The Orthobro defense of vulgarity now comes with a proof text: Ezekiel has 'dick jokes', therefore Jay can say whatever he wants. “Is Paul against Ezekiel?” That may be the most revealing thing Jay said during our exchange. Apparently the Orthobro defense of vulgarity now requires turning the Apostle and the Prophet against one another. But when the Holy Spirit spoke through Ezekiel, He used severe and graphic prophetic language to expose the spiritual prostitution of Israel and Judah. The Fathers did not approach this passage as comedy material or as a template for casual Christian speech. They read it as a fearful denunciation of covenant betrayal—not with a smirk and a demand that everyone affirm, “It’s a dick joke.” Jay ignores that entire mode of interpretation. He collapses the distinction between the Holy Spirit’s judicial rhetoric and the coarse jesting that St. Paul explicitly says is “not fitting” for Christians (Eph. 5:3–4). The resulting logic is simple: because a prophet once used graphic language under divine inspiration, modern Christians may treat vulgarity as ordinary banter, proof they are “real men", while dismissing anyone who objects as a fake-piety signaler. That is not fidelity to Scripture. It is using one passage of Scripture to authorize precisely the kind of conduct another passage forbids. Jay’s method replaces the mind of the Fathers with a modern, reductive, and ultimately irreverent hermeneutic: whatever appears in the biblical text may be stripped from its prophetic purpose and weaponized as personal permission.