25 Feb


Whether or not one is Catholic, there’s plenty for anyone to question in the ideas and policies Pope Francis;  but in some areas like private morality the drift of his thought is not so easily faulted. By contrast, some of his bishops, most notably those of Kazakhstan, are behaving like drama queens protesting that even to consider allowing the divorced to partake of communion, not to mention get remarried, amounts to blasphemy.

Blasphemy? The Pope can well retort as he has done to critics of his more liberalizing views in the Amoris Laetitia document, “Can one never be forgiven?” Can it be that marital mistakes of perhaps half a lifetime previous have one stuck in some permanent outsider, excommunicate status? But this touches on major questions usually avoided concerning the coherence or otherwise of biblical teachings on sex and relations. A Catholic theological student once put to this Protestant that the bible on sex is plain incoherent. Sounds extreme, but if you disagree you need a few answers.

I will be presenting and hopefully shedding light at the end of a tunnel of potentially depressing, faith shaking darkness; because in some respects – at least superficially and especially at the level of modern reception of texts as opposed to what may have been the writers’ original intentions – the case for “incoherence” is strong. I shall conclude with what I believe is the bible’s unstated, or only half stated, principle that is a key to many things and even some needed new vision.


Consider that Jesus tells his disciples to forgive not to seven but to seven times seven (Matt 18:2) whereas by implication it sounds like a once divorced person could be a virtually unforgiveable outcast. A person can’t divorce and remarry (unless they can prove “impurity” Matt 5:31.32) and if one marries a divorced person that entails a state of adultery ….apparently lifelong…. Wherever would that place St Paul’s notoriously pragmatic, “better to marry than to burn” (1 Cor 7:9)? Why couldn’t or wouldn’t it apply to the divorced?

Marriage and divorce teaching can seem still more contradictory if we consider how no similar relational restrictions fall upon Jesus’ repentant Prodigal who wasted his substance with whores. And something of this one-sidedness is reproduced today in recent evangelical rejoicings over converted singer and former gigolo and singer of his conquests, Mambo no 5, Lou Baya. He now witnesses to the change Jesus brings and speaks in tongues to film to supposedly prove it.

By contrast, if you once have a ring on your finger, the least slip, however understandable (say forced or arranged marriage such as until modern times often applied, or marriage entered on as an obvious folly of youth) could reduce you to a sinner status worse than the most abandoned fornicator. Luther shocked associates by suggesting concubinage was appropriate enough (and could it be so wrong?) in the case of a spouse become wholly incapable (and thus reducing their partner to lifelong celibacy). The automatic austerity of response seems all the more irrational given Jesus’ forebear David, described despite all his failures as “a man after God’s heart”, was a polygamist with plainly strong bisexual tendencies. Another forebear, Solomon, popularly believed to have written outstanding erotic poetry had (admittedly not successfully) numerous wives.

Now suppose you lived in a Brazilian favela, and had been beaten and abused by your husband who may not even have been technically unfaithful or had been so in ways scarcely to be admitted like incest with your daughter (who the right-to-life Christians believe shouldn’t be allowed an abortion to free her of the trauma and impurity she feels she carries, because that’s “murder [1] ). From these impossible situations you seek release. But you either can’t be divorced or if you can be so by state if not church, you can’t be allowed to find love again because Jesus doesn’t want you to remarry. How great a loving, forgiving saviour would you consider this Jesus to be? He might become your ticket to depression and nightmare! As Pope Francis (who also favours a kindlier approach to cases of abortion) asks, “Can one never be forgiven?”

St Paul seems no help either. The apostle even backs up the potential horror picture in 1 Cor 7. “A wife is not to depart from her husband” (not even if he is beating and abusing her or the pair are wholly sexually incompatible?) but if she does depart she should not remarry. This is supposedly a direct command from Jesus too!  Thankfully the relevant seventh chapter on marriage relations finishes with the admission Paul thinks he has the Spirit of God here. (v 40) Arguably on this matter he didn’t quite and Jesus never said or not in Paul’s precise terms. One just wishes with so much ability to influence lives, that people like Paul wouldn’t speak when they are not one hundred per cent sure of their position!


One certainly wonders how sure Paul felt when he wrote the first highly rhetorical chapter of Romans. Admittedly modern scholarship has raised legitimate, serious questions about just what he was saying about precisely whom in cultural and religious context (paedophiles, prostitutes?). My guess is he describes practitioners of a decadent recreational bisexuality, but from an ancient standpoint that no one is or could be born gay or bisexually inclined in the first place so that they wilfully exchange their nature). Whatever, it’s hard to read the text (as widely translated and understood) and not have an impression akin to “hate speech” – the ancients were no stranger to such like the pagan astrologer Ptolemy hoping “effeminates” would be bashed in the streets – and that those Paul targets are seen as virtual origin and symbol of all evil and idolatry. Which seems absurd. Did gays or bisexuals crucify Christ or eat the first apple or found the non-Christian religions?

And outside circles of extreme imperial decadence like those under Nero, did Roman gays really represent Sodom whose sin according to Ezekiel and early rabbinical commentary was not primarily sexual? Again we ask with Pope Francis, (who thinks it might be be OK for Catholics to be gay if they were devout and sincere), is there along with the divorced no meaningful forgiveness and acceptance?

It’s said that great men make great mistakes and I sense  that we are confronted with such a case with St Paul in Rom 1 which is by and large disinformation in affinity with his culture and times. What  could the apostle even mean with such ruminations as “Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness…to dishonour their bodies among themselves”. I’m reminded of Ultra Orthodox in Jerusalem a few years back protesting against gay Jews but unable to state what it was gays do because they didn’t really know! We may guess that what the apostle hints at and makes seem worse by failing to define, probably wasn’t anything alien to heterosexuality!

Apart from the obvious target of sodomy (itself often enough practiced historically in southern Europe as a means of contraception) other possibilities are mutual masturbation and fellatio. In which case one might need to know, as I recall a prostitute interviewed for TV admit in warning to wives, that most men visit prostitutes for the fellatio their wives won’t perform.

So why target gays for this subject or indeed the masturbation common enough (though not mutually) within heterosexuality (57% of straight males regularly)  which last might have a bad name in the ancient world as effeminate or for the pre-scientific error it involved killing homunculi when in fact sperm is lost repeatedly in just the urine. So what is meant by “uncleanness” in Paul’s rhetoric?


Here’s another problem that the bible and not just St Paul, at least as read, presents: what does unclean or filthy as opposed to truly non kosher illicit mean? As Camille Paglia observes in Sexual Personae, almost by definition sex is fluid, messy and unclean. Lewd people and pornography can and will exaggerate that, but to make out, if only by hints, that somehow sex can be tidied up and sanitized and only be holy when it is, could invite confusion and distaste for all sex. Which you could claim is what Paul does. There were philosophical pagans of his time who as good as wished to do away with sex and there is some of this in the apostle, a man of his times, when he proposes ( if he does so – authorship of the relevant epistle is much contested) it may be better not to marry and unkindly proposes – can one call it anything else? – widows may remarry but they want to do so when they don’t love Christ enough ( 1 Tim 5:11). Please!


I conclude this recital of the incoherently dubious, discrepant and disturbing with something of topical relevance. It’s now scientifically proven that when it comes to virginity understood in terms of the hymen, this is a myth of many cultures and ages. There is no difference between the genuine virgin and the working prostitute, less than half of women bleed at first intercourse and those women who do are liable to do so for various reasons (such as irritation of the vagina) rather than the common assumption.

You can read the facts and the myths grown around them in a book by two Norwegian doctors, The Wonder Down Under. True facts apart, as in Deut 22 the bible goes along with widespread cultural ideas about virginity and takes a blooded cloth as one of the evidences of virginity in the case of an offended husband deciding his wife must have been playing the whore. (She would risk execution if proven guilty. Fortunately blood was not only or exclusively the evidence and as two or more witnesses were needed to prove guilt, it’s unlikely things would reach the point of execution (how much could even your neighbours know?).

However, all this raises questions and reminds us how to a great extent the Jewish laws were probably “utopian”. Like some other ancient laws, some of them truly impossible (like executing any doctor who failed a cure or any astrologer who forecast wrongly), they expressed ancient value judgements not necessarily meant to be literally applied. Under the law the adultery plus murder committed by King David in the Bathsheba affair should have had him executed, but when condemning him God and his prophet Nathan don’t require it. Only fanatical Pharisees and/or literalists would think in quite such terms.

Echoes of his heritage as a Pharisee are found in Paul and Romans 1:32 with its “and for this they [his perverts] deserve to die” (i.e. under the Law); and although in fairness he continues that not just these people but we all do the same (i.e fail under the Law and so are guilty under it) practically the damage was done. Those perceived as deviant would one day be sent to the stake, the inquisition and torture as even one of Italy’s leading saints, St Bernadino of Siena, actively recommended in Renaissance Florence. And there are still preachers today like American Baptist Steven Anderson who call for the execution of gays – basically on St Paul’s authority, however slight in real terms.

One feels that in memoriam of so much intolerance, martydom and even youth suicide, Romans 1, whatever its precise meanings, should be ignored for church readings or even censored from bibles. Luther wanted the whole epistle of James excluded as “an epistle of straw”. I am not nearly so radical, and feel James presents a meaningful counterpoint to the corpus of Pauline doctrine which was all the homophobic Luther (who loathed the bible translating Erasmus as an effeminate) wished to concentrate on. By contrast to Luther’s suggestion, mine is minor. One tricky page is little to exclude from a whole bible!



I reserve to Part Three what I believe is the likely, but unstated key to coherence. Before that I shall deal with a few points worth bearing in mind whether I am right or wrong as regards the major key.

I have painted a picture so grim and frustrating that some might consider dismissing the whole Judaeo-Christian tradition for it. But that’s a nihilistic reaction as overblown as dismissing the Greek philosophers because they accepted slavery and the innate inferiority of women. Times and people do change.


Faced with apparent incoherence making for injustice, the thinking believer is in a position akin to that of the daughters of Zelophehad in Numbers 27. They find unfair a Mosaic’ ruling resulting from a response to the rebellion of Korah and affecting family inheritance; but instead of rejecting the whole system, they seek its enlargement or modification to include them and greater justice. And this is permitted. The priests take the matter to God and it is changed in their favour although the norm in the ancient Middle East was that women would not inherit. The outcome tells us something about the biblical legacy we are dealing with, perhaps especially for those who would maintain revelation exists beyond discussion in total independence of cultural, historic and personal factors.

Torah means instruction. It is not wholly or only laws. It is information and even a conversation. The rabbis say “to love God is to argue with him” and to argue your way along is permitted. In any case…

No system, not even a revealed one, can include just everything. The last verse of John’s gospel observes that all the libraries in the world would not contain all that could be reported of Jesus. We have of course the drift of Jesus’ teachings especially “what is necessary for salvation”. That doesn’t mean we have everything Jesus might have said or might say on earth today. Such can sometimes be the subject of reasonable inference and/or direct spiritual guidance.

It is important to accept – many don’t – that the God of history works through history. Accordingly there must be elements of the revelation not completely transcendent of time and culture [2].  Moreover if the Spirit is to lead into all truth (Joh 16:3), there must be insights along the way and a few improvements in perception of truth and vision. The churches are told: “Hear what the Spirit says to the churches”(Rev 4:22), but it’s problematic when just this is blocked in a faith supposed to include teachers and prophets (1 Cor 12:28) to guide its knowledge.

The inflexibility that fosters injustice owes much to two tendencies both of which avoid what I call the more “rabbinical” approach to problems by a measure of dialogue. In both cases there is a reductionism that either

  1.  assumes the tradition can be expressed in fixed philosophical formulae, like the “natural law” derived from Aristotle and Aquinas which renders all gays and many others, nothing but guilty deviants or considers the right to life an absolute to the point capital punishment, though biblically sanctioned, is unacceptable even for the worst serial killing and torture. These rules can then be inserted to a catechism that if anything holds more authority than a bible.

  2.  the parallel evangelical tradition which holds the bible is so complete and inspired in itself everything can and must be judged by it and mostly as heresy. The word for this is bibliolatry (or Paper Popeism).

Both these systems finish so monolithic and watertight they easily give way to claims of a dominionist kind that then seek to impose their version of unmodifiable law on society, believing or otherwise, for its greater good and falsely assume that this imposition is living out the gospel, a substitute for preaching it.

Churches both of the fixed liturgical or ultra-evangelical biblical  variety are never going to help our abused woman in the favela, or many today who come into churches from diverse, often chaotic moral backgrounds. These churches have no room for exceptions, and in especially the liturgical churches where familiarity with biblical sources is not at a premium, they will not set biblical statement and precedent against statement and precedent to arrive at any nuanced, dialectical position; if they cite the bible at all, it will only be the single verse they feel most directly, literally applies.


Especially established churches, (which under old national laws may marry the non or half believing citizen), don’t even engage the personal situations against which one must appreciate those scriptural teachings on sex and marriage one might question today.

But in just this area we must also remember that, originally, Jesus and also Paul mostly address disciples and converts. Among these, higher levels of conduct are automatically expected. It’s assumed they are not prodigal sons, not having affairs and deserting spouses. St Paul is representative here in being shocked at the behaviour of the Corinthians one of whose members is guilty of the incest he says is not mentioned among Gentiles – it was, but only whispered or condemned as a major disgrace as in the poems of Catullus.  The idea domestic violence might overshadow marital life wouldn’t normally be considered (though alas at least in modern times it has too often featured – consider the bizarre case of Iranian born converts  Saaed and Naghmeh Abedini’s marriage). Certainly it’s not something special doctrines as opposed to something more ad hoc would address.

Paul’s family ideal expressed in Ephesians 5 may seem a bit ancient world patriarchal today, but essentially it’s a pattern of relations based on mutual love and respect. If unacceptable situations arose they would presumably require separate treatment, rather as some reformers like Calvin commonsensically assumed desertion was a ground for divorce/remarriage. I imagine too that in the time of Jesus and the apostles most lives were so short this in itself would itself have influenced some attitudes to sex and celibate living.


Many religious conservatives take the “slippery slope” position against reform of anything. But one should not assume that by being flexible just anything is permitted and spreads by infection. (If anything it’s a don’t surrender an inch mentality has blown the modern gay rights and marriage equality issue out of all proportion, raising a whole secularist movement against churches who could hardly claim all innocence in this area historically). Not only are divorce and separation too strongly disapproved from the start to make extreme change difficult, but paradoxically too, once freer like the daughters of Zelophehad to enlarge or modify the system, one may actually be more open to finding meaning in the stumbling blocks that prompted the original protest. One may admit a guiding insight where one rejects the ironcast rule. For example…..I retain my doubts Paul correctly conveyed Jesus’ teaching re wives and divorce in Corinthians. But supposing, amid questionable ancient world generalizing, he was broadly right correct about something to beware of?

In our modern feminist world figures show women are a good deal more likely to initiate divorce than men, (and in my experience more likely to do so with just career and convenience in mind). However wrongly, most men tend not to take their infidelities too seriously and not as any special insult to their spouse. So should women be more patient rather than packing up bags at the first infidelity or for career purposes? Convenience divorces followed by quick remarriage could indeed be considered not just adulterous but something that undermines family and renders offspring psychologically vulnerable.

In the same way, though we may feel revulsion at Paul’s rant against whoever are targeted in Romans 1, might the condemnation in some cases still be meaningful and understandable? One thinks of the late Fr Risdale whose case featured in Australia’s Royal Commission on Child Sex Abuse. Here we find such destruction of persons and lives by this vicious paedophile, would he not justifiably be almost a symbol of human depravity itself? The failure of St Paul’s rhetoric lies less in its detail than its over-generalization which we need to handle carefully.


For reasons of space and as I’ve written on these themes elsewhere, I won’t enlarge on the more liberal possible approaches to marriage, divorce and also homosexuality. Churches are anyway not fully agreed on these. Even the traditionalist Greek church allows divorce for just breakdown of marriage; and since “impurity” rather than “adultery’ is a ground for divorce in Matthew (the gospel which concedes to divorce), is not by extension a psychologically impossible marriage an impurity to be dissolved?

Whatever the truth, Jesus’ rulings were originally made in the context of Jewish arrangements for divorce proceedings which men could instigate and women only ask a husband for. This means that translated in more modern terms, it’s at least arguable the sin which remarriage involves is specifically males divorcing in order to have another female, perhaps married, they have taken a fancy to. This is different from divorcing following infidelity and/or marriage breakdown, then finding and marrying someone perhaps even years later.

If something like the latter situation wasn’t understood as allowable, then a lot of sincerely devout persons have been deceived about what God has supposedly told or shown them. As only one example, one thinks of ex-atheist Howard Storm who was divorced by his wife because she couldn’t stand his new interest in religion. Later Storm, who became a pastor, believed God had brought him together with another woman, his true wife. Catholic traditionalists and evangelical literalists would say he and others had no right to find love. The much revered religion writer C.S.Lewis lost many of his more conservative friends when he felt he was right to marry a divorced convert to Christianity.



I am sufficiently convinced (say 90 per cent) that the following is basically correct and the key that makes for more coherence and in the most time and culture transcendent way too. If acknowledged it would give room to a new degree of both rigour and flexibility and be applicable to both straight and gay. It’s good news and bad news depending and ironically it was from a gay source grappling with whether gays could ever hope to have any kind of union in the Christian sense that the pattern became clearer in my mind.(Those who feel there is nothing scriptural or original to say on this subject may refer to my Jesus and Sexuality  youtube ).

It’s all a matter of “soul”. Many today don’t believe in soul literally or metaphorically but it’s core biblical teaching. The soul surrounds the body which lives in it (it’s what medieval astrologers would call the “form of the body) and it’s what separates from the body at death as assumed in Christ’s parable of the rich fool whose soul is required of him (Luk 12:16-21). The soul is eternal and is what can be “lost” in eternity….“what shall it profit a person is they lose their own soul”…. (Mk 8:36).

Much in biblical sex teaching becomes more explicable if the workings of soul are everywhere assumed, for example Ezekiel’s bilocality, his visit to Jerusalem while physically in Babylon, but also outside the bible in the case of NDE’s today where the patient sees themselves above the bed and observes the operating theatre or even goes up a tunnel (probably the biblical “valley of the shadow of death”). Kirlian photography may or may not have captured the body’s aura. As regards the bible, it does not define or describe the soul as would esoteric traditions calling it the aura or body electric or as in Hinduism, jivatman.


It follows that if any of this is true, it is not bodies or not just bodies, that make love but souls. “What God has put together…..’ (Mk 10:9) doesn’t refer to what priest and ceremony do, but describes rather the effect of souls interpenetrating which is possible whenever full penetrative orgasm has occurred (and the same applies to gays where  the act does not serve, as it can, to join two persons – which it can because more than the body is always involved. [ 3 ]

A protest familiar from cohabitating couples is that they don’t need signatures or ceremonies to certify their union. They are quite right…..except they haven’t realized that their union is as good as actual marriage already. The reason a formal marriage ceremony developed relatively late in Judaism and is not found among the patriarchs is why St Paul is appalled at believers visiting prostitutes. The full and complete sexual act in and by itself is biblically deemed enough to constitute a marriage. You musn’t join the Spirit to a prostitute( 1 Cor 6:15). There is no such thing, biblically, as people “living together”, they are married and whatever follows are then as good as extra-marital affairs.

Short of two situations I shall mention, the pair can’t not belong to one another if they tried. This is not entirely good news, but those understandably sceptical of the idea must explain why, for example, child abuse and rape (and even just many divorces) can prove so extraordinarily painful and destructive and perhaps too why despite divorce and other loves first loves prove ineradicable and are improbably returned to.

Rationally this should not be, but arguably it is so because something of the rapist and abuser and their evil is lodged inside a body/soul, especially a young one, unable to carry that. We are looking at what to esoteric traditions or Hinduism would be a muddied, dirty soul/aura. According to those psychic enough to see it, the aura of the promiscuous person is of a dull, clouded kind and this dulling of the soul needless to say reflects hindrance to spiritual development and even problems in relation to what and just who is carried out of life into eternity beyond.

That this really is a consideration is suggested by St Paul’s idea the believer should not separate from the unbeliever because the latter is now sanctified by the believing spouse (1 Cor 7:14). But how so if not through the aura? The glorification of a wholly, liberated, promiscuous sex is a product of modern materialism and rationalism which assumes only bodies are involved in sex.


Assuming the truth of these ideas, there seem to be only two main cures. The first is time and abstention across it. From years ago I recall reading even some gay pagan theorists advising gays seeking relationship not to rush into new connection because the aura will need release and cleansing in order for the new relation to work. I should say that many successful Christian divorce and remarriage scenarios worked, seemed and were legitimate  because time had intervened and divorce had not been launched solely in order to obtain a new partner ….. The limits of cure by time and abstention however are suggested by the seemingly lifelong damage afflicted upon some victims of rape and sex abuse.

The other cure is more spiritual, involving something of a more charismatic/ supernatural order in which the soul can be directly healed and cleansed by operation of the Spirit. Again, one can only put two and two together here because there is no clearly defined doctrine, only indications about both the church and individual members being cleansed by the water (of the Holy Spirit understood as per various references in John’s gospel and statements like those of Eph 5:26 and 2 Cor 7:1) and perhaps especially the soul being rightly understood and treated.

The epistle to Hebrews (Heb 4:12) interestingly speaks of a division of soul and spirit (which as I wrote this it clicked with me is very likely the division envisaged in Hinduism between jivatman (soul) and Atman (spirit) albeit Christianity would regard spirit both human and divine as more active than the as good as passive Being of Atman).

When Paul famously speaks (harps on some say!) about the division of “spirit” and “flesh”, this almost certainly indicates more broadly a conflict of spirit with body-supporting soul. The soul is what is overshadowed by, is medium to and marked by eros and much else in life. It is what dies and “the soul that sins it shall surely die” (Ez 18:20). In Hebrew soul is nephesh or animal soul – in short it is what we share with the animals as opposed to our spirit (ruach) which animals don’t possess. I think we now have a solution to Problem Three. It’s not that physical sex is dirty, but that the associated spiritual effects upon the soul aura can be.

Does what I am aiming at make for complete coherence? One weak point would be OT polygamy, but even here there need not be complete contradiction. If one man is simultaneously joined with several women, however unideal that may be, it is not against what is quite common in nature and something is retained that is not the case if it were vice versa. (The nature of yang inclines to action and as initiation, whereas the nature of yin has more by way of action as reaction). The greater problem for the theory is what does one make of what is the general state of humanity inside and outside the churches in a state of spiritual impurity through their often impulsive, chaotic multiplication of unions?


On the basis that, as the saying goes, one can’t unscramble eggs, the esoteric position, which in effect amounts to suggesting many present day unions involve ritual impurity, cannot be over applied. Pragmatically what we find has more or less to be accepted and worked with, though in the case of believers hopefully with the cleansing flame of an attitude of repentance. Remarriage in the Orthodox churches are not celebrated like first marriages joyfully; they are more like rituals of repentance, an acceptance of what shouldn’t be but which is and strives to be better.

Repentance, literally a change of mind and heart, is the  starting and centre point to any specifically Christian spiritual path…provided its value doesn’t get lost amid concentration on single deeds or in the case of failed relationships who and what should take the blame for whatever went wrong. Such only sets up internal arguments and ongoing guilt trips. The real problem is always sin in general rather than sins and one must always work at suitably leaving the past behind while aiming to improve.

But to to start again and efficiently with assumptions of an alternative, more spiritual, esoteric approach to unions and sex, there would need to be a whole more broadly “tantric” approach to sex. This doesn’t mean one thing; it can apply to everything from attitudes to techniques, but if this sounds merely fanciful and exotic and outside Judaeo-Christian tradition, I would point out that some rabbis like Schmuly Boteach (The Kosher Sutra) have already seen the point and speak in those terms. It is even to discover what the biblical tradition is about. My Solomon’s Tantric Song, [4] considers aspects of this theme. It’s none of it something to be summarized in a sound byte or  tweet, but if that were possible the nearest might be to the effect: you don’t just make love to bodies, but souls.

1]  Right to Life may sound idealistic enough and I am not saying abortion is a good thing,  but quite apart from the dangers to women’s lives from backstreet abortions when abortion is completely illegal as stressed by feminists, another problem is the fanatical suspicion and even  persecution that pursues women who suffer stillbirths. See  Why does the Catholic church not protest and condemn the monstrous injustices of especially El Salvador in this area? As mentioned in my last article, elements in at least the OT like the Law of Jealousy or Hosea’s prayer for stillbirths upon the wicked, can’t support ideas of the absolute, invariably precious nature of the foetus.

[2 ] It’s one disadvantage of those Christians who dismiss the wisdom of the Magi and astrology, that they can’t even perceive the clear shifts of symbolism and values between eras – the Law of Moses is instinct of the fire, war and law Aries-Libra era that the mercy and service of the Piscean/Virgoan era, initiated by a lake/sea as opposed to a burning bush, that Jesus swerves from).

[3] Consider various facts and arguments in essay,   Beyond Marriage Equality

[4] Rollan McCleary, Solomon’s Tantric Song, CreateSpace, 2012

Also of interest see ‘Thinking and being ‘Shameless’ with Nadia Bolz- Weber  a review of her would-be “sexual reformation” ideas


Jeremiah’s Loincloth:

A Saint’s Mistake: A Poem of St Paul



Leave a comment

Posted by on February 25, 2018 in ethics, religion


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: