Oral sex, in “same-sex marriage“, was made a taboo in the past. But now, legalized by legislators, politicians and heads of state in at least eighteen (18) countries, worldwide.
At last, the present “political conquerors” were morally conquered by sexual perverts, by seducing them to believe in the latter’s alleged “human rights“.
This alleged human rights is indistinguishable from “animal rights“, as what is being invoked is the right to commit the prohibited “oral sex”, which is not biblically prohibited for animals.
Queen Elizabeth of England, also, finally, voluntarily surrendered the Royal Assent. Courts, however, unfortunately, succumbed to the theory that constitutional rights include animal rights, being invoked by sexual perverts, thus, the favorable decisions for same-sex marriage. Perhaps, they have their respective theories of the case, but there is a counter-theory to these legislative measures because of the biblical prohibition.
Related articles on forbidden meat:
- Habakkuk 2 and the End Times
- “Eating Meat with Blood Still in it”:What is it?
- Prohibited Meat: Logic of the Words
- Prohibited Meat: Circumstances when Spoken
- Human Meat vs. Animal Meat
- Procreation Statements in Prohibited Meat
- Procreation and Forbidden Meat
- Filipino Term for Forbidden Meat
- Forbidden Meat and Destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah
“Same-sex marriage” is also called “sodomy”, which refer to any form of sexual perversion but generally understood by society as “anal sex“. But considering the smell of feces, likely, the cleaner part-the mouth, would be used in sodomy. This is premised on the fact that there is no law controling the sexual acts to specifically define the scope of the “word” sodomy. The anus is only part of deception as it’s use has no historical and biblical basis. On the other hand, Filipino sexual perverts have their “eating uncooked meat” (kumakain ng hilaw na karne), which has the same literal tenor to “eating meat with blood still in it”. The only difference in them is that “eating uncooked meat” is being enjoyed but “eating meat with blood still in it” is being prohibited. Again, a manifestation on how the words were used to deceive the society.
If analyzed carefully, above terms are operationally the same, as they are meaningless and useless “words”, if you take out the “oral sex” in them. Aggravated by “blood-oriented teachings” by preachers, these words, e.g, sodomy, same-sex marriage successfully diverted the society away from correctly understanding the morally prohibited “eating meat with blood still in it“. Consequently, if sodomy was the cause of destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, then “oral sex” associated with idolatry is the logical supporting reason for the Habakkuk 2 doom prophecy, which will be discussed in the next theory.
The origin of oral sex
The society was made to believe in “oral sex” as a modern thing. But reviewing some biblical texts, it reveals that oral sex and related terms were the root causes of Noah’s flood and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. The clue is in Genesis 6:5-7, which states the reasons for the flood as “wickedness on everyone and how evil their thoughts were all the time” that cannot be differentiated from today’s “pornography”. The verses did not mention murders, robbery, theft, etc. that are manifested by resulting injuries or damages on another person, as the reasons, but mention the “evil thoughts”-that include “lust”, which are being taken lightly today, that are present in a mutual agreement like “same-sex marriage”
The “regret” felt by God extended to “birds” and ‘animals” in Genesis 6:7, thus, the wiping out of people, animals and birds by flood. This regret which extended to them is illogical, if there were no earlier un-acceptable practices involving them with men and women, which, unfortunately, were not specifically mentioned in the verses, by way of “present understood terminologies”. However, the express prohibition of “eating meat with blood still in it” immediately after the flood in Genesis 9:4, together with ceremonial prohibition in Leviticus 17 and the prohibition of sex with animals in Leviticus 18:23, impliedly mean that the practices, including sex with birds, were being done by the people in Noah’s time, as the “words” of regret were spoken prior to flood. Worth stressing is the prohibition “on sexual relations between men as it is being hated by God” in Leviticus 18:22, which was the known cause for the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.
Blood oriented vs. life oriented teachings
The prohibition “eating meat with blood still in it” was traditionally erased by the blood oriented teachings of preachers. They technically amended the reason for its prohibition from “I forbid this because the life is in the blood” to “I forbid this because blood is life”. Instead of focusing on the subject “meat”, they focused more on blood, as if the prohibition is “drinking blood with meat still in it”.
These blood oriented teachings had diverted the true meaning of the prohibition to exclude “sexually eating the genitals” as in “oral sex”, despite being squarely falling under the “meat with blood still in it”. Also, instead of being a moral prohibition, it was converted by the teachings as a mere dietary-nutritional prohibition. Expectedly, even Christians may have been misled.
The life oriented teaching however focuses on prohibition of meat, if life in blood is still in it. If life is taken out in that blood, the prohibition is deemed taken out in eating that meat. Also, the life that is being referred in the prohibition is human life and not animal life, because nowhere in genesis 9:1-7 that animal life is being expressly referred except that animals were given to Noah as foods under Genesis 9:2-3. The meat being referred thus is the living human meat, which are the human genitals that are capable of being sexually eaten in “oral sex”.
Genesis 9:2-5 vs. Leviticus 17:11
Genesis 9:2-5 differs to Leviticus 17:11 as it is spoken by God himself and the latter is an statement of opinion by Moses. Factual statement vs. statement of opinion. In case of conflict, whose side should prevail?
2All the animals, birds and fish will live in fear of you. They are all placed under your power. 3Now you can eat them, as well as green plants; I give them all to you for food. 4The one thing you must not eat is meat with blood still in it. I forbid this because the life is in the blood. 5If anyone takes human life, he will be punished. I will punish with death any animal that takes a human life. (Genesis 9:2-5, TEV).
11The life of every living creature is in the blood, and that is why the Lord has commanded that all blood be poured out on the altar to take away the people’s sin. Blood, which is life, takes away sins. That is why the Lord has told the people of Israel that neither they nor any foreigner living among them shall eat any meat with blood still in it.(Leviticus 17:11, TEV)
But there is no substantial conflict that could be seen between them. Why?
- Both refers to life as not the same to blood because both allege that “life is in the blood”, not “blood is life”.
- Leviticus 17:11 further clarifies that: “Blood, which is life, takes away sins”. If taken superficially, this statement will bring inconsistency to “The life of every living creature is in the blood” in the same verse, because, in effect, it alleges that “blood is life”. To maintain consistency, however, the statement is more referring to sacrificial bloods, further clarifying that there is blood, with “life” no longer in it, if the statement is deeply taken by itself or by further taking into consideration the words “living creature” in contrast to a dead one. Also, it may effectively allege that there is “Blood, which is NOT life that can not take away sins” in the opposite. The statement is more prophetically related to the sacrificial blood of Jesus Christ, which takes away sins.
- Both did not exclude living human genitals as “meat with blood still in it”.
- By comparison, Leviticus 17:11 emphasizes on the sanctity of blood to life whereas, Genesis 9: 1-7 emphasizes on the prohibition of “prohibited meat” in relation to human procreation and human life.
- Assuming for the sake of argument that “all animal bloods” is the subject of the prohibition by itself even without the meat, the statement would not erase the fact that living human genitals are still a form of “meat with blood still in it’.
If the living human genitals were not excluded by Genesis 9:1-7 and Leviticus 17:11 as a form of “meat with blood still in it”, are you to allowed to “sexually” eat them, by way of “oral sex”?
Christ teaching related to lust
The Christ said:
15There is nothing that goes into you from the outside which can make you ritually unclean. Rather, it is what comes out that makes you unclean.” x x x 20And he went on to say:” It is what comes out of you that makes you unclean.21 From the inside, from your heart, come the evil ideas which lead you to do immoral things, to rob, kill, 22commit adultery, be greedy and do all sorts of evil things; deceit, indecency, jealousy, slander, pride, and folly–23all these evil things come from inside you and make you unclean.” (Mark 7:15; 7:20-23, TEV)
When Christ said: “There is nothing that goes into you (of course, including literal “eating of animal meat with blood) which can make you ritually unclean”, then, if you are Christian, believe in what he said. Don’t believe on the blood oriented preachers. Finally, the “lust” that comes from the heart in “oral sex” can definitely lead you to do immoral things, to rob, kill, commit adultery, be greedy and do all sort of evil things; deceit, indecency, jealousy, slander, pride, and folly. These are exemplified by sexually related crimes and scandals that are known to the public but technically hidden, though diversion of the meaning of the moral prohibition, by blood oriented preachers.
Note: Same-sex marriage legislation has a Filipino modification in Reproductive Health Law. Click to the following articles for reference.
- Same-sex Relations in Reproductive Health Law (wordatthenet.com)
- “Parenthood” in Reproductive Health Law (wordatthenet.com)
- Onanism in Reproductive Health (wordatthenet.com)
- Philippines Legalizes Pornography (sexologyandhealth.blogspot.com)
- Legal Pornography: Only in the Philippines(healthandmeat.blogspot.com)
- Pornography in Reproductive Health Law(scentofdeception.blogspot.com)
PRECAUTION: This video is presented to show its relation to the article through the word “eating”, which is present in prohibited “eating” the forbidden fruit and the forbidden meat but be cautioned to detect some deception and please correlate to the following articles on cross and trinity doctrine, which subjects also appear in the video.
- “Murderer” cross to “holy?” cross?
- Cross: The power of God?
- The “sign of the beast” is the “sign of the cross”
- Cross and Rosary: Tools of Enemies of God
- Cross and rosary grossly insult God
- Rosary is just an adjutant of the cross
- ‘Holy’ Trinity: A Doctrine of Dividing God into Three
- Incest in trinity doctrine
- God’s evolution in trinity doctrine