What Does The Bible Actually Say About Pre-Marital Sex?

by Frost on September 17, 2012

The Manosphere appears to have acquired a generous sprinkling of Christian flavouring over the past couple of months. Exciting times. But amidst all the discussion of the compatibility of Game and God, one question remains unanswered: What sort of sexual morality does Christianity actually demand of its followers?

More to the point, is banging sluts on the reg compatible with Christian morality?

I am tempted to say ‘yes’ and call it a day. Deuteronomy 22:13-21 suggests to me that we are free to bang non-virgins at will. Also, to stone them:

13 If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her,

14 And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid:

15 Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel’s virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate:

16 And the damsel’s father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her;

17 And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter’s virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city.

18 And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him

(But also remember that Jesus said, “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Otherwise, deleteth her number and act unfazed when you see her in the same bar next month.”)

So God seems OK with banging and discarding non-virgins. Then again, the bible repeatedly admonishes fornication. But what is fornication?

The question of whether casual sex is acceptable hinges on our definition of this word, which is a translation of the Greek porneia. The most common English translation of porneia that I’ve found is the disappointingly vague “sexual immorality.” So let’s see if we can infer the meaning from scriptural context.

I Corinthians 6:18 implies that all extra-marital sex is classified as Fornication:

“Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife and every woman have her own husband”.

Hebrews 13:4 is pretty clear on whoremongering:

“Marriage is honorable in all and the bed undefiled, but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.”

And what is the modern American carousel rider, if not a whore with poor bargaining skills? But surely there is some difference between a whore-monger, i.e. a man who devotes a gluttonous fraction of his thoughts and energies to whores, and a mere whore-dabbler. Christians, help me out in the comments.

*

In any case, the position of the modern Church is clear: Casual sex is against God’s will. But the rot of Churchian infiltration runs deep. True Christians must assume that any scripture which can conceivably be misinterpreted to serve the purposes of the feminists, will be. Biblical double standards, where they serve the interests of men, will be papered over. The most egregious example of this tendency is that the bible clearly permits polygyny. Cases in point: Would Jesus have told us the parable of the ten virgins, without mentioning that the fundamental premise of the story is that the man in the story was a sinner?

Churchianity would have us believe that marriage is simply whatever the Churchians tell us it is – in most cases, a ridiculously unfair and unbiblical legal contract between one man and one woman. But what does  scripture say?

The most commonly cited passage in support of monogamous marriage is I Corinthians 6:18. “Let every woman have her own husband.” Just like my brother and I each had our own bedroom, every blogger has his own URL, let every woman has her own hunk of man meat. The modern English translation implies no sharesies. I wonder though, is this the correct translation? My Greek is a little rusty.

Because the rest of the bible, outside of that verse, seems to imply that polygamous sharesies are most certainly permitted.

The Old Testament obviously permitted polygamy, as many of the old patriarchs had multiple wives. The Pentateuch also contains many guidelines with regard to the juggling of multiple wives. For example, Exodus 21-10 explicitly demands that when we acquire additional wives, we do not diminish the food, clothing and marital rights of the first.

The New Testament retcons the ability of men to divorce their wives at will. But does it forbid polygamy? No. Timothy 3:2 supplies the exception that proves the rule:

“A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach.”

Church leaders must have but one wife. But the rest of us? Line ‘em up, Paul implies.

And what is marriage? Does it require a license, a certificate from your local state government, or even the witness of a pastor? I Corinthians 7 clearly divides women into two categories: Virgins, and Married. This implies that the act of sexual intercourse is sufficient for marriage. Luke 16:18, contra Deuteronomy, states that marrying/fucking an already married/fucked woman is adultery. So Christian men are left with one option: Chase virgins. Once you hit it, add her to your wife collection. End of story. At least, until she bangs some other dude. See Matthew 5:32:

“But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.”

So – Christian Men – did you come here looking for scriptural permission to bang as many sluts as you cared to? Were you crossing your fingers, hoping to learn that the Christian imperative to male chastity was no more than yet another anti-male invention of feminist-infiltrated Churchianity? Yeah, me too. But while the polygamous acquisition of multiple virgin wives is a slam dunk, the case for hitting and quitting is more ambiguous.

But never fear. Since I never disappoint my readers, Wednesday’s post will look at some attractive rationalization options available to the modern Christian pick-up artist.

{ 26 comments… read them below or add one }

Contemplationist September 28, 2012 at 1:10 am

Can this attempt not be the work of your own rationalization hamster?

Obstinance Works September 18, 2012 at 5:43 pm

A fat feminist wife kills the effectiveness of I Corinthians 6:18. “Adultery” pretty much covers it, so from a strictly literal standpoint, that settles it. It also means that married men pretty much are going through hell trying not to lust after any women other than his wife. So now you see how ridiculously impossible it is to keep to that standard, no matter who you are.

“Whoremonger” is really more toward a man who is in the business of prostitution for profit or the john who is buying the hookers. “temple prostitution” was a big problem in Paul’s time. I don’t think the idea of the Lothario was much of a subject back in ancient times. kings and wealthy men probably had harems, but that was the extent. Women were bought and sold in ancient times. my uneducated guess is that incest and rape were more of a problem. masturbation is dealt with in one passage concerning men who grow effeminate because of fornication. all the men in biblical times would be considered chauvinistic by today’s standards.

It really is a complicated issue. I think some of you are getting two things confused with the other. people who go to church and what happens in church politics is not the same as what is written in the bible. also the specific teachings in the bible are cultural in origin. the bible is a deep book and 9 out 10 preachers are not intellectually qualified to teach it as such. most preachers are bullshit artists selling status to the highest bidder.

There is an objective moral law, but how that law is dictated changes in context. Polygamy for one; which I suspect is probably legal in the new testament also. Also just look at the way marriage was handled in the old testament and then look at the new. slavery and having sex with slave girls was allowed in the old and slavery is condemned by Paul in the new. the Jews even had instructions down to the very ages of the girls who could be married and a Jewish man could even get away with rape if you paid her old man off and married the poor girl. Much higher status is given to the married woman if she is raped. The man was put to death and the crime was considered close to murder, because when a man rapes a woman, he is holding the threat of death over her head. the men were expected to be married at certain ages in general. Also there is a lot of traditional Jewish script written on the subject of sex that is not a part of the old testament to back this up.

in Deuteronomy 21:14, a Jewish man could marry and fuck a girl then get rid of her if “she doesn’t please him.” Vague language. I recently heard a pastor try to clean this passage up and kind of skipped over the sex part. Preachers are really good bullshit artists very often. I can link to an audio recording of his message if you think I’m shitting you. the new testament is much stricter on divorce than the Jewish law. Jesus condemned most of these practises later on. No, preachers have no clue how to reconcile these things, so they always just go with whatever are the cultural norms around them.

the underpinnings of current American fundamentalism hold to a feminist-centric worldview. not many churches, conservative or not, understand how fucked up they are in this regard. I don’t think being a player is all ok with God or anything like that, but it’s not really as easy for men to get married to a biblical wife without the risk of getting butthexed by divorce. your wife will soon get fat and bitchy and will turn your little men into bitches and your little princesses into cunts. you will constantly be lusting after the girls of the church with tight buttocks and firm shapely breasts. you will rage with envy at the younger studs and probably chase most of the ones who are good with the ladies off when they get hip to the deal. the rest are probably either emotional saps who are due to be broke off by the marriage trap eventually or are given prominent positions in the church community, so they have too much of an incentive to ditch their wife, who is probably fairly hot next to the rest of the poor bastards’ wives.

I used to get a church girlfriend every year to fuck. I was a known player in my church for years by the girls in the know, I guess you could say. one even tried to almost trick me into marrying her. that is when I stopped really trying to game girls from my church for a while anyway. but something happened one day that I would have never expected. the only girl (of age) I would not expect to make a move on me tried to get me to sleep with her after I only had spoke with her for like 30 seconds. see I used to get bored and go find girls to fuck in town. I was at the local target and I ran into her for some strange reason (God only knows). she told me her very soon to be husband was still out of town on a mission trip and that I could have her. I turned her down and she looked really disappointed. she has a panic attack around me now when she sees me and sent my parents gifts for a while after this happened because I kept it quiet (“secret society” rules and all that), as she came from a very rich family.

I really wanted to fuck her brains out, but you know what stopped me? other than maybe one other guy in the church, the man she is with is the only man in the entire church who is a real Christian the way asdf described a Christian. he was always kind to me in a very Jesus-like nonjudgmental way. and I really knew the girl didn’t know what she was getting into with me. the act for her was purely primal. she had nothing to gain buy it, but she just couldn’t help herself around me; so I took pity on her in a sense.
Her friend, btw, had committed suicide already over me when I turned her down; because I knew the girl was not discreet enough and would have blown my cover and she drugged herself to death. her boyfriend would come to me and tell me how much he missed her and how hard life was now without her. i never told him what was really up. there are two kinds of church girls that will blow a player’s cover. one is the really churchified virgin who would feel guilty afterward and tell on you, and the other is the girl who would brag about it and get you caught, or tell your girlfriend afterward and get her pissed.

so pretty much this guy was saved by the fact that he really was a true saint in every sense of the word. the only other guy who had his wife spared by me was a guy who gave me a job and was good to me, but that had nothing to do with his Christianity. the rest have ugly wives or wives who are not worth the trouble anyway. that doesn’t mean I couldn’t hit it or haven’t had the opportunity to. I had a fairly hot wife follow me out of a store at night and i know her husband worked at night. if I wasn’t on my way to fuck another girl; I would have had the presence of mind to fuck her brains out. she kept giving me strong IOIs. She too looked very disappointed. I know that look well.

But, in the end, sinners want to sin, rebels want to rebel, and conservatives want to stay in their traditions and conserve. The point is that a realistic balance in the churches and in society as a whole is what is best, not just conservatism for it’s own sake. This truly is more divine, difficult and delectable than any normative ideal or statuesque standard.

singlextianman September 18, 2012 at 3:50 am

Thoughtful questions, but you show your hand a bit. I’ll wait for you pay out a little rope to hang yourself with; but I do commend your looking at ‘game’ and parallel questions. Seriously, good on you for that. The more interesting question is close to, but something else, than your question as it is has been presented.

Pode September 17, 2012 at 4:17 pm

Following your porneia link down the linguistic rabbit hole, the word origin link and subsequent word origin links are interesting.
porneia: illicit sex, from…
porneuo: to prostitute oneself or give oneself over to illicit sex, from…
porne: a prostitute or slut (same word for both, so I guess the best translation would be the neologism slore), from…
pornos: a male prostitute, from…
pernemi, to sell, in the same sense as the base word…
piprasko: the price of slavery, with a sense of repeatedly selling oneself, derived from…
perao: to traverse or go across, related to…
peran: beyond, on the other side, from an old root…
peiro: to pierce.

As Monty Python says, there endeth the lesson. WTF does it mean? Is the problem the sex itself, selling sex, giving yourself over repeatedly to sex, going too far beyond in pursuit of sex, or is this maybe endorsement of the Greco-Roman attitude that didn’t care who or what a man fucked as long as he did the fucking? That long trail of word origins did pass thru male prostitute and end with “to pierce”.

I think the polygamy arguments run aground where the two become one flesh and homosexuality is forbidden to both men and women. So by having sex with each, the polygamist is making his wives sleep together (figuratively if not literally), which is forbidden. In my blue pill days I’d’ve argued that each spouse’s body belongs to the other and what woman would want her husband to sleep with another woman? Still wrestling with the realization that the answer is “Deep down where they can’t admit it, all of them”.
Plus, the cite above from 1 Corinthians is singular for both genders. If anyone needed all the loopholes about sexuality addressed, it was the Corinthians. Their temple prostitutes were so revered since ancient times and the city itself such a wild and loose frontier/port town after it was rebuilt that “to have a Corinthian” was current slang for a pump & dump when Paul wrote to them.

So if sex creates a marriage and polygamy is out, then all that’s left for the Christian would-be player is some potential wiggle room with exactly how much and what kind of sex is sufficient to create a marriage. Since one of the main functions of marriage is to produce and raise children, I lean towards the idea that anything which cannot possibly produce a kid isn’t creating a marriage and is thus fair game. Please proceed to point out flaws in this line of thinking, I’m well aware that head hamsters live in men like me too.

Elihu September 17, 2012 at 8:29 pm

Porneia is an etymological rabbit hole indeed.

I would be interested to see the original Greek for that passage, which I address in tomorrow’s post. Does ‘her own’ imply her OWN? Or is that a product a quirk of the translation?

Thank you for the context regarding Corinthians. I am looking forward to a) re-reading I and II with that in mind, and b) asking girls if they want to come back to my place and have a Corinthian.

Children are one function of marriage, but the bible also frequently refers to marriage as a safety valve to allow men to let off ‘steam’ and thus prevent greater sin.

I follow your one flesh argument, but I don’t buy it. The OT is all about polygamy. One would think it could include a disclaimer to the effect of, by the way, all this stuff about polygamy is actually only for sinners. Monogamy is the real shizz. Fo realz. (Lil Jon International translation, 2004)

I’m off to get my drank and porneia on now, but I hope you’ll weigh in tomorrow. This post was more of an intro.

Cheers,
Elihu

Pode September 18, 2012 at 2:40 pm

Unfortunately it also says let every man have his own wife (singular, at least as translated. Again the original Greek would be handy).

Use of biblical Greek slang is probably one of those cases Heartiste/Roissy would cite as proof that intelligence can be a Game handicap. Though if you don’t explain it, she’ll probably think a Corinthian is either a cool new cocktail or some really nice leather.

I’d like to pick up a copy of the LJI translation. Reach da peeps where dey at and all that. Underneath the snark, though, you hit on something serious. Derived from several different sayings of Jesus that we can get into if you want but are somewhat OT, Christianity teaches that Christ satisifed the OT Law, then accepted punishment under that Law in our place, freeing us from it if we choose to accept that gift and to serve Him. For a Christian, the NT is the operative law (“those who love Me follow My commands”), the OT is in a sense there for illustrative purposes. A Jewish PUA would be very interested indeed in the status of polygamy under OT/Torah law, but this is the Christian PUA thread and an NT based argument necessarily trumps an OT based one. I know Vox has defenders of Christian polygamy among his readers, I’ve just never made the time to slog through the terabytes of his archived comment threads to find and digest their arguments. Really hope one of them shows up here and will use small words for the slow folks like me. If that forum doesn’t make you feel dumb at some point you’re too dumb to realize what they’re saying.

Hope you enjoyed your drunk and porneia. In moderation, as alcohol is encouraged (give wine to those who are weary, and strong drink to him who is heavy of heart) (working from memory, don’t ask me chapter and verse or even trust the quote) but drunkenness is forbidden. Interesting parallel to the “too far, on the other side, sold myself into slavery to” sense of porneia and sex.

Off to the next post.

The Gentleman Poet September 17, 2012 at 11:55 pm

To get to the truest understandable sense of the word one would need a high level of fluency in Ancient Greek, however, as it is no longer an active spoken language the best one hopes for is a fluent readability. Given that, it would be better to seek out the specific passages in ancient authors to come to a sense of how the word was used. Paul, especially, was a well educated early Church Father and as such we can expect his use of Greek words to align more closely with there Attic meanings (he does quote Anacreon in the NT afterall).

Looking at related words is good and all, and often how scholars come at the meaning of unknown hepax logomonem [sic]. But for accuracy in an important particular such as porneia as it relates to sexual morality it is lacking. One would do better to look at the cultural context and try to place the authors of the respective letters in context. A better place to look for the meaning of NT morality would be the church Fathers. I would be interested in what Iraneaus had to say about it.

@Elihu- There were many dalliances, but the Greeks and Romans were one man, one woman societies as far as marriage was concerned. Being patriarchies as well the indiscretions were at the men discretion. In Rome especially the social clime reached a point very similar to our own. I believe it is in Juvenal, but don’t quote me here I would need to check the source, that in satire he claimed that Roman women kept track of the year by their husbands as opposed to the counsels. (The normal Roman calendar dated years by who was in office.)

Obstinance Works September 18, 2012 at 5:53 pm

Textual criticism is a very difficult task. Many scholars have argued over portions of scripture for centuries. John 7:53-8:11 for example, is argued over. Many think it is an interpolation, and is not part of the original text.

The Gentleman Poet September 17, 2012 at 2:22 pm

Very good. I have been considering this same subject the last few weeks. I think you might be a little hard on the NT; I don’t believe it is as restrictive as it seems out of context. When one considers that the Greeks and Romans were monogamous societies (excluding Greek pederasty, but by Roman times. . .), Paul is writing in a Roman and Greek context which colors the discussion. Paul writes about sexual morality in this context dealing with temple prostitutes (hence the whore-mongering above) and about homosexual practices and incest. There was never a need to comment on polygamy because the OT covered it extensively and it was largely nonexistent at that time and place.

What exists now as the standard Churchian morality looks much like puritan and Calvinistic morals not that of the old Church. Looking forward to the next round in this series.

Elihu September 17, 2012 at 8:20 pm

Were they monogamous? I was under the impression that both classical empires took a pretty lackadaisical view towards concubines. One ‘free’ wife perhaps, but flings with slave girls and indentured servants (So sweetie, you say you have 200k in student loans?)

And I think the NT is definitely more restrictive than the OT on sex and marriage. but one can also make the argument that the OT regulates but does not condone non-monogamous relationships, sort of how contemporary hippies argue for drug legalization on the basis of harm reduction.

Sounds fishy to me, but I’m sure you have a lot more expertise on the subject than I do. I’m still mostly ignorant on the subject of Christianity, which is why I write these posts: To inspire those who aren’t to try to correct me. Looking forward to your comments tomorrow.

Professor Ashur September 17, 2012 at 10:40 am

If one is to adhere to Christianity as I understood it, the New Testament is more restrictive in some ways that the Old Testament. This is for several reasons outside the scope of this discussion.

If one accepts the New Testament at face value, premarital sex is very challenging to justify.

The practical reality is that with delayed marriage and a sexualized culture, premarital sex is a foregone conclusion for most everyone, except for a few determined religious holdouts.

Note: If a girl can make it through college with a partner count below 3, she is probably as close to a virgin as can be expected.

Elihu September 17, 2012 at 11:29 am

Ashur, glad to see you here, and congrats on the half mil page views.

The NT is certainly much less forgiving of polygamy, divorce and pre-marital sex than the OT, but I don’t think the incompatibility of Christianity and the PUA lifestyle is as airtight as Christians believe.

I hope you’ll comment on tomorrow’s post, in which I make my case…

LittlePDog (Starting Young & Aiming High) September 17, 2012 at 8:23 am

No matter how hard I try, I struggle to see how or why a guy could remain a Christian and pursue this lifestyle. I’ve always seen organized religion as a mechanism to keep people civilized (ie. subservient and sexually conservative). The requirement for female virginity at marriage flew out the window well before the sexual revolution, at least as far back as before the Roaring Twenties even began, while men are still expected to stay beta. I agree wholeheartedly with fellow young blogger dicipres post: http://dicipres.wordpress.com/2012/08/28/an-interesting-paper-from-evolution-human-behavior/

Elihu September 17, 2012 at 9:30 am

Organized religion certainly has a civilizing effect on men. In a civilized era, that wouldn’t be such a bad thing. A truly Christian society would ask a lot from us – i.e. young, single, ambitious men – but it would also have a lot to offer us. In 21st century America, one side of the old social contract has been abrogated (society’s duty to men) while the other side is still fervently enforced (men’s duties to society). A man who tries to live by the rules of civilization in a barbaric age, will fail.

As men, we are 100% justified in our decision to say fuck it all and live by whatever rules we decide to set for ourselves. But that path leads to chaos and mud huts after a generation or two. It’s up to the best men of our generation to rebuild the social contract and construct a new traditional order. While we do though, no harm in having a little fun with the burning wreckage of the west…

KarmaKaiser September 17, 2012 at 10:53 am

I think this argument begs the question about the Social Contract. If I’m reading the implication here, the Social Contract is what determines mass morality and if the contract isn’t followed on the part of soceity then men have the right go their own way. Implict in this is a denial of the Objective Moral Law that Christians tend to hold to and thus any appeal to contract thinking is going to fail since you’re talking about different moral foundations. If you want to keep this Contract argument you need to back up and your target audience on board with it.

Elihu September 17, 2012 at 11:25 am

Good point. My reasoning in that comment is flawed, at least in the context of a discussion with Christians/objectivists.

Instead, I should have made the point that while morality is objective, it is still contextual. Morality in a functioning traditional society is different from morality in the society we presently inhabit. The breach of the social contract doesn’t give Christians permission to act like non-Christians, but it changes what is expected of a decent Christian man.

Andrew Summitt September 17, 2012 at 11:53 am

I’m trying to think of a good precendent for this and coming up dry. It was the case in the Early Church that laspes were forgivable during extraordinary circumstances and thus Bishops that denied Christ after a persecution could de penance and become Bishops again, there was also the fact that Knights behaved unChristianly during the Early Middle Ages and their knowledge of this is what lead them to found monastaries to pray for their souls since they had to do many aweful things.

In neither case does sin become not sin but simply more forgivable sin than ordinary circumstances like Peace time. In fact what is held up as examples in all times are saints which stood firm in their morality.

I think it’s possible to argue that certain sins may not be quite as grevious but not that sins are no longer sins. I’ll keep my mind open though and wait for your next post.

Elihu: I agree with your last paragraph. The Christian ideal is most definitely marriage (actually, celibacy. But at least marriage isn’t considered sinful. Pre-marital sex is not an ideal, but these are strange times. The vast majority of western men will not be able to ever find non-adulterous wives. Will all those who fail to uphold celibacy burn? Tune in tomorrow…)

asdf September 17, 2012 at 2:03 pm

“Instead, I should have made the point that while morality is objective, it is still contextual.”

Sure. But that means not taking the Bible literally. Because it literally says, “don’t have sex outside of marraige.” If your posistion is that there is some context in which that is wrong, then the Bible is wrong, because it acknowledges no context in which it is wrong.

asdf September 17, 2012 at 9:34 pm

Elihu,

I’m sympathetic to your view, but only because I’m not a Bible literalist. If I were your protest would be laughable. People in communist societies went to the gulag and faced death for the crime of worship. Early Christians were fed to the lions. And yet we are to believe your issues with the womenfolk are such a burden one is to casually cast aside chastity because its just so damn hard.

You could become monogamous tomorrow if you want. You could even get a fairly young possibly virgin or near virgin girl. However, you would have to make sacrifices and settle in certain ways. You simply don’t want to. Not because you’ve done some soul searching and decided God wants you to hookup freely, but because you want to and you want some weasel excuse.

As I said, faith is not about what religion can do for you. It’s what you can do for religion. If your relationship with Jesus is one of, “I do this, you give me that,” you are on the way to hell no matter what you do. This is basic Christian theology. Your posts all seem to be about what the church has to offer you.

asdf September 17, 2012 at 3:19 pm

You seem to have a really bad understanding of Christianity.

Christianity is very much “ask not what your religion can do for you, but what you can do for your religion.” Christianity promises nothing on this earth. It promises only salvation in death. If you are a Christian because you believe it will get you something then you’re missing the point and probably damned.

asdf September 17, 2012 at 7:38 am

Worst…Post…Ever

Instead of trying to stick something in the Bible you know ain’t there you might as well just do what most people do, have faith and go to church but don’t take the Bible literally. Whether that makes you a Christian or not isn’t a huge issue. The question if whether you think what you are doing is God’s will.

So are you fornicating because its God’s will, or are you just looking for an excuse to fornicate. My guess is the latter, and if so it doesn’t much matter what the Bible says because you aren’t religous at all.

Elihu September 17, 2012 at 8:52 am

So it’s better to go to church and not take the bible literally, then to actually try to understand what God commands of us, and do it? It’s fine to ignore the bible, provided one feels some nice happy warmth in their belly when their pastor says nice things?

That’s an interesting religion you’ve got there. I wonder, what do you call it?

asdf September 17, 2012 at 1:58 pm

Elihu,

Dude, the Bible is stone cold clear on whether you can have sex outside of marraige. The answer is no. Your little exercise is pretty pathetic. If you want to be a Bible literalist, then you have to accept what it gives you. Not try to weasel out of it with really bad logic.

Elihu September 17, 2012 at 8:08 pm

Stone cold? Not so sure about that hombre. Check in tomorrow.

Simon September 17, 2012 at 6:47 am

Interesting.

As an ex-atheist, ex-leftist, traditionalist Christian, the hardest thing for me to let go was the fruits of the sexual revolution. The lure is extremely strong, but I couldn’t put up with the dissonance.

Bruce Charlton has recently blogged about this:

http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com.au/2012/09/four-barriers-to-being-reactionary.html

Elihu September 17, 2012 at 8:47 am

Big BGC fan right here. I thought he had stopped blogging though, until I saw Foseti’s links recently.

I agree that it is necessary for a reactionary to believe in traditional sexual morality for the in-group. But a reactionary (not necessarily a Christian) can bang out-group women at will. Reaction is concerned with the preservation of societal order, and traditionalism in the sexual marketplace is a necessary precondition for that. But, a reactionary is free to work to preserve tradition and decency within his own society, while cackling gleefully at the flames outside of his city gates.

And a reactionary who finds himself born into a thoroughly degraded society, has no in-group. He must lay the foundations for the creation of one. But while he does that, why not have some fun with the decaying wreckage around him?

At least, thus I rationalize it.

{ 5 trackbacks }

Previous post:

Next post: