someone is told 'You can't quit, you're fired.' Please share this with the rest of your moderators."

I was not, nor have I ever been "seeking an occasion" with Biblical Families and it's hierarchy. In truth, it seems that no one can remember why they asked me there in the first place and I've always been at odds with the nebulous management of the group that is ever changing. My personal guess is that at the time I was invited to join, I was considered a bit of a plural marriage heavyweight and you couldn't exactly have a forum like theirs without inviting me. I'm not that heavyweight anymore in terms of public consumption and that's fine by me. I have a church to attend to and that's a very consuming activity. We are growing slowly and I think most of what I do now is going to be seen in later generations if God blesses what I am doing.

I had been on a posting hiatus at BF for over a year and resumed posting when I began to see unedited work of mine distributed publicly at the forum without attribution. In fairness, I had given permission for that to be done with the poster in question as they wished to use the work with reference to their own church leadership. I hadn't expected it to show up in a public forum, but there it was, so I thought I'd return and see how things went. I got into tussles almost immediately, but this time with an entirely different group of moderators.

The two posts were well received when posted by someone else other than myself. That's interesting in view of the fact that it's my work and I've been accused of having all sorts of overtones that are insulting and demeaning when I write publicly. So I'm forced to think the following. I have a reputation. That reputation among the plural believers has always been of a difficult and contentious person. Thus if I say it, it's rude and insulting and sarcastic and demeaning. If someone else says it, even if it's not agreed with, it's not rude and insulting and sarcastic and demeaning.

So be it.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Here we go!

Instapundit tipped me off to this, but I should be credited (shouldn't I?) for tipping all of you off in advance.

Ted Olson argues for overturning Proposition 8 of California. The Justice is Judge Sonia Sotomayor, an Obama appointee:

Justice Sotomayor - "Mr. Olson, the bottom line that you're being asked, and it is one that I'm interested in the answer: If you say that marriage is a fundamental right, what state restrictions could ever exist? Meaning, what state restrictions with respect to the number of people, with respect to that could get married, the incest laws, the mother and child, assuming that they are the age I can accept that the state has probably an overbearing interest on protecting a child until they're of age to marry, but what's left?"

Ted Olson - "Well, you've said in the cases decided by this court that the polygamy issue, multiple marriages raises questions about exploitation, abuse, patriarchy, issues with respect to taxes, inheritance, child custody, it is an entirely different thing, and if you, if a state prohibits polygamy, it's prohibiting conduct. If it prohibits gay and lesbian citizens from getting married, it is prohibiting their exercise of a right based upon their status."

Olson also said banning gay marriage was 'picking out a group of individuals to deny them the freedom (the court) said is fundamental'." (CNS NEWS)

But what about BISEXUALS I keep asking? Homosexual rights advocates claim they are "homosexuals" on a fundamental and programmed level. They often argue it's genetic. If this is so, what about the bisexual that wishes to engage in the "fundamental right" of marriage with another adult? Isn't their status denied recognition in marriage when they can't also marry another person at the same time? A bisexual, to conduct and realize all of their orientation in marriage needs two marriage partners. A man, and a woman in addition to themselves. Marriage as three. Polygamy!

Notice the bigoted language of Ted Olson saying that the plural married are already in abuse, exploitation and so on.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Fundies Fear Polygamy more than Gay Marriage

Dr. Andrew Selle (et al) before the Vermont Legislature in 2009.

Covenant Orthodox Presbyterian Church, the sole OPC representative for Vermont, sent an ordained pastor and Ruling Elder to the floor of the Vermont Legislature to testify. He's echoing the "What's Next, POLYGAMY!? sentiment among conservative Christians all across the country. I thought this was germane since the matter is now before our Supreme Court and the plural friendly Christians of this world are content to let gays and fouled up fundies argue the matter.






Whatever result we get, I'm sure it's not going to help us. They would have had a hard time with King David in the congregation. The way these theological pillars of wisdom talk, they'd have allied with the gays to burn ole Dave and I at the stake, prior to granting the right to civil unions to the homosexuals of this country.

To my plural sympathetic friends: Don't come crying to me when the result (either today or in the future) contains unintended consequences that interfere with your "lifestyle."

More →

Sphere: Related Content

By Georgia! (I think she's got it!)

There is a ray of hope when 23 year old entry level workers see.

Some may have foreseen it what would happen to depositors equity. Indeed a student of the Russian Revolution of the early 1900's Dmitry Medvedev does seem to know. As history repeats itself, the youth now seem to know what the problem really is:

"Why should anyone believe anything this government says?" - Georgia Xenophontos.

Someone needs to get a picture of her now. We're talking poster child for the revolution (if it comes). This could be the face of the awakening.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

With Regard to "Biblical Families"

You won't have Hugh McBryde to kick around anymore.

You have been permanently banned from this board.

Please contact the Board Administrator for more information.

Reason given for ban: Abusive use of forums

A ban has been issued on your username.

That's all folks.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Song Dedication for the Post Apocalypse

First REM:





But it wasn't the end after all, so take it away Barry:

More →

Sphere: Related Content

But it's starting to get INTERESTING again

My first involvement with the FLDS, YFZ, Warren Jeffs and the rest had to do with a certain commonality of purpose. I lost interest and couldn't advocate for anyone when fissures began to appear within the FLDS over the whole matter. Warren made it worse by being guilty of a few genuine crimes, and then falling on his sword, stupidly and publicly. So I thought I was out. Now I'm "pulled back in" by the sheer fascination of the ongoing hypocrisy and "Inspector Javert" quality of Texas' pursuit.

Fredrick Merril Jessop was a very bad man, and a very bad man was he.

Right?

The San Angelo Standard-Times - "When his eligibility date arrived, the parole board already had voted against releasing (Merril Jessop).

But:

"The parole panel voted in October against releasing Jessop, Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles spokesman Harry Battson said. Such pre-emptive actions are not uncommon."

Merril's crime, you know, the thing he was convicted of doing?

"Fredrick Merril Jessop, 76, is serving a 10-year sentence, which along with the $10,000 fine levied against him is the maximum penalty for the third-degree felony of performing an illegal ceremony."

A third degree felon is in essence an "accessory before the fact," Merril is said to have "said words" that motivated others to commit felonies. He had an opinion. He expressed it. He didn't cause anyone to do anything, that is anything for which he is imprisoned.

The FIRST Amendment to the US Constitution?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

I frequently cite and quote Wikipedia though I have deep issues and differences with them regarding methodology and content. Wikipedia is a supreme example of Hegelian "synthesis" in real life. Whatever most people think is "the truth" according to the Wiki people. This is exacerbated when people with a cause masquerade as hundreds of people and "stuff the ballot box" of synthesis so as to send truth sliding into the ditch.

It thus (oddly) becomes useful to quote Wikipedia or cite them because often it is good to use a source that agrees with you, even though their every inclination is to disagree. It's sorta like the apostle Paul asserting that even heathens know better than to do some things, in his letters to the Corinthians.

The point? Merril is a very bad man from Wikipedia standards*, but you can still glean much from their heavily biased description. Namely, that he doesn't have much, if any, in the way of a criminal past.

He's not eligible for parole again until next year, in October, and he's in jail for an opinion, openly expressed and supposedly stated in our constitution, to be a protected form of speech coupled with a free practice of religion. It would appear that because Merril is in jail and is saddled with a staggering monthly child support bill, that if he ever gets parole, he's going straight back into the hoosegow for contempt. Effectively, he is at 76, being jailed for life for having a constitutionally protected opinion. (Qatar anyone?) At 76, and being jailed now for a while, he may not have the wherewithal to write a large 6 figure check.

When your freedoms are all gone, remember, this is the way they were lost.





*An example: The way the Wikipedia article on Merril is edited/written, we end up with this result: "Merril Jessop (born December 27, 1935[1]) was believed to be the de facto leader of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (FLDS Church) after its former leader, Warren Jeffs, resigned when he was convicted as an accomplice to rape in 2007..."

Who was convicted of rape? Merril or Warren? A reader might come away with an impression that Merril was. In addition, though it is literally true that Warren was "convicted as an accomplice to rape in 2007," Warren's conviction was overturned, in large part due to the fact that it was later found a star witness had perjured herself. Utah has no plans to retry the case, because a conviction is impossible per the Utah Supreme Court's opinion on the matter.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

A "Supralapsarian" Tale of Two Churches

One of the great problems for a "Supralapsarian" like myself, is that with it's attendant view that all is ordered, all (as Brandan Kraft says), down to "every grunt made by (a) beast," you walk into every doorway and every situation and know that it was purposed and intended from before the foundations of the world by God. That hardly means though, that you know what the resulting events actually mean.

This gets worse when the information is very specific. I still don't know what it means.

Faith and obedience come into play here. I can know a few things, and one of them is that the subject matter selected by two different pastors to preach when I walked through the door, was not an accident.

I still don't know what it means, beyond the selection of the topic material.

Argh.

The fact is that this blog has fallen into relative obscurity again, perhaps even worse than before it became popular. I don't contribute much and contributions are sporadic (so my "popularity" isn't much of a surprise). The "popularity" issue means that there is little chance those congregations and pastors will find and identify themselves in this piece. Most can't spell my name correctly. Most aren't looking anyway. I also have the evidence of attending Covenant Orthodox Presbyterian Church in Vermont for a year and a half while this blog was relatively popular, and no one visited it from the congregation, even though one or two members knew I blogged and my name was plastered all over it.

This is an elaborate way of saying I think it is safe when I am talking in vague terms when it comes to "where I've been." I wouldn't wish to cause more trouble than I have already.

I have attended two churches while living in (name of town omitted). In the case of the first, I had met the pastor once before in another venue, but he did not remember. When I walked through the door the first day, they were preaching on marriage. Not only did they preach on marriage, but Pastor (insert name here) actually doubled down on the concept of monogamy and kinda ground it in. I'll blow part of the punch line here and say that's sorta what happened in the next venue as well.

As with most "Reformed/Theologically Conservative" venues, the various parishioners are ravenously about "fresh meat" (me, in this case, being the meat) and generally don't let you go without thorough questioning. Having traveled about, the goals are all the same. The nice smiling folks want to know WHY you came, WHAT you believe, does it qualify as "Reformed" from their perspective, and it becomes very evident that the goal is to see WHEN you are going to become a member.

Because OF COURSE you believe EXACTLY what they believe.

Right?

There is of course "Are you MARRIED?" followed quickly by "Where's your WIFE?" and "How many Kids do you have?" and "Where are they what are they doing etc, etc."

In the first case, the denominational affiliate I attended had been planted by a former church of mine, and they started (without realizing this) to do all the above "drill downs" to ascertain my bona fides.

I got invited forthwith to the pastor's post church lunch-ish afternoon get together (complete with BEER, this congregation even has their own BEER variety, their very own, really) and the drill downs began in earnest.

What's the name of your church i haven't heard of them how can it be so small how did you get into that congregation Oh, you were THROWN out WHY? What about marriage do you believe....

And so on.

I was promised an audience with one of the other pastors that never materialized and was asked not to come back shortly thereafter.

So, the "God is Sovereign" guy that I am says to himself:

"Why of all Sundays did I come to a church on the day they're preaching about MONOGAMY?"

Months later I go to the "Other" denomination's local representative. In both cases I declare disinterest in formal membership because I am a member elsewhere. "It's a LONG story" I say (very true) and I omit mentioning certain uncomfortable details and succeed in rather oppressively controlling the conversations I get into (which bores many) but succeeds in steering clear (it would seem) of the third rail marriage topic.

I of course had been invited to attend the after church pot luck, where most of these discussions took place.

And the pastor preached on one of my favorite chapters (of late) in scripture.

Genesis 4.

Oh brother.

Maybe he'll be like a good little Reformed preacher, and he'll skip the uncomfortable bits in making his point.

Except, he doesn't.

Pastor reads the WHOLE chapter and doubles down on the plural marriage aspect, and of course declare it wrong.

You've got to know how infrequent such occurrences are, sitting in the pews of various reformed venues across the country. They do happen, but not that often.

I just "happened" or "accidentally" walked into these churches on the day they were preaching in part on the topic of plural marriage.

What's a "Supralapsarian" to do?

Or think?

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Here we go again, Christians BEWARE

In a move that should frighten every "Fundamentalist" Christian in the country, Texas wants to take the Yearning for Zion ranch away from the FLDS and it's resident members:

The San Angelo Standard Times - "The Texas Attorney General's Office on Wednesday filed search and seizure paperwork in 51st District Court in Schleicher County, seeking to take over the 1,600-acre YFZ Ranch owned by the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints."

Of course, Texas isn't trying to render FLDS members homeless, no.....

"The Office of the Texas Attorney General doesn't know how many people still reside at the ranch, Strickland said. Nevertheless, the seizure 'is not an eviction notice,' he said. He said he didn't want to speculate on what might happen to the ranch if the state succeeds in seizing it."

It does look like the residents knew something was afoot earlier this year:

"It's uncertain how many people still live at the ranch. In 2008, more than 400 children were taken from the ranch before appellate courts ordered them returned to their families. Over the past year, massive building projects began to crop up around the ranch.

Then earlier this year, a huge tower that resembled an airport control tower was toppled shortly after it was finished, and work has halted on an amphitheater-like building larger than the temple on the property."

Supposedly, the way the money was brought in to finance the acquisition of the "Yearning for Zion" Ranch was illegal. Are you really sure than you're exempt? Just parceling the money out in a way that the government doesn't like, is illegal it would seem:

Fox News - "In the affidavit, prosecutors allege that sect members illegally structured financial transactions and that Jeffs personally toured the ranch before the land was purchased."

But no one has been charged with a crime, yet, just like before:

"To support prosecutors' claims that FLDS leaders financed the property through money laundering, one section in the affidavit lists 175 deposits, almost all of which are just less than $10,000, made at San Angelo banks over the course of two years and staggered by only a few days each. The total is about $1.5 million.

Prosecutors say the series of four-figure deposits -- which financial investigators call 'structuring' -- are typically done to evade federal reporting requirements.

However, the Texas attorney general's office, however, has not formally charged any FLDS members with any financial crimes."

Yup, a bunch of child molesters, who cares? Right? Except if you haven't read this blog, or others like it over the last four years, you probably think you know things about the YFZ affair that never happened, such as there being a bunch of pregnant teenage girls wandering around YFZ during the raid in 2008. To this date Texas has never said WHO they saw that was pregnant and "underage" when they raided YFZ, and only one girl out of all the underage girls on the ranch might have been visibly pregnant. That's wholly unremarkable in today's America.

This tactic can be used against YOUR church. The YFZ ranch is a FLDS church trust holding, and the church is being treated like a sort of organized crime syndicate. With as many laws as this country has, all they need to do is pick one your church members seem to violate, and start combing through your church's finances, and declare that you did something illegal to buy your land, and on it, you engaged in "crimes."

The smaller you are, the more conservative your beliefs, the greater the danger.

Just remember how they got the documents that they are using to seize the property:

The San Angelo Standard Times - "The ranch had been created with the intent of illegal activity, the affidavit alleges. The civil document liberally quotes Jeffs from his sacred documents, recovered from the ranch in the 2008 raid."

But the basis for the raid was a hoax call:

Fox News - "Texas Rangers raided the ranch following a call to a domestic abuse hotline that turned out to be false, and took 439 children into state custody."

The hoaxer now is completely forgotten in the narrative, as she was so obviously NOT genuine. Fox even forgets to mention that none of the kids were kept by Texas, but at least San Angelo's paper did remember:

"In 2008, more than 400 children were taken from the ranch before appellate courts ordered them returned to their families."

Go back to sleep now.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Love This, Read Below the Fold to Find the Humor :)

It's been around for a while, but it's well done.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

When You Want the Answer, Ask a Calvinist. Sex, Marriage & T-Ball

With regard to the most serial debate regarding sexuality, I had only to wait on the LORD's timing, and other reformed thinkers, to nail it.

We have a great article and reformed commentators who go on to patch some of the remaining small chinks in that articles armor. What these guys say, I've been trying to say, but they say it much better. Iron sharpens iron indeed. From "The Contemporary Calvinist:"

"We've all heard that tired, old argument: 'Jesus never said anything about homosexuality being a sin.' The conclusion, then, is that homosexuality is OK. Unfortunately, that kind of logic doesn't hold together when applied to other areas of life.

In math, we learned that 2+2=4. We never had to learn that 2+2=5 is wrong. Once we knew the correct answer, we could therefore assume that any answer other than 4 was incorrect. Just because we weren't taught explicitly that 2+2=5 is wrong didn't mean it was acceptable. We would have certainly had it marked wrong on a test, and no amount of arguing would have changed the teacher's mind.

When approached regarding the issue of marriage, Jesus simply recalled the words of Moses in Genesis 2:24: 'Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, "Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast 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 not man separate' (Matthew 19:4-6).

Jesus taught us what marriage is, so there really wasn't any need to teach us what marriage is not. If that's the case, then we can safely assume that whatever doesn't match up with his description of marriage is wrong."

This is a better way of saying it. I have maintained for a while that it's inefficient to state all that is not allowed, when the best answer (when possible) is to state what is allowed. The best way to say this then is to appeal to math, which has a nearly identical structure to logic. In this case Lee Shelton flat gets it.

Sex and sexuality are for the husband-wife relationship (most commonly called marriage). All other answers are wrong. That relationship per Genesis 2:24 has in fact been the same from the beginning.

No, I'm not suddenly turning in to a monogamy only advocate, I am simply finished with any ambiguity I've had in the past. As created, sex was not possible between two women or three people, sex was only possible between one man and one woman in the context of that husband-wife relationship. Marriage is between one man and one woman. Scripture does tell us men can accomplish more than one sort of that relationship simultaneously and women can't.

Commenter "Stan" goes for the nail down:

"In order to finish the argument, you have to include the rest of Jesus's statements in Matt. 19. Sex outside of marriage is sin. You can either marry (and He defined marriage) or you can be 'a eunuch'. Those are the only two options. That provides a more comprehensive expression from Christ. No 'same-sex marriage' and no sex outside marriage. That would exclude homosexual behavior ... from the words of Christ."

Again with the provision that I don't think these guys have realized that "marriage" isn't quite the right word for every instance of husband-wife relationship, I completely agree (remember there is concubinage). Stan gets more pointed at "Winging It," as "Sola" did once before in attempting to bring the "JCF Overseers" to the table of scriptural reason:

"How many times have I heard it? 'Jesus never said anything about homosexuality being a sin!' The conclusion? Well, obviously it must not be!

Of course, that's clear rubbish. He never said anything about rape, pornography, or child molesting either. I suppose you'd classify them as perfectly good since 'Jesus never said anything' about them? No, of course not."

Again, when these men don't think they're arguing with polygynists, they get it so completely right and see exactly what we do, first. Stan continues:

"Without offering possible reasons for a valid divorce or enumerating the good versus the bad causes for divorce, He simply offered the longstanding, traditional definition of marriage: 'A man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh' (Matt 19:5). His conclusion was that this union is binding and splitting it up is a bad idea.

So far we have one statement from Christ on the subject. We know what Christ thinks is the definition of marriage. It is 'man' and 'woman' and 'one flesh'. Try, if you will, to fit 'man and man' or 'woman and woman' into that structure. It won't fit."

Stan just keeps hitting them out of the park, like a Babe Ruth in a Tee Ball game:

"Jesus did not say, 'And I hope you understand that it's not okay to have sex with animals, either.' He didn't have to. He didn't say, 'It should be abundantly clear, then, that adultery would be wrong.' He didn't need to. He didn't say, 'Clearly sex between men and men would fall in the category of sin as well.' That was already understood.

No, Jesus didn't mention explicit options of various sexual practices. On the other hand, it is abundantly clear that Jesus laid out 1) what He considered to be 'marriage' and 2) in what context sexual relations of any sort were moral and, outside of marriage, no sexual relations were moral. Please, by all means, draw your own conclusions. But I'm not at all sure that it's really fair to conclude that Jesus 'never said anything about' this question."

I love it that these guys have been talking about what I've been debating at the same time, not realizing how it fit in.

Going back to men are on the other side, "Bud" Freshour, Dr. Keith "Allen", Dr. William Luck and the Rev. John Whitten. They've really not answered. Keith has been afraid to communicate privately ever since our first meeting on the topic, an agenda he set as a complete surprise. Dr. Luck has cut off all communication, rudely saying he "considered the source," and making private accusations that I didn't come to him in private, on a matter he'd already made public, Rev. Whitten has avoided contact (while I'm marooned in his home town for a week) and "Bud's" got nothing to say at all. They instead depend on the weak argument debunked rather efficiently by these two men.

I truly struggled to make this a private discussion, cautioning my congregation only to have no contact with Keith until the matter was resolved. We didn't even discuss why until it was evident that Keith's views had been expressed to a member before my conversation with Keith. Dr. Luck is a cranky and mean old man, at least to me on a subject that Keith already spilled into the open, John wants to say how much he's against it, but won't do anything to stop it and becomes completely avoidant when it comes to hashing the subject out. Biblically that's the same thing as being for it.

I'm going to do it all at once, and declare this men Anathemized, if no one will step up to defend the subject. I've been barred silently from their forum. They've locked the discussion thread anyway. I've been rudely treated by an old crank who passes himself off as a professor of theology, I've been avoided by Keith and John, and Bud has never entered the fray. They all purport to be leaders, so they're all going to be off limits. I urge them all to not think of this as some sort of empty threat. I have entirely legal and above board ways to effectively retaliate if they don't abide by the restriction.

Those of you who practice bisexual behaviors in plural marriages, I really don't know who you are anyway. I have no commerce with the few openly militant and supposedly "Christian" practitioners anyway, unless Keith is involved. Those of you who are believers, and countenance such practices, but are not doing such things, you're not a member of our church in the first place, you're not under any sort of disciplinary measure as a result. I'm simply branding those who hold themselves up as leaders as false, and as blind guides. They, for our church's purposes, are completely off limits.

To be clear again, if you're not a leader, it's different. If you're not a practitioner, it's different. If you're open to the idea intellectually and in our church, please confine the discussion of the topic to church leadership only. You're entirely free to take your time with the topic, you just can't teach acceptance of any form, including a sort of tolerant, "I don't know" or "live and let live" sort of view.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Nicole Gagne, Still a Question Mark Three Years Later

This would come under the heading of "how soon we forget." A little over 3 years ago, Nicole Gagne, then 37, was nearly crushed to death by the collapse of a stairwell. "5 Pointz" is associated in the contemporary world with graffiti art (and other artistic efforts) in New York City.

In other minds it figures in the loosely "historical" recounting of the "Gangs of New York." For me, not living in Manhattan, it's about Nicole, an attractive young woman I've never met, whose parents frequented the same church I did at the time of her injury. It was only after that injury that I had any knowledge of the name "5 Pointz" or it's historic antecedent (Five Points). Certainly, I'd seen pictures of the buildings both gone and still standing, but it was a furtive thought, in and out of the backwaters of my mind. There's a lot to keep track of in the world.

Now that three years have gone by, "Meres One," (Jonathan Cohen) an artist from the area, who appreciates and participates and tends to try to preserve Graffiti Art, is preoccupied with that, and not Nicole, though he does remember:

From Complex Art & Design - "In April of 2009, Nicole Gagne, a jewelry designer and friend of Meres, was leaving her indoor studio when an external stairway had collapsed, thrusting her to a three-story tumble. 'Not only was [she] almost tragically killed, but it really put everything in the air. That led to a whole chain of events where the building got repainted and I wasn’t sure if they were going to keep it open,' Meres said. From what Meres hears, Nicole moved to a warmer place and is still recouping. Now, the inside of the 5 Pointz warehouse serves solely as storage space. Before the stair incident, 110 artists used the indoor studios to practice and display their crafts."

I guess it's only fair. I have an idealized vision of a woman I've never met in my head, and it's based I would guess on it being about me, not Mr. Cohen (Meres) and only more loosely about Nicole. We've never met, and probably will not. It seems Nicole (now 40) has moved to Florida (not sure) and continues to recover. Having been hit very hard (October of last year) and breaking not nearly as many bones, I have a certain empathy. Again, to excuse the preoccupation of "Meres One," I can easily be proved to only focus on that which interests me (my accident vs Nicole's, my circle of friends and interests vs Meres').

I would imagine in the world of lawsuits it's not advisable for Nicole to speak out. She seemed only interested in promoting her art through her name prior to the accident, and it does not surprise that she isn't promoting herself, as herself, afterward. But I think of her (pray) and wish her well and of course, don't know her. Your Modern Pharisee has mentioned her before, and regularly follows up to see if there have been any developments. If what I experienced in the aftermath of a bone crushing accident is any indication of what she now experiences, she's closer to the self inflicted woes of Evel Knievel, though she never flirted with those injuries, as he did.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Poppycock?

Maybe that would have been better than "Anathema?" Darn it all, just when I thought I was out of the discussion, they pull me back in.

Twice now, I have been mentioned in a thread at a small forum that is discussing the topic of bisexuality in a Christian Polygyny. First John Whitten accuses the poster "Sola" of "speaking with a Montana accent" and begs off of an answer by referring to her husband, and then in a joint communique, the "JCF Overseers" refer to me by using the term "anathema," which I have used, so I suppose I should clarify.

(Folks should know that I tried to join the forum, which I think at one point I was invited to join but did not, and they have wordlessly refused to let me do so. They've now locked the thread, shutting down the discussion anyway in their own forum.)

The "Dramatis Personæ" in this discussion are:

John Whitten, as himself. A Baptist Pastor from Arizona.

Dr. Keith "Allen," which is a nom de plume for Dr. Keith something or other. I've met Keith in person, so there is a real Dr. Keith behind the mask. Doc desires some degree of anonymity, so he has it.

Dr. William Luck, "a former Professor of Bible and Theology at the Moody Bible Institute."

A "Bud" Freshour, who seems to be a woman from Minnesota.

"Sola Scriptura," a woman on my side of the issue, who is (or has been) permitted to discuss the issue. If she speaks with a Montana Accent it's because we do discuss this issue, but it would also seem that Dr. Luck speaks at times with a similar lilt.

And of course, Yours Truly.

A few others chime in, but those are the principals in the discussion. The supposedly female "Bud" Freshour to my knowledge has made no contribution to the thread, other than to be signatory joint statement and otherwise silent. I suppose this amounts to an "Arizona Accent."

I thus deal with John's refusal to talk to Sola, since he would group himself with a woman in rebuttal to Sola, and I don't see "B.'s" husband in the discussion. Moving on to the reply of the "JCF Overseers."

There have been some questions and/or assumptions as to what JCF affirms in regard to sexual ethics. To help clarify these matters we have written this unanimity statement that helps clarify for those who desire to know our position.

JCF Leadership Affirms the following:

1. God joins a man and a woman in a holy union. From Genesis we see that Adam was the head and Eve was the helpmate. This formed a relational pattern of complementarian patriarchy or headship within the family.

For the Biblically conservative Christian or fundamentalist, this represents a bit of a problem. What is a "Complementarian Patriarchy? Is that like "Jumbo Shrimp?" This seems to be a politically crafted remark that genuflects to the idea of absolute male headship within a family, but, um, not so much when it comes to the predictable female reaction, even among the Biblically conservative. I don't think you can use "complementarian" that way but it panders to the normal bridling response you get from women when you say that a man is the "boss of them."

2. We are opposed to homosexual unions where men give up natural relations with women for relations with men. We are also opposed to women who give up natural relations with men for women.

So, are they they then OK with homosexual relations between men that don't involve "homosexual unions?" I say this because they have not dealt with the question of what happens when you separate specific sex acts from the marriage covenant. The new category of what we might call "sensual relations" doesn't have any scriptural guidelines, a problem we keep pointing out, and JCF's "Overseers" don't really counter in any way.

The second part of point 2 doesn't cover women who don't give up "natural relations with men for women." Does this this allow women who engage in sensual and or sexual relations with one another but still engage in natural relations with men, permission to be sexual and/or sensual with one another? Additionally there is no mention of "homosexual union" in the case of women, so is that now allowable? Again I point to the idea that if a man dies and the women are all married to each other, as Dr. "Allen" maintained to me, there would be a resulting "homosexual union in form or appearance, but it would have resulted from a primarily heterosexual union in appearance (at least). The women involved wouldn't have "give(n) up natural relations with men for women" but would have been deprived of those natural relations by their husband's death. I remind you this is the kind of hair splitting necessary to arrive at their position in the first place, so I have every right in rebuttal, to split hairs as well.

3. We recognize in patriarchal families, as well with Evangelicals/Fundamentalists in general, there are some different interpretations to Romans 1:26-27 both in antiquity as well in the modern day by God honoring, honest, interpreters of Scripture. Because of this we affirm the need for each family head and person to search Scriptures diligently in regard to these differing interpretations which each have some plausibility to a greater or lesser degree.

Yet Dr. Luck is reported to have said the following in the lead up to this joint and unanimous statement:

"In Roman's 1:26-27, Paul is not discussing law, but nature. I don't believe that a male head of a poly family has any more right to validate the bi-sexuality of his wives than a father has the right to do so for his female daughters.

I do, however recognize that some orthodox church fathers do not believe that Rom. 1:26 opposes female-female sexuality at that point. I also understand that they oppose it from other passages, such as Genesis 1 & 2."

He's saying there is a disagreement over the prohibition of same sex female sensual and/or sexual relations in Romans 1 by early church fathers, but he shuts the door entirely on any historical position of Christianity that same sex female relations (sexual or sensual) are permitted because he said they cited what had to be the affirmative position of who a woman was for, contained in the creation accounts.

It really doesn't matter to me if all "Early Church Fathers" didn't agree on Romans 1, what matters to me is that none of them are cited and if they were, Dr. Luck's claim is not that they concluded same sex relations were permissible, he says they didn't conclude that they were.

Dr. Luck also seems to largely agree with me in saying:

"The idea that it involves anal sex with their husbands, I also reject as ill-based on any prior Biblical text, and inappropriately drawn from biology (any more than oral sex SHOULD be...which obviously it isn't in Song of Solomon). [Incidentally I find Song of Solomon 5:1 to be less likely to imply other wifely comment, than I do narrator comment.]"

Both of these arguments were foundational when I sat down with Keith on July 8th. Dr. Luck refutes them and seems to agree almost completely with me.

4. We are opposed to any person forcing or requiring another person to submit to a sex act that violates that person's conscience.

I guess this is the "complementarian" position. This also flatly contradicts Keith's assertion that a man's "headship" gave him the right to tell his wives to engage in sex play with one another, to please that man or for any other reason.

5. We are for each man being the patriarchal leader over his family and for him to be the spiritual leader who guides his family according to the Word of God to the best of his ability and in that we believe each man ought to pursue love, that which is edifying to the whole family, and holiness by the fruit of the Spirit. Where Scripture speaks the man is to govern in those areas. Where Scripture does not speak and where a person's conscience is not violated he is free to govern in those areas as the Spirit so leads him over his family.

And now they engage in "doublespeak." Having expressed "compelentarian" ideas and swearing to the idea that on one should "force" anyone to do anything, they ignore the actual authority level of "patriarchs," who could order the death of family members, for lack of obedience. Please do not mistake me as being in favor of some new form of "honor killing." The church has but one punishment it can inflict against the will of any person, and that is shunning or excommunication. Nevertheless, the authority of the "Patriarch" was absolute, and he answered only to God, having the ability to put family members to death. This is hardly "complementarian."

For those of you who think I am saying I justify the beating of wives, let's just say it's against the law to do so, and leave it at that for now. I'll be willing to thrash that out in another discussion.

They then allow a man to "govern" in such a way as to allow bisexual behavior among his wives, Because scripture does not speak, yet Dr. Luck is suppose to have said that the failure to invoke a law against women in particular engaging in theft, that it doesn't mean they can steal any more than they can be homosexual.

This statement also seems to set up each and every family as some sort of congregational church, with the husband being every elder wrapped up into one. That's where I would use the word "Poppycock."

6. We are opposed to any position that elevates any secondary doctrine, which is not related to the gospel, to a first order status and by that condemns a person for not arriving at the same interpretation of Scripture in secondary areas of doctrine. If a person truly affirms the gospel, which is that Jesus Christ is God come in the flesh who died and arose again for our sins as LORD, and if that person is not walking in any deliberate sin then even some misunderstandings of Scripture do not mean such a person is anathema, cursed, or without Christ's eternal grace and salvation.

This is the second reference to "yours truly." Perhaps I should have used another word but I still can't think of a better one, I'm open to suggestion though. Let's be clear that I did not state any of my opponents were unbelievers or had fallen from grace. As a "Predestinarian" I can't argue that any "fall from grace" if in fact they have been saved. I don't know the hearts of men, only God does. I am bound to only shunning those who state they believe yet espouse views incompatible with scripture that rip at the foundations of Christian life. In deference to any possible misunderstanding on their part, I offer the following:

"Anathema" as a word, springs directly from the Greek. It has a near mirror spelling equivalent in Latin and a virtually identical word, in spelling and meaning in English as well. Suffice it to say that the English definition of Anathema is not inconsistent with that of the Greek, but the definitions in our dictionaries have a different philosophy of language reflected in them. Nevertheless they overlap in this more specifically worded English definition:

"A formal ecclesiastical curse involving excommunication."

This is the best way of understanding the word in English. In the Greek, it's first used (at least in the order of publication) in Acts in this verse, translated as "curse" in the KJV. Those taking the vow are not condemning themselves to eternal punishment if they fail to kill Paul, they are pronouncing a negative injunction on themselves for their possible failure.

So yes John, Keith, Bill and Ms. (Bud) Freshour, I am (or will be) Anathemizing you as purveyors of a false doctrine if you all indeed agree with the statement published as the "JCF Overseers." I can't excommunicate you from our church as you're not part of it. I'm not saying you're unbelievers, you're just set aside in a negative way (a use of the word almost directly drawn from "Strong's") because you teach a false doctrine. The only thing I can do is to distance myself and my congregation from you. So I am or am about to in some cases.

7. As leaders we are unified in these truths and individually or corporately willing to discuss with anyone as needed any further positions or issues related to these matters.

I've heard otherwise with regard to that "Unity." It's hard to tell though. I can say they're not discussing it with me, and I haven't been allowed access to their forum to do so there.

This is more consistent with trying to separate the flock, from their appointed shepherd, since they are talking to the flock. All communication with me has ceased.

The "JCF Overseers" statement still allows for an overtly practiced form of polyamory or bisexual behavior in marriage. The fact that they seem to all individually disapprove (with the possible exception of Dr. "Allen") makes no difference. It's like trying to say you're "Pro Life" yourself, but "respect a woman's right to choose."

Face it.

You'd be "Pro Choice," not "Pro Life" in function and God cares what we do and say, but in the case of Polyamory, you're not endorsing it, but you will recruit and keep and allow the discussion and promotion of bisexual behavior among your congregants, so you're for it.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

The Simple Answer for "Romney's Tax Returns"

It's one sentence long.

If there was anything criminal being concealed in Romney's tax returns, the IRS would be on it already.

That's the 1040EZ answer. The long form answer is that you better believe in a world of Joe the Plumber, those who want to know what's in them, already know what's in them. If there was anything criminal in them the investigation would have been started from outside the IRS by another Government agency, acting as a proxy for the Obama Campaign.

All that is contained in Romney's tax returns is information that can be characterized in a way that places Romney in a poor light with the electorate. It stands to reason that if these things are spoken of in public by Obama's campaign, or leaked, it will be fairly obvious that the point of origin of the information, was his Tax Returns. It will be fairly evident that the Conduit from the IRS to the Electorate (General Public) will be an inquiring Government official, who gives the information to the Press.

This of course is another reason you do not want the Government in Health care, since that unsightly lesion you have in thus and so a region, can become the topic of political speculation.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

You Have to Decide

With regard to my previous two posts:

So as not to get lost in the details, what I've been saying in part is that this issue isn't a fence sitting issue. It's fine that you need time to decide, but you do have to decide. Sexual relations have always been the province of religion, and even if you don't have a Priest or Pastor or Minister or Bishop or Elder or Shaman sitting in your bedroom with you, religion is in your bedroom and it should be there. Lest anybody make a the mistake of proposing that I am in favor of a Theocracy, and the state putting a webcam in your bedroom, be clear that I'm not. The bedroom remains private but you have a confessional duty to disclose sin you have there, at least those sins with which you have an ongoing problem.

So we have the following problem which now seems to be settled by a lack of response to the position expressed by our small denomination of Christianity.

Since scripture makes few regulatory statements with regard to female bisexuals or lesbian relationships can we take a "live and let live" attitude toward disclosed attitudes or practices in that arena? Here are the consequences of that position:

1.) The marriage covenant (there is no specific word for marriage in scripture, it is a sort of covenant) binds all spouses to one another. As Dr. Keith "Allen" contended to me in person, polygyny marries all to one another. This is an exceedingly dangerous position to take.

Dr. "Allen" did contend to me that it ratifies sexual relations between women. Why? Because they are married to one another. Keith did not say it very clearly, but the idea is that the man has to be present or command it to initiate the relationship. He becomes a woman's husband, and by that act, makes them wives to one another.

So if one of them dies, is the marriage over? Marriage is to be sundered only by death or divorce. In the latter case, only for sufficient cause. If all are married to one another, the marriage lurches on without a man in the case of his death as a a lesbian marriage (thus scripture ratifies one form of same sex marriage) or it's ended when one woman dies. We can show this to be refuted by the death of Rachel. Leah stays on as wife as do the two concubines Bilhah and Zilpah. Since all are bound to one another, as Keith states, then only death ought to separate, but here it does not.

Reason says that once a spouse relationship starts, that shouldn't be sundered until death, that it continues, well, until death. This would not make a widow a widow if she was part of a plural marriage. The discussion of Abishag says that she was indeed, a widow. It was inappropriate due to the complexities of inheritance and succession, for Adonijah to have her. Neither Solomon (wiser than all of us combined) nor his mother suppose that Adonijah was trying to simultaneously wed all of David's wives, which included Bathsheba, Solomon's mother, who carried Adonijah's proposal to the King. Solomon rightly complains Adonijah is trying to steal the throne, not Solomon's mother Bathsheba.

Also if wives are part of the marriage, we know wives also don't divorce another wife, in a divorce, as they would necessarily have to do, if they were all in the marriage together. Deuteronomy says they don't.

We can rightly conclude as a result that marriage does not bind all spouses to one another, only wives to their husband. Marriage cannot cover what goes on between wives in a bed together, they're not married to one another.

Please combine the above with there being absolutely zero example of same sex play in scripture in the affirmative apart from Dr. "Allen's" personal assertion to me that the Hebrew masculine noun "rā'·ah" (רֵעַ rea`) was used to refer to other wives in Song of Songs 5:1. I conducted an extensive survey of the Hebrew word, and then I looked at the actual classification of the word in "Strong's." It's a masculine noun. Keith is guilty of the "word wrangling" forbidden in Timothy.

It no longer surprises me that a man who loudly proclaimed his status as "Resident Bible Scholar" (a claim once used in a forum he no longer frequents) or to be author of "Scholarly Teaching Articles" actually does work too poor to merit being seen as a "Bible Scholar" or writing "Scholarly" articles. The only two explanations for this (beyond being stupid) are that he isn't scholarly regardless of credential, or he's been rendered dishonest because of a personal agenda. It's as if he equates "to," "too" and "two" as being the same words in the previous sentence. I prefer he simply admits to an agenda, and then approaches his work with more objectivity. Barring that explanation he's a deceiver or stupid. I guess my I hope then is that he's stupid since the only alternative left after "stupid" or "agenda," is deceiver. I think I'd rather know someone stupid if those are the choices.

2.) The next consequence of Keith's assertions to me and his public work are that there are forms of sexual behavior that are not restricted to persons in wedlock and in the event that you agree with me on the prior point, that's where we're left. The lack of forbidding of sexually tinged behavior, behavior that intentionally excites or ends up fulfilling excitement or desire, is that it means we can engage in all forms of play that are sexual in nature as long as they don't involve penetration by a man with his phallus, below the navel or above the knee. This in truth is what Dr. "Allen" argues for. Must I again tell you how wide the door opens at this point? Since it's merely sex play, and not sexual "knowing" (yada), it's not spoken to in the Law of God as given to Moses. We therefore have no guidelines as to participants in such play, we only have the boundary lines of where a man can use his genitalia in a sort of twisted "Tropic of Cancer" Henry Miller sense. No restrictions exist for females except for the use of phallic substitutes between the "tropics" (navel and knees). Use your imagination as far as you're willing to go with that one, and then go about two steps further, and see if that's where you think we are, morally.

I don't know of a third choice on the Polyamory affirmative, agnostic or winking side of the street. The third choice is only as we in our church have defined it.

Females are for males, and only for her male, namely her husband. Scripture doesn't discuss what acts are acceptable between husband and a wife, only that it be between them. Scripture declares the marriage bed to be "undefiled." This is the simplicity of Deuteronomy 30, that truth really isn't hard stuff, and too far away or up or down to go get. Knowing and believing the word makes you wise as stated by Psalm 119.

Sexual behavior is the province of religion as I stated at the outset. Again, I have no intention of delving into the sex lives of those Christians I know. If you have been convicted of sin in that area, and if you haven't appropriately repented of it (to God and to those you sinned against and you have stopped doing it), you need to confess it. If you confess it in the affirmative (I'm right and I'm not going to stop) you should be eventually anathemized. If you repent, there is some variation of "70 x 7" that applies. In the latter case, you clearly state you are wrong.

Because of it's central and vital nature, we're not free to cop out as teachers in the area of sexual behavior. For that reason, all who purport to be teachers who endorse even a sort of "agnostic" or "live and let live" position with acknowledged behavior in this area are anathemized. I agree that a short period of debate is appropriate, but failure to repent is alienating. I cannot for instance, throw John Whitten or Keith "Allen" out of my church, they're not part of it, but I can proclaim them false prophets or teachers, and I have an absolute duty to do so. Both men need to absolutely declare it is wrong for women to engage in sex play with one another and all the consequences such behavior ratifies by corollary. No middle position is allowable. To take a middle position is to choose for permissiveness in a sinful way.

When it comes to non leaders in the church (those not elders, deacons, pastors or teachers or proclaiming to be such) I make the following ruling: If you are a member of our church and have unresolved questions in this area, practice nothing but heterosexual relations between you and your opposite sex spouse. Don't teach tolerance, refer to the teaching of our church in the matter. You are free to disagree but not practice in accordance with your disagreement. If you cannot abide by this, and are a member of our church, you're going to go out the door pretty soon. This is in fact the standard I used when being cast out of my own church in 2009/2010. You will also be shunned by us, teacher and congregant alike, regardless of church, if you can't abide by this standard.

I declare affirmatively "that as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD." This is a tremendously frightening thing to do, as it seems to isolate us from the majority of the Christian Polygyny side of the marriage question, and sets us up as the righteous practitioners, and them as the odd men out. We're down to somewhere between being Samson, and Gideon, but much closer to Samson in number. I dislike the idea of being Elijah in the Cave or the Remnant. If right, that's a hard row to hoe. If wrong, that's the stuff cults are made of. I'm sure outside of our group, that word has already been used.

(I've made a number of changes to grammar, tense and forms of words as of about 11pm mountain time the date of this post. I was interrupted frequently in writing this and I can't keep track under those circumstances. It's what you get with an old man. :p. It's also what you get when you dare to use the word "stupid" with reference to another person.)

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Yada, Yada, Yada (Polyamory Part 2)

A really easy Hebrew word study. (As a sidebar, is that where "Yada, Yada, Yada REALLY comes from?)

In the continuing discussion of what amounts to "Can we have GROUP sex?" at "A Biblical Family (etc)." "Dr. Allen" continues to defend the positions, acts and situations a woman can involve herself in, provided she is married and married with another woman, to the same man. It's getting into the ditch quickly, and I confess to intentionally driving the discussion to that point. It belongs in the ditch. This discussion amounts to several subcategories.

Can we form a triangle? (A variation of the "69" sexual position question.)

I can't get it up but can I watch until I can? (You two girls go at it and I'll join in, my Viagra's not working yet.) This may be a variation of "you're two lesbians and I think that's hot," you want to go to church, and act like it's all normal so I'll marry you.

Will you do me while I do her?

Why don't we spread the Visqueen (plastic sheet), I'll get the Mazola oil, we'll turn out the light (or leave it on, much hotter) and see what happens.

Do all of the above to the Randy Newman song, "You Can Leave Your Hat on."

Many other variations follow, I think you get the point.

"Sola" at "A Biblical(?)" makes some excellent points, you should look.

I've made the argument, and Sola does too, that Scripture states women are for men, created for men, out of men, and essentially (and properly) seek to return to a man's Lordship and headship in a righteous Christian context.

Sex is for the "Husband/Wife" relationship and therefore to be between them.

Scripture (when it comes to human beings) only discusses WHO you should have sex with, not how you should go about it. Some contend it discusses sex acts, but I contend that this is only with regard to animals (a death penalty offense) and doesn't go into the bureaucratic micro managing regulation phone book writing descriptions of what you can and cannot do. Once you go there, you have gone there, and have to write up a description of everything you can and can't do. This got the Pharisees into the tithing of the mint, anise and cummin.

Christ said such micro inspection caused the Pharisees to omit "the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone." Clearly this sort of micro inquiry is a last place waste of time compared with other matters, at best. The Pharisees (at their worst) tried to add to the law (a thing I have remarked is abhorrent to God) to clarify it. I am accused of trying to add to it in this discussion, but again, it really depends on whether or not God is saying which humans you can have sex with, or what kind of sex you can have.

Again, even if you mix the two you've still go the "what kind of sex" question, and you have the bureaucratic phone book of regulations and while Christ did say the question of tithing spices had weight, he said it didn't have much. He then went on to say "Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel," for the Pharisees attention to that small matter. So, the Bible is written to direct you to the big picture, and leaves us to work out our salvation in that light.

This is what I contend is actually happening with the two rapidly separating factions in this debate. One group is trying to write a phone book, only pay attention to about 10 pages of it, and use it to ratify same sex relations between women in a marriage and the other is saying "do whatever, but only do it between a wife and a husband."

One view is much simpler than the other, fitting in with the ideas in Deuteronomy 30 and Psalm 119 that truth isn't that tough after all, it involves just knowing and staying in the word of God. "With whom may I have sex" is covered by "working out your salvation with fear and trembling" before God, and by the injunctions to refrain from things you personally think are sin, if you doubt. Namely, if you doubt a thing is righteous, then just don't do it.

One of the difficulties with the "what you can do" position is as the aforementioned "Sola" points out. It deteriorates into a discussion of what constitutes sex and what doesn't, and you're left with: "can your unmarried sons and daughters have oral sex" and other heavy petting questions. To go further, you have to ask if they can do so with each other, and whether or not it's a good idea for mothers and fathers to instruct (with participation) their sons and daughters in such activities. It's endless.

Why?

Well let's go back to Leviticus 18:22:

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

Now Romans 1:27:

"And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."

Which refers to Romans 1:26, where the same Greek word for "natural" is used:

"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:"

Key here is that Paul in writing this letter is making sure you know he's comparing verse 27, that which is about men, to verse 26, that which is about women. He's saying the injunction is the same.

Keith ("Dr. Allen") and his supporters contend what is "unnatural" is only anal sex.

Leviticus 18 is a general injunction, not using the Hebrew word "yada`" (ידע) that is used to denote penetrating penile sexual relations between husband and wife. So it's broader in it's injunction in my view. The text supports that view.

But Keith (and now John Whitten) say Paul in Romans goes on to not make a broad injunction, instead choosing only to slap at anal sex with men in Romans as a way of telling you not to "butt hump" your wife, or men for that matter.

Paul, the star scholar of Judaism for that time, omits the broad injunction so as to let us know that you can go down on your wife, but you can't sodomize her, confining himself to the previously unknown distinction (or imprecisely defined in Hebrew) of anal sex.

We then descend into micromanaging descriptions of what constitutes sex or sensuality, whether or not women are married to one another (Keith says they are, through their husband) and that sensuality is confined to the marriage bed, and so women can be "sensual" with one another, and so on. Since sensuality and penetration are different, and penetration with a penis is the key element to prohibited sexual relations, women can do whatever with one another in a marriage since they have no penis.

We've separated sex from sensuality at this point, and no guide in scripture is present to tell us that we can't be sensual outside the husband wife relationship and Keith in fact simply says the covering of male authority permits sensuality between women. I don't really know where he can justify this "covering" thought in scripture. All the arguments are massively weak. One depends on taking a word almost universally applied to men (I haven't surveyed all uses of the word yet) and making it mean "wives" in Song of Songs 5.

This uncorks the bottle and lets the Genie out. It's Pandora's box. The permutations regarding sexual behavior are nearly infinite, as long as there's no penetration. Richard Pryor once made crude reference to this, contending in a comic routine to his supposed wife, that he wasn't having sex with the naked girl he was also in bed with naked, because certain parts weren't joined. So did Former President Clinton.

Or there's my definition and I would contend, God's: It's who you have sex with, scripture argues affirmatively to have sex with only your husband, if you are a female, and only a wife, if you are a male. Thus no phone book is required, or no lengthy dissertation such as Keith writes in ABF.

There are many other avenues of discussion, some of which I allude to in my previous post. This discussion could go on forever, but you've got a choice, the simple or the complex, and God's word, as I said many times before, declares it's not really a regulatory nightmare, it's simple. Simplicity is embodied in the concept of with whom you may have sensual or sexual activity. Complexity is describing what parts of the body may connect with one another.

Are you really buying the idea that in the heat of passion, you slip up and slip it to the wife via the rear entrance, and you're subject to the death penalty or are you going with "the marriage bed is undefiled?"

Marriage, even for the plural guy, is to each woman individually, and as for me and the rest of our church, we're going with the marriage bed being undefiled, in that one on one context. The rest of you are playing with fire, and if you're a church leader, or purport to be one, I'm going to say you should recant, or be an anathema, both you and your unholy teaching. Professing to be wise, you have become fools.

More →

Sphere: Related Content