Righteous prostitutes, spreading their legs free of sin.

We are at over 750 comments in the discussion of Is marriage the cause of sexual immorality?  and I assume that most readers (like myself), have not carefully read all 750+ of the comments.  With this in mind, I offer an update of sorts, with a Artisanal Toad’s description of righteous Christian prostitutes:

That’s the “loophole” that allows prostitutes. Righteous prostitutes who are not in sin when they spread their legs for paying customers.

That makes modern churchians scream in outrage, but the fact is, God knew all about women when He gave His Law, and He chose not to forbid ordinary payment-for-sex prostitution. He did choose to ban cult prostitutes, which points to the fact He didn’t have anything to say about ordinary non-idolatry prostitutes. And the Lord could easily have had one of the Apostles state a prohibition on Christian women working as whores, but He did not, which means He chose not to.

You can see the original comment here, but will have to read through 1843* words in the comment before you get to this bit, as one doesn’t merely blurt out such absurd claims upfront.  You have to slowly ease people into this kind of nonsense, even when they are eager to accept it.

However, there is a loophole that closes the loophole. Christian men aren’t allowed to have sex with prostitutes:

There is nothing in Scripture that forbids a man from having sex with a woman he is eligible to marry. Because sex is how marriage begins. The only exception to that is Christian men are forbidden to have sex with prostitutes.

In a later comment Toad reiterates that prostitutes are righteous:

Prostitution isn’t even an offense and you know that… otherwise you’d have cited chapter and verse. Prostitution is the same as farming, it’s a regulated way of earning a living. And if a farmer can be righteous, so can being a prostitute.

*This makes the wall of text preceding this statement longer than my original post, which was only 1,229 words (including Scripture). And the 1843 words are just the wall of text preceding the absurd claim in that specific comment. This does not count the multiple walls of text which came before in his previous comments.