BU Today

In the World

The Bible’s Contradictions About Sex

BU theologian: the good book is not a rule book

25
jennifer_knust_v.jpg

Jennifer Knust, an ordained American Baptist pastor and an STH assistant professor, discusses her new book with CAS Religion Professor Stephen Prothero. Photo by Kimberly Cornuelle

It is easy to label Jennifer Knust, the author of Unprotected Texts: The Bible’s Surprising Contradictions About Sex and Desire, a theological renegade. And she does say the sorts of things in this book—about premarital sex and abortion and gay marriage—that make conservatives shudder. But in one respect at least, Knust, a School of Theology assistant professor, is a throwback.

Long ago and in a place far away, Christians used to actually fear God. They saw a yawning gap between their limited intelligence and the mind of God. So they were exceedingly careful about presuming what God had to say about almost anything. “He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts,” wrote the Protestant reformer John Calvin, “he should go elsewhere” than the Biblical text.

Today many supposedly conservative Christians have no trouble pontificating on what Jesus would do about the deficit or what the Bible says about war and peace or sex and the solar system. Knust, who is an ordained American Baptist pastor, thinks that this confidence is not only preposterous, but perhaps idolatrous as well.

We sat down a few days ago, as people increasingly sit down nowadays (in front of our respective computers), to discuss her new book.

Prothero: Why another book on the Bible and sex? What does your book have to tell us that we don’t already know?
Knust:
Because the Bible continues to be invoked in today’s public debates as if it should have the last word on contemporary American sexual morals. The only way the Bible can be a sexual rulebook is if no one reads it. Unprotected Texts seeks to offer a comprehensive, accessible discussion of the Bible in its entirety, demonstrating the contradictory nature of the Biblical witness and encouraging readers to take responsibility for their interpretations of it.

But everybody knows the Bible is against abortion and gay marriage and premarital sex. Is everybody really wrong?
Yes. The Bible does not comment on abortion and gay marriage. Some Biblical writers argue against premarital or extramarital sex, especially for women, but other Biblical writers present premarital sex as a source of God’s blessing.

Really? Where does the Bible give a green light to premarital sex?
Perhaps the most striking example is in the story of Ruth, though there are other examples as well. According to the Book of Ruth, when the recently widowed Ruth and her mother-in-law Naomi were faced with a famine in Ruth’s homeland Moab, they returned to Israel impoverished and with little hope of survival. Ruth took to gleaning in the fields to find food for herself and Naomi. The owner of the fields, a relative of Naomi named Boaz, saw Ruth and was pleased by her. When Naomi heard about it, she encouraged Ruth to adorn herself and approach Boaz at night while he was sleeping to see what would happen. Ruth took this advice, resting with him until morning after first “uncovering his feet” (in Hebrew, “feet” can be a euphemism for male genitals). The next day, Boaz goes to town to find out whether he can marry her, and, luckily, another man with a claim to Ruth agrees to release her. They do marry and together they produce Obed, the grandfather of King David.

None of this would have been possible if Ruth had not set out to seduce Boaz in a field, without the benefit of marriage.

You say the Bible can’t be used as a sexual rulebook. Can it be used as a rulebook for anything? Are Christians left to make moral choices without any guidance from Biblical sources?
We can certainly turn to the Bible for guidance on moral issues, but we should not expect to find simple answers to the moral questions we are asking. Sometimes Biblical conclusions are patently immoral. Sometimes they are deeply inspiring. In either case, we are left with the responsibility for determining what we will believe and affirm.

OK, but what about Jesus? Can we appeal to him on these questions? Wasn’t he opposed to divorce, for example? And what does his decision not to marry tell us today?
Certainly Christians should try to understand how Jesus might respond to a concern or problem they are facing. But Jesus’ words do not come to us un-interpreted. Preserved within Gospels written several decades after his death, they have been reshaped in light of the experiences of the Gospel writers. Also, those who have transmitted these sayings to us have left their own mark, sometimes editing and changing Jesus’ words. This is particularly true when it comes to Jesus’ teachings on divorce. As I show in my book, Jesus’ sayings on divorce were presented in diverse, contradictory ways, though remarriage was universally forbidden. The prohibition against remarriage, however, makes sense when it comes to the Gospels. All the Gospel writers believed that Jesus would soon return to bring the kingdom of heaven, making marriage irrelevant.

In my book Religious Literacy: What Every American Needs to Know—and Doesn’t I argue that American politicians often use the Bible without knowing what it really says. Is Biblical illiteracy a problem in U.S. politics in your view?
Yes. In political contexts, the Bible is repeatedly invoked as if it can support one particular view, though upon a closer examination, it is quite clear that the passages mentioned (if any are mentioned) say little to nothing about the topic at hand. The most egregious example is the citation of the Epistle to the Ephesians as a support for “Biblical marriage,” which supposedly means marriage between one man and one woman for the purpose of procreation. Ephesians simply does not endorse this form of marriage. Instead, Ephesians recommends that a man love his wife and children and be kind to his slaves. In a world where slaves could not marry and where their own sexual lives were entirely determined by their masters, this teaching endorses a hierarchical household where only certain men have access to the privileges of marriage, (human) property, and children.

When it comes to the Bible and sex, who in your view gets it most wrong? And who gets it most right?
I’m not interested in judging who gets things wrong or right. Instead I would like to convince all of us to take responsibility for the interpretations we are promoting. I would like us to stop pretending that the Bible has been dictating our conclusions to us so that we can evaluate the implications of what we are defending. The question for me is not whether an interpretation is valid, but whether it is valuable, and to whom.

Why in your view are Americans so obsessed about sex? Why does religion collapse so readily into morality and morality into bedroom issues?
I wish I knew! Perhaps focusing on morality, especially morality in the bedroom, makes it possible for us to avoid facing other, more intractable problems. Perhaps speaking incessantly about sexual morals allows some to assert a position of moral superiority, thereby promoting their own brand of righteousness at the expense of someone else’s. Or perhaps people are simply longing for certainty about a topic that impacts everyone, since every human person desires to be touched and loved. Every human body is vulnerable and sexual difference is one of the fundamental ways in which we experience being human. Absolute certainty about these matters would therefore be nice, if it were available. As even the Bible can teach us, it isn’t.

You want us to “take responsibility” for our interpretations. But isn’t that precisely the rub in this debate? People who cite the Bible do so to call down the authority of God on their behalf. They are asking God to take responsibility for their interpretations, because they believe that those interpretations come from God. What makes you so sure they are wrong?
Because we are human beings, not God. By claiming that we can be certain about matters that we only partially understand, we are placing ourselves in the role of God. From a Christian perspective anyway, this is a serious sin. Certainty is not granted to us. As an American Baptist, an heir to both the radical Reformation and abolitionist American Protestantism, I would affirm the interpretive perspective adopted by antislavery activists in the 18th and 19th centuries and insist that loving one’s neighbor is God’s chief requirement. I would defend this principle vigorously, and I deeply value its implications. Still, I cannot claim that the Bible made me reach this conclusion. Some biblical passages can support my point of view. Others do not. So, as firmly as I believe that “love your neighbor” can capture God’s point of view, I cannot be certain that I am right.

Jennifer Knust will talk about her new book, Unprotected Texts: The Bible’s Surprising Contradictions About Sex and Desire, at 7 p.m. today, February 16, at Barnes & Noble at BU, level five Reading Room, 660 Beacon St., Kenmore Square.

Stephen Prothero, a College of Arts & Sciences professor of religion, can be reached at prothero@bu.edu.

This article originally appeared on the Huffington Post.

25 Comments

25 Comments on The Bible’s Contradictions About Sex

  • BU_grad_student on 02.16.2011 at 6:41 am

    Ms Knust’s perspective is interesting as well as telling, yet I think mistaken. I write this anonymously because, frankly, what I’m going to write is going to piss some people off.

    1. To spot contradictions in the spiritual matters of the Bible (in this case, its ethics) is to cut at the very heart of Scriptures. It implies errancy in its core, a man-made fabrication, and a moral bankruptcy. Ms Knust, I believe, has ultimately shown the Bible to be a grandiose lie and her American Baptist vestment is not befitting a woman so intelligent. Her cafeteria Christianity (in which she picks and chooses what parts she likes) should be traded for total Secular Humanism — she can call her version Sexual Humanism.

    2. Her calls to a Reformation inheritance is a tad off. Following Luther’s “every man has a Pope in his belly,” mainstream Protestants have affirmed the ease of the Bible’s singular interpretation. (Also a reason why a lot of blood was spilt between fighting Protestant sects). By asserting multiple interpretations based on a delineated and phallocentric text she is really more in line with 19th cent. German Protestant textual critics and with the 20th cent. Atheism of Derrida.

  • MontyMoose on 02.16.2011 at 7:49 am

    Bible

    The author is lost, but has the right to her views.
    Either the Bible is inerrant or the whole thing should be thrown out as non inspired.
    Jesus claimed to be Lord God Messiah. He was slain on a cross for this.
    He is either…( A LIAR) He lied about who He claimed to be
    A LUNATIC He was self deceived and just thought He is God
    THE LORD whom He claimed to be
    Each person has to make their own determination and choice.
    If He is God and He is the truth, God does not lie…
    Jesus quoted the Bible as the reference to His authenticity AND WHO HE IS!
    At the end the Bible says . Every knee will bow and every tongue confess’
    that Jesus Christ is Lord….
    For those who are not FILLED with THE HOLY SPIRIT I can understand not believing what it says. .but once you have a true relationship with Christ
    it all becomes clearer.
    Jesus said I am the way the truth the life ( eternal) no one comes to the Father except ( thru or by ) me.

  • Anonymous on 02.16.2011 at 8:20 am

    This is complete non-sense. Why does BU Today continually represent the tyranny of the minority? This paper is so blatantly trying to push a liberal agenda that it makes me sick. Although I personally may support some of the progressive policies she supports, her teaching is completely contradictory and is an attempt to water down/relativize the Bible’s teachings. The overwhelming number of great thinkers in history, and most current phsicists today, who were in fact men and women of faith, would argue that the interpretation offered here is entirely inaccurate.

  • leigh ann on 02.16.2011 at 9:22 am

    no surprise it appears in Huffington Post. anyone can take the Bible, people’s spoken words, and even written words out of context to make an argument sound valid. Just one more example of watering down philosophies that eliminate the need for convictions and repentance.

    • Frim Lee on 10.05.2013 at 8:32 am

      Surely you see the irony of your statement. SURELY

  • Jason Blanchette on 02.16.2011 at 9:27 am

    I went to a Catholic high school where my friends were by far more accepting of gays than were my public school friends. I think Christianity has a tremendous gift to bring to society but too often people focus on the those who are spreading ignorance and hatred through Christianity, and I think that hatred and blaming of Christians that comes from anti-Christians isolates those would-be Christians who would otherwise think objectively about the Bible and eventually present more open Christian views to the other Christians. Thank you to Stephen and Jennifer for this article.

  • Anonymous on 02.16.2011 at 10:21 am

    Confused by Ms. Knust's stance

    I am very confused by Ms. Knust’s stance. If Biblical passages can be used to both support and oppose different arguments/viewpoints, never really reaching a firm conclusion, then what exactly does it mean to be a Christian? Jesus clearly says that He is the way, the truth and the life. He also says that he is the only way to God. Would someone who calls himself or herself a Christian and affirms this statement only be “presuming what God had to say” on this issue? Is she saying that the Bible can only be interpreted according to a person’s personal stance and has no concrete conclusions?

  • Anonymous on 02.16.2011 at 10:22 am

    Dismissing Paul’s exhortation to the Ephesians on the grounds of the slavery issue is not a fair treatment of the text and is allowing our current cultural context to cloud a faithful exegesis of the original texts. For the purpose of this discussion it is a side issue (though of course slavery is never a minor issue and as she points out, the Bible clearly supports an anti-slavery message). Also, to use the story of Ruth as an endorsement of pre-marital sex is also a misuse of the text. This is a narrative passage, not an epistle or expository passage, where not every detail is meant as authoritative teaching. It is like using the story of David and Bathsheba as an endorsement of extra-marital affairs.

    It was a great question to end with and an interesting response. “By claiming that we can be certain about matters that we only partially understand, we are placing ourselves in the role of God.” Is not Prof. Knust arguing with the same certainty that she is criticizing others for having? I feel like she hasn’t properly checked her own cultural context and theological leanings before interpretation.

  • Anonymous on 02.16.2011 at 11:23 am

    The problem is that if you’re incapable of thinking for yourself then you can read the bible multiple times a year and still not understand what it means. One commenter above state a promotion of a “liberal” agenda but the actual quote of Jesus in the bible would lead one with an understanding of the meaning of words that Jesus was perhaps the most liberal of all those who believed in him.

    I believe the American obsession with sex derives from the fact our puritanical culture has made it (and nudity) forbidden thereby making it even more appealing. If people could just accept that it’s a natural wonderful thing and leave it at that then the appeal wouldn’t be so strong. People are born with sexual urges, to attempt to eliminate it is an exercise in futility.

    Also there are many passages in the bible that mention homosexuality (see David) but those parts are conveniently ignored by the hard core, rigid Christian community. Thankfully many Christian religions aren’t so close minded.

  • Manny on 02.16.2011 at 11:46 am

    To suggest that the bible permits premarital sex while taking the text out of context shows the level of self-deception that has permeated the christian church today. Here’s the bible text in different translations:

    Amplified: “But when he lies down, notice the place where he lies; then go and uncover his feet and lie down. And he will tell you what to do.”

    KJV: “And it shall be, when he lieth down, that thou shalt mark the place where he shall lie, and thou shalt go in, and uncover his feet, and lay thee down; and he will tell thee what thou shalt do.”

    NIV: “When he lies down, note the place where he is lying. Then go and uncover his feet and lie down. He will tell you what to do.”

    Message: “When you see him slipping off to sleep, watch where he lies down and then go there. Lie at his feet to let him know that you are available to him for marriage. Then wait and see what he says. He’ll tell you what to do.”

    I could list more but there is clearly no way a sound mind would interpret “uncovering his feet” as anything related to sex. Knurst tactfully leaves out the fact that “They do marry and together they produce Obed”. Why would Boaz go through the pain of obtaining permission to marry Ruth if he didnt think it necessary to be married before sex (aka producing Obed).

    I wonder what Knurst thinks about Paul’s view on Fornication (aka pre-marital sex) in 1 corinthians 6:18 “Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body”?
    OR
    1 Corinthians 7:2 “Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband”

  • Anonymous on 02.16.2011 at 8:50 pm

    Feet

    Or maybe feet just means feet. Talk about using texts for your own purposes.

    Also, as a scholar she should know that the actions of the Old Testament individuals were not prescriptive of how we should live our lives. They demonstrated a larger perspective of God’s relationship with humanity. In this case, the story is really about Ruth, a foreigner, being accepted into the Israelite people. Boaz, upon finding her at his feet, says “The LORD bless you, my daughter,” and the very next day makes arrangements to marry her. As Knust says, God in his mercy incorporates Ruth into the genealogy of Jesus.

    I am quite certain that most of the readers of this article can see through this sensationalist ‘scholarship’, so I do not feel the need to belabor my point.

  • BU Atheist on 02.17.2011 at 1:09 am

    The bible is moral?

    Ah… the good book, Full of terrible, terrible deeds done at the command of God, moral laws that we wouldn’t wipe our behinds with in today’s society (go pick up Leviticus or Deutoronomy and have yourself a good laugh), and of course THIS is divine inspiration. Law fit for eternity.

    Whenever someone slaps me over the head with the bible as the source of “absolute morality” I kindly remind the speaker that the church has been consistently hundreds of years behind culture when it comes to moral issues. Proudly leading the way into bondage- welcome to religion.

  • BU on 02.17.2011 at 1:12 am

    The bible is moral?

    Ah… the good book, Full of terrible, terrible deeds done at the command of God, moral laws that we wouldn’t wipe our behinds with in today’s society (go pick up Leviticus or Deutoronomy and have yourself a good laugh), and of course THIS is divine inspiration. Law fit for eternity.

    Whenever someone slaps me over the head with the bible as the source of “absolute morality” I kindly remind the speaker that most churches are consistently hundreds of years BEHIND culture when it comes to moral issues. Proudly leading the way into bondage. Welcome to religion.

  • Christian on 02.17.2011 at 9:41 am

    What the Bible is and isn't; and what we are.

    The Bible was not sent by fax from Heaven. It was a book of interpretations by many of Christ’s followers, only a few of which actually got into the actual Bible itself. This was decided by the Council of Nicaea (hence the Nicaean Creed) which when they were finally done was signed off on by the pagan Emperor Constantine who one his deathbed was baptized Christian for the sake of unifying Rome under one religion (obviously Christianity) as per being a pragmatist. Essentially the council picked and chose what parts of the Bible they wanted, and even then all of these parts that both made it in and were considered/thrown out were all written by mortal men…they weren’t there when God was talking to Christ or Moses or anyone else, they interpreted. — Moreover, that one page in the old testament book of Leviticus that damns everything and everyone (especially homosexuals based on ONE line) is what I point to as being not only b/s (another person’s interpretation) and also to all the people that point the finger at “cafeteria Christians” you are as well because you are most certainly NOT following everything on the Bible’s pages, on even Leviticus’ pages alone. — The Bible CAN be a moral guiding light in times of one’s OWN spiritual dismay, but does not work to base a country’s laws off of. We are ALL God’s creations, genetically created the way he meant us to be, sexual creatures both gay and hetero. Separations by race, gender, or sexual orientation are false human constructs…we are all human and creations of God. These endless fights are pointless. Thank you.

  • Anonymous on 02.17.2011 at 9:31 pm

    I wouldn't call her a "scholar"

    Her interpretations are incredibly lacking in holistic understanding for a supposed “scholar.” The Bible is NOT an ‘everything is relative’ book! She takes little defense of her own interpretations, and aims to apply everything in a contemporary politically-correct stance. Albeit, there is no “sola scriptura” mentioned in the Bible–that is to say, the Bible alone is the sole rule of authority–individuals like her can be very dangerous in confusing people with little understanding of scripture or historical context. This is why the Catholic Church has governing scholars, theologians, and apologists who have debunked these things centuries ago. Her misguided interpretations are nothing new, and she is definitely no renegade of theological debates. She may be a benevolent person and a good student, but wouldn’t last long among renowned scholars in a debate. To hold that there is no “true” interpretation is essentially a way of playing the middle ground. If there is day, then there is also night. We see opposites around us everyday. Our choices to blur them allow a vacuum filled with “progressive” lifestyles. These fit everyone’s “grey” area, no one is truly accountable, and it’s always the “backward” ancient Church’s fault for not going with the status-quo. Furthermore, it’s NOT the place of any one of us to judge another being or faith, but there most certainly was a “true” and intended message within the minds of gospel authors at the time of writing. Seeing multiple applications of a message is different and distinct from the “truth” of the intended story/verse/parable. There are most definitely academics (religious and non-religious) out there who have a significant understanding of linguistics, history, and philosophy in which they are able to understand the intended interpretation of biblical text. Certainly they debate these very understandings amongst one another, but someone is actually correct–in line with the proper context, understanding, and intentions of the authors. However, the faith and choice to follow this message is an entirely different debate. After all, living in the gray is much easier isn’t it? One could argue that right reason suggests a person need not be a scholar to gain insight from reading the Bible. One could be moved from within to better themselves, their lives, and even enrich the lives of others as a direct result. However, their proper understanding of such texts, the authority to teach and provide apologetics–closest to the “truest” interpretation–should always be viewed with careful scrutiny. There is reading a scripture, there is understanding the intended message, and, finally, the choice to incorporate and live by such intentions. The moral or ethical imperative is that we must also search responsibly for this “truth,” otherwise we live our lives according to the truths of others. Once a legitimate and rational intellectual connection is made, with due diligence to accurate history and reason, then the question becomes a matter of whether or not we will incorporate such evidence into our lives? That’s the true difficulty. It takes time, effort, and a mature introspection to bring us to that point. Immediate dismissal of legitimacy to one path or faith because of historical human mistakes (e.g. wars, persecutions, etc.), does not necessarily mean the foundational theology of said faith are somehow unsound. This may have been more the failure of human decisions, at any point in time, to live according to such principles. To dismiss such a faith or institution, should one feel is a true path, would be a dyer error and injustice to oneself. An error, nonetheless, based on the actions or failures of humans, and their failures to justly live out their own recognized “truth.” The important thing is to search and find out for ourselves. At the end of the day academics, intellect, and history will only bring you so far, and that’s where the act of faith decides if we live by a recognized truth, or take little pieces of everything and make it up as we go along (e.g. contemporary methods).

  • Anonymous on 02.18.2011 at 1:34 pm

    the universe is grey

    All these comments are so black and white. Why do you need the Bible to be either right or wrong? Why does it have to either provide you with an answer or be thrown out? Can’t it just be complex?

  • Anonymous on 02.19.2011 at 12:28 am

    uhhhh yeah... no.

    “the pagan Emperor Constantine who one his deathbed was baptized Christian for the sake of unifying Rome under one religion”

    He clearly was uniting the Empire under Christianity looong before his death (see his letter to Bishop Eusebius). His delayed baptism is more easily explained by pointing to the theology of the time: that a grievous sin post-”illumination” would be unforgivable.

    “Moreover, that one page in the old testament book of Leviticus that damns everything and everyone (especially homosexuals based on ONE line) is what I point to as being not only b/s”

    Let’s be honest here. There is plenty in both testaments that screams anti-homosexuality and speaks to the Bible’s moral corruption. The gymnastics people perform to make the Bible say what the want is impressive — and a waste of time. It’s just a bunch of uninspired nonsense from a semi-mountainous tribe’s bronze-age homophobic drivel. All the moral platitudes of the Bible are conquered by a single writing of Mills, James, Adams, or even Auden.

    “The Bible CAN be a moral guiding light in times of one’s OWN spiritual dismay, but does not work to base a country’s laws off of.”

    On this we agree, to the extent that the Bible can be read like poetry or myth. But to read the Bible “religiously” is a dangerous practice that engenders hate, prejudice, and ignorance. In other words, read the Bible as a doubter, not as a Christian. But why stop at the Bible? Why not turn to Thor and Humpty-Dumpty for guidance as well? Geez, they still pray to Tengri out in Mongolia.

  • Junius R. Hughes on 04.18.2011 at 8:32 pm

    I could say a great deal however......

    I will limit my words to only a few. First it is evident that Jennifer Knust has taken scripture and twisted it into her own understanding. It’s very unfortunate that these articles are published as it serves both to confuse new believers AND give argument to nay-sayers of the Bible. Nothing she said surprises me, why? Well first off she is an ordained pastor, the Bible clearly says in 1 Tim. 2: 12-14 that women are not to be in authority over men, which includes teaching the gospel or becoming an Elder. It is clear that Ms. Knust has is not submitting to the word of God but rather making the word of God submit to her.

  • Description vs. Prescription on 07.19.2012 at 11:53 am

    Description vs. Prescription

    – King David committed adultery: this biblical narrative does not mean Scripture prescribes David’s actions.

  • garybdmd on 04.30.2013 at 8:04 pm

    I thought love God with all your heart mind and soul came before love your neighbor as yourself. This lady seems confused. And as far as this translates to sex, if you and your spouse save yourself for marriage, you and your spouse feels more loved after marriage occurs it is more special. This interpret anything you’d like out of the Bible may work well for her. But I consider it near fact that if you abstain and finally have sex with your wife or husband, they will feel more special than if you have sex however you want and then with your spouse.

  • Angie on 09.07.2013 at 2:34 am

    Bravo Ms. Knutson! These poor old dillusional boys. Give themselves reasons to be right based on a magic book written in a time when they had no in door plumbing! Ha! I can imagine their bulging red neck veins busting out right now! I think they are all living in their own hell. Poor old dillusional boys……

  • chivigon on 10.21.2013 at 12:48 am

    yeah. no repentance, no feelings, no morals, no evil, no goodness. and what about the devil is he another misinterpretation in the bible? or just a manmade figure. WE ARE ALL GONNA DIE ONE DAY, LIFE IS SHORT INDEED.

  • randomcomment on 11.01.2013 at 3:25 pm

    For those of you who are saying that she does not have a total understanding and has not done research this is NOT her book. The book goes into greater detail.

  • Provemewrong on 12.18.2013 at 4:55 pm

    Look all you people. Stop being such harsh judges. There is nowhere in the bible at all that discriminates pre martial sex. And I have read all the Scriptures so I’m not going to list them. Do your own research. However, it basically states that immoral sex is wrong. If you plan to marry your partner, and you do, then see was never immoral. If you have sex with your partner before marriage, the bible says do the right thing and marry them to make it right. Prove me wrong

  • Jeff Varga on 03.07.2014 at 12:01 pm

    The link below leads to absolutely the most detailed answer you will ever read that the idea of PRE-MARITAL SEX as a sin does NOT exist in the Bible. There are not even rules that require a ceremony, a minister nor a written agreement to establish marriage, certainly not a requirement for any government to issue a license. Pastors and Preachers will NEVER teach this to you, because it would cause the congregation to divide and their salary to stop. It would cause loan payments to the bank for the church building to go into default.

    It’s too long to post here- the blog will not allow it. But I guarantee if you read it, you will be set free from FALSE GUILT caused by COUNTERFEIT SIN.

    Please read here:
    http://counterfeitsin.tumblr.com/post/54067457887/if-all-lust-is-a-sin-stop-looking-at-your-wife

Post Your Comment

(never shown)