Let's say that two girls claim to be "Christians."

One girl (maybe wearing a Christian-cross necklace) is wearing flip-flop sandals without socks on so that her [naked] toes and other parts of her [bared] feet are plainly visible to the [thus-sexually-harassed] general public.

The other girl is also wearing flip-flop sandals but with opaque socks on thus covering all parts of her bare feet so that NO parts of her nude feet are visible to the at-random mixed-gender public.

WHICH of the two girls is or could be considered a genuine Christian....and which one is a fake [pseudo-]"christian?"

A non-thinking ignorant or smarty person might superficially answer: "Both." Or: "Either one." Or answer: "They did not wear socks under sandals in Bible times, according to pervert stained-glass and Sunday-school-picture-book artists who were not actually present back then." Or - worst of all - answer: "It doesn't matter if they wear socks or not."

If that last person who retorted with: "It doesn't matter...." blattered out that ignorant response of theirs with belligerence, he or she is not only ignorant [deliberately or not], but he or she is an arrogant moron, imbecile, or even [demonic] idiot.

Now that I could have ruffled you the reader's feathers, you might now indignantly exit in a self-righteous pruriently-pious huff or quickly click into something else with prejudicially-bigoted and biased indifference. Then again, you might instead read on with insatiable curiosity - knowing that you are safely reading mere non-personal words from an anonymous source, which source is trying to prove some vital and crucial point.

In Jeremiah 2:25 both the RSV and NASV Bible versions state something like:

"Keep your feet from being unshod, and your throat from thirst. But you have said, 'It is hopeless, for I have loved strangers, and after them I will go."

In context of the surrounding chapter verses before and after, of course.

It might just occur to perhaps even the densest of readers that the Scripture verse quoted above could (if even remotely) relate to the at-best questionable and at worst luridly indecent, vile, and pornographic phenomenon of not only worldly but especially pseudo-"christian" gals exposing parts of their bare feet in general-heterosexual/both-genders public view.....even while wearing [socksless] sandals or similar woefully-inadequate flip-flop or clog footwear....whatever seasonal-or-other doctrines-of-demons "warm-days" coolness, tanning, style and fashion irrationalizations they connive or concoct from others or themselves.

Some of the more argumentative and deviantly-savvy religious-heretic types might merely brush off and then flippantly dismiss what they presume (not "assume") are "proof-texts" which "only applied in a previous dispensation of Old-Covenant law to the ancient Hebrews of Israel before law-fulfilling-and-therefore-law-abolishing Jesus came on the scene who replaced legalistic and impossible-to-perfectly-obey, godly, holy, and Scripturally-recorded traditions with anything-goes, turn-the-other-cheek, love-supercedes-judgment, mercy and grace."

Other warped religious revisionists dogmatically allege that such Old-Testament verses as Jeremiah 2:25......as with RSV's and NASV's Numbers 5:18, Song 7:5, and First Corinthians 11:14-16 pertaining to loose long hair (like that hanging below mouth-level), Second Samuel 13:18 pertaining to bare-naked sleevesless arms, Isaiah 47:1-4 pertaining to nude legs bared with shortened skirts or shorts of any length......have to be "re-interpreted" to mis-suit the lewd customs of self-righteous deviously-"enlightened" modern pagans with doctrines-of-Christ-rejecting commentaries and twisted explanations, like "Don't wear out your shoes running after after gods (NIV). [In fact, "wearing out shoes" does not even remotely apply and has absolutely nothing to do with the Hebrew Text intended by the Divinely-inspired author]!

Even IF Jeremiah 2:25 and similar pro-modesty-inferring O.T. Bible verses [such as Song 7:1 using "footsteps in sandals" instead of "feet in sandals"] did have one of several interpretive aspects relating to "avoiding idols, idolatry, and idol-worship," why - in the name of God - are the precise words: "feet," "unshod," and "loved strangers" used to refer to such? What - in the dam fk - have those particular words to do with "idols," "idolatry," or "idol worship" whatsoever? Why were those words used - and not other words, alluding to or inferring idolatry???

A gaggle of anti-Biblical heretics and demented goofs might self-excuse themselves with recollections of perverted "artistic" mis-renderings of Bible characters they saw in Satan's Sunday-school books, pamphlets, paintings, and stained-glass windows as children. Not content with mis-portraying our mighty Lord Jesus with wimpishly-effeminate loose-long hair, the Devil's shysters illustrate Bible characters as exposing parts of their bared feet with socksless sandals instead of slippers not hidden by too-short robes. That is supposed to justify the sinful-nature demonic cravings of carnal minds satiated with rebellious lust - whether they admit it or not.

Even many fundamentalist islamic women with their shawls and long-sleeved robes [and in NO way painfully dying of heatstroke, with or without palace air-conditioning] short-circuit their most-admirable summertime modesty with feet partially exposed with socksless sandals instead of royal persian and arabian slippers.

It is not because of modest people that porn exists.

Modest people are not the cause of why certain normally-wise and productive, rather-righteous people desire, search for, concoct, disperse, and retain pornography.

It is then, of course, because of immodest people that images of illegitimate erotica come about.

As (not if) semi-indecently immodest people throw surprise-attack non-solicited feces at us (e.g. mopheaded loose long hair, sleevesless bare-naked arms, slacksless nude legs, and toes exposed by socksless footwear...all referred to explicitly enough by KJV's and RSV's Numbers 5:18, II Samuel 13:18, Song of Solomon 7:5, Isaiah 47:1-4, Jeremiah 2:25), we throw back at them (or want to throw back at them) even worse filth (e.g. bare breasts and nipples, bare thighs and buttocks, bare pussy hair, and even bare vagilips and anus).

Unfortunately, it is generally very difficult - if not frequently impossible - to blast that erotic filth back at the person and persons who (whether ignorantly, carelessly, or deliberately) cause the whole immodest/indecent problem in the first place who exhibit themselves immodestly in view of men who they are not married to or want to commit immorality with, who they have no intention of marrying nor committing immorality with, nor who have any previous request to be married to or commit immorality with the victims they wantonly and despicably seduce and entice.

The blame for male physical sexual harassment is invariably and indisputably directed to the blame of visual sexual harassment committed (not performed) by immodest women and girls, in particular.

It is grievous and abhorrent when innocent pure people who do not deserve to be besieged with such back-and-forth warlike retaliation of lascivious body-parts exposure are caught in the licentious crossfire. Collateral damage is certainly not the intention by God, Jesus Christ, the Church and members thereof fully capable of being well-stocked with retaliatory arsenal of porno arms and ammunition.

But the sick morons and pervert demonic who roam around randomly imposing their mopheaded, naked-armed, nude-legged, bare-footed live-porn-in-motion against whoever is unfortunate enough to be in their line of sight regrettably have both pseudo-'legal' protection and - generally - mobile anonymity, to prevent them from getting the full barrage of retaliatory erotica back in their own faces.

The solution is definitely not a case of the pure-minded perpetually having to turn the other cheek until they are obliterated into absolute paralysis and isolation nor simply "take it like a man" with the satanic-backtalk irrationalization of "if you don't like it, you don't have to either look at it nor continue to look at what I am spewing into your face" with the nearly-incredibly-selfish: "it is my right to be terroristically worldly and wicked, choose to do immodest evil, and be a lewd and lurid stumbling block no matter who it hurts."

Please keep in mind that what I am saying to you, the reader, is not a far-off philosophical exercise in manipulating a set of fanciful words. It is not a fairy-land scenario of pretended imagination. The immodesty referred to is real, as is the retaliatory porn real in real life. Just thought I would remind you of the actuality of what we are confronting.

Immodest people continually flaunt their live-person full-sized partial immodesty wherever and whenever they want to (especially on warm spring, summer, and autumn days)....and consequential porn is concocted and erotically utilized as a sensuous substitute which one can readily control and confine and regulate, and retain for future use - correctly realizing full well that their eyes will again be incessantly and repeatedly raped again, requiring incessant and repeated erotic release and retaliation with porn.

It is a vicious but non-deniable circle.

But the LORD's ultimate goal is the complete and consistently-present eradication of immodesty.

To do that, those who are immodest must be adjusted. Re-programmed by pertinent Scripture verses insisted upon, over and over. Start and continue to be completely modest when in general public view without judgmentally falsely justifying themselves with the vomit of doctrines-of-demons self-righteous illogical excuses.

Or else they must be punished....and, if not corrected by increasing degrees of punishment in proportion to the severity of their continuing or worsening immodesty, exterminated like diabolical viruses. Deleted from among the living. Executed - as ordered by Old Testament commands.

Only after that will porn become useless and finally disposed of.

Without public immodesty, there never would be need to post porn pics nor movie clips on internet webpages.

Already, the relentlessly-hotlinked-to-never-ending-oblivion mixed-up assemblage of non-copyable virus-laded browser-collapsing pornocrap infesting the internet is mind-boggling.

For one thing, the general public usually never displays nor sees displayed any oral/rectal/genital-insertion nude-anatomy sights in open public view.

Secondly, intimate-intercourse-related phenomena of teen promiscuity, premarital teen pregnancy, non-wanted parenthood, homogay-linkage partnerships, and abortion-homicide have been and continue to be well-aired, publicized, and criticized over the airwaved-broadcast network and Christian media and in newsprint.

Thirdly, the needlessness of pictorially portraying coital copulation is and should continue to be evident in that it does not take a rocket scientist of either the male or female gender to figure out what gets inserted into what for sexual union when participating parts are turgid, rigid, erect, moistened, relaxed, and so on by nudity-and-sensual-contact-incited erotic arousal.....assuming that everyone has seen a service-station gasoline-pump dispenser inserted into vehicular gas-tank holes, and electrical plugs pushed into house-socket receptacles.

Fourthly, oral/rectal/genital insertions are very PERSONAL actions - not at all typically paraded nor flaunted out in open public view. [ Think how repugnantly most people react to even utterance of the f*** word! ]

Of course, the truly and thoroughly-disgusting aberrations of multiple-men-on-one-woman orgies, farm-animal/zoo bestiality, black/white racist connexions, sickening and repulsive lesbian and male gay sodomy, self-sodomizing masturbation, snuff bondage, etc. are neither commonly seen nor desired to be seen by non-demented non-despicable sensible people.

I had a dream:

It was a warm summer day.

Cute-and-shapely, non-ponytailed mopheaded, sleeveslessly nude-armed and naked-legged in short shorts, soxless flip-flops-flapping, near-tween, Caucasian-skin-color Jill was biking along the roadside, ignorantly presuming that her misattired exposed body parts were "normal" style and fashion for summerwear.

Jack did not know that she was heading to the local library to explore the possibility of committing and not performing [so-called] "medical"-exam-appointment erotic interplay with a male dentist, male chiropractor, male spa masseur, and male gynecologist.

He was almost late driving to his business appointment at the company.

The reason why Jill was so doing was motivated by the fornication-substitution NIV anti-marriage mistranslation of First Corinthians 7:1 forbidden men to marry, and the RSV/NASV/NIV/etc. mistranslation of First Timothy 5:14 instructing only young widows to remarry, PLUS:

Genesis 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth."
Genesis 9:1 And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth.

Besides, there apparently was no marriage involved in the Biblically-recorded previous cases of:

Genesis 19:31 And the first-born said to the younger, "Our father is old, and there is not a man on earth to come in to us after the manner of all the earth.
Genesis 19:32 Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve offspring through our father."
Genesis 19:33 So they made their father drink wine that night; and the first-born went in, and lay with her father; he did not know when she lay down or when she get up.
Genesis 19:34 And on the next day, the first-born said to the younger, "Hey, I lay last night with my father; let us make him drink wine tonight also; then you go in and lie with him, that we may preserve offspring through our father."
Genesis 19:35 So they made their father drink wine that night also; and the younger got up, and lay with him; and he did not know when she lay down or when she got up.
Genesis 19:36 Thus both the daughters of Lot were with child by their father.
Genesis 19:37 The first-born bore a son, and called his name Moab; he is the father of the Moabites to this day.
Genesis 19:38 The younger also bore a son, and called his name Benammi; he is the father of the Ammonites to this day.

Thus, with the NIV and even the RSV/NASV/etc. not advocating never-before-married Jill to get married, Jill figured that her only recourse was regretfully-necessary even-only-one-night-stand harlotry:

Genesis 38:14 [Tamar] put off her widow's garments, and put on a veil, wrapping herself up, and sat [as an available prostitute] at the entrance to Enaim, which is on the road to Timnah; for she saw that Shelah was grown up, and she had not been given to him in marriage.

Jill was already biologically desperate in her youthful hunger for sexual satisfaction:

Ruth 1:13 Would you therefore wait till they were grown? Would you therefore refrain from marrying? No, my daughters, for it is exceedingly bitter to me for your sake that the hand of the LORD has gone forth against me."

A few days later, Jack (recollecting Jill's partial indecent-exposure public immodesty which she had imposed against his victim-like accidental view) had some free time and was doing an afternoon stroll, and again saw Jill -- this time wearing in even shorter shorts, and walking barefoot with no socks on.

Jack followed her at a distance, because she had on a T-shirt reading: "HEY GUY, I'M AVAILABLE FOR SEX."

When she turned onto a side street, Jack followed her to her apartment after she went in, then cautiously but eagerly went inside the door himself.

Jill was getting her mail in the apartment entrance box, so Jack cautiously approached her, and gently commented that he liked her sign, and told her that his name was Jack.

Jill told him that she had prayed about it wearing the sign and the wording thereon, and the Lord put it into her mind to imprint the invite petition on her T-shirt.

Jack remarked that she had taken quite a chance almost presumptuously and rather dangerously advertising herself to any man who happened to pass by, then asked her to tell him her name.

She responded with a: "I'm Jill," said a "Thank You" in response to Jack's positive comment about her T-shirt sign, then said "Wow! What a coincidence that a handsome guy like you named Jack saw my sign under these providential circumstances! Let's go into my apartment about your request for sex regarding my T-shirt sign, and we'll talk about it."

Inside her apartment, Jack asked her if she knew that the priest of RSV's/NASV's Numbers 5:18 had been instructed to unbind the hair of a woman suspected of adultery, and that such a tradition of a woman presuming that her [mopheaded] long hair was insufficient as a prayer covering according to the KJV rendition of First Corinthians 11:14-16.

Jill responded by asking Jack if her "flowing locks" (which she said were mentioned in RSV's and NASV's Song of Solomon 7:5) were "captivating" to him as the Text states.

Jack's responded affirmatively, and then asked her if she knew about the RSV and NASV's translations of Second Samuel 13:18 which spoke of Tamar traditionally wearing a long-sleeved full-length robe in the process of her getting raped, and he asked Jill why she was not wearing anything on her bare arms.

Jill then told Jack that she had figured out that the mention of long sleeves was included in accurately-translated Scripture of RSV's and NASV's Second Samuel 13:18 partially for purposes of conveying arm-cover modesty relating to sexual excitation and consequences, but she was simply succumbing to satanic summertime style.

Jill further informed Jack that she had readily seen the erotic implications of some Babylon virgin to "uncover her legs" so that her "nakedness was exposed" and her "shame seen," according to various translations of Isaiah 47:1-3, and that she was barefooted because she was "lustfully" intent on enticing some available and willing man, "like yourself Jack" but who she considered a "stranger" concordant with RSV's and NASV's textually-oriented wording of Jeremiah 2:25.

Jill then informed Jack that she was intrigued by and longed for - like Eve in The Garden - shamelessly doing shameful buttocks-baring display described in RSV's Isaiah chapter 20:4 but in private marital context, after which she would allow some man to do the LORD's job of baring her secret parts described in RSV's Isaiah 3:17 as she spread out her legs per KJV's Ezekiel 16:25, and then experience the pleasure of having a decent application of Ezekiel 23:21-described breasts-fondling nipples-squeezing applied to her, personally.

Jack then asked Jill if she was playing the harlot while her boyfriend or husband was away as described in Proverbs chapter 7.

Jill quickly informed Jack that she had no boyfriend nor husband, and that RSV's Ezekiel 16:7 described her being birthed naked and bare, that her breasts had formed, her hair was grown, and thus she obviously not "under-aged" and that he was not engaging in forced and involuntary "child molestation."

He asked her what the gold band was on the 3rd and not 4th finger of her left hand, and if it meant that she was married or engaged . . . and if she was pregnant or menstruating or was a so-called "purity ring." She responded by erotically sticking up only that 3rd finger at him and asking: "You mean this?"

Jack exclaimed that that really turned him on, and said that she got it at some dollar store "to scare off sex offenders."

Jack informed Jill that he already had a primary wife, but privily taking her as his own private concubine would be OK, as the Bible puts it:

Genesis 4:19 And Lamech took two wives; the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah.

Genesis 32:22 The same night [Jacob] arose and took his two wives, his two maids, and his eleven children, and crossed the ford of the Jabbok.

Deuteronomy 21:15 "If a man has two wives, the one loved and the other disliked, and they have borne him children, both the loved and the disliked, and if the first-born son is hers that is disliked,
Deuteronomy 21:16 then on the day when he assigns his possessions as an inheritance to his sons, he may not treat the son of the loved as the first-born in preference to the son of the disliked, who is the first-born,
Deuteronomy 21:17 but he shall acknowledge the first-born, the son of the disliked, by giving him a double portion of all that he has, for he is the first issue of his strength; the right of the first-born is his.

First Samuel 1:2 He had two wives; the name of the one was Hannah, and the name of the other Peninnah. And Peninnah had children, but Hannah had no children.

First Samuel 27:3 And David dwelt with Achish at Gath, he and his men, every man with his household, and David with his two wives, Ahinoam of Jezreel, and Abigail of Carmel, Nabal's widow.

First Chronicles 4:5 Ashhur, the father of Tekoa, had two wives, Helah and Naarah.

Second Chronicles 24:3 Jehoiada got for him two wives, and he had sons and daughters.

Jill asked him if he was a bishop, deacon, or elder - in which case he must merely be the monogamous husband of one wife, according to First Timothy 3:2 & 12.

After Jack responded with a emphatic: "No," Jill said "Good!" and that she did not mind being a secondary woman in his life as his own personal common-law non-State-registered visitation concubine, and that she would retain her maiden name in the case of pregnancy and childbirth with some privately-contracted midwife.

Jack then asked Jill if she had VD, and told her that he needed to see her Drivers License before they proceeded any further. Jill did so, then asked him if he had VD, and told him that she needed to see his Driver's License - which he promptly did - and they agreed to immediately walk to her car to make photocopies of each one at the nearest UPS store before (as Jill put it): "we shower together and we do Song of Solomon 1:2-described passionate lip-kissing and RSV's Song-of-Solomon 7:7-8 breasts fonding in preparation for me fondling your Ezekiel 23:20-alluded-to extended donkey-like penile protuberation in view of penile-manipulations-idea expressed in RSV's Deuteronomy 25:1."

After they got the photocopies of each other's Drivers License, Jack told Jill that they should both fill out identical copies of an ad-hoc Concubine Certification Form Jack had come up with, before they proceed any further to avoid charges of "fornication" or "adultery" from whoever, whenever, and wherever.

They did so, but before beginning to have sex after all that, Jack said: "You know, we have to be discriminating about certain things. We must distinguish between red and green stoplights, discriminating against those who go through red stoplights and against those who stop at green stoplights."

"And also NOT discriminate against those who stop at red stoplights and those who go at green stoplights," Jill added.

"I discriminate by not trying to barge into women's occupied lavatory stalls to ask them if I may watch them wipe themselves, AND discriminate against crippling accidents by avoiding collisions with trees and light posts near the highway, rather than running into them," said Jack.

"I also," Jill replied. I discriminate by not entering the men's lavatories to watch them urinate into the urinals."

"You in your non-questionable discrimination are my kind of driver, for which I would never belligerently tailgate nor impatiently honk at for you to incite road rage which might become fatal," Jack continued.

"There's more. I discriminate - to a large extent - for the King James type translations which are overwhelmingly concordant with the inerrant 1894 Scrivener-Trinitarian Greek Text, but discriminate against the admittedly-nicely-worded-but-translationally-faulty-in-parts RSV and NASV and especially NIV New Testament - being that it is significantly based upon the substantially-corrupt Nestle, UBS, and Westcott-Hort Greek texts, not to mention the Sinaiticus and the Vaticanus."

"And I discriminate for the infallible ben Asher Masoretic Hebrew Text of the Old Testament, edited by Rudolf Kittel and known as Biblia Hebraica based upon the Leningrad-codex manuscript," Jill added.

The end result was that both agreed that it is improper, wicked and evil style or fashion, and immodestly indecent for girls and women, in general-public view, to indiscriminately be seen mopheaded, bare-armed sleevesless, bare-legged slacksless, and soxlessly wearing sandals or other open-toe shoes during seasonably warm weather, and that those who do not agree nor comply with that should be arrested and fined by Iranian, Saudi, or other islamic-fundamentalist anti-vice police officers sporting hijab burkas.