Created Dec. 10, 1999 - Updated Jan. 23, 2009 ( Sticks and Stones . . . )

Sexual Taboos in the Bible

Before I go any further, BE WARNED! This article contains honest frank discussions about sex and sexuality in the Bible that can be very graphic. The Bible does not pull punches or beat around the bush. So you might want to avoid this article if you do not like graphic honest discussion of sexual behavior. My purpose in bringing up this subject is to relieve people of undue guilt and coming to grips about what is realistic and reasonable to expect of Christians.


Sexual Taboos
Is It Adultery?
Sorry, No Wife Swapping!
Harmful Sex Practices?

Don't Ask, Don't Tell
Some Final Cautions
Keeping It Under Control
Sticks and Stones . . .

Related Articles

Sexual Taboos
Back to Top

Now when you read about the things I will talk about from here on in, keep in mind what I just said. Keep others in mind more than yourself. As to sexual taboos, yeah, there are plenty of them in some people's minds. But are they based on the Bible? Masturbation is a relevant topic belonging in this discussion and can be found in another article. Just click here for that: Masturbation, Is It Wrong? I am going to proceed with the assumption that it is permissible. You had better read it if you disagree with my conclusion.

Now what might come up is what is permissible among married couples. Are there some sexual practices that are wrong? This can be a source of conflict in a marriage and a source of guilt, too. So I am going to explore this question. I would check out that masturbation article as it does touch on this. And I am going to pick up where that left off. There are many sexual practices not ever mentioned in the scriptures.

This is significant because there are a number of sexual deviations forbidden in the Bible. So if those not mentioned by God are important to avoid, why did He neglect mentioning them and forbidding them? Good question, isn't it? I would have to assume that if they are not mentioned that God evidently does not care about whether they are practiced in a marriage or not. Silence says a lot here. So first, what did God forbid? Let's go to the Mosaic law in Leviticus 20:10.

A man could not have sex with the following:

•Another man's wife
•His father's wife
•His daughter-in-law (son's wife)
•Another man
•He can't marry a woman and her mother even though he could marry more than one woman
•An animal
•A sister
•A woman during her menstrual period
•An aunt
•An uncle's wife
•A brother's wife

Just 2 chapters earlier in Leviticus 18, are the same crimes described in a different fashion. They would both be worth reading to get a good feel for why they are objectionable. Any man having sex in one of those listed circumstances was to be put to death along with the other party. This would apply to women, too, with the roles reversed. Now I want to draw particular attention to men having other men. Now since both men have the same sort of genitals, it is not possible for them to have sex with each other as they could with a woman. Yet the Bible describes it as engaging (lies with a man as he does with a woman) with a man the same as you would with a woman. Then it is clear that the Bible must be referring to engaging in some sort of sexual stimulation without the benefit of a vagina. That only leaves 2 or 3 other options that men and women might engage in. Use of the hands, oral sex, or anal sex.

This is fairly significant in my mind. All 3 alternatives I mentioned are all commonly practiced by homosexuals. The Bible refers to these behaviors that one might engage in with a woman as being unfit to do with another man. And evidently not unfit to do with a woman. None of these alternatives are otherwise even alluded to in the Bible. Well, oral sex and hand stimulation seem pretty harmless to me although I will cover them. What could scare the daylights out of some people is the idea that one might engage in anal sex with a woman.

Could God really have been ignorant of this practice or that it could be done? Not if He is an intelligent God with any foresight at all! Not possible! Besides, all the crimes He brought up in Leviticus 18 and 20 were things that the nations around Israel were doing and were forbidden. Surely anal sex was also known and at least of some occasions, practiced by some in those other nations. The anus is located less than 2 inches from the vagina and is a similar sort of hole and cavity. It would be impossible for it not to at least occur to a man. Most likely God would have foreseen its eventual practice even if it did not exist at the time, which is very doubtful. If He foresaw it, why didn't He mention it or forbid it? The silence is difficult to explain as other than permission or it is of no concern to God. But let's explore it just a little further.

Some figure because the Bible condemns sodomy, which in an English word and definition that includes anal sex with both men and women as well as oral sex. But that is not the meaning of the Hebrew word which we translate as sodomy. So we are committing a translation error. The Hebrew word is "qadesh" which signifies a male temple prostitute and nothing more. It has nothing to do with oral sex or females. Use of female temple prostitutes is addressed by the Hebrew word "qedeshah." Only Webster's dictionary gives us a broad meaning that we assume today. It wasn't in Hebrew. If you look at a number of English translations you will see the variety in use when it comes to the 6 places where this Hebrew word qadesh appears. Just use Strong's Concordance or Young's Concordance to find such things. For your benefit, I will list them here:

Deuteronomy 23:17, 1 Kings 14:24, 15:12, 22:46, 2 Kings 23:7, Job 36:14. That should do it. This does not mean that anal sex with a female (female sodomy if you will) is OK. It just means that these verses do not address it as some falsely conclude.

Now let's consider the hands, first. Is it wrong to use our hands in sexual play or affection with our partners? Wrong to caress our partner's skin? Is there some patch of skin that is forbidden? Very doubtful, in my mind! So if a hand might caress a patch of skin on say, . . . the penis . . . would that be wrong? Only if you believe that birth control is wrong. Because if one caused an ejaculation by hand then the semen will be wasted in someplace other than a vaginal cavity. Well, unless you gathered it all up and injected it into the vagina by some mechanical means (like a hypodermic minus the needle). This would allow pregnancy. I am only facetiously suggesting this to show how ridiculous the whole idea is.

If a man can in some way experience sex with another man as he can with a woman, it must at least allow for hand sex. So birth control can't possibly be forbidden since sexual gratification can be obtained by more than one means, some of which do not allow for pregnancy to occur. And you can click here to read a discussion on Birth Control. Now what of the mouth?

One can kiss without objection I hope. Is it wrong to use the tongue in kissing such as "French" kissing as it is sometimes called? I can't find a problem with it. The tongue can be used as a finger or hand could be to tickle or caress. Any problems there? The tongue can be used to taste, to move food around in the mouth. It can be used to lick a stamp so it is versatile. Look how dogs use them. Can we forbid it in affectionately stimulating the skin? I can't see why we would. So why not go that last step. Can couples use it to stimulate each other's genitals? Show me why not! I think it is a very affectionate expression as well as enjoyable and exciting. There are no real hygiene problems, either, between a married couple. Some might find performing it to be repulsive but not threatening to hygiene, excluding that time of the month, of course. And this oral stuff would be forbidden for 2 men to engage in but not a man and his wife.

This next one needs to be discussed. Now the last and most controversial, anal penetration, in particular, of the woman by the man's penis. There are other means of penetration by either partner with a finger, a tongue, or an object. And some of those options may sound repelling by some or many. But some have found that with a little lubrication and a finger, there can be pleasant sensations around the anal area. That is because there are more sensory nerve endings there than in most places on the body. Only the head of the penis or the clitoris have more. Some have discovered those many nerve endings and their pleasure. Is it wrong to explore or enjoy it with something other than the penis? The Bible doesn't say.

But if one could allow for a finger then it is just one small step to the last idea - that of stimulation by the penis. But the penis is the most obvious one that often does take place between 2 men in a way that is more typical of vaginal intercourse. Or a man and a woman as a substitute for strictly genital activity.

Now the Bible forbids a man to have sex with a woman during her period. In fact, the penalty for such an act was death for both. Ouch! Pretty serious punishment for such a crime, isn't it? Now given what could be seen as a similar problem of a penis in an anal cavity as a penis is in a vaginal cavity during the menstrual cycle, both being of questionable hygiene; do we treat them the same?

What sticks out to me is that you would have thought that if hygiene was and is the problem, both would have been condemned. But the law was silent on anal sex between a couple. That can't help but seem odd. Making adultery wrong would have included your father's, uncle's, brother's, or son's wife so why go to the effort of specifically adding them to the list when adultery should have covered all forms of adultery. Why not also mention anal sex since menstrual sex was forbidden? God was real detailed in the various adulteries. Consistency would almost demand a similar thing for anal sex, I would think.

One might argue: it is so obvious! You don't go poking around in a place like that. God didn't need to say anything. Then why did He mention the menstrual intercourse, since it should be kind of obvious, right? Or is it? Was it primarily for hygiene reasons or was there another reason? I say it was more for other reasons but you can read it for yourself and decide (Leviticus 20, after verse 10). And since anal intercourse could be an obvious way, the most likely way, that a man could relate to a man more like he relates to a woman, it would be forbidden. Does this mean it is OK to relate to a woman like this? Nothing is really certain.

What I believe we can conclude from this is that whether someone engages in anal intercourse with their wife should be the business of no one except that couple. It is between them and God. My personal opinion is that with condoms or other proper hygiene it is at least possible that it is permitted. I think it is safe to say that we all may have some unusual cravings or twists that excite us sexually and I don't think there are many of them that are not allowable to 2 consenting adults in a marriage. Though these might not be the desires of healthy perfect people, they are common to sinful humans, though not necessarily sinful. And though these sexual behaviors are a little extreme, they do not necessarily present any harm or danger to anyone.

For instance, some men are particularly excited by receiving oral sex. As long as the woman has no problem with it, where is the harm? I have read that women are exceptionally fond of receiving oral sex. If the husband does not object, where is the harm? And while anal sex may seem to be something more desired by men than women, that is often not the case. I have known men who were completely turned off by requests from their female partners for anal sex. Regardless of who wants it, if it is acceptable to both people then no one should have anything to say. God may have decided to tolerate such behaviors knowing our fallen condition received from Adam. When we are made new again, then many of those desires and behaviors may disappear.

But I think it is completely unreasonable to suggest that such behavior is forbidden or condemned by God when there is no scripture to indicate any disapproval. I should point out that it is very important that if one partner is uncomfortable with a certain activity, that the other respect that. I would also say that I would hope that most mates could and would try to accommodate their partners as much as possible. Some may be burdened with feelings of guilt about certain activities. Hopefully they will listen to reason and can overcome hang-ups about some things. But some things may never be acceptable.

The Christian conscience should always receive the highest of respect. No one should be asked to violate their conscience, ever! But we should all be willing to carefully re-examine our beliefs and understanding so that we don't make our mates feel overly confined and restricted in the bedroom. We all would like to be accepted for who we are. Rejection, whether in the bedroom or wherever, can make a mate feel alienated or misunderstood and not fully accepted. This can slowly erode a relationship and make one vulnerable to someone else who may be more accepting of a person's quirks.

One can look at sexual variety as perversion or it could just as easily seen as being playful and loving. Why choose to look at something in a bad light when God, Himself, has not brought any of it under a bad light (or any light). Let me caution that there are things completely wrong and considered wrong in the Bible. I am not referring to those here.

(Bible in Basic English) Titus 1: 15 "To the clean in heart all things are clean: but to those who are unclean and without faith nothing is clean; they become unclean in mind and in thought."

Only your thinking can make something bad. One must obey one's conscience. If one perceives something to be bad, then it is bad. But it does not have to be that way. As we come to better understand things, we can be freed from an overly oppressive conscience that may unnecessarily restrict us. In the end, only you can decide if it is right or wrong.

Now what about role-playing? What about mock rapes, ropes, bondage, handcuffs, sadomasochism, dressing up, sex in risky places, or whatever else you can think of. Some of these behaviors may not be seen as healthy desires or good states of mind. Maybe some of them are a little twisted. Is there someone out there who isn't twisted in some way or another. And I don't mean in a sexual way necessarily. But for some, that twist may be reflected in their sexual behavior. As long as the twist is not harmful to either party and both are willing, where is the harm?

Let us suppose that someone is into a little S&M. Nothing real serious, just a little bit of bondage, some mock punishment or implied threats of harm but no actual damage. And both are consenting to the act. Is someone really being harmed? Not that I can see! Is the behavior a little odd? In my mind it is but whether it is odd or twisted is not the point. What harm is being done? The couple remaining in a happy relationship and having harmless fun is all that really matters.

Is It Adultery?
Back to Top

I want to point out that in regards to what constitutes adultery, what we have discussed could affect that decision. If a man is forbidden to relate to another man as he would with a woman, it would seem possible to me that it would also be wrong to engage with other women in some sort of sex play as one would with one's wife. Any sort of play with other women's genitals or they with the man's genitals would seem to me to possibly constitute adultery. It would certainly be loose conduct. But I say possibly and not certainly. I will explain.

Exodus 22:16 "If a man seduces a virgin who is not betrothed, and lies with her, he shall give the marriage present for her, and make her his wife."

A man was obligated to marry a woman that he seduced into sex or at least pay the dowry price of marriage to her father if her father did not allow the marriage. In Deuteronomy 22:13-29, we see that the signs of a woman's virginity (an unbroken hymen commonly referred to as a cherry by some) were to accompany a dowry. No virgin, then no dowry. My real point here is that there had to be a penetration of the woman in order for a dowry to be required or a marriage to be obligated. You would not be obligated to marry or pay a dowry, I suspect, if all you did was tickle her clitoris with your finger or tongue while leaving her hymen in tact. Of course, if you managed to get her pregnant without penetration, which could be possible only by introducing the semen by finger or something, (very unlikely) then that would also constitute a violation of her that would obligate money and marriage if allowed by the father.

So loose conduct such as genital play with fingers or tongue would not obligate marriage or a dowry as far as I can tell. Therefore, I would question as to whether it may constitute adultery. But it certainly would justify plenty of jealousy, anger, and insecurity. It would be very loose and unreasonable conduct for sure. It would be easy to understand why a wife or husband might get upset over such loose conduct with someone outside the marriage. But I would be slow to say for sure that it constituted adultery. I guess I would have to leave that to the husband or wife who was betrayed by such conduct. Off hand, really, such conduct indicates a certain lack of fidelity. It undermines a marriage. It violates trust. It seems to signify unfaithfulness by not rigorously maintaining a strict faithfulness and fidelity. It could well be adultery. Again, I think we will have to leave this one up to individuals. But I would be slow and careful, no matter what the decision. I do not think anyone playing around should expect that loose conduct should be tolerated. If it is, they are luck. If it is not, they should not be surprised. But on the other hand, I seriously doubt a mere kiss could be allowed as adultery. I might expect the innocent mate to be upset and concerned but to some degree, we have to be "big" and mature about things and put it in perspective.

For example, if someone tells us a white lie, do we shun them? No, that would be extreme. If they call us a name, do we shun them. No, it is extreme. If they steal a dollar from us, do we shun them and never forgive? No, its too extreme. Patience, long-suffering, reasonableness and other types of level headed thinking and behavior hold us back normally. It should be that we behave that way with marriage and our mates as well. But people can get real irrational when it comes to marriage. And God understands this and if true adultery is committed, a wronged mate can legitimately divorce if they so choose. But on the other hand, divorce is serious, especially when kids are involved and God does not excuse any little reason for divorce. One needs to employ every ounce of strength and self control to hold back initial impulses and carefully weigh and evaluate things. Clearly, talking with others about it might help to come to a rational conclusion. I have no hard fast rules but care should always be evident in something as serious as divorce.

But in the writings of Paul there are references to unclean conduct or loose conduct, or something similar in reference to sex practices. These are translated from the Greek word "pornia." It includes things that pertain to various sorts of sexual stimulation of some sort. Certainly oral sex would come under this category. It is pushing things quite far beyond normal boundaries, I think by any measure. But really, kissing could be done with the purpose of sexual stimulation. It would then likely come under this category, and yet here, I could not so easily justify a divorce. Caressing could (but not necessarily) also come under this category.

These sorts of unclean or loose forms of conduct would not be legitimate or sanctioned behavior for single people or for married people with someone other than their mates. But they are perfectly acceptable for married people.

But though forbidden outside of the marital relationship, performing unclean things or loose conduct may not necessarily constitute adultery or rape. A variety of things might be carefully considered.

Maybe a man tickled a woman's clitoris with his finger. But his clothes were on, and her's were, too, only undone a little. It is certainly not good by any means, but maybe divorce might be extreme, especially if his behavior had been reasonable prior to this. Nor in the Bible could one convict a man of rape for forcedly fondling a woman's breasts. And I don't know that fondling another woman's breasts would constitute adultery and a allow a right to divorce. It doesn't mean these things are permissible or good but they are not what constitutes major actions of justice. Perhaps a few lashes prescribed by the older men of the community. I am speaking of the Bible's standards and definitions here. The law of the USA may have different definitions. But reasonableness must be evident and present in all actions of all Christians, both those harming to some degree and those harmed by the slight. It is not as simple and easy, as black and white as we might want it to be. There are all sorts of shades of grey and we must seek out the best possible solution to any problem we encounter.

Neither do I suggest that married people will be delighted with finding out their mates have been rather loose with someone else or that a father will be amused with a young man exploring the father's daughter. Such acts will hurt and hurting someone you claim to love or care about is a serious sin even if it does not constitute more serious punishment. You will still hurt your relationship with your mate or potential father in law or whatever. It does not portend good for a marriage. If it happened (was caught) on more than one occasion, one might be inclined to further question their marriage and its future.

But also look at the other side of the coin. It is difficult to live a flawless life. We are all prone to temptations and weaknesses of various sorts. And while we all might think ourselves perfect and righteous, few if any of us ever are. It is a challenge at all times to behave. We live a a world full of temptations all around us and who knows what a person might have experienced as a child. It is easy to look down on people and condemn, but it is not always righteous. Consider Joseph, the step-father of Jesus. His reaction when he came to believe Mary had cheated on him was to decide to divorce her in secret so as not to cause the young women, probably close to 14, any serious harm. Joseph still felt tenderness toward her, despite the apparent treacherous betrayal. Now that is the right spirit and notice the Bible called him righteous for this and God sent angels to inform Joseph of what really happened to relieve the situation.

An act of betrayal and even treachery or deceit can be a tough pill to swallow but real solid Christians will never abandon good solid calm rational reasonable examination of an issue before taking action. They will be slow to anger and slow to act and quick to hear. He or she who takes their time, shows care, and prays to God will surely get the best obtainable result in the end. Forgiveness is not mandatory and neither is judgement and divorce. Elders must be conducted by law but marital partners may elect otherwise. They can try to work things out if they want and the Elders can have nothing to say at that point. If the violated mate wants divorce and it is full blown adultery, then the cheating mate must be judged by the Elders. They do not have any choice.

A marriage should be carefully guarded and protected. Being so intimate with someone other than your mate, to the point of playing with or stimulating their genitals is not a way to protect and guard your marriage. It is hard to imagine that your partner would not be hurt or feel threatened by you engaging in such activity with another person. Take no chances when it comes to your marriage. Even intimate play such as long wet kisses or whatever, even without genital stimulation, could be very questionable. Such behavior should be restricted to one's marital partner.

It may not constitute adultery but don't be surprised if you partner doesn't show you much trust or love after such playing around. And it is possible that your partner will consider it adultery even if everyone else doesn't. You could destroy your marriage. And it may be that God will judge you adversely for such looseness. Don't take chances with God or your mate. Show appreciation for your marriage and guard it well.

Sorry, No Wife Swapping!
Back to Top

Just for fun, I want to explore the wife swapping issue. This is not an uncommon thing to happen to a few congregations or churches. I have heard of more than one instance of such a thing. Why does it happen? Well, first, since Christians may have lots of love for each other and not feel much jealousy around each other if they have applied the law of love to a good measure, then they might conclude that sharing is good. So why not share each other, right? No one is cheating since we are all honest, open and up front about it and want to share and do it with each other's permission and blessing. Why be selfish?

That may not be the over-riding concern. What is important is God's view. I am going to set this up for you a little. Some of the Bible accounts I am going to next relate might not readily strike a cord with some unless you are very well read in the Bible, which many wife swappers are not. Yes, I have debated them before. 1st I will be considering the letters of Peter and Jude. Some or even most of what Jude writes is almost identical to what Peter writes in his 2nd letter. Clearly Jude is referring to it when he refers to the Apostles having condemned the things of which he writes.

They both, as well as the book of Revelation, all speak of Balaam who got 23,000 Young Israelite men killed by having Moabite women go out to have sex with the men who were wandering with their people, Israel, in tents and not yet settled in Israel after the exodus. They were wandering in the desert for 40 years. It was a big sex crime which Balaam led them into. Peter, Jude, and John (who wrote Revelation by inspiration from God) recall it to us.

Peter and Jude also refer to the angles of Genesis 6 who came down to earth to mate with the women of mankind, having an unnatural and unbridled lust for them. The target of both is quite obviously lust that is out of control. Lust, not as in initial attraction, but in not wanting or not being willing to control and limit sexual desires according to God's laws and statutes.

What readers today need to understand was that there was a sect, more than one, actually, that promoted free sex among married couples. Some even believed that it could be with anyone as long as it was within the congregation among the people of God. Peter makes it clear that their motivation was lust and there were usually other bad traits or fruitage of the flesh that accompanied these wicked ones.

And yes, Jesus and the spirit, through Peter, Jude, and John, said these people were of bad hearts and spirits. Some might say this is unfair since they do not mean bad by having sex with someone. This might be so but they can not possibly be considering the scriptures properly to believe this way. In fact, they usually know little of the scriptures or they could not possibly argue as they do. And since they have rejected the Bible and any who use it to correct them, then yes, they are indeed wicked and stand condemned and await punishment and judgement as the Bible writers make clear.

Anyway, the most prominent and perhaps the 1st sect to promote free sex among Christians were the Nicolaitans mentioned in Revelation 2:15 by Jesus. Early 2nd century writers wrote of the many varying sects of liars who promoted various lies and myths/fables, etc. Irenaeus was one of the more well known writers of this period to mention the various heresies. These writers tell us that the Nicolaitans were started by Nicolas, who was said to be one of the 7 appointed in Acts to distribute the food among the widows of both Hebrew and Greek origin, of which Stephen and Phillip were also appointed.

Nicolas was said to originally be very jealous of his own wife who was said to be quite attractive. But he was eventually seduced into unbridled lust since it was understood by him that those who would be in heaven would no longer enjoy the pleasures of the flesh in that realm, the heavenly one with God. He was correct in that respect. But since such pleasure was not to be in the spirit world of God, Nicolas decided that he and those with him better enjoy it while they could now. And of course, he managed to find a nice way to present his course of action so that others would follow.

But nice or not, his reasoning was not based on the word of God and was condemned by God. There was much that he and many today do not seem to understand about sex and why it can not be engaged in with just anyone, anywhere, any time, but only reserved for one person. Remember that Paul said a man of God wanting to be an overseer/elder/bishop or a deacon/ministerial servant must be a husband of only one wife -1 Timothy 3:2,12; Titus 1:6.

But when one understands the various sects that were started and promoted by the wicked among the flock of God, then one can better recognize what Peter, Paul, Jude, and John were writing against.

The Bible Says . . .

1 Peter

[{Many were once ignorant of God's laws and so they might have engaged in unbridled sexual pleasure. But we have been enlightened by God so we need to leave such lusts behind. Lust here basically refers to actions, not impulses. These impulses or lusts continually war against the soul and we all have them. But we do not let them lead to actions!!! Just as Christ suffered in the flesh for us, we also want to be prepared to suffer in the flesh and indeed, resisting the flesh will be painful and agonizing for we all have those cravings for the flesh. We will gladly put up with suffering just as Jesus did.}]

1:14 as children of obedience, not fashioning yourselves to your former lusts in your ignorance, 15 but according to the Holy One who has called you, you also become holy in all conduct; 16 because it has been written, "Be holy," "because I am holy." [Lev. 19:2]

2:11 Beloved, I exhort you as temporary residents and pilgrims to abstain from fleshly lusts which war against the soul;

4:1 Therefore, Christ having suffered for us in the flesh, also you arm yourselves with the same thought, that he suffering in the flesh has been made to rest from sin, 2 for him no longer to live in the lusts of men, but to live the remaining time in the flesh in the will of God. 3 For the time of life having passed is sufficient for us to have worked out the will of the nations, having gone on in wantonness, lusts, drunkenness, parties, carousings, and unlawful idolatries; 4 in which they are surprised, you not running with them into the same overflow of unsavedness, blaspheming; 5 who will give account to Him having readiness to judge the living and dead.

2 Peter

[{And lust is the topic of the day here as well. Adultery is when you have sex with anyone other than your wife, whether with the other mate's permission or not. It does not matter if the other mate is not jealous and is glad to share his wife or her husband. It is God who forbids having other people's mates even though you might be unselfishly sharing your own in return. Peter's words here are quite harsh against these promoting free sex as we more commonly call it today. It was lust and adultery back then. But it is never free, believe me. It comes with a great price, but those who promote it want to make it sound nice so they say FREE. But their freedom means judgment and death in the end.}]

2: 9 But the Lord knows to deliver the godly out of temptation, and to keep the unjust for a day of judgment, being punished, 10 and most of all those going after flesh in the lust of defilement, and despising rulership, darers, self-pleasing; they do not tremble at glories, speaking evil; 11 where angels being greater in strength and power do not bring against them a reproaching charge before the Lord.

12 But these as unreasoning natural beasts, having been born for capture and corruption, speaking evil in that of which they are ignorant, they shall utterly perish in their corruption, 13 being about to receive the wages of unrighteousness, having deemed indulgence in the day to be pleasure; spots and blemishes reveling in their deceits, feasting along with you, 14 having eyes full of an adulteress, and never ceasing from sin; alluring unsettled souls; having a heart busied with covetousness; cursed children; 15 forsaking a straight path, they went astray, following the way of Balaam the son of Beor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness, 16 but had reproof of his own transgression, the dumb ass speaking in a man's voice held back the madness of the prophet.

17 These are springs without water, clouds being driven by tempest, for whom the blackness of darkness is kept forever. 18 For speaking great swelling words of vanity, by the lusts of the flesh, by unbridled lusts, they allure those indeed escaping the ones living in error, 19 promising them freedom, though themselves being slaves of corruption; for by whom anyone has been overcome, even to this one he has been enslaved.

20 For if by a full knowledge of the Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, they have escaped the defilements of the world, and again being entangled they have been overcome by these, then their last things have become worse than the first. 21 For it was better for them not to have fully known the way of righteousness, than fully knowing to turn from the holy commandment delivered to them. 22 But the word of the true proverb has happened to them: "The dog turning to his own vomit;" also, the washed sow to wallowing in mud. [Prov. 26:11]


[{You'll think your reading Peter again and why not. It sounds as good the 2nd time as it did the first.}]

3 Having made all haste to write to you about the common salvation, beloved, I had need to write to you to exhort you to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints. 4 For certain men crept in secretly, those having been of old marked out to this condemnation, ungodly ones perverting the grace of God for unbridled lust, and denying the only Master, God, even our Lord Jesus Christ.

10 But what things they do not know, they speak evil of these. And what things they understand naturally, like the animals without reason, they are corrupted by these. 11 Woe to them, because they went the way of Cain, and gave themselves up to the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the speaking against of Korah!

12 These are sunken rocks in your love feasts, feasting together with you, feeding themselves without fear, waterless clouds being carried about by winds, fruitless autumn trees, having died twice, having been plucked up by the roots; 13 wild waves of the sea foaming up their shames, wandering stars for whom blackness of darkness has been kept forever.

16 These are murmurers, complainers, having gone according to their lusts, and their mouth speaks proud things, admiring faces for the sake of gain. 17 But you, beloved, remember the words spoken before by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ, 18 because they told you that at the last time there will be mockers following ungodlinesses according to their lusts. 19 These are the ones setting themselves apart, animal-like ones, not having the Spirit.


2:14 But I have a few things against you, that you have there those holding the teachings of Balaam, who taught Balak to throw a stumbling-block before the sons of Israel, to eat idol sacrifices, and to commit fornication. 15 So you also have those holding the teaching of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate. 16 Repent! But if not, I will come to you quickly, and I will make war with them by the sword of My mouth.

[{Jesus addresses the church in Pergamum above and then the church in Thyatira below. Having referred to Balaam and the Nicolaitans by name, we do not need to wonder what it is Jesus hates. And if that were not enough, Jesus points out the same objection with "Jezebel" below. One can only have sex with one wife or husband that belongs to them legally through marriage.}]

2:20 But I have a few things against you, that you allow the woman Jezebel to teach, she saying herself to be a prophetess, and to cause My slaves to go astray, and to commit fornication, and to eat idol sacrifices. 21 And I gave time to her that she might repent of her fornication. And she did not repent. 22 Behold, I am throwing her into a bed, and into great affliction those committing adultery with her, unless they repent of their works.

23 And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches will know that I am the One searching the inner parts and hearts. And I will give to each of you according to your works. 24 But I say to you and to the rest in Thyatira, as many as do not have this teaching, and who did not know the deep things of Satan, as they say: I am not casting another burden on you; 25 but what you have, hold until I shall come.

So if you want to have sex and really enjoy it, just get married. That is the only way you can have it and remain in harmony with God's laws and His approval. Now let us just think about this subject without the scriptures for just a few moments.

If a husband shares his wife with another man and in return has the other man's wife, doesn't the husband sort of become a pimp? Doesn't he get paid or rewarded for allowing other men to have his wife? Of course he does! He gets to sleep with their wives. It could easily be seen as prostitution. Instead of money being exchanged, it is trade and barter in services. Is jealousy the only reason why God does not permit adultery? If that was so, then you might have a case for permitting wife swapping. But I don't think that is the only reason.

The potential for a woman getting pregnant might not seem like a barrier to some for one might reason that it doesn't matter if someone gets her pregnant since she has a husband who is perfectly willing to raise the child, regardless of who might have caused the pregnancy.

There is a scripture that forbids the mixing of hairs in a garment.

(GLT) Deuteronomy 22:11 "You shall not wear a garment of different kinds, of wool and linen together."

If I were to assume that the precedent here is that there could be a danger of selling a garment as either being wool or linen when it is actually a mixture. And how much of a mixture? 50/50, 60/40 or what? God might want a clear distinction in such things. If so, shouldn't children be clearly distinguished as to who their father is genetically? This is especially important in our day when treating someone medically or even making sense of their behavior if genetics bears some influence on it.

But I see a more important problem here. What about the family that already exists? Can we be sure that in wife swapping, someone doesn't get more attached to another wife and end up leaving his own family for her and she leaves hers for him? This is a real danger and has happened among swinging couples before. Experiencing the intimacies of sex with someone is very powerful and can never be underestimated as to the unexpected and unanticipated effects it might have. Marriages and families should never be exposed to such potential dangers.

I once thought that Leviticus 18:20 forbid one from impregnating another man's wife, thereby condemning sperm banks or artificial insemination from someone other than your partner. But on further review with the other scriptures around it, I think it was just another way of forbidding adultery. It doesn't address the willful sharing of one's wife. Nor does it address having someone else impregnate your wife if you can't. Nothing that I have come across, anyway! But I do have an account in the law that absolutely forbids sharing wives. Look and see!

Deuteronomy 24:
1 When a man has taken a wife and married her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found a thing of uncleanness in her, and he writes her a bill of divorce and puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house;
2 and if she leaves his house and goes and becomes another man's wife,
3 and the latter husband hates her, and writes her a bill of divorce, and puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house or if the latter husband who took her to be his wife dies;
4 her former husband who sent her away is not to take her again to be his wife, after she is defiled. For it is a hateful thing before Jehovah, and you shall not cause the land to sin which Jehovah your God is giving to you as an inheritance.

I see 2 things here. First, you get rid of a wife because you say you hate her, oh, perhaps because for something she did that was unclean, though maybe not what we would call sex or adultery. Something supposedly makes him mad, anyway. So then another guy takes her and then divorces her and the 1st guy decided he wants her back. I thought he was mad, hurt, even outraged and didn't want her back? If he changed his mind, then it could not have been that bad. But God was not going to allow a change of mind and heart once another man had gotten her. Why?

As I see it, God takes it as practically being wife swapping or prostitution and will not allow that. Just think of the games that could be played as well. Two married men could get together and agree to divorce their wives and take each other's wives in place. They could enjoy them for a time and then divorce again and switch back, right? If one could remarry a former wife, it could be done and no one could legally say a thing about it unless they knew of the insincere plot to begin with.

So God has headed off the games and technicalities by forbidding to remarry a wife a 2nd time once she has married another. Pretty clever, no?! But if one is not entitled to his wife after divorcing and remarrying her, certainly he could not share her without divorce. It would seem pretty clear to me that we can not share wives in any circumstance and that would preclude one man "fertilizing" another man's wife so that they could have children. Of course, today, doctors can implant the male seed in an egg and transfer it to the woman without any sexual contact. I am not sure this makes it OK. Given that Israel could not mix materials as mentioned just previous, along with this account in chapter 24, I would say it is not approved by God. But I can not say that with absolute certainty. You would have to exercise your own conscience and judgment in the matter. But I would not, in good conscience, be able to approve it myself, for myself or anyone else.

But I do know that God created man and woman as a married couple on the 6th day of creation and gave them the command to multiply and fill the earth. And He saw that it was good/perfect. It is my belief that a marital relationship can only be protected and preserved by being very disciplined about who you have sex with and why. Sexual pleasure was something God created to ensure procreation and, I believe, to help a couple to live together, work together, and stay together for the sake of children. There are very strict precise boundaries put in place by God. Sex is much more than just thrills and pleasure. It has a real purpose that is maintained, only by these strict boundaries being enforced.

In any event, a marriage is not something to play with or take lightly. It is sacred and should be treated as such. It is from God and so it is sacred as all things from God are. I will add that our invented or imagined "restrictiveness" toward what couples can do or not "in bed" has only hurt marriages and made them less satisfying that would they would be if we felt more freedom and liberty in sexual matters, as I believe God intended. Marriage should be a relationship where we can let go, not inhibit; be free from shame and guilt. If it were that, then maybe being limited to one partner would be easier to accept.

Harmful Sex Practices?
Back to Top

Many couples engage in sexual acts that betray a twist from the past. It could even hurt one partner to have performed a request for their partner that seems a little abusive or disrespectful to the one asking. But for the one asking, it may be the only way they can really get excited due to how earlier abuse affected them. Rather than condemn and refuse to cooperate, keep in mind that though it may seem disrespectful to you, it gives them excitement, maybe even pleasure, as twisted or warped as it may be. I would think that love for your partner would move you to understand their twist and not get hung up on some aspect of it. Why not ask them why certain acts are so important to them? Ultimately, you have the right to refuse but what they want you to do may not be out of disrespect. It may have been something they had not control over when they were young and some understanding may help in deciding to accommodate them.

What is most important is that you love them and are doing what they want out of love for them. The past can not be changed. Twists are often permanent scars that therapy will not change. You can accommodate or you can refuse cooperation. But you may hurt you mate in the process. I am not asking you to ignore your conscience. If you can't do it, you can't do it. But I believe what all married people need to do is see things from the other's eyes and not your own.

Now I have seen therapists on TV condemn certain sexual requests that one person may have made to another in a relationship. They will say that this person was obviously abused in the past. And that is likely true. But what these therapists do not want to honestly and candidly admit is that many of these desires and behaviors will not be changed by therapy, no matter how long or often the therapy is pursued.

These are deep, life-long scars permanently engraved in the psyche and that only God will ever be able to fix. So you can put up with your partners odd behavior or you can make them feel bad and complexed about their situation and desires. I think it would be more loving and God-like to overlook the behavior and playfully go along with it. God knows what is in your heart.

Just to make it clear what I am talking about I will give an example to illustrate. I am not talking about violating God's laws such as men dressing in women's clothes. That is forbidden in the Bible even though thought harmless or funny in our world today. But suppose that a wife says to her husband, why don't you masturbate and ejaculate all over me. Now the husband might find this disturbing for it seems disrespectful or abusive to her. It would seem that way to me. But for whatever the reason, it would be pleasing to her. Is it really so horrible that you just can't accommodate her? Is there a scripture that forbids a woman to come into contact with semen unless it is in her vagina? You get my point, don't you? There is no real harm in playing along. As long as it is her choice and not yours.

To show the gray side of this, if on the other hand, suppose the man suggests it and the woman does not like the idea. Well, we can obviously see why she might object. It boils down to who is asking to be humiliated, not who wants to humiliate. And it could be disputed as to whether it is humiliating or intended to humiliate. But it should never be forced or pressured upon them. It is one thing when they request it. It is entirely another when you want to perpetrate it upon them. I am asking all to use good sense. And I know that is not always common.

Questionable things should be done in private. Not that you are hiding, but some things are just not anyone else's business. It is between you and God. People should mind their own business when it comes to such matters. Who could stand if we were all put under the microscope? Those who like to make other people's business their own often have the most to answer for to God, anyway. As Jesus put it, as you judge others, so you yourself shall be judged.

I think another problem here is that we have many preconceived ideas, perhaps we got them from common views and opinions around us, but they may be wrong, just as many no longer respect God or obey Him any more, and we know that is wrong, too. But as I see it, playfulness is usually lacking in relationships and I think a lot of what could take place in a bedroom, is more related to playing and pretending than it is something deviant. It needs to be appreciated that we are delicate creatures who are easily disturbed by things we had little to no control over when we were young. We can not control what comes up into our heart or excites us. That is beyond our control. We can choose not to act on it, but we can not stop it from being exciting to us.

This problem of excessive guilt comes from 2 sources. First are the religious wackos who have not given much thought to reasonable interpretation and have decided that "having lust in our hearts" mentioned by Jesus means we can not even allow thoughts into our heads. Since when have we ever been able to avoid thoughts coming up into our heads? And since when have we ever been able to banish thoughts and impulses with hardly an effort. Rather, thoughts can even become obsessive or compulsive when we try to suppress them. I have personally found that it is much easier to give thoughts free reign in your head. What happens is that the thoughts lose power and fade away in a few minutes, a few days or perhaps a few weeks. You might call it exercising the demons.

The 2nd source are our corrupt, evil, completely unfair, unjust, unscientific, and certainly unreasonable laws which threaten and punish thought crimes and imagination crimes. They say we are accountable for finding certain things exciting, as if it were a decision we made, which then caused an impulse to follow. Rather, any serious science will show that the impulse comes of its own accord, after which we may ignore it, or give it release in our heads only and be done with it, or act on it, thereby transgressing the law. But their laws and prosecutions often determine that if we entertain it in our heads then we are guilty of wanting to and have as good as done it. This is absurd. Show me one study who follows men's or women's thought from cradle to grave and whether they acted on all their thoughts if they had them or whether they did not always act on thoughts or fantasies they had.

I think you would find, if such a study was possible and people were not shamed or made to feel ashamed of some of the things they have thought over the years, that you would find many who would go to their graves without acting on even half of what came up into their heads. Thinking does not mean they will do something. But one does have to suspect the intentions  and goals of a government and laws that persecute us and assume the very worst about us and are so preoccupied with what goes on in our heads and imaginations and so threatened by our imaginations and thoughts that they need to punish us for even daring to think or imagine anything that might upset those who rule over us.

Indeed, if we could control what our heads come up with, then it might not be so unreasonable but the very fact that we have no such control clearly puts the government under great suspicion for what can we say about a government who wants to punish us for something we have no control over. Indeed, we can control our actions. They have a right to punish us for actions. I am all for making people accountable for actions. I am dead set against punishing for thoughts and imagination. I think if you have ever heard of or seen the 2 or 3 part series from the cartoon South Park, called "Imagination Land" or at least dealing with that concept, then you can see how silly it gets when you start dealing with imagination and imaginary crimes or dangers as the military does in that series. Indeed, people who live in imaginary worlds are often diagnosed by psychiatric and psychological professionals as psychotic. Does that mean our government and laws are psychotic. It does as far as I am concerned.

And many fear the shame and prosecution that could be heaped upon them for having certain feelings or inclinations, as it they chose to have them. Homosexuals have often been unjustly accused of having chosen a certain lifestyle. They may have chosen to act on their inclinations, but they are not at fault for having inclinations of a homosexual nature, no more than I am for having heterosexual inclinations. I was born that way and just found it quite natural. Homosexuals found what they feel to have come to them naturally. But just as I do not act on my urges, which are allowed an outlet under God's rules but I have not bothered with, I think homosexuals would profit from serving God and denying themselves the sexual outlets they desire just as I have denied those that I have desired up to now. Of course, at my age, it is considerably easier now.

But we need to stop persecuting people for what is on the inside and leave the inside to themselves where it belongs. It is none of our business what goes on in someone else's head. And a well meaning and well intentioned government would not care about what goes on in our heads. However, a paranoid government might have all sorts of reasons for wanting to read our minds. They might be afraid that someone is on to them and that we have figured out they are up to no good. Its kind of obvious, isn't it! So how convenient that they should hold us accountable for things in our head they know we can't control, so that any time they want, they can get anyone they want by prosecuting us for those thoughts we have. Wicked and evil!

But Christians never want to be guilty of holding their brothers to the same wicked rules that have been made by corrupt politicians of dubious intent. Christians only use God's standards and avoid judging a man by anything other than his actions or words. And as husbands and wives, we should be understanding of each other and within reason, play with and accommodate each other, free of the harsh judgement that the more unrighteous and wicked and unreasonable impose on us. In other words, stop taking everything so seriously. Lighten up and be playful and less judging and serious. It is not wrong to enjoy sex or play around it. God did not put hardly any restrictions on it. So why do so many Christians now want to put so many restraints on it? I have no idea. But I do know that god is not responsible for those restrictions. They are from men, not God. I have no use for the traditions of men. I value only the laws of God in judging my brothers.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell
Back to Top

Christians, overcome with God's mercy, often want to confess all their sins and problems. This is very noble of them. They want to be out of the closet and have their sense of guilt lifted some by confessing to all their shortcomings. The Bible does refer to certain confession of large sins as proper. But as much as I can tell, the Bible was referring more to the huge sins, not the little stuff common to all. But any time a Christian feels burdened by guilt of sin, it would be great if he or she had someone to confess to or talk with who truly appreciated the human condition and would be tender, helpful, and confidential. And it would be great if the world could live in peace and harmony, too. But not in this world!

So too, to find a pastor or someone who you could confess to about things such as I have written about here would be great. And good friends are also very rare. They may seem good today but at a later time you have a fight and now they are not so close. But I don't think there are many such people, friends, pastors, or otherwise, that could handle this and understand it. And there is that problem of confidentiality. People can be cruel, merciless, and very petty. And sad to say, some lesser Christians and phony Christians can be this way.

We all have lots of hang ups that we might like to discuss but I caution all to be careful about such things. Let us take an example. Say a couple wonders about what is right in bed. They might say to another couple: Before becoming Christians, we both used to really enjoy anal sex. But now we're not sure. What do you think? The other couple's mouths drop to the floor, being far more conservative then the new couple had recognized. They may not say much or may decline to discuss such things. Or they might just say they never tried it and don't feel right about it, which is fine. But then they might also later mention to another couple about how that the new couple used to enjoy anal sex together. They might exclaim, "How disgusting. They make us sick."

People are fickle and hard to trust. That is so even for many Christians, born of sin. I know they shouldn't be that way but they sometimes are. Jesus said not to throw your pearls before swine or give what is holy to dogs lest they trample them under foot and attack you (Matthew 7:6 RSV). So be ever so cautious about who you open up to and talk to. Christians should be able to talk to each other and help each other explore issues so they can come to a satisfactory conclusion that is reasonable for them and pleasing to God. But the kind of stuff I mention here is radically different from anything you are likely to hear in mainstream Christianity.

I take into consideration the human condition, which we should all have pity for, and mercy on, since we are all in that boat. But some people are very self-righteous and don't put a lot of effort into understanding the deeper things of God. They like to make broad hasty judgments, throwing the blanket over everything and covering it all under the same judgement. And they often see things cut and dried, black and white. But real issues are often shadowed in gray. So walk ever so carefully. Don't reveal things that could harm you if they were to get into public.

And if you happen to have brothers and sisters in the faith who can and will discuss such things and keep them confidential and not hold them against you or tell them to everyone, you are very blessed. It is what we all should be to each other, but not likely until Jesus returns and straightens everything out first. You have nothing to be ashamed of from a Godly standpoint. But people may hurt you. Most people are not honest and candid. Many lie and put on false pretenses. Many are just like the Pharisees of Jesus day. From a Christian stand point that is wicked! But it is also reality. So you have been warned. Be careful.

Some Final Cautions
Back to Top

It was never my idea to trivialize the smaller sins that we all live with in ourselves due to what we inherited from Adam. Giving in to them and not trying to control them could lead to sin and destruction. My purpose was to show that we all have it and live with it, and we need to be able to live with it, and we should not be judging each other harshly for it. Further, maybe some things are not the sins we thought they were. And we all think that our kinks are OK and that everyone else's are nuts. But none are any more outlandish than any others and it is not likely we had any control over getting them in the 1st place.

Also, we all have to accept a certain amount of sin in ourselves and others or we will not be showing love for our brothers. We can not completely eliminate sin in us or live a perfect life. If we could do that, then we would be perfect and would not need the blood of Jesus. We would not die, either. We would be judging others too harshly to ask them to be perfect. In addition, some people are really bothered by things they think or feel inside. I wanted them to understand that what they have inside is what we all have inside to some degree. We need to be honest and confess our sins in a general non-specific impersonal way. So I have done that for everyone.

Solomon warns us in Ecclesiastes 7:16 "Do not be too much righteous, nor make yourself overly wise; why destroy yourself?"

Being too righteous will bring disaster to us. Going around being a know-it-all will hurt us, too. Self-righteousness is annoying, isn't it? So don't do it. The Pharisees of Jesus day were great for that but they were also sternly reproved by Jesus for that, too.

But I am now going to flip the coin a little. A problem that plagues the USA in the beginning of the 21st century is that our society displays many attitudes that exude a flagrant disregard for God's laws. Pre-marital or non-marital sex (fornication) is openly participated in and no one thinks anything of it. It is quite accepted. MTV and other such TV stations that cater to the young crowd frequently show people dressing and dancing in the most provocative and overtly sexual ways possible, short of real sex. Oh, wait, on Real World they even show sex or let you know that sex is taking place even though bed covers hide the details. They revel in abandon and excess. Magazine covers and ads show girls dressed in the most provocative ways.

All these things help to condition people into accepting this as a normal way of life. And they condition us to think it is OK and proper. This is especially true of the young people whose parents have not taught them anything of what they or their parents were taught was proper. But none of this has taken place by accident. Most of it was carefully calculated and promoted by various media and advertisers. Hollywood and TV have done much to influence the populace into changing their morals and values.

It has been suggested that there was a purpose behind all this. The population is much easier to control and enslave if they are distracted and do not care. How better to distract them and divert their attention then to entice them with free sex, all they can handle. Further, as society and those who control society close in tighter to get further control over the people, and in order for the people not to mind or notice so much, it helps to let them feel free and unrestricted when it comes to sex. A nice distraction!

Indeed, sexual impulses are impulses of instinct and as such, are far more powerful and motivating and overwhelming than are intellectual governing forces in us. If we do not think about it while in a calm uninfluenced state, then we will not likely make the right choice when confronted by temptation. Sexual impulses will win the battle in a landslide victory and the high can be as addictive as any drug and may be very hard to stop or regulate. So you can see why those who want to control you would like to get you addicted to some sort of high and sex tends to be a very common high, and one of the few that is not completely banned.

Everyone knows how unbearable married people can be when they don't get enough sex. So to prevent that frustration as rulers tighten their grip over the populace, they employ attitudes of free sex so as to anesthetize the population much as if you drugged them. Free sex is a drug to dull the senses of the people. And it works and is very effective, too.. Therefore, they don't notice that their other freedoms are being taken away. They don't even care. They are too high from sex.

In addition, with everyone freely engaging in all sorts of sex, the cohesiveness of the people breaks down. The family unit breaks down; the community breaks down! They loose their sense of morals and values that gave them identity and unity and enabled them to live as a healthy thriving society. The bonds break down. Tradition breaks down. They have no sense of purpose or direction. Kids are raised in broken homes and become restless and disturbed. Everything breaks down.

This is desirable to those who want to control us and enslave us to a new and unprecedented degree, unrivaled before in world history. They use unrestrained sex to corrupt the people and inebriate them. Divide and conquer! Yes, unrestrained lust, desire, and behavior lead to the destruction of everyone by breaking down a good and healthy environment for children to be born into. First, by not being raised by two parents, a whole family. Second, by the one parent not teaching them anything good, either. Third, by being raised in a world that encourages them to be not better than their parents and continue in the same old rut from which they were born. Fourth, by growing up in a world focused on sex and pleasure, without regard for what the best environment would be to maintain and protect families and produce good parents so that kids would turn out healthy and well adjusted.

Keeping It Under Control
Back to Top

Sexual restraint, control, and discipline are essential for a good healthy society of imperfect or perfect people. But we have rejected good sense and are no longer content to put up with healthful teaching and living. And we are constantly enticed to join in the sexual rebellion/revolution and enjoy ourselves. And for a brief time we would. But in not much more time, our world will totally collapse from our recklessness and rejection of Christ and a family/kid oriented world.

Part of the problem stemmed from Victorian Society which went to the other extreme of the pendulum. Victorianism was very repressive and overly conservative to say the least. It did no one any good. It was this movement that destroyed the credibility of more moderate conservatives in the USA. The liberal subversives used this extremism of the Victorian age that had been passed down to discredit all American conservatism which had much value to society.

But I am going to also suggest that maybe Victorianism was maybe not quite as bad as it may seem. Prostitution was openly practiced and it was common to be able to hire a 14 year old woman as easily as one of 30. In fact, one fellow openly declared at that time that he could go out and get a 13 year old any time he wanted and he wrote an article doing just that. People were horrified. He was being honest and factual. And while they vilified him, they forget that girls were willingly doing this for many other men as well. And while deploring prostitution is not a bad thing, it is unrealistic to think they will stop it. Even Solomon tolerated it. Further, did they also deplore the destitute condition of the slums and the poverty that existed that forced so many in this country in big cities like NY or Boston to serve as prostitutes??? That would be a first, wouldn't it?

Really, I am not sure about Victorianism. It had some ridiculous and unrealistic attitudes and expectations. It had some open practices we do not even have today. Maybe it was a result of polarization. The more extreme the scorn, the more it forced the other view to rebel. When attitudes are too out of sync with each other, then you have strong polarized divisions.

Compared to Victorianism, what liberal subversives suggested seemed rational and reasonable. But now that we are getting a good dose of what radical liberalism brings in the long run, we can see that it is no better than that which it condemned in Victorianism. There is a reasonable moderate happy medium, which we need to find. And no one is better qualified that God, Himself, to guide us in the way that is right. The Bible has not changed. It is the same as it ever was. Only our understanding of it has changed. And maybe it needs to change some more. That is why I wrote this.

We look at the 50's and how people objected to the gyrations of Elvis Presley or the long hair of the hippies. They also heavily objected to the music in general. It seems silly, doesn't it? But then we kept going further, pushing things to the limit all the time. Before we know it, now we encourage and allow nearly anything on stage or TV and I think it is very harmful. We went way too far. Now we need to look at the 50's and the 90's and see where we went wrong. We need to find that happy healthy medium. We need to draw a line in the sand and hold to it.

My goal in writing here was to help us find that happy medium that we are in such desperate need of. We don't want to be prudes but neither do we want to be reckless, immoral degenerates past all good sense. I hope I have helped toward reaching something of a happy and healthy middle ground that will lead to proper living that will let us into the Kingdom of God.

So I don't want anyone to run out and recklessly indulge in pornography. That was not what I wanted or intended. But in the bedroom, there needs to be more understanding and perhaps, playfulness. Couples should enjoy each other and have fun. Sex was supposed to be fun and enjoyable. And so it should be. Further, swearing is not profitable, but life can be frustrating to a Godly person. In that frustration, they may utter words of bitterness. This is natural. It should not be of that much concern to Christians.

Paul offers this counsel for all to consider.

Galatians 5:13 For you were called to freedom, brethren; only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love be servants of one another.

Yes, there are a number of things I have shown you could do that would not constitute a sin or constitute very little sin and we all have a little in us that must be allowed. But it is not an excuse to kick up our heals and go crazy. That was never my intention.

We need to acknowledge the sin in humanity and allow for a certain amount of it among Christians. The Bible commands that Christian love one another. True love means we will not be harsh, demanding, or unreasonable in what we require of our brothers. Our demand for righteousness will be tempered with love and mercy upon the human condition of Christ's brothers. That was my mission in writing this and the many other things I have written.

Jesus said, I want mercy and not sacrifice! His entire ministry was in opposition to the Pharisees who were always looking down on the people and judging the people harshly and acting self-righteous when they had no love in their hearts. Jesus had a way of bringing out tears and repentance in people as Jesus showed love and mercy where as they had previously felt unredeemable and unworthy because of people like the Pharisees. Jesus showed them that there was still hope for them in regards to God.

Young people today face a world a hundred times more harsh and bizarre than anything that any of us have ever experienced prior to the last 20 years or more. They are in a similar position to what many were in Israel when Jesus arrived. The young people need help, much more than we ever did. And they need a more realistic and reasonable standard for which to try and live up to. If the expectations are not realistic, then the young people will give up hope and not bother.

Sticks and Stones . . .
Back to Top

So I wrote what has occurred to me to be a more realistic evaluation of what God really expects of us. I have given it no small amount of thought. I didn't want to be reckless as the 60's counter-culture was in rejecting everything they had ever been taught. I tried to be very careful. This is the result. I would love to hear feedback on it. I expect it to ruffle some feathers. There are many modern day Pharisees who will be just as insensible and hard hearted as those of Jesus day. They went so far as to crucify Jesus on a cross. They made all sorts of unjust accusations against him while he was alive, until finally they managed to get him executed.

So I would not be surprised to be called lots of vile names for what I have written. Self-righteousness is a disease that knows no boundaries as is amply demonstrated in the death of Jesus. But I hope that some will be reached and helped by what I have written, just as many were helped by Jesus before his death. And of course, by his death, all were helped so much more.

I add now on Aug. 4, 2008, that I have had some interesting responses to my sex articles. I have had many who responded very enthusiastically, to say the least and I kept all their comments. But for a few of those, they saw it as an excuse to totally cut loose. I did not ever say that fornication or adultery were OK. I said masturbation could not be shown to be wrong and that porn did not likely present any real danger, anymore than food or money do. But some want to break loose and will use any excuse to do so. They shall be judged. But most found it to be incredibly liberating of guilt and a breath of fresh air, which is what it was intended to be.

And of course, where would we be without the modern day pharisees. The fundamentalists of various sorts find my stuff horrible, for I do not honor their traditions (that have no Bible merit) and they say I am wrong to set my sights so low for people. They ignore how badly they have failed their young and lost most of their young to the world and to the devil. They see failure and defeat as a victory. It must be wonderful to be so blind and oblivious to the truth. However, they also fail to see that they shall be judged in the same manner as they judged others. They don't seem to grasp the implications of this. I am willing to stand before God for what I have written and published. And I shall be judge with a heavier judgement but then again, I would be judged if I, with my knowledge and ability were to refrain from trying to guide people to the truth of God's word. So I can not escape judgement, one way or the other and can only avoid the worst by doing my best and being reasonable in my demands of those who want to serve God. I hope the fundies are as well prepared.

They do not understand the concept of priorities and giving lots of attention to the big concerns and not sweating the little concerns. They want to try to live perfectly, which to the best of my knowledge is first, impossible, and second, will only bring disaster due to its guaranteed failure. But just as Jesus could not reason with the Pharisees, so I have not been able to reason with the Fundies and do not care. They must be judged just as the Fundies of Jesus' day were judged. You who have read this have seldom ever come across such a thing as this. Now you can make a better decision with better broader information to consider. Consider it wisely for there is little time left to consider anything.

It is unfortunate that I had to even bring this subject up. It should not have been necessary except for the fact that most who call themselves Christians, gutless wonders that they are, are so afraid of dealing with this subject, that they have given it a great stigma and caused enormous guilt in dealing with it. Their idea is that if you ignore it, it will go away. Of course, that has never worked but they keep on doing it anyway. Further, I ask, what are they afraid of? Is sex, in itself, a sin? Or is it just sex without marriage that is wrong. I surely hope they can answer that one right. If it is OK at all and it is, then why ignore it or worse, run from it?

While there was a time when no one talked about it, that certainly is not the case today. It is discussed everywhere on TV, radio, books, magazines, newspapers, therapist's offices and many between many friends, co-workers, etc. So then why are will still so ashamed of it as is no one spoke of it anywhere ever? That is why I had to bring and and address something that should not have been necessary. But it does not bother me to bring it up. Sex is supposed to be fun and enjoyed if a couple is married. But due to stupid movements of mankind's past, often a rather recent past, everyone has been fooled into guilt and shame. I hope I have exercised the demons and gotten rid of the unjust guilt that has hampered the ability of couples to enjoy themselves and their sexual abilities, which God endowed them with and called it, "GOOD!"

As it was revealed in a vision to Peter about eating unclean things, the voice in the vision said, "stop calling unclean what God has sanctified, made pure, called clean!

(RSV) Acts 10:
9  The next day, as they were on their journey and coming near the city, Peter went up on the housetop to pray, about the sixth hour.
10  And he became hungry and desired something to eat; but while they were preparing it, he fell into a trance
11  and saw the heaven opened, and something descending, like a great sheet, let down by four corners upon the earth.
12  In it were all kinds of animals and reptiles and birds of the air.
13  And there came a voice to him, "Rise, Peter; kill and eat."
14  But Peter said, "No, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean."
15  And the voice came to him again a second time, "
What God has cleansed, you must not call common."
16  This happened three times, and the thing was taken up at once to heaven.

Are you listening??? Yes, I will be called a pervert even as Jesus was called a glutton, a drunkard, and possessed of a demon, a sinner who healed on the Sabbath, etc. It comes with the territory. But when a wrong has been committed, as is the case with sex having been twisted and distorted by the devil and his followers, then one can no longer continue to ignore the subject. And there is no need to ignore it anyway, as if there was anything truly wrong with it under the right circumstances.

So if you are married, enjoy the few benefits of marriage and cut loose and enjoy each other. Satan has made like so difficult that marriage has almost become a curse. If you can't enjoy sex without guilt, your marriage will almost surely fail. Really, when you think about it, sex by nature is where you cut lose, loose control,  and get lost in the delight of the senses. If you can't let go and get lost in the joy and pleasure of it all, then what hope is there for you? If one can not enjoy life in some small way now in this life, you might as well consider ending it all. Don't let the devil or his followers who call themselves Christians but are not, push you around and rob you of the joy God intended for you to have if you are married. That would be wrong in every way. It's yours, God gave it to you, enjoy it with enthusiasm, vigor, and a clean conscience as God intended.

Related Articles

I have written quite a few things in other articles on this site. Some bear a lot of relevance to this subject and you might find them worth reading.

Sexual Topics Page
The Christian Conscience

Back to Home/Index   Truth 1 - The best site on the internet!

Back to Top