GSchultz, Honest weights & equal measure

@TheRabbitHole You're right that "bigotry did it" is the laziest, most intellectually bankrupt move in modern discourse — the single-bullet Theory-of-Everything that requires no evidence, no trade-offs, no behavioral data, just an accusation and a demand for power. Helen Pluckrose has eviscerated this exact move better than anyone: it is the postmodern knowledge principle applied like a sledgehammer — all disparities are socially constructed by dominant discourses to maintain power, therefore the only acceptable explanation is bigotry, and anyone offering a more complex account is morally complicit. But here's the brutal irony you keep missing. When it comes to black–white outcome gaps in the United States, the actual historical record delivers exactly the kind of centuries-long, institutionally embedded, legally enforced, theologically defended bigotry that the woke falsely invent for everything else. This isn't CRT. This isn't Marx, Hegel, Foucault, or Kimberlé Crenshaw. This is pre-modern, pre-Enlightenment, pre-woke Christian (and later secular) doctrine all by an unbroken series of collective of fathers governing in evil as good-- yoking thrones/governments and churches with statutes and doctrines of wickedness against a phenotype of black or brown skin and an African Ancestry from conception in the name of Jesus: → the Curse of Ham → Aristotelian natural slavery → papal bulls (Dum Diversas, Romanus Pontifex) → Iberian limpieza de sangre → Southern Presbyterian/General Assembly pronouncements → Southern Baptist & Methodist confessions that declared Africans "inhereditarily inferior by divine decree" These weren't fringe opinions. They were the overwhelming normative consensus in church and state for 90%+ of the 580 years of African presence in the Americas (1440s–2020s). PSALMS 94:20 direct violation normatively: Psalm 94:20 English Standard Version 20 Can wicked rulers be allied with you, those who frame[a] injustice by statute? The Democratic Party the seedbed for the Southern Baptist and Southern Presbyterian conventions and the Confederacy— the most powerful political and Jesus representing institutions in every territory where blacks were the majority population from 1800 to 1970 — explicitly built its coalition on white supremacy. The largest Protestant denominations in the South formally taught that black inferiority was part of God's created order. Even the "good guys" (Republicans) only opposed the expansion of slavery — not the underlying racial hierarchy itself. They fought a war that killed 400,000 men to stop slavery's spread, yet the majority of them still believed blacks were inferior and should never have social equality. Yet here is the savage irony that almost no one on the anti-woke right will face: When it comes to black–white gaps in America, @HPluckrose herself says the explanation actually is centuries of explicit, legally enforced, theologically defended racism of a kind and intensity almost unknown in human history. Her exact words (28 Oct 2023): “The failure of so many contemporary critical theorists of race to recognise this comes down largely to CRT & its offshoots being an American phenomenon looking at the experiences of black descendants of enslaved Africans which is a very specific history! Does this history include systemic racism? Quite clearly it does starting with not being allowed to own yourself & then segregation & being legally second class citizens not allowed to enter lucrative professions, redlining, crap schools etc. The strongest indicator of whether somebody will be successful is if their parents are. It might take more than a couple of generations of being legally allowed to be successful to overcome the effects of all that.” That is Helen Pluckrose , not @ibramxk . And she is right—because this goes deep into the Judeo-Christian roots America claims to cherish. The justifying doctrines weren't fringe. They were baked into rabbinic, patristic, and confessional theology for millennia. Check the nearly a century of resolutions, overtures, Annual meeting declarations and joint statements, like the SBC repudiating its use of the Curse of Ham in 2017/18 and @SBTS and others declaring the founders of those denominations heretics. → 400–500 CE (Jerusalem Talmud, Taanit 1:6): Midrash on the Flood punishes Ham for ark misconduct by emerging "darkened" (mefucham, pun on his name), linking blackness to sin's consequence—the seed of racialized curses. → 400–500 CE (Babylonian Talmud, Kiddushin 49b): "Ten kavim of drunkenness" descend to the world; Kushites (Black Africans) take nine—first clear negative trope in core rabbinic texts, clustering impairment with Blackness. → 500 CE (Babylonian Talmud, Berakhot 31b/Shabbat 31b; Sotah midrash): An innocent accused woman's "dark skin" (shchorot) is "blessed" by birthing light-skinned children—implying fairness as divine favor, darkness as lesser/default. → 800–900 CE (Saadia Gaon, Genesis commentary): Equates Ham’s line (Cushites) with "dark slaves," fusing biblical exegesis to emerging slave trades. → 1000–1250 CE (Medieval Sephardic/Ashkenazic thought): Amid Reconquista and Almohad persecutions, exegeses tie Ham/Cush to perpetual enslavement via Curse of Ham (Gen 9:20–27), influenced by Mediterranean African slave trades. → 1400s (Alba Bible, folio 33r): Illuminated Castilian Hebrew Bible depicts Ham—the father of Kush/Ethiopia—as a Black African gazing at Noah's nakedness, while Shem/Japheth avert theirs. Commissioned by a Spanish churchman, painted by Christians, translated by Rabbi Moses Arragel. These fed straight into Protestant America’s “Judeo-Christian ethic”: → Curse of Ham/Canaan twisted for perpetual African servitude/inferiority → Mark of Cain reinterpreted as blackness → Babel’s Table of Nations as God-ordained racial hierarchies → Aristotelian “natural slavery” fused with scripture → 1857 Southern Presbyterian General Assembly: “The African race… by nature and by the curse pronounced upon Canaan, doomed to perpetual servitude” → R.L. Dabney (Reformed theologian, Stonewall Jackson’s chief of staff): “ The black race… is constitutionally inferior” Start at 1526 (San Miguel de Gualdape, SC/GA)—first enslaved Africans on continental US soil, under the 1518 Royal Charter (Charles V’s asiento for 4,000 “Christian” Africans as commodities, rooted in 1452–1493 papal bulls and Ham curses). Key codifications: → 1640 (John Punch ruling, Virginia): First judicial lifetime enslavement by race—Punch (Black) gets life; white runaways get 4 extra years. → 1662 (Virginia Hereditary Slavery Law): Partus sequitur ventrem—“all children borne… shalbe held bond or free only according to the condition of the mother.” A Psalms 94:20 abomination, ensuring perpetual racial chattel via mothers’ wombs. Imagine if reformed biblically: Partus sequitur patrem—“the seed, name, blessing follow the father” (1 Cor 7:14; Num 1; Ezra 2). Children free if fathers free; fornicators wed or dower the mother/child; deniers of seed cursed. No dynasty of bondage. End of normative consensus: 1965 Voting Rights Act—outlawing Jim Crow segregation/disenfranchisement. Total: 1526–2025 = 499 years. Normative evil (slavery/Jim Crow): 1526–1965 = 439 years. 88% of US history under legally enforced racial subordination as the political/religious norm. You, @elonmusk, @ConceptualJames, @colinwright keep saying: once a poisonous idea is made normative, it takes roughly as long to exit the system as it took to enter. That leaves centuries of inertia—by your logic. And we still name buildings after the architects. Still platform “benevolent institution” apologists. Still fly Confederate “heritage.” So yes—in every other context, “bigotry!” is lazy, anti-scientific, authoritarian. But for Black American outcomes? The null hypothesis is millennia of theology-fueled, state-sponsored subjugation. Even Pluckrose sees it. The rest of you are closing your eyes and working backwards to pretend what has been was not as you conflate Queer theory, trans ideology and all the rest with the call to biblical justice along racial lines that is symmetrical to all that is in place for Native Americans via treaty commitments and the London Debt Agreement that enabled Germany to pay reparations to Jewish Holocaust victims and their infants. @AJKocman @joe_rigney @douglaswils @alisa_childers @VanJones68 @Pontifex @JoshDaws @ThaddeusWill @nhannahjones @christopherrufo @nbusenitz @jarbitro @megbasham @the_jefferymead @LarryTaunton @JohnMPerkins @drtonyevans @conservmillen @ryanbomberger @SlowToWrite @ConradMbewe @JustinPetersMin @CollinRugg @YourCalvinist @hbcharlesjr @tomascol @LigonDuncan @MattWalshBlog @Jimdavis79 @ThabitiAnyabwil @pastordmack @kangminlee @TheLaurenChen @NeilShenvi @megynkelly @D_B_Harrison @glennbeck @Ty_Seidule @HenryLouisGates @SethDillon @thatsKAIZEN

A way to test this is to set a hypothetical. @AshleySheatz hypothetical father at the period of her pattern is seeking to become a pastor at a southern baptist church. Would this hold @tomascol @RayComfort @joe_rigney @GundenGraham @pastordmack @ostrachan @drmoore @Katy_Faust @LizzieMarbach @douglaswils @albertmohler @kangminlee @NeilShenvi The Bible’s standard turns on whether the children are presently “open to the charge” of debauchery (asōtia — reckless, dissolute, wild living, including sexual promiscuity; see Luke 15:13 for the prodigal’s “reckless living”) or insubordination. This is a public, observable reputation test, not a private sin-count or hidden ledger. • 10 episodes with 10 abortions (or 10 episodes with no pregnancies), fully confessed and currently repentant:
The sin (fornication + the grave sin of abortion) is confessed to the appropriate parties (God, and to the church if it has become known). Once genuine repentance is evident—godly sorrow, turning from the behavior, clear life change (2 Corinthians 7:10–11; Matthew 3:8)—the daughter is no longer “open to the charge.” There is no visible, ongoing public testimony of “wild living” (no babies, no pregnancies walking around). The household does not carry an active, observable reproach that outsiders or the congregation can point to (1 Timothy 3:7). Therefore, the elder’s “above reproach” status and proven household management are not violated in the present tense. The father meets the qualification right now.
Conservative biblical interpreters consistently emphasize that the Titus/1 Timothy language targets current, flagrant, public patterns of rebellion or immorality, not every past (even repeated) sin once repented of and no longer characterizing the child. • 3 episodes each yielding a carried baby (still visible consequences during qualification):
Even with full confession and claimed repentance for all three, the visible babies (especially the third one she is still carrying or has recently had) keep the pattern publicly observable. The church and outsiders can see the repeated outcome of sexual immorality. This leaves the daughter “open to the charge of debauchery” in the present, raising legitimate questions about whether the household has been managed in a way that produces submissive, non-scandalizing fruit right now. The delay is required until enough time passes with sustained repentance and no further visible reproach—so the children are clearly not open to that charge.

Hi @michaeljknowles--question for you. When you interviewed Nala Ray, asked her *lots* of questions about her OnlyFans days (addressing "fetishes" at one point), and got 1.1 million views (way more than most of your videos), was that engagement farming? And was it "discrete"?

A way to test this is to set a hypothetical. @AshleySheatz hypothetical father at the period of her pattern is seeking to become a pastor at a southern baptist church. Would this hold @tomascol @RayComfort @joe_rigney @GundenGraham @pastordmack @ostrachan @drmoore @Katy_Faust @LizzieMarbach @douglaswils @albertmohler @kangminlee @NeilShenvi The Bible’s standard turns on whether the children are presently “open to the charge” of debauchery (asōtia — reckless, dissolute, wild living, including sexual promiscuity; see Luke 15:13 for the prodigal’s “reckless living”) or insubordination. This is a public, observable reputation test, not a private sin-count or hidden ledger. • 10 episodes with 10 abortions (or 10 episodes with no pregnancies), fully confessed and currently repentant:
The sin (fornication + the grave sin of abortion) is confessed to the appropriate parties (God, and to the church if it has become known). Once genuine repentance is evident—godly sorrow, turning from the behavior, clear life change (2 Corinthians 7:10–11; Matthew 3:8)—the daughter is no longer “open to the charge.” There is no visible, ongoing public testimony of “wild living” (no babies, no pregnancies walking around). The household does not carry an active, observable reproach that outsiders or the congregation can point to (1 Timothy 3:7). Therefore, the elder’s “above reproach” status and proven household management are not violated in the present tense. The father meets the qualification right now.
Conservative biblical interpreters consistently emphasize that the Titus/1 Timothy language targets current, flagrant, public patterns of rebellion or immorality, not every past (even repeated) sin once repented of and no longer characterizing the child. • 3 episodes each yielding a carried baby (still visible consequences during qualification):
Even with full confession and claimed repentance for all three, the visible babies (especially the third one she is still carrying or has recently had) keep the pattern publicly observable. The church and outsiders can see the repeated outcome of sexual immorality. This leaves the daughter “open to the charge of debauchery” in the present, raising legitimate questions about whether the household has been managed in a way that produces submissive, non-scandalizing fruit right now. The delay is required until enough time passes with sustained repentance and no further visible reproach—so the children are clearly not open to that charge.

Allllllright, I’m failing to stay off X, but need to note for the factual record that @AshleySheatz became a Christian nearly ten years ago in 2017. She did not become a Christian and “immediately switch to being a Christian influencer.”

A way to test this is to set a hypothetical. @AshleySheatz hypothetical father at the period of her pattern is seeking to become a pastor at a southern baptist church. Would this hold @tomascol @RayComfort @joe_rigney @GundenGraham @pastordmack @ostrachan @drmoore @Katy_Faust @LizzieMarbach @douglaswils @albertmohler @kangminlee @NeilShenvi The Bible’s standard turns on whether the children are presently “open to the charge” of debauchery (asōtia — reckless, dissolute, wild living, including sexual promiscuity; see Luke 15:13 for the prodigal’s “reckless living”) or insubordination. This is a public, observable reputation test, not a private sin-count or hidden ledger. • 10 episodes with 10 abortions (or 10 episodes with no pregnancies), fully confessed and currently repentant:
The sin (fornication + the grave sin of abortion) is confessed to the appropriate parties (God, and to the church if it has become known). Once genuine repentance is evident—godly sorrow, turning from the behavior, clear life change (2 Corinthians 7:10–11; Matthew 3:8)—the daughter is no longer “open to the charge.” There is no visible, ongoing public testimony of “wild living” (no babies, no pregnancies walking around). The household does not carry an active, observable reproach that outsiders or the congregation can point to (1 Timothy 3:7). Therefore, the elder’s “above reproach” status and proven household management are not violated in the present tense. The father meets the qualification right now.
Conservative biblical interpreters consistently emphasize that the Titus/1 Timothy language targets current, flagrant, public patterns of rebellion or immorality, not every past (even repeated) sin once repented of and no longer characterizing the child. • 3 episodes each yielding a carried baby (still visible consequences during qualification):
Even with full confession and claimed repentance for all three, the visible babies (especially the third one she is still carrying or has recently had) keep the pattern publicly observable. The church and outsiders can see the repeated outcome of sexual immorality. This leaves the daughter “open to the charge of debauchery” in the present, raising legitimate questions about whether the household has been managed in a way that produces submissive, non-scandalizing fruit right now. The delay is required until enough time passes with sustained repentance and no further visible reproach—so the children are clearly not open to that charge.

After huge backlash over her husband @trevorsheatz’s post, @ashleysheatz responds with her reaction and her testimony—in her own words. Full interview, as well as my thoughts on those who insist on calling her a wh*re:

A way to test this is to set a hypothetical. @AshleySheatz hypothetical father at the period of her pattern is seeking to become a pastor at a southern baptist church. Would this hold @tomascol @RayComfort @joe_rigney @GundenGraham @pastordmack @ostrachan @drmoore @Katy_Faust @LizzieMarbach @douglaswils @albertmohler @kangminlee @NeilShenvi The Bible’s standard turns on whether the children are presently “open to the charge” of debauchery (asōtia — reckless, dissolute, wild living, including sexual promiscuity; see Luke 15:13 for the prodigal’s “reckless living”) or insubordination. This is a public, observable reputation test, not a private sin-count or hidden ledger. • 10 episodes with 10 abortions (or 10 episodes with no pregnancies), fully confessed and currently repentant:
The sin (fornication + the grave sin of abortion) is confessed to the appropriate parties (God, and to the church if it has become known). Once genuine repentance is evident—godly sorrow, turning from the behavior, clear life change (2 Corinthians 7:10–11; Matthew 3:8)—the daughter is no longer “open to the charge.” There is no visible, ongoing public testimony of “wild living” (no babies, no pregnancies walking around). The household does not carry an active, observable reproach that outsiders or the congregation can point to (1 Timothy 3:7). Therefore, the elder’s “above reproach” status and proven household management are not violated in the present tense. The father meets the qualification right now.
Conservative biblical interpreters consistently emphasize that the Titus/1 Timothy language targets current, flagrant, public patterns of rebellion or immorality, not every past (even repeated) sin once repented of and no longer characterizing the child. • 3 episodes each yielding a carried baby (still visible consequences during qualification):
Even with full confession and claimed repentance for all three, the visible babies (especially the third one she is still carrying or has recently had) keep the pattern publicly observable. The church and outsiders can see the repeated outcome of sexual immorality. This leaves the daughter “open to the charge of debauchery” in the present, raising legitimate questions about whether the household has been managed in a way that produces submissive, non-scandalizing fruit right now. The delay is required until enough time passes with sustained repentance and no further visible reproach—so the children are clearly not open to that charge.

I had the opportunity to sit down with @TrevorSheatz and @AshleySheatz to talk about the marriage testimony that broke the internet. I encourage you to watch the full video before drawing any conclusions. youtu.be/Dc4Jm7UnMg8?si…

A way to test this is to set a hypothetical. @AshleySheatz hypothetical father at the period of her pattern is seeking to become a pastor at a southern baptist church. Would this hold @tomascol @RayComfort @joe_rigney @GundenGraham @pastordmack @ostrachan @drmoore @Katy_Faust @LizzieMarbach @douglaswils @albertmohler @kangminlee @NeilShenvi The Bible’s standard turns on whether the children are presently “open to the charge” of debauchery (asōtia — reckless, dissolute, wild living, including sexual promiscuity; see Luke 15:13 for the prodigal’s “reckless living”) or insubordination. This is a public, observable reputation test, not a private sin-count or hidden ledger. • 10 episodes with 10 abortions (or 10 episodes with no pregnancies), fully confessed and currently repentant:
The sin (fornication + the grave sin of abortion) is confessed to the appropriate parties (God, and to the church if it has become known). Once genuine repentance is evident—godly sorrow, turning from the behavior, clear life change (2 Corinthians 7:10–11; Matthew 3:8)—the daughter is no longer “open to the charge.” There is no visible, ongoing public testimony of “wild living” (no babies, no pregnancies walking around). The household does not carry an active, observable reproach that outsiders or the congregation can point to (1 Timothy 3:7). Therefore, the elder’s “above reproach” status and proven household management are not violated in the present tense. The father meets the qualification right now.
Conservative biblical interpreters consistently emphasize that the Titus/1 Timothy language targets current, flagrant, public patterns of rebellion or immorality, not every past (even repeated) sin once repented of and no longer characterizing the child. • 3 episodes each yielding a carried baby (still visible consequences during qualification):
Even with full confession and claimed repentance for all three, the visible babies (especially the third one she is still carrying or has recently had) keep the pattern publicly observable. The church and outsiders can see the repeated outcome of sexual immorality. This leaves the daughter “open to the charge of debauchery” in the present, raising legitimate questions about whether the household has been managed in a way that produces submissive, non-scandalizing fruit right now. The delay is required until enough time passes with sustained repentance and no further visible reproach—so the children are clearly not open to that charge.

My interview with Allie Beth Stuckey (@conservmillen) is LIVE. We go into - My testimony (how I became a Christian) - Was I actually okay with Trevor posting this? - Why I am not ashamed of my past anymore and the hope of the gospel youtu.be/sOwWrXAnDE8?si…

A way to test this is to set a hypothetical. @AshleySheatz hypothetical father at the period of her pattern is seeking to become a pastor at a southern baptist church. Would this hold @tomascol @RayComfort @joe_rigney @GundenGraham @pastordmack @ostrachan @drmoore @Katy_Faust @LizzieMarbach @douglaswils @albertmohler @kangminlee @NeilShenvi The Bible’s standard turns on whether the children are presently “open to the charge” of debauchery (asōtia — reckless, dissolute, wild living, including sexual promiscuity; see Luke 15:13 for the prodigal’s “reckless living”) or insubordination. This is a public, observable reputation test, not a private sin-count or hidden ledger. • 10 episodes with 10 abortions (or 10 episodes with no pregnancies), fully confessed and currently repentant:
The sin (fornication + the grave sin of abortion) is confessed to the appropriate parties (God, and to the church if it has become known). Once genuine repentance is evident—godly sorrow, turning from the behavior, clear life change (2 Corinthians 7:10–11; Matthew 3:8)—the daughter is no longer “open to the charge.” There is no visible, ongoing public testimony of “wild living” (no babies, no pregnancies walking around). The household does not carry an active, observable reproach that outsiders or the congregation can point to (1 Timothy 3:7). Therefore, the elder’s “above reproach” status and proven household management are not violated in the present tense. The father meets the qualification right now.
Conservative biblical interpreters consistently emphasize that the Titus/1 Timothy language targets current, flagrant, public patterns of rebellion or immorality, not every past (even repeated) sin once repented of and no longer characterizing the child. • 3 episodes each yielding a carried baby (still visible consequences during qualification):
Even with full confession and claimed repentance for all three, the visible babies (especially the third one she is still carrying or has recently had) keep the pattern publicly observable. The church and outsiders can see the repeated outcome of sexual immorality. This leaves the daughter “open to the charge of debauchery” in the present, raising legitimate questions about whether the household has been managed in a way that produces submissive, non-scandalizing fruit right now. The delay is required until enough time passes with sustained repentance and no further visible reproach—so the children are clearly not open to that charge.

Professing Christian men who: 1) hate on women for their sinful pasts, shame and attack their testimonies, even when those women have had a radical change of heart since coming to Christ 2) downplay the moral harm of their own porn consumption and the damage it causes, or even justify its use, and blame women for their own sexual sins, 3) boast about their own superiority and talk about virgin women as if they're some sort of sexual reward they're entitled to They don't come across as men worthy of either salvation or marriage, since that attitude is wholly incompatible with what the Christian Gospel represents and with what a healthy relationship with both God and other people requires.

A way to test this is to set a hypothetical. @AshleySheatz hypothetical father at the period of her pattern is seeking to become a pastor at a southern baptist church. Would this hold @tomascol @RayComfort @joe_rigney @GundenGraham @pastordmack @ostrachan @drmoore @Katy_Faust @LizzieMarbach @douglaswils @albertmohler @kangminlee @NeilShenvi The Bible’s standard turns on whether the children are presently “open to the charge” of debauchery (asōtia — reckless, dissolute, wild living, including sexual promiscuity; see Luke 15:13 for the prodigal’s “reckless living”) or insubordination. This is a public, observable reputation test, not a private sin-count or hidden ledger. • 10 episodes with 10 abortions (or 10 episodes with no pregnancies), fully confessed and currently repentant:
The sin (fornication + the grave sin of abortion) is confessed to the appropriate parties (God, and to the church if it has become known). Once genuine repentance is evident—godly sorrow, turning from the behavior, clear life change (2 Corinthians 7:10–11; Matthew 3:8)—the daughter is no longer “open to the charge.” There is no visible, ongoing public testimony of “wild living” (no babies, no pregnancies walking around). The household does not carry an active, observable reproach that outsiders or the congregation can point to (1 Timothy 3:7). Therefore, the elder’s “above reproach” status and proven household management are not violated in the present tense. The father meets the qualification right now.
Conservative biblical interpreters consistently emphasize that the Titus/1 Timothy language targets current, flagrant, public patterns of rebellion or immorality, not every past (even repeated) sin once repented of and no longer characterizing the child. • 3 episodes each yielding a carried baby (still visible consequences during qualification):
Even with full confession and claimed repentance for all three, the visible babies (especially the third one she is still carrying or has recently had) keep the pattern publicly observable. The church and outsiders can see the repeated outcome of sexual immorality. This leaves the daughter “open to the charge of debauchery” in the present, raising legitimate questions about whether the household has been managed in a way that produces submissive, non-scandalizing fruit right now. The delay is required until enough time passes with sustained repentance and no further visible reproach—so the children are clearly not open to that charge.

In the past, formerly promiscuous Christian woman would go to desert for 40 days as a means to repent. Now they make a social media brand and a business model out of it. And the worst thing is, nobody is allowed to point out the hypocrisy for the fear of being called not a true Christian.

A way to test this is to set a hypothetical. @AshleySheatz hypothetical father at the period of her pattern is seeking to become a pastor at a southern baptist church. Would this hold @tomascol @RayComfort @joe_rigney @GundenGraham @pastordmack @ostrachan @drmoore @Katy_Faust @LizzieMarbach @douglaswils @albertmohler @kangminlee @NeilShenvi The Bible’s standard turns on whether the children are presently “open to the charge” of debauchery (asōtia — reckless, dissolute, wild living, including sexual promiscuity; see Luke 15:13 for the prodigal’s “reckless living”) or insubordination. This is a public, observable reputation test, not a private sin-count or hidden ledger. • 10 episodes with 10 abortions (or 10 episodes with no pregnancies), fully confessed and currently repentant:
The sin (fornication + the grave sin of abortion) is confessed to the appropriate parties (God, and to the church if it has become known). Once genuine repentance is evident—godly sorrow, turning from the behavior, clear life change (2 Corinthians 7:10–11; Matthew 3:8)—the daughter is no longer “open to the charge.” There is no visible, ongoing public testimony of “wild living” (no babies, no pregnancies walking around). The household does not carry an active, observable reproach that outsiders or the congregation can point to (1 Timothy 3:7). Therefore, the elder’s “above reproach” status and proven household management are not violated in the present tense. The father meets the qualification right now.
Conservative biblical interpreters consistently emphasize that the Titus/1 Timothy language targets current, flagrant, public patterns of rebellion or immorality, not every past (even repeated) sin once repented of and no longer characterizing the child. • 3 episodes each yielding a carried baby (still visible consequences during qualification):
Even with full confession and claimed repentance for all three, the visible babies (especially the third one she is still carrying or has recently had) keep the pattern publicly observable. The church and outsiders can see the repeated outcome of sexual immorality. This leaves the daughter “open to the charge of debauchery” in the present, raising legitimate questions about whether the household has been managed in a way that produces submissive, non-scandalizing fruit right now. The delay is required until enough time passes with sustained repentance and no further visible reproach—so the children are clearly not open to that charge.

Matt, thanks for the post, friend. 1. I appreciate you calling out the harmful remarks to me and my bride. We don't hold it against them. We're also far worse than they know. 2. I agree that some Christians are far too eager to share the details of their past sins with others, and that often, it can be unwise. And I agree that discretion is important, and there's a place to not share details of past wrongs (Prov. 11:13). But sharing details of our lives before Christ and how he's transformed us is biblical and brings great glory to God. If you open up Acts chapter 26, Paul wrote paragraphs about his life before Jesus, going into great detail of the shameful things he had done (Acts 26:4-11). He then shared how Jesus marvelously transformed his life (v. 12-15), and then tied it into the gospel, hoping that God would "open their eyes so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins" (Acts 26:18). Or consider the woman at the well that Jesus evangelized to. Her sexual immorality before Christ is etched into Scripture for all eternity: "'For you’ve had five husbands, and the man you now have is not your husband'" (John 4:18). After her interaction with Jesus, verses 28-29 say, "Then the woman left her water jar, went into town, and told the people, 'Come, see a man who told me everything I ever did. Could this be the Messiah?'" Revelation 12:11 says, "They conquered him (the Accuser) by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony." There's more examples in Scripture of godly men and women's sins being explicitly written down, including sexual immorality, fornication, harlotry, etc. My point is that if God through the Scriptures brings up the past sins of godly people to edify the saints, and if godly people in the Bible itself shared their past sins before Christ and how the gospel transformed them, how is it any different, or inappropriate, for my wife and I to agree to publicly share how she once was promiscuous, but has now been saved and redeemed? 3. Lastly, I unquestionably struggle with pride and vanity. That much is true. And I'm a great sinner, so I wouldn't be surprised if vanity and pride was in my heart as I wrote out that line about my wife being purer than most virgins. But pride has more to do with praising oneself, whereas praising another is biblical: "Let another praise you, and not your own mouth — a stranger, and not your own lips" (Prov. 27:2). Proverbs 31 even includes an explicit example where a godly woman's husband says she's better than every other woman, and it's highlighted as a great thing, not pride or vanity: "Her husband also praises her: 'Many women have done noble deeds, but you surpass them all!'" (Prov. 31:28-29). So praising my wife by saying she's more pure than most virgins is in line with that the Scriptures say actually happens to a godly woman. Most importantly, the principal desire in my heart upon writing that she's purer than most virgins was to underscore this key truth: that biblical purity is much different than the world's understanding of purity. Jesus said, "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God" (Matt. 5:8-3). Or consider 1 Timothy 1:5: "The goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart, a good conscience, and a sincere faith." While sexual purity matters and is commanded (1 Cor. 6:18-20), and all Christians should strive to remain virgins and will be blessed for that, the purity that God looks for and cares about the most is found in the heart. And as I've now seen first-hand the glorious and redemptive work of Christ in the life of my wife, I can most certainly say that she is more pure than most virgins, since most virgins are unfortunately lost and without Jesus. And a Christian with a promiscuous, forgiven past who loves Jesus has a heart that is far more pure in the eyes of God than a virgin who isn't in Christ. This viral debate has shown me that people greatly struggle to separate one's life before Christ from their life after Christ. The world can't fathom that such change can happen. But the Bible is clear: "Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has passed away, and see, the new has come!" (1 Cor. 5:17). Or consider Galatians 2:20: "I have been crucified with Christ, and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me." That old Ashley is dead. It's because of these truths that my wife and I choose to boldly, confidently, and without giving loads of explicit details, share the sins that stained us before Christ with others. Not often, but at times and when fitting, so that other believers can be encouraged, other sinners can be given hope of redemption and forgiveness, and the lost can hear the good news of the gospel, that though all are headed for Hell for their sins, anyone who repents and places their trust in the resurrected Christ will be saved (John 3:16, 18). Regardless of how much you've sinned, you can't out-sin the mercy of God. You can be washed clean, your shame and guilt removed, and you can have a brand-new identity in Jesus Christ. Hallelujah! God bless you, Matt.

My take on the current discourse about the Christian man with the formerly “promiscuous” wife is that many of the comments towards the man and his wife have been uncharitable, cruel, and certainly un-Christian, but also that Christians these days often tend to be far too eager to tell the entire world about their past sins, which in most cases shows a lack of discretion and a certain lack of the sort of shame one should feel even for repented sins. Also, as a parent, I strongly believe that you generally should avoid telling your kids about your own wayward youth, because the kids will take such stories as an indication that they too can go off and have fun sinning and things will turn out okay, just as they did for you. Also you undermine your own moral authority when you instruct your children not to do the very things you have admitted to having done yourself. Finally, the man’s line about how his wife “is more pure than most virgins” is prideful and shows a kind of competitiveness and vanity that should simply not ever appear in any Prodigal Son style testimony. Imagine if the Prodigal Son had returned and announced himself not only repentant but “more pure” than the brother who stayed? It would kind of destroy the point of the story. So in summary I basically disagree with everyone on this.

A way to test this is to set a hypothetical. @AshleySheatz hypothetical father at the period of her pattern is seeking to become a pastor at a southern baptist church. Would this hold @tomascol @RayComfort @joe_rigney @GundenGraham @pastordmack @ostrachan @drmoore @Katy_Faust @LizzieMarbach @douglaswils @albertmohler @kangminlee @NeilShenvi The Bible’s standard turns on whether the children are presently “open to the charge” of debauchery (asōtia — reckless, dissolute, wild living, including sexual promiscuity; see Luke 15:13 for the prodigal’s “reckless living”) or insubordination. This is a public, observable reputation test, not a private sin-count or hidden ledger. • 10 episodes with 10 abortions (or 10 episodes with no pregnancies), fully confessed and currently repentant:
The sin (fornication + the grave sin of abortion) is confessed to the appropriate parties (God, and to the church if it has become known). Once genuine repentance is evident—godly sorrow, turning from the behavior, clear life change (2 Corinthians 7:10–11; Matthew 3:8)—the daughter is no longer “open to the charge.” There is no visible, ongoing public testimony of “wild living” (no babies, no pregnancies walking around). The household does not carry an active, observable reproach that outsiders or the congregation can point to (1 Timothy 3:7). Therefore, the elder’s “above reproach” status and proven household management are not violated in the present tense. The father meets the qualification right now.
Conservative biblical interpreters consistently emphasize that the Titus/1 Timothy language targets current, flagrant, public patterns of rebellion or immorality, not every past (even repeated) sin once repented of and no longer characterizing the child. • 3 episodes each yielding a carried baby (still visible consequences during qualification):
Even with full confession and claimed repentance for all three, the visible babies (especially the third one she is still carrying or has recently had) keep the pattern publicly observable. The church and outsiders can see the repeated outcome of sexual immorality. This leaves the daughter “open to the charge of debauchery” in the present, raising legitimate questions about whether the household has been managed in a way that produces submissive, non-scandalizing fruit right now. The delay is required until enough time passes with sustained repentance and no further visible reproach—so the children are clearly not open to that charge.

@MattWalshBlog Thank you for a fair and balanced take.

A way to test this is to set a hypothetical. @AshleySheatz hypothetical father at the period of her pattern is seeking to become a pastor at a southern baptist church. Would this hold @tomascol @RayComfort @joe_rigney @GundenGraham @pastordmack @ostrachan @drmoore @Katy_Faust @LizzieMarbach @douglaswils @albertmohler @kangminlee @NeilShenvi The Bible’s standard turns on whether the children are presently “open to the charge” of debauchery (asōtia — reckless, dissolute, wild living, including sexual promiscuity; see Luke 15:13 for the prodigal’s “reckless living”) or insubordination. This is a public, observable reputation test, not a private sin-count or hidden ledger. • 10 episodes with 10 abortions (or 10 episodes with no pregnancies), fully confessed and currently repentant:
The sin (fornication + the grave sin of abortion) is confessed to the appropriate parties (God, and to the church if it has become known). Once genuine repentance is evident—godly sorrow, turning from the behavior, clear life change (2 Corinthians 7:10–11; Matthew 3:8)—the daughter is no longer “open to the charge.” There is no visible, ongoing public testimony of “wild living” (no babies, no pregnancies walking around). The household does not carry an active, observable reproach that outsiders or the congregation can point to (1 Timothy 3:7). Therefore, the elder’s “above reproach” status and proven household management are not violated in the present tense. The father meets the qualification right now.
Conservative biblical interpreters consistently emphasize that the Titus/1 Timothy language targets current, flagrant, public patterns of rebellion or immorality, not every past (even repeated) sin once repented of and no longer characterizing the child. • 3 episodes each yielding a carried baby (still visible consequences during qualification):
Even with full confession and claimed repentance for all three, the visible babies (especially the third one she is still carrying or has recently had) keep the pattern publicly observable. The church and outsiders can see the repeated outcome of sexual immorality. This leaves the daughter “open to the charge of debauchery” in the present, raising legitimate questions about whether the household has been managed in a way that produces submissive, non-scandalizing fruit right now. The delay is required until enough time passes with sustained repentance and no further visible reproach—so the children are clearly not open to that charge.

The truth is that your story of past misdeeds is only really a good teaching tool and cautionary tale, and therefore edifying, if your life is right now currently in shambles. But inevitably that’s not the case for most of these “testimonies.” Most of the time it’s someone who is very happy, living a wonderful and contented life, often financially stable if not wealthy, telling us how sinful they used to be. I’m glad things worked out for you. I truly am. But “I sinned a lot and now I’m happy and not suffering any significant consequences for my evil behavior” just isn’t a very useful moral lesson for most people, ESPECIALLY children. That doesn’t mean you should feel bad about being happy now. It just means that the world — and your kids — don’t need to know about your prior indiscretions. Keep it to yourself, give glory to God for rewarding someone so unworthy, and move on.

A way to test this is to set a hypothetical. @AshleySheatz hypothetical father at the period of her pattern is seeking to become a pastor at a southern baptist church. Would this hold @tomascol @RayComfort @joe_rigney @GundenGraham @pastordmack @ostrachan @drmoore @Katy_Faust @LizzieMarbach @douglaswils @albertmohler @kangminlee @NeilShenvi The Bible’s standard turns on whether the children are presently “open to the charge” of debauchery (asōtia — reckless, dissolute, wild living, including sexual promiscuity; see Luke 15:13 for the prodigal’s “reckless living”) or insubordination. This is a public, observable reputation test, not a private sin-count or hidden ledger. • 10 episodes with 10 abortions (or 10 episodes with no pregnancies), fully confessed and currently repentant:
The sin (fornication + the grave sin of abortion) is confessed to the appropriate parties (God, and to the church if it has become known). Once genuine repentance is evident—godly sorrow, turning from the behavior, clear life change (2 Corinthians 7:10–11; Matthew 3:8)—the daughter is no longer “open to the charge.” There is no visible, ongoing public testimony of “wild living” (no babies, no pregnancies walking around). The household does not carry an active, observable reproach that outsiders or the congregation can point to (1 Timothy 3:7). Therefore, the elder’s “above reproach” status and proven household management are not violated in the present tense. The father meets the qualification right now.
Conservative biblical interpreters consistently emphasize that the Titus/1 Timothy language targets current, flagrant, public patterns of rebellion or immorality, not every past (even repeated) sin once repented of and no longer characterizing the child. • 3 episodes each yielding a carried baby (still visible consequences during qualification):
Even with full confession and claimed repentance for all three, the visible babies (especially the third one she is still carrying or has recently had) keep the pattern publicly observable. The church and outsiders can see the repeated outcome of sexual immorality. This leaves the daughter “open to the charge of debauchery” in the present, raising legitimate questions about whether the household has been managed in a way that produces submissive, non-scandalizing fruit right now. The delay is required until enough time passes with sustained repentance and no further visible reproach—so the children are clearly not open to that charge.

Does he not know that Jesus makes all things new? My near 10 year Christian marriage is a testament to the new life Christ gives sinners. We all have a past… marry the woman the Lord leads you to regardless of her past. Jesus threw it in the sea and dressed her in white, the reformed “Ho” no longer wears scarlet. Ps there was a Ho in Jesus lineage ;)

A way to test this is to set a hypothetical. @AshleySheatz hypothetical father at the period of her pattern is seeking to become a pastor at a southern baptist church. Would this hold @tomascol @RayComfort @joe_rigney @GundenGraham @pastordmack @ostrachan @drmoore @Katy_Faust @LizzieMarbach @douglaswils @albertmohler @kangminlee @NeilShenvi The Bible’s standard turns on whether the children are presently “open to the charge” of debauchery (asōtia — reckless, dissolute, wild living, including sexual promiscuity; see Luke 15:13 for the prodigal’s “reckless living”) or insubordination. This is a public, observable reputation test, not a private sin-count or hidden ledger. • 10 episodes with 10 abortions (or 10 episodes with no pregnancies), fully confessed and currently repentant:
The sin (fornication + the grave sin of abortion) is confessed to the appropriate parties (God, and to the church if it has become known). Once genuine repentance is evident—godly sorrow, turning from the behavior, clear life change (2 Corinthians 7:10–11; Matthew 3:8)—the daughter is no longer “open to the charge.” There is no visible, ongoing public testimony of “wild living” (no babies, no pregnancies walking around). The household does not carry an active, observable reproach that outsiders or the congregation can point to (1 Timothy 3:7). Therefore, the elder’s “above reproach” status and proven household management are not violated in the present tense. The father meets the qualification right now.
Conservative biblical interpreters consistently emphasize that the Titus/1 Timothy language targets current, flagrant, public patterns of rebellion or immorality, not every past (even repeated) sin once repented of and no longer characterizing the child. • 3 episodes each yielding a carried baby (still visible consequences during qualification):
Even with full confession and claimed repentance for all three, the visible babies (especially the third one she is still carrying or has recently had) keep the pattern publicly observable. The church and outsiders can see the repeated outcome of sexual immorality. This leaves the daughter “open to the charge of debauchery” in the present, raising legitimate questions about whether the household has been managed in a way that produces submissive, non-scandalizing fruit right now. The delay is required until enough time passes with sustained repentance and no further visible reproach—so the children are clearly not open to that charge.

.@TrevorSheatz and @AshleySheatz went viral this week after Trevor shared part of Ashley’s testimony on X, which included a mention of her pre-conversion sexual promiscuity. The backlash was massive, not just from non-believers, but from Christians and conservatives, too. People denigrated Ashley’s looks and mocked Trevor for humiliating his wife. But the critics have it all wrong. Ashley joins me to set the story straight — and to give a detailed testimony of her life before and after Christ. God saved her out of the New Age, drug addiction, and demonic oppression, into a new life in Jesus. Tune in tonight. May God be glorified.

A way to test this is to set a hypothetical. @AshleySheatz hypothetical father at the period of her pattern is seeking to become a pastor at a southern baptist church. Would this hold @tomascol @RayComfort @joe_rigney @GundenGraham @pastordmack @ostrachan @drmoore @Katy_Faust @LizzieMarbach @douglaswils @albertmohler @kangminlee @NeilShenvi The Bible’s standard turns on whether the children are presently “open to the charge” of debauchery (asōtia — reckless, dissolute, wild living, including sexual promiscuity; see Luke 15:13 for the prodigal’s “reckless living”) or insubordination. This is a public, observable reputation test, not a private sin-count or hidden ledger. • 10 episodes with 10 abortions (or 10 episodes with no pregnancies), fully confessed and currently repentant:
The sin (fornication + the grave sin of abortion) is confessed to the appropriate parties (God, and to the church if it has become known). Once genuine repentance is evident—godly sorrow, turning from the behavior, clear life change (2 Corinthians 7:10–11; Matthew 3:8)—the daughter is no longer “open to the charge.” There is no visible, ongoing public testimony of “wild living” (no babies, no pregnancies walking around). The household does not carry an active, observable reproach that outsiders or the congregation can point to (1 Timothy 3:7). Therefore, the elder’s “above reproach” status and proven household management are not violated in the present tense. The father meets the qualification right now.
Conservative biblical interpreters consistently emphasize that the Titus/1 Timothy language targets current, flagrant, public patterns of rebellion or immorality, not every past (even repeated) sin once repented of and no longer characterizing the child. • 3 episodes each yielding a carried baby (still visible consequences during qualification):
Even with full confession and claimed repentance for all three, the visible babies (especially the third one she is still carrying or has recently had) keep the pattern publicly observable. The church and outsiders can see the repeated outcome of sexual immorality. This leaves the daughter “open to the charge of debauchery” in the present, raising legitimate questions about whether the household has been managed in a way that produces submissive, non-scandalizing fruit right now. The delay is required until enough time passes with sustained repentance and no further visible reproach—so the children are clearly not open to that charge.

Beautiful. This is the gospel truth.

A way to test this is to set a hypothetical. @AshleySheatz hypothetical father at the period of her pattern is seeking to become a pastor at a southern baptist church. Would this hold @tomascol @RayComfort @joe_rigney @GundenGraham @pastordmack @ostrachan @drmoore @Katy_Faust @LizzieMarbach @douglaswils @albertmohler @kangminlee @NeilShenvi The Bible’s standard turns on whether the children are presently “open to the charge” of debauchery (asōtia — reckless, dissolute, wild living, including sexual promiscuity; see Luke 15:13 for the prodigal’s “reckless living”) or insubordination. This is a public, observable reputation test, not a private sin-count or hidden ledger. • 10 episodes with 10 abortions (or 10 episodes with no pregnancies), fully confessed and currently repentant:
The sin (fornication + the grave sin of abortion) is confessed to the appropriate parties (God, and to the church if it has become known). Once genuine repentance is evident—godly sorrow, turning from the behavior, clear life change (2 Corinthians 7:10–11; Matthew 3:8)—the daughter is no longer “open to the charge.” There is no visible, ongoing public testimony of “wild living” (no babies, no pregnancies walking around). The household does not carry an active, observable reproach that outsiders or the congregation can point to (1 Timothy 3:7). Therefore, the elder’s “above reproach” status and proven household management are not violated in the present tense. The father meets the qualification right now.
Conservative biblical interpreters consistently emphasize that the Titus/1 Timothy language targets current, flagrant, public patterns of rebellion or immorality, not every past (even repeated) sin once repented of and no longer characterizing the child. • 3 episodes each yielding a carried baby (still visible consequences during qualification):
Even with full confession and claimed repentance for all three, the visible babies (especially the third one she is still carrying or has recently had) keep the pattern publicly observable. The church and outsiders can see the repeated outcome of sexual immorality. This leaves the daughter “open to the charge of debauchery” in the present, raising legitimate questions about whether the household has been managed in a way that produces submissive, non-scandalizing fruit right now. The delay is required until enough time passes with sustained repentance and no further visible reproach—so the children are clearly not open to that charge.

So I recognize I have a different take than many of my colleagues in conservative media. But a couple of points I wanted to make today on Charlie's show with @AndrewKolvet and @BlakeSNeff. 1) According to her interview with @RayComfort, Ashley Sheatz came to Christ at 17. And as she explained in her initial testimony, after being exposed to sexual immorality from a young age while living with her single mom, she became a porn user at age 11. She was a young teenager when she began engaging in sexual sin with partners. I'd like everyone flinging the WORST labels I can imagine at her to remember--she was legally a child while having relationships with adult men years (in one case decades) older than her. I appreciate Ashley taking responsibility for her willful sinful choices, but this background suggests she was in a vulnerable, unprotected place from a young age and men took advantage of her, not the other way around. 2) Ashley Sheatz did not, as many were howling, go from being a web cam girl to being a Christian influencer. Though of course she has social media accounts where she talks about her life, background, and interests like every other modern American, her life for the past nine years has been focused on being a Christian wife and mom of three. She has been doing what the man-o-sphere says she should be doing--she's been quietly living out her faith, showing fruit in keeping with repentance. 3) If you read her full testimony it includes nightmarish situations of risking her life in pursuit of drugs. The idea that she didn't a pay price for her past sins is a claim that only someone who has never lived that hell can make. There is a reason the Bible describes it as slavery to sin. 4) Whore and promiscuous are not synonymous. One is meant to be more a general catchall term for being sexually indiscriminate. To some, it might mean any sex outside of marriage (this is what it should mean). To others, it could mean dozens of partners a year. The other is a crude term for a prostitute. Her husband did not call her a prostitute by that term or any other. In addition to that, I shared how I believe this Twitter Tempest plays into the longhouse phenomenon (which I think is absolutely real. As I have said in the past, I don't believe it goes too far to say we are living in something of a gynocracy). Thanks to Blake and Andrew for having me to discuss from a Protestant Christian perspective. I hope it adds something.

@megbasham @AndrewKolvet @BlakeSNeff @RayComfort If her mother were in a position of leadership at a church or father, subject to Titus and Timothy would they be disqualified?

@WWUTTcom If her mother were in a position of leadership at a church or father, subject to Titus and Timothy would they be disqualified?

@conservmillen @TrevorSheatz @AshleySheatz If her mother were in a position of leadership at a church or father, subject to Titus and Timothy would they be disqualified?

@conservmillen @TrevorSheatz @AshleySheatz Honestly, this is exactly counter how we pick those for eldership.

@megbasham in youth ministry this has long been the basis of whoredom. I did not see the ages of all partners delineated. If none were peers , then I’d think the testimony would say they were statutory rape or something like that. He said promiscuous which is a sin. He didn’t say used. Two distinct states. Purity culture has conditioned this response for decades. Ages of sexual deviance are not ever carve outs . Porn exposure doesn’t really soften the later acting out. If so, few men would be called out as promiscuous as America largely makes access to porn for boys a norm thru early adolescence. This is centered on 2 points: Repentance is mostly discrete and modest in Christian norms. Kept to those who are charged with mercy as you are walking in communal accountability. It is pointed to in scripture in the macro to warn against what individuals may fall into. We don’t stand in pulpits and public squares with each church member revealing their sexual partner history and warning against what they did. Pastors aren’t having their sons , daughters , wives & selves regularly give the inventory of their sex lives to note the peril of indulging the flesh. This is unwise and not the intent of testimonies to large / mixed sex groups. If this model is the way, it is rarely modeled or commended and we have wronged many. Of course the lord forgives and restores. We just are fooling ourselves if we present that past sexual sin is not central in how people are viewed and in decisions of who to court or encourage our kids to pursue. Had there been a child out of wedlock or abortion , we’d certainly see redirecting of youth away from dating a guy or girl with that background. And if prostitution, pretty woman would not encourage the Richard Greer model in Christendom. The assumption Seems to be that to say no to a guy or girl with this background is the offense rather than the virtue. And that to say no is to doubt redemption. This ignores the consequences horizontally. Wisedom is a central part of picking a spouse- father - mother of your children. Virginity is a marker of the commitment that marriage demands. Not the only factor , but a great indicator. Centuries of wearing white is the primary cultural signal to its value. It is the normative public testimony even though it is often not earnest. Don’t wear the white, if that is intended to be your public witness

Then the question should be have you viewed porn in your mind. Lusted with your eyes. That was the porn in scripture. So as exposited by reformed Christians and purity culture, damaged goods is how non- virgins were characterized. There is no such reference to sleeping with every partner a guy or girl has been with. The point isn’t whether or not the Lord forgive. The point is whether or not the church and applying the word of God has counsel, youth young adults to pursue purity and to avoid those who are pure sexually who have had sexual intercourse. This is the basis by which it is expected that anyone who follows Christ would be Responding in surprise to someone stating that their wife was promiscuous. That’s the point. And after that, it’s would you advise your child your grandchild to pursue someone who is not a virgin all else equal versus someone who is a virgin? Also should every pastor elder and Deacon list whether or not their wife was promiscuous or their husband was promiscuous before or after marriage?

@DadaAlpaca No it’s not a gotcha , it’s a mirror. Women should stay away from you then because you’re a pervert? It’s exactly the same :)