Theology For Men of the West: Becoming One Flesh

Artisanal Toad

What If Everyone Has It Wrong?

What if becoming ‘one flesh’ is the mixing of the microbiome and DNA that occurs within an intimate relationship? The most intimate act is sexual intercourse, but kissing and any other exchange of body fluids, close physical contact and even sleeping very close together (respiratory transmission) would be included.
In other words, what if becoming one flesh isn’t a spiritual joining, but literally becoming one as the flora and fauna of the two normalize between the two as the woman absorbs the genetic material of her man? The Apostle Paul described it as a great mystery, which makes perfect sense from the standpoint that he knew nothing of genetics or the presence of the microbiome. Just because something is a great mystery does not mean that mystery cannot be revealed as time goes by.
With that in mind we’ll go over a bit of data and then take a look at how this lines up with what Scripture says.
First, let’s look at the microbiome.
The last point made by the graphic above is critical. With 99.9% genetic equality, we are 80% to 90% different because of individual differences in the microbiome within each person. Let’s look at another graphic and see if there’s anything interesting there.
Notice on the bottom row, center, the differences in the composition of the microbes between men and women’s genitalia. Those are the only two differentiated points between men and women listed in the graph, but consider the exchange of microbes that occurs with kissing on the mouth. Then consider all the various sexual and non-sexual acts that will be mixing the microbial colonies between the man and the woman. More on that in a bit.

Genetic Transmission

In the previous post, I mentioned Dr. Lazar Greenfield and the screeching horde of feminists who derailed his career because he had the temerity to point out the benefits of semen to women. In case you missed it, along with all the enzymes, prostaglandins and other goodies contained in the semen that are absorbed by the woman as a result of sex, the woman is getting a dose of his DNA. These substances are absorbed by her body and show up in measurable amounts in her bloodstream following sex. Which is why women who are regularly absorbing baby-batter are provably happier than those who practice “safe sex” or abstain from sex.
The implications, however, are more important that what is actually said. The women are absorbing the man’s semen, which contains his DNA. As we shall see, that DNA becomes part of her body.
Telegony is the theory that characteristics of a woman’s previous sexual partner can become incorporated in the offspring of a later (different) father of her child. The entire monolith of feminism is opposed to such a theory and currently the theory is considered “discredited” by the so-called scientific community. Interestingly, Professor James Ewart set out to disprove the theory of Telegony propounded by Lord Morton some 50 years earlier with his Penicuik Experiments. This was prior to Mendel’s experiments into heredity so he was shooting in the dark. Even as late as 1979 “science” was still hard at work to disprove telegony when Burkhardt’s “Closing the door on Lord Morton’s mare: the rise and fall of telegony”was published. His work is now cited as the “proof” that telegony is discredited.
Except that it wasn’t discredited: Burkhardt succeeded in designing an investigation that failed to prove that telegony exists.
In the same year it was proven that fetal cells of the baby invade the mother’s body and leave the father’s DNA in her body, including her brain. It has likewise been proven that the DNA of a previous father can be passed to the younger siblings who have a different father. If one reads merely the abstract that study, what should get your attention is this:

Male microchimerism was present in 6 of 12 UCB samples analyzed. In conclusion, female UCB comprises HY-specific cytotoxic T cells. The immunization is presumably caused by transmaternal cell flow of male microchimerism present in the mother. (emphasis added)

Umbilical cord blood belongs to the baby. Pointing to the male microchimerism (presence of DNA that does not belong to either the father or mother) in the umbilical cord blood is to point to male microchimerism in the baby. Note that the study was oriented toward a different object and this result was unintended. The point is the study proves that male DNA from a man who is not the father was found in six of the twelve samples analyzed.
The question is whether the DNA was present as a result of the mother’s previous pregnancy or whether it was the result of “merely” having a previous sexual partner is one that was not answered by the study. What should be understood is studies specifically designed to disprove telegony have been “successful” while other studies have accidentally proved telegony to be a real and observed phenomena. Does anyone imagine any fair research will be done in this area in the face of shrieking hordes of feminists?
I assert that a fair study to follow up on the observed phenomena of male microchimerism in the umbilical cord blood that would seek to determine where this DNA came from cannot be made. There is already significant evidence that fetal cells invade the mother during pregnancy (cells containing half the DNA of the father) and this results in genetic chimerism in the mother. Observably it has been proven that a man’s semen is absorbed by the woman’s body following sexual activity, which opens the door to genetic chimerism or microchimerism in the woman as a result of sexual intercourse.
If we proceed with the understanding that a woman’s previous sexual partners have deposited both their DNA and microbiome in her body and said DNA and microbiome have permanently become part of her body, what impact should this have on our understanding of various instructions of the Bible concerning sex? Consider these:
  • The command of circumcision. Circumcision dramatically lowers the amount of microbial material the man places into the woman and with the removal of the foreskin the woman’s microbiome can’t colonize the man in what would have been an equal exchange. The impact of circumcision is to cause the microbial transmission to be far more of a one-way flow from man to woman.
  • The importance and meaning of virginity to marriage. Obviously the virgin would not be pregnant with another man’s child, but likewise she would not be polluted by another man’s DNA and microbiome that would result from a sexual union that did not cause a pregnancy. In this age of so-called “vaginal virgins” a woman can arguably no longer be considered a virgin after having oral and anal sex with other men simply because she hadn’t been penetrated vaginally, given the exchange of microbiome and genetic material.
  • The command against adultery takes on an entirely new light because rather than being a sexual violation, adultery is the act of polluting (adultering) a woman’s body with another man’s microbes and DNA, an act that cannot be undone.
  • The command to the priests to only take a virgin wife. He is forbidden to take a widow, a divorced woman or a woman profaned by harlotry in order that he not profane their offspring before the Lord. Considering that the widow, the (legitimately) divorced woman and the woman profaned by harlotry might all lawfully be married, this is more support for the idea that God places a great deal of importance on genetic purity that encompasses the micobiome. This supports the point that a man’s DNA becomes part of the woman with nothing more than the act of sexual intercourse.
  • The command to the Israelites not to intermarry with the tribes around them, which would pollute the people. Part of who the people were was found in the microbiome within their bodies and their DNA. Mixing it with other peoples was forbidden.
  • The command that no child born of an illegitimate marriage (a mamzer) be allowed to join the assembly of the Lord down to the 10th generation. That word is also translated as a “mongrel race” in Zechariah 9:6, which indicates the word includes children born of an illegitimate marriage to the people God said not to intermarry with.
  • The dichotomy in the treatment of rape offenses: for a married woman or betrothed virgin it was a death penalty. Rape of an eligible virgin resulted in marriage and there is no mention of the rape of a widow or divorced woman as being a crime. In the case of the married woman or betrothed woman, there was a man who was injured by having his wife permanently adultered (polluted) by another man. In the case of the eligible virgin she was married. The widow and divorced women are not mentioned because they already have the DNA and microbiome of another man.
  • The command of the levirate marriage. A brother was to take the widow as his wife in order to get an heir who would be an extremely close genetic and microbial match, in order to carry on the bloodline of the dead brother.
  • The prohibition against intercourse with a woman who is menstruating.
  • The prohibitions against bestiality, which would introduce new and possibly harmful organisms into the body. Syphilis is a disease of sheep.
  • The prohibitions against incest, which can only be aimed at later generations to prevent genetic problems that would result.
I’m not claiming this as doctrine. Nor am I claiming there is no spiritual significance or spiritual action in the joining as one flesh. What I am saying is the statement of Jesus that “what God has joined together” could be interpreted as a direct action by God or as an indirect action by God because God designed mankind for this to happen. That Paul would describe it as a great mystery is obvious. That we have an idea of what is happening doesn’t mean we’ve solved the mystery, but the mystery may very well have been solved at least partially.
To get started learning about the microbiome, one might want to take a look at “The Human SuperOrganism: How the Microbiome Is Revolutionizing the Pursuit of a Healthy Life” by Rodney Dietert; “The Germ Files” by Jason Tetro; “Welcome to the Microbiome: Getting to Know the Trillions of Bacteria and Other Microbes In, On, and Around You” by Rob DeSalle and Susan L. Perkins. These books communicate the general ideas. A quick peek at Amazon demonstrates how the writers of new books on this topic are orienting the information about the microbiome to focus on weight-loss. With over 70% of the population overweight or obese, this seems natural. Good luck finding books that explore any underlying issues involved with a man and woman merging their microbiome profiles.

Sex And Becoming One Flesh

As has been demonstrated time and time again on this blog and elsewhere, the perverts in the early church such as Jerome, Gregory and Augustine hated sex and sexual pleasure, considering it to be wicked, evil and a sin. Yet, there was that command to be fruitful and multiply, so the church eventually settled on dogma that only vaginal intercourse within marriage was legitimate, but only if the purpose was reproduction. In other words, procreation only and not recreation. Other forms of sexual expression were forbidden as sodomy (anal) and oral sodomy (oral). Even vaginal penetration was to be as infrequent as possible and the church went so far as to forbid any position other than the “missionary position.” Anything that might stimulate sexual desire such as touching, hugging or kissing was to be avoided.
If we consider that the bond of one flesh is an ongoing process similar to sanctification (the process of growing in Christ, becoming more of a part of the body of Christ), it should be obvious the policies of the church were contrary the development of the one flesh bond and actually hurt the institution of marriage.
If we consider the bond of one flesh to be the mixing of the microbiome and DNA between husband and wife, rather than a spiritual joining, it should be obvious that trying to minimize or eliminate sex from marriage was an attempt to minimize the bonding between husband and wife.
For the record, there are numerous historical records from the church that demonstrate the church favored policies (for political reasons) that weakened marriage, but that is not the subject of this post.

Sex, Emotion and Desire

As God stated in Genesis 3:16, a woman’s desire shall be for a man who is fit to rule over her. Maintaining that desire through the course of a marriage requires the man to be a wise ruler and the data from the study of Game provides some relevant details as to how that process works. Rollo Tomassi’s Rational Male series provides an excellent foundation of knowledge. The Rational Male and The Rational Male: Preventative Medicine are both descriptive works that should be required reading for every man. I don’t agree with Rollo’s position on the subject of evolution, but other than that, his work is excellent and I suspect his upcoming third book in the series (The Rational Male: Positive Masculinity) will be worth reading as well.
Almost all feminist churchians and sincere Christians get very upset about data that comes from the PUA (Pick-Up Artist) research. After all, the PUA’s are a bunch of men who were trying to figure out what caused women to be attracted to a man and how to stimulate that attraction in order to get laid. “Immorality!” they screech. Yet, they are comfortable with “science” that is completely oriented around evolution, which is the religion of humanism and a form of idolatry. Call them out on it and they will hypocritically say that evidence is evidence and we should use it…
The author Athol Kay has taken a prescriptive approach and while he has been criticized for simply gathering the “best of game”, he stepped beyond that. Athol’s achievement was to take the data and observations of the PUA’s and apply it to long-term relationships, especially marriage. He detailed the point that women need a combination of alpha dominance and beta comfort in order to ensure the long-term success of a relationship in his book “Married Man Sex Life Primer“. Notably, he identified the reaction of women to the men’s behaviors in terms of brain chemistry- alpha dominance provoking a domamine response and beta comfort provoking an oxytocin response.
Rollo professes to be a Christian but approaches his study of women from the standpoint of evolutionary psychology. Athol (and his wife) are former conservative Christians who now profess to be atheists and he likewise approaches his position from an evolutionary standpoint. Both of them draw on the observations and data collected for decades by the PUA’s which has coalesced into what is known as “Game”.
There is another data source with a number of interesting and provable observations, which is the Dominance/submissive (D/s) relationships within the BDSM community. The Bible is very clear that marriage is a D/s relationship in which men and women are clearly not equal. As I pointed out in the post 50 Shades of Biblical Marriage, the Biblical standards for marriage read like a D/s relationship contract. The point that most will miss is simple: the various acts within an intimate relationship meet different needs of both the men and women in terms of dominance and submission.
The three basic types of sexual activity can be divided up as follows:
Oral. This is a one-way act and generally should be construed as an act of worship. It doesn’t matter which way it goes, but in general it’s an act of worship by the one giving the oral sex that flows to the one receiving. The one giving receives no pleasure from the act and they perform a sacrificial suffering of discomfort performing the act. Yet, many women testify they enjoy (on an emotional level) performing the act. Which describes an act of worship.
Anal. This aspect of sex is an expression of dominance on the part of the man. It can be both painful and pleasurable for the woman, although it is almost always painful to some extent. The one being penetrated is submitting to the dominance of the one doing the penetration. As with spanking, some women enjoy and desire being completely dominated in this fashion.
Vaginal. The act of vaginal intercourse is mutually pleasurable and generates the most comfort for the woman. It is the only one by which the woman will become pregnant and is the most equal of the three in terms of pleasure given and received. Depending on position there can be differences in who is in the dominant position but vaginal intercourse is arguably the act of joining that facilitates mutual bonding and comfort, particularly for women.

Why Bring This Up?

There is a theory which states women need all three aspects (worship, dominance and bonding) in order to have a balanced relationship with their husband and all of these correspond to the alpha/beta dynamic that must be kept in balance to avoid problems. Which, of course, is enough to make almost all Christians scream with outrage. Especially the women who are married to a man they aren’t attracted to.
If we consider acts of dominance, worship and joining, there are emotional needs being satisfied with these acts for both men and women. Only an idiot would look at the situation and say that joining was the only acceptable path because the evidence clearly states women have a need for masculine dominance and men have a need to dominate. Women have a need to completely submit (and what is more submissive than worship?) while men have a need to be praised and exalted.
All of this goes back to the beginning, where God said “your desire shall be for the man who is fit to rule over you.” And, yes, that’s my translation and it’s accurate.
It is ironic that Christians who readily accept the theory of evolution and deny that God is the Creator are triggered by the idea that fellatio is arguably an act of worship. Putting the hypocrisy aside, they cannot comprehend the difference between a woman’s act of worship for her master as her master and the act of worshiping God because He is God. Ephesians 5:22-24 takes on an entirely non-feminist meaning in this light.

Wives, to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself the Savior of the body. But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives to their husbands in everything. (Translators additions to the text removed)

Which is to say that whatever the church gives to Christ, the wife is to give to her husband. That word “everything” is unbounded within the constraints of obedience and submission. If the church owes praise and worship to Christ as the Savior, so too does the wife owe praise and worship to her husband as the man who rules over her. Since God does not change this passage cannot mean the husband is to be worshiped as God, but it does call for her worship of him as her ruler.
Interestingly, there is nothing in Scripture that forbids what a man and his woman do in terms of sex EXCEPT for sex while she’s menstruating. While those evil Canaanites were certainly engaged in all manner of sexual practices, God’s only injunction was against sex while a woman was menstruating. The fact that God forbid intercourse while a woman is menstruating is the proof that God chose not to forbid any other form of sexual congress between a man and his woman.
From the perspective of mixing the colonies of the microbiome, any variety in sexual practices will hasten and reinforce that, with the general flow of colonization going from man to woman.
Some of the more gentle readers might be appalled, but God did not forbid fellatio, cunnilingus or anal sex between a man and woman. And as it turns out, there are actually good reasons to engage in these activities from the standpoint of meeting needs and relationship dynamics indicate there are likewise good reasons to engage in all of these behaviors. The one flesh aspects of the microbiome and DNA transmission that are enhanced by such activities depends on whether one believes that “becoming one flesh” is a good thing.
And just as an aside, did anyone notice that the rules and restrictions on sex that the ancient church put in place (without knowing anything about the science) were practically designed to damage marriages? Evidently Satan understood genetics and the microbiome back then on a level better than we do now.

27 thoughts on “Theology For Men of the West: Becoming One Flesh”

  1. Sir
    This is wonderful post
    I think of sex as communion for the marriage convent. I was originally taught not to kiss until marriage, later I was upset with this rule but this makes sense
    .
    Reply
  2. There is a very obvious, very simple explanation for “one flesh” as the result of sexual congress. Two flesh produce one flesh. This also explains the evil of adulterating.
    Reply
    1. An excellent point, sir. That supports the “for this cause” preamble of Gen. 2:24 quite nicely: the purpose of marriage is to comply with the command to be fruitful and multiply. Marriage creates family, the container in which children are to be conceived and reared into adulthood.
      Looked at that way, it interprets Matthew 19’s statement by Jesus “what therefore God has joined together, let no man separate” as meaning that a mother and father are not to be separated.
      I don’t think that’s all of it, but I hadn’t looked at it from that perspective before and I appreciate you making the point.
      Reply
  3. Young Heaving:
    You got the “evil” part right. Look at the way ancient Israel regarded adulteration under the OT law ” ” . they removed it from amongst themselves like you would remove rotting garbage from your home, lest your house begin to stink. Deuteronomy 22:21-22 is a good example of this.
    Reply
  4. Excellent post. I would say there are many “mysteries” whose truths have been revealed throughout the centuries, by God’s grace, no doubt, and this could easily be considered one of them. It’s a beautiful revealing of how Gods design works, just as was written thousands of years ago, and is just another piece of proof that His word is truth and very, very real. Amen! How awesome it is to see the word of God proven again!
    Reply
  5. Excellent post! I was wondering what you thought of the telegonic explanation of the “one flesh” statements.
    I think that the rabbit hole goes even further though. Look the family tree of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. It has a high degree of consanguinity. The author at nobabies.net (summary:http://nobabies.net/A%20January%20summary%20for%202015.html) hypothesizes that higher degrees of consanguinity mean higher levels of fertility. God did promise Abraham that his descendants would be as numerous as the stars (current estimate is that there are 1 septillion stars – that’s a lot of descendants). Even today, Ashkenazi Jews are all on the order of 4th-5th cousins. So, it would make sense if the adversary would attack God via increasing infertility in humans.
    In reference to one of the earlier posts in this series, what are the other priesthoods mentioned other than Phinneas?
    Reply
    1. I think there is far more evidence to suggest that widespread polygyny, rather than consanguinity, is the culprit behind the population growth. The observed tendency toward daughters in poly families is sufficient to ensure that.
      The four priesthoods mentioned in the Bible are the Levitical, the Aaronic, the Phinneas and the priesthood of Melchizedek.
      Reply
      1. Thinking about it more, it seems that my example supports your point!
        If consanguinity were the driver, we would expect Leah and Rachel to have roughly equal numbers of children. But that is not the case.
        Reply
  6. AT: It is good to see where you have gotten–i.e. one flesh really is one flesh not “one flesh [in a spiritual sense]”.
    Then and now man cannot separate what God has joined. C.f. Gen. 2:21-22: man does not have God’s power.
    Reply
    1. I did not claim there is no spiritual aspect to the union of one flesh, but make the point that the intermixing of the DNA and microbiome causes the two to become the same. With the comments of interlocutor Matthew, we now have 3 ways to view this, that the words can also refer to the children who represent half the DNA of the Father and half the DNA of the mother.
      Reply
      1. There is no false claim laid at your feet. Noting that churchian dogma falls along the lines of “soul mate” marriage, your recent set of articles are precise in laying open that error. The act of becoming one flesh really is becoming one flesh.
        Reply
  8. Hi Toad,
    Hope all has been well with you these past few months. I’ve followed your recent posts, and have appreciated your flexibility in accepting a new perspective on the issue of sex and marriage. Our previous discussion, while convincing neither of us of anything, brought some nuances of interpretation to light, and has helped me in my own study. If you’d humor me, I’d like to do something similar here, hopefully giving us both a chance to sharpen our arguments for mutual benefit.
    Despite your best efforts, I still am of the opinion that sex with an eligible woman is not sufficient to initiate marriage. You and I agree that sex unifies a man and a woman as one flesh, and that genetic transfer and other physiological effects of semen are significant in this process. This is supported by Pauline discussions of the flesh (sarx, I think) as the physicality of the body – the part of us that goes to dust as we decompose. Incidentally, this brings us to the main subject I’d like to discuss: death.
    We know that a marriage ends when the husband dies (Rom. 7:1-3). However, a widow still exhibits all the genetic and physiological markers of being one flesh with the deceased. How then can a widow remarry? For she would be one flesh with both her “husbands,” dead and living – adulterating them inside her! If a woman becomes a man’s flesh, and he dies, his flesh still “lives” in her. Her flesh is his flesh, permanently, regardless of his status. Thus, a remarried widow is one flesh with two distinct men, and yet is married to only one of them. And, there is nothing immoral about her. Therefore, the proposition, “A man and a woman are married if and only if they have legitimate one-flesh/sexual relations” is false.
    To summarize: marriage => sex => one flesh =>! marriage
    Of course, we must check our work, investigating if this is consistent with the rest of the Bible.
    Genesis 2:5-24 provides an etiology for sexuality that ends with, “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.” This, for our purposes, reduces to, “Men have sex with their wives, and they become one flesh.” It says nothing about the results of men sleeping with non-wives, or, for that matter, about dogs playing poker. That is left to be discovered by the reader. So far, so good.
    Matthew 19:4-6 provides more insight, this time in the context of divorce. We are told, ‘He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.’ Paraphrased, “God created male and female, and said when a man takes a wife they become one flesh. So don’t split up what God made.” Again, the domain of this statement is restricted to married one-flesh couples, without notice to unmarried ones. Here, however, a problem does arise: if unity of flesh is permanent, how can a married pair be separated?
    The only answer is that Christ is not speaking of breaking the natural, fleshly unity of married sexual partners, but rather of a rupture of their marriage as a separate entity entirely. But that’s not all: if death ends marriage, and we’re not to separate what “God has joined together,” are married people exempt from judicial execution? Of course not. Going back to how Paul presents marriage as a legal matter in Romans 7, we see Jesus’s injunction is best interpreted as a reminder that God created marriage as an institution of unity for which his rules, and his rules alone, apply. It is clear that “one flesh” and marriage exist as two distinct creations – the former natural and the latter covenantal.
    My explanation fits well with the rest of Scripture. Samson and Rahab can get good marks in the Bible despite their sexual escapades since they aren’t violating any marriage contract. Paul, in 1 Corinthians 6, which I wrote much about last time, condemns the use of cult prostitutes because it would be shameful to make one’s own Christian temple service a false god. And so on, and so on.
    (This is not to say that promiscuity is good; clearly, being one flesh with a lot of different people can have negative consequences for mind, spirit, and body. But that doesn’t mean such behavior is morally repugnant, just reckless and unhealthy.)
    What do you think? As always, thanks for reading.
    Miscellany:
    > I’ve been meaning to ask for a while, but how does the Bible define sex? I’ve made some interesting progress on this question myself, and I’d love to hear your perspective.
    > If you haven’t, I’d highly recommend looking up sexual euphemisms in the Bible, then reading Ruth 3. Apparently there’s some innuendo that isn’t present in a typical study.
    > I still don’t get why you don’t see Ezekiel 16:8 as a useful portrait of marriage. Even though the passage is metaphorical, metaphors derive their meaning from their correspondence to reality. To say we can’t learn about marriage from it is to say we can’t learn about a building from a photograph.
    Reply
      2. @whysoserious?
        I made another change to the blog. For in-depth arguments I created “The Argument Room” and put it in the header. You have the first page there, which is where I recapped our previous discussion and responded to your argument here.
        Reply
  10. Anal Sex is only harmful if done in irresponsible and destrustive ways. Gays who suffer injuries tend to be doing extreme things to themselves. Many heterosexuals engage in anal sex without problems. The injuries that homosexuals sometimes suffer are the result of extreme behaviors and heterosexual practicing vaginal sex would very likely need medical attention too if they were say inserting giant objects into their vaginas or doing some of the strange activites that gays sometimes do.
    Likewise, the risk of disease is similar to risks associated with unprotected vaginal sex. Gay men don’t have higher rates of disease because they practice anal; gay men have higher rates of disease because they do irresponsible things such as have unprotected sex with several strangers. Furthermore, the argument that anal sex increases the risk of anal cancer because of Hpv could also be used against having having vaginal sex because hpv invreases the risk of cervical and vaginal cancers as well. Should a married couple avoid anal if neither of them have been sleeping with anyony else and thus don’t have hpv?
    I think what is grosss is question of personal taste.
    Reply
    1. You don’t get it do you. Anal is using what is intended for excrement for what is meant to produce life.
      It causes microtears that enables germs from her petri-dish of intestines to leak into the rest of the body causing problems. Go look up all the risk factors enabled by anal sex as I linked above
      Even subtracting all the above you mentioned among gays. That still doesn’t change the fact the anal results in more problems with health in contrast to the vagina which is designed to take penetration.
      A person who has no problem with shit on their wick which the anus has even if you can’t see it or in avoiding what is unclean clearly has something wrong with them.
      Reply
      1. Jay, you’ve made your point about anal and it’s quite obvious your mind will not be changed. However, it’s also clear that you do not have the correct perspective. In other words, you are the one who doesn’t get it.
        God knew all about anal when He chose not to forbid it between men and women. The fact God specifically forbid intercourse with a menstruating woman means He chose not to forbid anal and oral. That leaves the decision completely at the discretion of the husband.
        Not being a forbidden activity, anal sex between men and women is not a sin. Therefore, your problem with anal is an issue of conscience and you’re forbidden to judge others in this area.
        I do wonder what you’d do if you or a family member came down with a massive C. dif infestation. Given how lethal it can be and the fact that the only effective treatment is a fecal matter transfer.” it would be interesting.
        Likewise, it would be interesting to see how you’d deal with irritable bowel syndrome, spastic colitis, fibromyalgia or any of the other ills that can (at best) barely be controlled by “modern medicine” but get cured by fecal matter transplants.
        In case you missed it, the subject was the microbiome and the mixing of the various colonies between the man and woman. So, ask yourself this: If anal is so horrible (as you say) then why did God choose not to forbid it? Why didn’t God choose call it unclean?
        I notice you are calling it unclean and claiming that those who disagree with you have something wrong with them, which effectively puts you in the position of claiming God got it wrong. Around here the technical terms for people with an attitude like that are “churchian” and “idiot”.
        Reply
        1. “That leaves the decision completely at the discretion of the husband”
          So, the wife doesn’t get a say in whether she gets anally penetrated? Also, you claim that anal sex is permissible because god didn’t specifically forbid it. You also claim the reason gays get injuries and diseases is because they insert huge objects into themselves. But God didn’t specifically forbid inserting huge objects into oneself, you are contradicting yourself.
          Reply
          1. Jane, please tell me what the exception is to the wife’s command to submit to her husband in *all* things.
            I didn’t say do it, I said the decision rested with the husband. It may come as a surprise to you, but more than a few women like anal sex. But, to put it a bit differently, the responsibility for whatever happens rests with the husband. Anal sex is a dominance act on the part of the man and some women like it because of that. What that means is that they would only appreciate/tolerate it from certain men, but certainly not from others. In that respect it’s much like corporal punishment.
      2. I know what the subject of this post is. But that didn’t change the fact that the negative health effects of this particular practice is evident. And given how untreated sewage from human waste generally caused disease and sickness then the disgust reflex that God had provided us with is a good guide as to avoiding what is unclean and harmful.
        Taking crack cocaine or using ice is not specifically forbidden as sin yet how is it not harmful in its own right? Yet the impact that they have on people and communities can be seen.
        ”I do wonder what you’d do if you or a family member came down with a massive C. dif infestation. Given how lethal it can be and the fact that the only effective treatment is a fecal matter transfer.” it would be interesting.”
        If its necessary then I would accept that but that still doesn’t change the facts I presented above.
        Reply
  11. I’ve been seeing a recurring interpretation of a verse since frequiting these blogs and I would like to give my 2 cents:
    Genesis 3:16 “…..and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee”….nearly every time I see that verse being quoted in the comment section they change God’s word and add to it by saying “IF HE IS FIT TO RULE OVER YOU”…….Forgive me for stating the obvious but adding to the word of God is a serious offence to HIM, as that’s NOT what the txt says, it’s an interpretation based on some preconceived belief that you hold…..you can give what you believe is YOUR interpretation of that verse but let’s not pretend here that’s what God SAID
    I consider myself a student of the bible and I’m always open to new beliefs that differ from my own so could anyone in here give me your justification for changing what God said? I would be interested to hear your explanations
    My understanding of that passage is that despite the curse placed upon all women to sexually desire men, they will netherless be placed in a position that they would rule over them in one form of the other
    Changing God’s word to say that only those who are “FIT TO RULE ” is not only bad exegesis but straining at a gnat in order to hold to a preconceived theology
    Have I got this right guys or am I misreading something here?
    Reply
    1. Start with the post on hypergamy:
      This is actually a good question to deal with directly with a postso give me a day and I’ll lay it out for you. I think you will be able to lay aside the “preconceived theology” fears. In the meanwhile, I suggest you take a hard look at the text and see what Hebrew is translated into what English.
      Reply
  12. Toad:
    Interesting couple of posts here. I too think that science will reveal some of the mystery’s of the Bible, which is ironic given the general disdain for God amongst the academia. In your research for this post, did you come across the topic of sperm antibodies? I have read a little in the past on this subject and it too could be a piece of this puzzle. If a womans body rejects (attacks) the semen of her current partner it could be due to the bodies recognition that it has been adulterated by the introduction of new semen?
    Reply
    1. I’ve seen a bit about it and that is a natural question, but it is a question that violates the feminine imperative and research into that area just won’t happen. Any research that would prove the value of chastity and virginity is effectively forbidden because it’s not politically correct.
      My next phase here is the Strategy and Tactics sections that provide real-world solutions to the problems men face today. I’ll probably continue to add to the Theology section from time to time, but the basics are covered.
      Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *