Lest any of my readers should dismiss me as a heretic, I thought I might clarify my intentions of yesterday’s post.
There were two specific statements I was calling out as idolatry:
- “Without systematic theology you can’t be the church.” (Stephen Wellum via The Gospel Coalition)
- “I don’t have Calvinism in a little compartment of my life. It is my life.” (John Piper)
Now, I realize that many people think anti-theology = anti-God. This is precisely why theological-based arguments are so powerful. Who are you, oh man, to question the attributes of God?
Well, if “theology” simply means the study of God as an activity, then I’m all for it. But most often, theology is used to refer to a particular theological theory or system… such as Calvinism, Arminianism, pre-millennialism, or any other “ism” you want to throw in there.
The problem with theology, is that proponents of one “ism” or another will perform a “Procrustean Bed” operation in order to make the Scripture fit their pre-conceived framework.
In Greek mythology, Procustes was a rogue smith who invited every passer-by to spend the night. He had a single iron bed which he would force every guest to fit into. If they were too short, he’d stretch them to fit. If they were too tall, he’d amputate the excess length.
As an ironic example of the Procustean Bed phenomenon, consider the often debated passage from 1 Corinthians:
Now if any man builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, each man’s work will become evident; for the day will show it because it is to be revealed with fire, and the fire itself will test the quality of each man’s work. If any man’s work which he has built on it remains, he will receive a reward. If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.
Is this a challenge to “saved by grace alone”? Is it referring to a separate judgment? How do works and salvation relate?
These are questions one might ask if he was approaching it from a theological frame.
But if you simply let Scripture itself frame the passage, the meaning becomes clear. At the beginning of the argument, Paul states:
For since there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not fleshly, and are you not walking like mere men? For when one says, “I am of Paul,” and another, “I am of Apollos,” are you not mere men?
What then is Apollos? And what is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, even as the Lord gave opportunity to each one. I planted, Apollos watered, but God was causing the growth. So then neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but God who causes the growth. Now he who plants and he who waters are one; but each will receive his own reward according to his own labor. For we are God’s fellow workers; you are God’s field, God’s building.
According to the grace of God which was given to me, like a wise master builder I laid a foundation, and another is building on it. But each man must be careful how he builds on it. For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
The biblical frame of this passage has nothing to do with the grace vs. works paradigm. It has to do with the jealousy and strife created when choosing one teacher (or theologian) over another.
This jealously and strife is what causes the church to divide. Rather than facilitate open discussion, true intellectuals who challenge extra-biblical church doctrine are branded (and, in the past, burned) as “heretics.”
It shouldn’t take much “theology” to understand that this behavior is despicable in God’s sight.
If you think that one teacher (e.g. John Calvin) or a theological system is the true foundation of the faith… you might be in for an unpleasant surprise when you find all your study, promoting, and defending of that system was in vain! You’ll escape with your life, but you’ll have no reward for all that work.
If a Calvinist or an Arminian or any other pointed you to Christ and the gospel, praise God! But be careful how you build from that point forward.
Paul says that no man can lay a foundation other than the one that has been built (i.e. the Scriptures).
Frame determines meaning.
Anything framed outside of the Scripture text itself is inherently fragile.
Any teacher who doesn’t see the plain point of the text is either dishonest or over-educated into a theological frame.
Any teacher who dogmatically promotes a particular theological framework is an anti-intellectual. Not only is he too dull to perceive his error. He is too prideful to accept correction.
I say this not because I care whether any of my readers lean one way or another theologically. We can remain united in Christ while holding different opinions.
I only want to encourage my readers, literally for the love of God, to do two simple things:
- Be aware of how the passage is being framed
- Reject any frame that is contrary to the biblical frame
It’s nice to see that the churchians are starting to openly declare their idols:
Soon it will be quite easy to separate the wheat from the tares.
In the mean time, rather than rely on the fragile theories of over-educated anti-intellectuals, here’s a better plan:
1. PRAY for wisdom
2. READ the scriptures
3. DO what they say
Perhaps the most remarkable red pill phenomenon I’ve witnessed in my life was the radical transformation of my mother after she and my step-dad divorced.
I grew up in various Pentecostal churches. While some were into the “end times” craze, my family never gave it much attention. My step-dad was always a “just the basics” kind of guy: saved by grace, show grace to others.
My mother, too, had always been more concerned with practical matters.
But all that changed after the divorce.
My mother met this guy who was a former undercover cop. He said during his career he had went deep into the inner layers of the Free Mason society and discovered many of their disturbing secrets.
The man believed he had a calling of God to be a prophet and preach the truth in the latter times when the “shit hit the fan.”
My mom went crazy for the guy. Married him months after the divorce. No ceremony. Just a quick trip to a judge.
The guy had a knack for coming up with novel ideas about a wide variety of topics and tying them in to biblical prophecy.
Every day, it was something new. A news story. A new insight from the Scripture. A new health discovery. Something novel every day.
Her new husband was her primary source of information and relief from boredom. Whatever he reported framed her worldview.
He claimed he could understand the “deeper meaning” behind the Greek Septuagint… so she accepted his interpretations as the authoritative Word of God.
He boldy claimed that the modern church was apostate… so she stopped listening to the preachers she used to listen to.
He showed her research on how pharmacy and food companies were poisoning us… so she denounced what she learned in college and her 20 years of experience as a nurse and adapted his philosophy.
Unlike my step-dad, who encouraged my mom to pursue whatever she wished, this guy kept a fairly tight reign on her, only allowing her to go out for pre-approved activities or meet with pre-approved people.
I don’t know much about their sex life, but my younger siblings overheard them one time and said all they could hear was a lot of “thumping.”
The guy also kept my mom busy. He had various health problems so she was always preparing him special food, running errands for him, doing chores on the mini-homestead.
Just a year or so into the marriage, my mom quit her high-paying government job so she could be home full-time with him.
Keep in mind, they have no children to take care of.
Nowadays, they spend their time bunkered down on their mini-homestead preparing for (his) vision of the end times.
I found the transformation remarkable because my mother was always stubbornly independent… even from her childhood. So to witness such a complete transformation in such a short period of time was remarkable.
Now, my point isn’t to judge the veracity of the guy’s claims. I just find it amazing that he was able to transform a woman so quickly.
It reminds me of something I read in Eric Hoffer’s True Believer, a book on the nature of mass movements:
It is a truism that many who join a rising revolutionary movement are attracted by the prospect of sudden and spectacular change in their conditions of life.
He then goes on to describe the difference between self-improvement and a mass movement:
The practical organization offers opportunities for self-advancement, and its appeal is mainly to self-interest. On the other hand, a mass movement, particularly in its active, revivalist phase, appeals not to those intent on bolstering and advancing a cherished self, but to those who crave to be rid of an unwanted self. A mass movement attracts and holds a following not because it can satisfy the desire for self-advancement, but because it can satisfy the passion for self-renunciation.
I’ve noticed that women rarely want to improve the current version of themselves. They want sudden change that allows them to get rid of a hated self.
Thus the appeal of feminism, fad diets, mysticism, and any other thing women go for.
But after observing my mother’s recent marriage, I realized that it is possible for a man to create a “mass movement” of his own within his own household. He only needs one convert: his wife.
It’s not entirely unlike creating a cult: you must draw her away from the world, cut off distracting influences, inspire her to be completely devoted to your cause… which of course should be the same as God’s cause.
I intend to study and experiment with this further and report my findings.
For now, pay attention to your wife’s actions and words:
Does she act out of self-assurance and a desire to improve herself?
Or does she reveal a self-loathing attitude and an aversion to improvement?
If the latter, she is ripe for a radical change… either one of your own devising or one devised by another man.
I thought this blog post I read over at Doing Marriage Right might be an encouragement to some of my readers.
Sadly, sex does not always get off to a good start in a marriage. As the author writes:
As I’ve stated before sex for us began with difficulty. Physical pain and inexperience, with a side of an inability to communicate like adults about sex, led to disappointment for both of us for many years. We have moved past that and sex is now regular and pleasurable. I have chronicled our success in the past.
Orgasm for my wife first came with vibrators, primarily the Hitachi Magic Wand, for many years. She found oral and manual stimulation painful. She said during intercourse, she felt nothing, and if it went too long (like more than a minute or two) it became painful.
But after I read his full story, I was reminded of two important truths:
- Bad sex today doesn’t mean it’s going to remain that way… even if it’s been going on for years
- Couples can still have great sex even after decades of marriage
Sexual problems are almost entirely psychological at the root. And the brain can be rewired over time with effective communication of the truth.
The belief in change is the first step towards healing.
Read the full story here:
Here’s some Bible passages you might find surprisingly arousing…
May he kiss me with the kisses of his mouth!
For your love is better than wine.
Wet, open mouth kissing. The bride would only know how he tasted if her tongue was involved! Also implies an ecstasy similar to being drunk on wine. Some commentators suggest other kinds of oral activity are involved as well.
To me, my darling, you are like
My mare among the chariots of Pharaoh.
Chariots were normally pulled by stallions, not mares. So to place a mare among the “chariots of Pharaoh” would excite the sexually eager stallion. Stallions were known for their sexual heat. According to Ezekiel, stallions were known for having large emissions… an obvious result of sexual excitement at the sight of a breed-worthy mare.
While the king was at his table,
My perfume gave forth its fragrance.
A reference to the ancient custom of women to perfume their sexual parts. As she becomes aroused, her body heat rises, sending forth the smell of perfume to signal her readiness.
The beams of our houses are cedars,
Our rafters, cypresses.
Outdoor sex. Women love the thrill of having sex in different locations.
I would give you spiced wine to drink from the juice of my pomegranates.
Pomegranates are filled with an abundance of seed and were known in ancient times as a symbol of fertility. Pomegranates also have a high content of estrogen. It’s worth noting that the etymologic definition of estrogen was “begetter of mad desire.”
Until the cool of the day when the shadows flee away,
Turn, my beloved, and be like a gazelle
Or a young stag on the mountains of Bether.
The “mountains of Bether” can also be translated as the “mountains of separation.” The fact that a woman’s sexual parts were perfumed makes the preceding reference to lilies more clear and clarifies the reference for this line. One only needs to take a brief glance at the female anatomy to identify where the “mountain of separation lies.” The man is invited to use his tongue (presumably) to playfully prance about her “mountains of separation” like a gazelle or young stag. Or, as the Moffatt translation puts it: “Play like a roe or a hart on my perfumed slopes.”
Like an apple tree among the trees of the forest,
So is my beloved among the young men.
In his shade I took great delight and sat down,
And his fruit was sweet to my taste.
A clever play on words. Her lover stands out from other men like an apple tree amidst the plain trees of the forest. And thus she desires to “sit in his shade” and taste his fruit. Her lover towers over her like a tree as she sits down (or kneels) and tastes his fruit. A man shouldn’t need need too much prompting to figure out where his “fruit” would come from (i.e. “be fruitful and multiply”) and how a woman would go about tasting that fruit. Also worth noting that his fruit was sweet to her taste. Making the effort to make your semen taste good is worthwhile.
thy breasts to clusters of grapes
A cluster of grapes hangs down, just as a woman’s breasts hang down when she is in a “ready position.” Additionally, grapes become increasingly round and elastic as they ripen, similar to a woman’s breasts when she becomes aroused. This is a setup for what happens next…
I said, ‘I will climb the palm tree,
I will take hold of its fruit stalks.
In the ancient near-east, female palm trees were fertilized with the flowers from male palm trees. In order to fertilize the female tree, one had to get some flowers from the male tree and then climb the female tree and tie some pollen-bearing flowers among the female flowers. Thus, to “climb the palm tree” means to fertilize it. (Even to this day, a similar practice is performed in growing dates.) The sight of the woman’s shape as well as her breasts hanging down like clusters of grapes signals that is time to “fertilize” her.
Come, my beloved,
Let us go forth to the field
In ancient usage, “plowing a field” was a natural metaphor for sexual intercourse. The back and forth motion opens up the ground in order to receive seed. In Eastern custom, a man was thought of as a “plough” and a woman as a “field.” In Latin, the word vomer can mean both “penis” and a “plow.” It is clear that there is a useful sexual metaphor we have lost over the years. The opportunity for erotic wordplay on this theme are endless. Take, for example, this ancient east erotic poem:
“As for me, my vulva,
For me, the piled high hillock,
Me, the maid, who will plow it for me?
My vulva, the watered ground — for me?
Me the Queen, who will station the ox there?”
“O Lordly Lady, the king will plow it for you,
Dumuzi, the king will plow it for you.”
“Plow my vulva, man of my heart!”
This is really just scratching the surface. But this is a good “teaser” to get you started.
Solomon’s writing style is to pack a lot of meaning into a small number of words. Rather than give detailed instructions, he gives you the clue so that those who are diligent can fully explore it’s implications.
From the Song of Solomon, we learn that being fruitful and multiplying is about much more than simply having kids. It is about unlocking a world of ecstasy.
Sources and Further Reading:
K.J. Aaron’s Sexuality in the Bible
New Life Community Church’s “Sexual Allusions and Symbols in the Song of Songs“
I recently saw the latest Pixar movie Coco with my wife.
I found the movie to be a refreshing contrast from the normal deluge of anti-male Disney propaganda.
The protagonist is a 12-year old boy (I know, shocker) who grows up in an oppressive matriarchy. The boy wants to be a musician like his great-grandfather, but his grandmother says his grandfather was a bad man who abandoned his family. And to make sure the family is never hurt again, she forbids any enjoyment of music.
But the boy cannot suppress his gift/love for music and continues to secretly practice his guitar.
Then, through a series of events, he ends up being sucked into the “Land of the Dead” where he goes on a quest to find the truth about his great-grandfather.
I won’t give any spoilers, but the resolution was refreshingly pro-male (or at least not anti-male) and pro-family.
This got me thinking…
Most Disney movies follow some variation of the “follow your heart” theme.
It seems that, in most stories, when a boy “follows his heart” it usually involves something like finding the truth about a missing father or ancestor, finding a lost treasure, doing something risky to save others, etc.
But when a girl “follows her heart” it typically involves rebelling against her parents and seeking a high-status position that is normally occupied by men.
This got me wondering if it would be possible to have a story structure that had the same appeal of Disney movies, but without the feminist rebellion theme.
I think it is possible, and it might look something like this:
- A child (boy or girl) has a unique gift that makes him/her different or is slow to “come of age” like the rest of the children
- The child faces ridicule and other difficulties due to being different from everyone else
- The parents (and particularly the father) help the child come to terms with his/her identity
- The child faces a test of courage
- The child passes the test and contributes to the greater good of the community.
I think stories like that would be just as compelling, if not more so, then the normal deluge of “girl power” narratives. And it would place the parents in an honorable role without making the story boring and devoid of drama.
Just some thoughts. Maybe one day the Disney empire will finally crumble and children’s movies can be redeemed…
Here’s a practical way to test how smart you are.
A woman will often make demonstrably false statements about topics she is unqualified to judge. Furthermore, her argument will either have no point or her point won’t have any reason.
Don’t be fooled by the surface. She is not making an argument.
She is testing your intelligence.
Deep down in her loins, she wants you to intellectually humiliate her. This reassures her that she’s not married to an idiot.
While there’s different ways to demonstrate superior intelligence. Here’s one way to do it:*
- Ask her “what’s your point?” or “why?”
- Point out how she’s not qualified to have an accurate opinion
- Correct her
In situations like these, the point is not to change her mind. The point is to demonstrate that you’re smarter than her. No woman wants to be married to a man of inferior intelligence.
* Lest anyone think I’m being unfair to women, this is how you can challenge ANY one who spouts off nonsense, not just women. But men expect to have their opinions challenged so they normally have a good reason behind what they say. And men normally remain silent when they can’t back up their opinions. Women, on the other hand…
I imagine it won’t be long before we start hearing this sort of rhetoric from churchian pulpits:
Silence doesn’t mean consent. Her not resisting or saying “no, please stop” doesn’t constitute “affirmative consent”. So really, the only way to make sure that consent is present is for the man to continue asking her throughout the encounter: “Is this OK? Can I keep doing this? Is this thrust OK with you? Is THIS thrust OK? Can I thrust again? How about this one? Can I keep going? Do you want me to stop?”
If that did NOT happen, if the man did not get EXPRESS, VERBAL statements that he could continue, then yes, there was sexual assault.
(You can read the full article over at Rational Male.)
To a woman, that kind of sex would be like an annoying waiter that interrupts your dinner every five minutes to ask if “everything is okay.”
Sadly, this “consensual sex” policy isn’t so far removed from how Christian guys are taught to approach their wife.
I think we’re going to see a great divide in quality of sexual experience among Christians in the near future:
A minority will accept red pill truths about women and collectively discover how to have mind blowing sex.
The rest will become so sexually retarded that they’ll give up on sex altogether.
Once again, in our backwards age we find that the sinners are preaching truth while the “righteous” teachers ignore reality.
The Chateau Heartiste gives a spot-on analogy to explain male sexual desire and inequality:
A man goes to a car dealership. He’s a sensible fellow, and just needs a commuter vehicle. He sees a cherry red Corvette center stage. He salivates. He walks over, runs his hand across the finish. Maybe he asks to sit in it and dream, gripping the leather steering wheel. But he knows he can’t afford it, so he quickly focuses his thoughts and leaves fantasyland behind, to browse the boring sedans. He consoles himself with the hope that maybe, someday, he’ll have made it and can return with enough to buy that Corvette. In the meantime, he haggles like a champ with the seller to drive down the price of his sedan and maximize the amenities at his budget. No undercarriage rust protection, thank you! Finally, he signs on the dotted line, and drives off content that he got the best deal he could, and as he’s heading home he thoughtfully itemizes all the good things about his new car. The smell! The climate control! The gas mileage! He’s happy for himself.
As I’ve written before, the modern church’s teaching on “lust” is one of the most perverted doctrines out there. Not only does it ignore the context of the command, it completely ignores the basic nature of male sexuality.
A man will always notice hot women. And men will always wish (i.e. briefly fantasize) that they could have sex with the hottest women that they see.
But far from being a lust problem, this is simply a man’s biological programming on the lookout for signs of life and fertility. In other words, man was programmed to “be fruitful and multiply.”
But men are also used to living in an unequal hierarchy. And, unless he’s a gamma male, he accepts that hierarchy.
A ordinary man may briefly wish he was in the position of the alpha male when he sees him with a hot babe. But he also realizes that to attract a woman of that caliber would require more of him than he’s able or willing to do.
So he contents himself with his own, less-than-perfect-10 wife. He is fully able to appreciate her good qualities.
Furthermore, ordinary men admire alpha males. For example, Donald Trump is 70 years old and having sex with a supermodel. Like most men, I have briefly fantasized about what it would be like to be married/ have sex with a supermodel. But then I realize I wouldn’t want to do all the work Trump had to do to attain his status. Nor would I want to be under the amount of pressure he faces.
So, like most ordinary men, I think “good for him. I’m glad he’s on our side.” This is the healthy and ordinary response to a higher status man.
But since the church has driven out or emasculated all the alpha males (who might have a legitimate temptation to lust), the preachers must now content themselves with brow-beating ordinary men to feel even worse about their “toxic masculinity” than they already do.
Is it any wonder why Christians are a big bunch of pussies?
NOTE: This post is more philosophical, less practical. (i.e. it won’t help you get laid, but you might find it interesting.)
What creates a marriage?
It’s a simple question, but one that reveals a lot of confusion when you try to answer it.
It also has practical significance. What is your duty as a husband? Under what circumstances is a man legitimately no longer responsible for a woman?
The other week I got in a brief debate with a Christian red pill blogger by the name of “Artisanal Toad.” He caused quite a stir in the comments section on Dalrock’s blog a few months ago with his “eligible virgin” theory.
You can read his argument here. Basically, he’s taking the common “sex = marriage” to it’s fullest, strictly technical conclusion.
If Artisanal Toad’s argument is correct, it has some shocking implications. Specifically…
- If a woman is raped, she is automatically bound to the man who raped her
- If a man marries a woman who was previously penetrated by another man (including rape) he is committing adultery
- If a Christian man is married to a woman who was raped, he must divorce her if he’s going to remain a Christian
If these conclusions sound absurd…well… they are.
But I chose to engage with his argument because he is arguing from a common premise. Many Christians who deny that the state creates a marriage believe that sexual intercourse creates a marriage.
While I acknowledge that ideally, sex and marriage would always be one and the same, I find several probelms with Toad’s argument and the sex = marriage belief.
Toad’s argument doesn’t pass my basic “sniff test.”
The Apostle James tells us that wisdom from above is “gentle” and Christ says that “his burden is light.”
Toad’s teaching, if taken seriously, would place a heavy burden on any Christian married couple where the wife was not a virgin (either through rape or prior promiscuity). Fathers would have to tell their children, “well, we found out that your mother is not actually my wife so I’m going to have to divorce her. Sorry kids.”
That just doesn’t seem sensible to me or consistent with God’s character, so my B.S. detector immediately kicks on.
Much of Toad’s argument depends on Old Testament laws about marriage, rape, and virginity. Such as this often misunderstood and abused law:
If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her and they are discovered, then the man who lay with her shall give to the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall become his wife because he has violated her; he cannot divorce her all his days.
But Toad ignores the basic principle for applying Old Testament law given to us by the Apostle Paul in 1 Timothy:
But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers…
Those who marry in order to find an outlet for their sexual passion are doing the righteous thing. But Toad is twisting the meaning of his proof texts by inducing guilt on those who are righteous and providing a loophole for those who are promiscuous.
I think it is clear that the Old Testament texts about rape and marrying the virgin were intended to prevent young alpha males from using the “pump-and-dump” strategy to getting laid. If a man could be legally forced to marry the young virgin he seduces, it forces him to consider the needs of his neighbor… even if only out of self-preservation.
We know that a righteous person will not be promiscuous. (If they are, they are not righteous by definition.)
But what happens when unbelievers marry (or co-habitate) and then one becomes a Christian?
Paul tells us the believer is not bound to the unbeliever if the unbeliever does not wish to continue living with the believer. The believer is then free to remarry. I see no reason why this principle wouldn’t also apply to unbelievers engaging in promiscuous sex and “long-term relationships” prior to becoming a Christian.
I find Toad’s argument rather weak when you strip away all the rhetoric. His argument is essentially:
1. daraq means sex
2. Genesis 2:24 describes the creation of a marriage and uses daraq
3. Therefore daraq = marriage (i.e. A includes B; therefore B = A)
4. Now look at what these laws mean with this new definition in mind
5. No one can disprove what I’m saying, therefore I’m right!
He pulls a persuasion trick by getting his readers to “think past the sale.” His opposers argue about his application of the individual Old Testament laws. But he’s framed the argument in a way where no one can disprove his interpretation because they implicitly accept his definition.
Furthermore, Toad ignores evidence that contradicts his theory, such as Matthew 1:
“And Joseph awoke from his sleep and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took Mary as his wife, but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son”
So here, we have a clear case where marriage was not created by sex.
Also, we have a case in 2 Samuel where penetrating a virgin was presumed to be a separate act from marriage with Tamar and her step-brother:
“No, my brother, do not violate me, for such a thing is not done in Israel; do not do this disgraceful thing! As for me, where could I get rid of my reproach? And as for you, you will be like one of the fools in Israel. Now therefore, please speak to the king, for he will not withhold me from you.”
Tamar knew she was about to be raped and pleaded with her step-brother to marry her instead. There would be no point for Tamar to plead this if marriage was created by penetration.
So What is a Marriage?
All that said, I must credit Toad with bringing to my attention an important question: what defines a marriage?
My current belief is that a marriage occurs when a man agrees to allow a woman to live with him. This includes providing her with food, clothing/shelter, and regular sex. (per Exodus 21:10).
If a man has sex with a woman outside of this household provision and protection, he is committing the sin of fornication. If he has sex with another man’s wife, he is committing adultery.
Any time a man and woman separate (i.e. no longer live together) this is a divorce in God’s eyes. (Paul explicitly states in 1 Corinthians 7:11 that a wife who leaves her husband (unlawfully) should remain “unmarried” or be reconciled to her husband.)
Two righteous spouses will never divorce. But a righteous person may no longer be bound to an unrighteous spouse in certain circumstances.
Obviously, God’s design was that sex and marriage would be one and the same. But I believe in His wisdom, he makes sensible exceptions for us on account of living in a sinful world.
As far as I can tell, this view is most consistent with Scripture and accounts for all the difficult gray areas.
Hopefully, there will be more discussion of this in the fledgling Christian Red Pill space. I’m surprised there’s been so much confusion on the matter for so long.