The Top 5 Things Christians Believe That Aren’t True

Let God be true and every man a liar.  Tradition can be a good thing, but not when it contradicts God’s Word, adds to God’s Word or adds burdens upon the people that God did not give them.

These are the top five points of “doctrine” that just about all modern Christians and churchians hold which do not agree with Scripture.

1.   Divorce between two married Christians is permitted in cases of adultery.

Christians claim they are no longer under the Law of Moses, but the Law of Moses permitted a man to divorce his wife for sexual immorality.  However, there is a specific prohibition on two married Christians getting divorced at 1st Corinthians 7:10-11.  The exception for sexual immorality is no longer there because for Christians the only exception to the no-divorce rule is if they are married to a non-Christian who leaves them.

Everyone points at the words of Jesus in Matthew 19 and Matthew 5, and they are correct for people under the Law.  For those in Christ there is a special prohibition on two married believers getting divorced.  This issue is #1 in terms of getting Christians fighting mad, because both Matthew 19 and especially Matthew 5:31-32 made it clear that God will not accept an illegitimate divorce.  That means all those Christians who divorced their Christian spouse for adultery/abuse/whatever are not really divorced, they are still married.  If the wife “married” another guy, they aren’t really married because the only thing a married woman can do with another guy is commit adultery.  If the guy married another woman, he now has two wives, which leads us to the next one:

2.  Polygyny is a wrong, marriage is one man and one woman.

God regulated polygyny in the Law.  God condoned polygyny in 2nd Samuel 12:8, taking credit for giving David multiple wives.  God commanded polygyny in Deuteronomy 25:5-10, the case of the Levirate marriage.  God participated in polygyny, stating in Jeremiah 31:31-32 that He had 2 wives.  Unlike the specific prohibition on divorce between two married Christians and the specific prohibition on Christians having sex with prostitutes (that was NOT forbidden in the Law), there is no prohibition on polygyny in the New Testament.

Women hate the idea of polygyny because it robs them of their supreme power within monogamy, the ability to refuse sex to their husband.  To add insult to injury, in polygyny the wives are forced to compete for the attention of their husband and the only way they can compete is by giving him what he wants: a sweet, feminine, submissive and sexually available wife.  Men hate the idea of polygyny because only about 10% of men are Alpha enough to do it and the idea that some guy has a sexual smorgasbord waiting at home drives them crazy with jealousy and envy.

There are many, many arguments that Christians make to try to say that polygyny is wrong.  Every single argument fails.  I especially like the “Very Words of Jesus!” argument that claims Matthew 19:4-5 is a prohibition on polygyny.  That is my favorite because if it was true, there is no Christianity.  You see, Deuteronomy 4:2 is a command not to add to the Law or to subtract from it.  That is repeated again in Deuteronomy 12:32 and it’s also the last command of the Bible.

If Jesus meant to forbid polygyny in Matthew 19:4-5, He would have been violating the Law of Moses, which is a transgression of the Law, a sin.  If Jesus had sinned He would not have been a perfect sacrifice, the payment for sin would not have been made and Christianity would all be a lie.  So, Jesus either didn’t prohibit polygyny and He is the Messiah, or He did, He sinned and He is not the Christ.  You choose.  I go with the no ban on polygyny.

3.  Pre-marital sex is a sin.

In Exodus 22:16-17, if a man (doesn’t matter if he is married or not) seduces a virgin, they are married unless the father exercises his rights under Numbers 30 to annul her agreement to marry.  In Deuteronomy 22:28-29 the Law says if a virgin is forced to have sex with a man and they are discovered, they are married and the father cannot refuse the marriage.  He has to pay a bride price of 50 shekels of silver (very high) and he can never divorce her all the days of his life.  In both of these cases, there is no penalty on the man for having sex with the virgin, in fact, sex with the virgin is the consummation of the marriage so it’s actually marriage sex.  ‘

There is no mention anywhere in the Law of sex (by either a married man or a single man) of having sex with a widow or a divorced woman.  Sex with such a woman, unlike a virgin, is not the consummation of marriage unless the man and the widow or divorced woman agree to marry.  There is no prohibition or penalty for having sex with such a woman, just as there was no prohibition on having sex with an ordinary money-for-sex prostitute.

This is the #3 issue that gets Christians riled up like nothing else.  When confronted with what the Bible actually says and more importantly, does not say, they squirm like a handful of worms trying to come up with something- anything -in the Bible that will make extra-marital sex a sin.  Because it only applies to men and women who are not married.

4.  If a husband has sex with a woman who is not his wife it’s adultery.

Maybe, but only if he has sex with another man’s wife.  The crime of adultery requires a married woman.  No married woman, no adultery.  Women really, really hate this because a married man is permitted to have sex with women other than his wife (unless he took a vow to forsake all others- and where do you think that vow came from?) while the women commit adultery if they do it.

5.  Female – Female sex is a sin.

There is literally no mention of female – female sex in the Bible, anywhere.  Romans 4:15 and 5:13 say (putting the two verses together) “Where there is no Law, there is no transgression and no sin is imputed.”  So, if the Law didn’t say it was a sin it isn’t a sin.  In the New Testament there were some additional restrictions that only apply to Christians, but again, there is no mention in the Bible of female – female sex.  It isn’t a sin.

Where does that leave us?

In really, really bad shape.  If I presented any one or two of these issues, the vast majority of Christians respond “That’s impossible.  That can’t be!”  Presenting just the top 5, a pattern emerges.  Not only does it demonstrate that God’s ideas about proper behavior are distinctly at odds from what is being taught in the churches, but it literally turns at least a third of established doctrine on its head.

Unfortunately, it gets worse.  One of the points I made is an observation so devastating to the church and society today that I’m willing to bet none of you have seen it.   Yes, the thing about Christians not being allowed to divorce their Christian spouse has created a lot of institutional adultery in the church, but one of the others has created a problem so huge that it dwarfs the problem of divorce within the church.  Go ahead, look over the list again and Vote.



All of these issues create problems in the church, but one of the big problems (not the biggest) is the effect wrong teaching and doctrine has had on our definitions of terms that are used over and over again in the New Testament.  The right of a man to have more than one wife and the fact that a married man having sex with a widow or divorced woman isn’t a sin means that by definition a married man can only commit adultery if he has sex with someone else’s wife.

Terms like Lust, fornication, sexual immorality, adultery, sodomy and even homosexuality are all incorrectly defined by today’s church, causing a lot of problems.  But the biggest problem of all is caused by that issue of pre-marital sex not being a sin.  The reason is there is no such thing as premarital sex for a virgin because the Law states that if a virgin is seduced, she is married.  Her father has the right to annul the marriage when he hears of it and demand the return of his daughter, but people in the church are taught that having sex does not create a marriage.  That, unfortunately, does not comport with what Scripture actually says and does not say.

It is critical to understand that when reading the Law, what is not said is just as important as what is said, and in some cases more important.

Read Exodus 22:16-17 very carefully:

“If a man seduces a virgin who is not engaged, and lies with her, he must pay a dowry for her his wife.  If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the dowry for virgins.”

  • The man seduced the virgin and lay with her.
  • The man must pay the bride price for his wife.
  • If the father annuls the marriage (absolutely refuses to give her to him).
  • The man must pay an amount equal to the dowry for virgins.

Consider what this passage does not say:

  • Implied (but not stated) is the virgin agreed to give the man her virginity.
  • Implied (but not stated) is the man knew the woman was a virgin.
  • The text provides no censure, prohibition or penalty for taking her virginity.
  • The text does not give the woman a choice about the marriage, only her father.

The virgin has no agency, and that means her father has the authority to give her in marriage against her will, just as he has the right to refuse her a marriage she wants.  His authority under Numbers 30 is such that he can negate or annul any agreement or vow she makes when he learns of it.  This point is driven home by Deuteronomy 22:28-29:

“If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her and they are discovered, then the man who lay with her shall give to the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall become his wife because he has violated her; he cannot divorce her all his days.”

  • The man does not seduce the virgin, he seizes her.
  • If they are discovered, they are married.
  • The man must pay 50 Shekels of Silver to her father
  • Because he has violated her he cannot divorce her all his days.

Consider now what the passage does not say:

  • The passage does not state the father has a choice in her marriage, she has been seized.
  • There is no penalty for the man if they are not discovered.
  • There is no penalty for the man if discovered, rather, restrictions on the marriage.
  • Nowhere in the text does it state the woman has a choice in whether she’s married.
  • The text provides no information on what happens if they are not discovered.

Comparing the two passages, we see that the man who seduces the virgin and takes her virginity is married to her unless her father does not forbid it.  In the case of the virgin who was forced, she is married to him unless they were not caught and her father cannot annul the marriage.  An example of getting caught is when the 200 men from the tribe of Benjamin hid in the vineyards outside Shiloh and when the girls came out to dance for a festival they each grabbed a woman to be his wife and took them back home to the land of the tribe of Benjamin.

It should be obvious that the virgin does not have agency (the ability to consent or not consent) because she can be married to the guy who forced her.  That, no matter how much it causes women to scream, is not the problem.

The problem is with the fact that the virgin who is seduced is married to the man she gives her virginity to.   Any serious study of the Bible reveals that the only acts necessary to initiate a marriage is the intent of the man to marry and if the woman is a virgin, the consummation of the marriage.  If the woman is a widow or divorced woman, the initiation of marriage requires the intent of the man, the consent of the woman and the consummation of the marriage.

Because the virgin is a special class of woman who does not have the capacity to consent or not consent to marriage, taking the girls virginity is a public statement on the part of the man that he is marrying her and the act of doing so is the consummation of their marriage.   Think about that and reflect on the fact that 80% of “unmarried” Evangelical women report they are no longer virgins.

The Evangelicals got it wrong.  The 80% of the non-virgin Evangelical women who are not “officially” married are actually married, don’t realize it and they are committing adultery with every additional partner they bed.  Why?  Their father had the chance to annul the marriage when he heard of it and did not do so.  Seriously.  What father today understands what the last two passages even say, much less believes that having her cherry popped means his little girl just got married and he has 24 hours to annul it on the day he learns of it (Numbers 30, the Law of Vows)?

And when that woman finally “officially” walks down the aisle wearing a white gown to get “officially” married, she is doing so as a woman ineligible to marry because she is already married to another man and her “official marriage” is simply institutionalizing her adultery.  The point of Matthew 5:31-32 was that God will not accept an illegitimate divorce.  How much more so when there was no divorce at all?

How many “married couples” in your church are actually married to each other?  It’s pretty much guaranteed that only the ones in which the wife has an N=1 are actually married.  The rest are ALL committing adultery unless the woman’s father annulled her marriage after she lost her virginity or if she lost her virginity by being raped and not discovered.

Which is worse?  The level of adultery in the church demonstrated by what the Word says, or the fact the people in the church refuse to accept what God said about the initiation of marriage and reject teachings of Scripture in this matter?

The real question is how to fix the problem, but it should be obvious that the problem cannot be solved without first recognizing the magnitude of the problem.  The refusal of the church to recognize the issue of fraudulent, illegitimate divorces and “remarriage” in the church is sufficient to demonstrate that this is an intractable problem.


This entry was posted in Marriage, Messages to a young man. Bookmark the permalink.

39 Responses to The Top 5 Things Christians Believe That Aren’t True

  1. Mycroft Jones says:

    Good article. I believe you have a blind spot, Toad. It is true, a man isn’t forbidden to have sex with a whore. But a woman who is a whore, was subject to the death penalty. There is a commandment in Deuteronomy that says a whore shall be stoned to death. Unless her father is a priest; then she shall be burnt with fire.

    Deuteronomy 23:17,18, equates whoredom with sodomy. If men can lie with whores, but women are killed for being whores, then that must mean that the “active” partner to homosex is ok, it is just passive homosex that is forbidden. That is where your logic leads.

    • Relax, Mycroft.

      You’re thinking of Deuteronomy 22:13-21. The issue there isn’t the virgin who wasn’t, it was adultery. There is literally no-where in the Law that condemns an ordinary money-for-sex prostitute.

      As to Deuteronomy 23:17-18, if you read carefully you will notice that it isn’t prostitution that’s forbidden, but rather “cult prostitution” or “temple prostitution.”

      In verse 18, the wages of the “harlot” (Strong’s 2181- “Zanah”) means:

      to fornicate, to whore, to commit fornication, to be a harlot, to play the harlot, to commit adultery;

      to apostatize, to have intercourse with false gods or foreigners, to seduce.

      The verb appears ninety-five times. The main idea is to commit illicit sexual intercourse, particularly women. However, this strong image is used in a figurative sense to describe illegal contact between Israel and other nations and their gods. Only twice does it refer to men (Exodus 34;16, Numbers 25:1).

      The wages of a dog refers to a male prostitute (sodomy, forbidden by law as to the act itself and also in the circumstance of being a male temple prostitute. The wages of a harlot refers to the illicit act that would result in gain, but money-for-sex prostitution is not illicit because it is not prohibited. Since this is included by context with the wages of a male prostitute, it follows that this passage is not only forbidding temple prostitution but also forbidding the use of the wages gained from temple prostitution from being donated to the Lord as an offering. This removes any possibility of the creation of a financial incentive to ignore cult prostitution.

      I think the major point here is the huge difference between a virgin and the the other classes of non-virgin women when it comes to marriage and children. Just the sheer political incorrectness of any serious study of telegony should be a red flag, inasmuch as like many things, modern science is beginning to prove there are genetic reasons to prefer the virgin.

      • Mycroft Jones says:

        After years of meditating on the Bible in its Hebrew context, I noticed “money for sex” isn’t called prostitution. It is called Biblical marriage. Biblical whoredom is “rebellion against authority”, especially in an intimate relationship. Seeing the contexts where the term is use, that is the only conclusion I could come to. A woman controlling her own sexuality is whoredom. The only case where a woman controls her own sexuality, is if she is divorced or a widow. Then it says, she can choose which man will control her sexuality.

        As for Deuteronomy 23, verse 17 refers to cult temple prostitution. verse 18 refers to ordinary whoredom. And it equates the two. Therefore it isn’t authorizing ordinary prostitution. It isn’t an issue of idolatry; the issue is that women’s sexuality, when uncontrolled by the patriarchy, is destructive to society. It isn’t healthy either. Emotionally or physically.

      • Mycroft Jones says:

        And even if the woman’s sexuality is controlled by the patriarchy, if the patriarchy pimps her out, that is forbidden too. That is why scripture specifically forbids fathers from pimping their daughters; whoredom is bad EVEN IF the father approves.

      • Mycroft
        As for Deuteronomy 23, verse 17 refers to cult temple prostitution. verse 18 refers to ordinary whoredom. And it equates the two. Therefore it isn’t authorizing ordinary prostitution.

        #1. I never claimed any passage of Scripture “authorized” prostitution of any sort. The only thing I’ve ever claimed is it wasn’t forbidden and so isn’t a sin.

        #2. The word “harlot” in verse 18 can be and is defined as prostitution, cult prostitution, adultery and idolatry. Given the context of verses 17 and 18, first forbidding cult prostitution for both men and women and then forbidding the wages of cult prostitution for a man and the wages of a [harlot] I think it’s reasonable to say that the use of the word harlot in verse 18 should be taken as referring to a cult prostitute.

        I don’t know where you come up with the assumption that the use of the word harlot in verse 18 applies to ordinary (not cult) prostitution when the text is very specific in forbidding cult prostitution but not any other form of prostitution.

        A woman controlling her own sexuality is whoredom. The only case where a woman controls her own sexuality, is if she is divorced or a widow.

        Let’s restate that as a logical syllogism:

        “A woman controlling her own sexuality is whoredom.”

        “A woman controls her own sexuality [only] if she is divorced or a widow.”

        Ergo, widows and divorced women are whores.

        Sorry, Mycroft, I don’t buy the premise and I can’t buy the result, which is the widowed or divorces woman is a whore and has the authority to consent or not consent to which man wishes to marry her whoring ass. Despite your years of meditation on this, I really think you’re reading something into the text that isn’t there.

        And even if the woman’s sexuality is controlled by the patriarchy, if the patriarchy pimps her out, that is forbidden too. That is why scripture specifically forbids fathers from pimping their daughters; whoredom is bad EVEN IF the father approves.

        Actually, the prohibition is on a father *causing* his daughter to become a whore, in other words using his authority over her to command it. Regardless of one’s personal feelings, there is no prohibition in the Law on ordinary money-for-sex prostitution, per se. The fact that God chose to forbid cult prostitution and forbid a father causing his daughter to become a prostitute reinforces this, because in choosing to make those prohibitions He also chose NOT to make any further prohibitions on prostitution and we are thus left with the fact that without a prohibition we have no transgression and no sin.

  2. Andreas says:

    @Mycroft Jones
    It has nothing to do with active vs passive. The difference lies in idolatrous prostitution, ie shrine/cult prostitution, vs ‘normal’ prostitution. If you can’t see the difference then you basically have to pick and chose what you want to believe according your own, shall I say idolatrous, understanding.

    It was two whores who had the whole baby dispute in front of Solomon, were they put to death?
    1 Kings 3:16 “Now two prostitutes came to the king and stood before him.”

    • Mycroft Jones says:

      Andreas, you have a perverted understanding of “idolatry”. Which teacher taught it to you?

      The Bible shows that zonah and qadesha prostitution are equal to each other, and to sodomy.

      Deuteronomy 23:17-18
      None of the daughters of Israel shall be a kedeshah, nor shall any of the sons of Israel be a kadesh.
      You shall not bring the hire of a prostitute (zonah) or the wages of a dog (kelev) into the house of the Lord your God to pay a vow, for both of these are an abomination to the Lord your God.

      • Mycroft Jones says:

        Leviticus 19:29 Do not begin (profane) thy daughter, to cause her to be a whore (zonah); lest the land fall to whoredom (zanah), and the land become full of wickedness.

        Leviticus 21:9 And the daughter of any priest, if she profane (chalal) herself by playing the
        whore (zanah), she profanes (chalal) her father: she shall be burnt with fire.

        Whether the father causes it, or the daughter does it on her own, the penalty for whoredom (zanah) is death. No reference here to idolatrous temple prostitution.

        If you want to make any further claims about what the Bible says, prove it from Hebrew. Your Bible teacher is an ignorant douche-bag; replace him.

      • Mycroft, now I see what you’re doing. Above I listed the definition of the Hebrew word “Zanah” (you’re spelling it “zonah”). I’ll bold the violations of the Law in the definition:

        to fornicate, to whore, to commit fornication, to be a harlot, to play the harlot, to commit adultery; to apostatize, to have intercourse with false gods or foreigners, to seduce.

        Given that the act of paying to put a penis in a vagina is forbidden (cult prostitution, fornication, adultery, apostasy, idolatry) as well as not forbidden (whoring, harlotry in general) depending on the circumstances involved, it can be proper for the word used (“zanah”) to refer only to the forbidden in this context rather than expanding the term to include that which is not forbidden and thus make the claim that which is not forbidden is now forbidden. That’s known as circular logic. I think it most correct in this case to conclude (based on both the context and preponderance of Scripture- such as the example Andreas gave you) that Andreas is correct.

        You give every impression that you’re simply reading into the passage what you want to see rather than what is actually there. That’s called eisegesis, the opposite of exegesis.

      • Mycroft Jones says:

        Look at the story of Dinah. Two of her brothers slaughtered the men of Shechem because one of them treated her like a “zonah”. Later, God made her brother Levi the priestly tribe of Israel. Throughout the book of Proverbs, zonah is associated with the “ger”, the foreign woman. Why? Because daughters of Israel are not to be whores. That isn’t eisegesis. That is a prima facie case.

        Biblical whoredom has nothing to do with transfer of money for sex. A proper Biblical marriage has an exchange of sex for money.

  3. nick012000 says:

    Just a minor point: I’m not sure that that passage you pointed out is evidence that God participate in polygamy. Remember, God is three persons in one god; if the Father is the husband of Israel, and Jesus is the husband of the Church, then can God as a whole be said to be a polygamist?

    • Revelation 1, Jesus had John write to the seven churches. If one holds to the idea that the church is the bride of Christ, then we’re looking at seven brides right there (and the church of Rome wasn’t one of them, LOL)

      Isaiah 4:1 “And seven women will take hold of one man in that day, saying we will eat our own bread and wear our own clothing but give us your name and take away our reproach. And in that day the branch of the Lord will be beautiful.

      Israel is the root, Christ is the true vine and the church (gentiles) is the branch that was grafted in to produce much fruit. That makes this passage an end-times prophesy, so take it for what it’s worth. The church is always portrayed as female, and in the day the branch of the Lord is beautiful we have seven women laying hold of one [Son of Man] saying we will eat our own food [not what you choose to feed us Lord] and we will wear our own clothes [Not be clothed in your robes or righteousness, Lord] only give us your name [Christian] and take away our reproach.

      End times prophesy? Sounds legit to me.

    • Mycroft Jones says:

      The Trinity concept isn’t in the Bible. Dump it. If that is a struggle for you, I can refer you to as many scholarly and popular works on the topic as you need.

  4. Toad, heavy stuff. I hope when I stand before The Lord, the magnificent gift of Grace will at tone for my many magnificent life failure and falling short. I try to be a good person but if I am at all honest with myself I know that I have no chance I. He’ll of getting in on my own merit. Nor do I in any way deserve forgiveness or Grace. Crap, just today I probably failed in numerous ways. Not that I am proud of that. If I were judged by the stick laid out here (a divorced woman who was not a virgin at marriage nor abstinant since my divorce) basically should be put to death immediately :/ not that I am arguing that’s not what I deserve when held to the letter of the law but I guess I am saying my only hope is Grace and the promise of John 3:16. Otherwise, I’m screwed. And if others are honest, we all are. Why God hasn’t obliterated humankind entirely out of sheer frustration is beyond my comprehension.

    Not sure what my point is… Thanks for completely freaking me out about my chances of salvation. Yeesh. 😉

  5. Further, according to all this if I am understanding I am married to the person I lost my virginity to, so every time I have had sex w anyone but him since has been adultery? I guess since he was a virgin too, I technically would then be his first wife and although he is married (I think, I have not had contact w him for 20+ years) I should contact him and if he’ll have me go back to him, and his wife has to just be ok w that bc he can have multiple wives and neither I or she has any say in that? I think that would either completely freak him out or he would think he’d scored big time in the polygamy lotto. I am not sure which it would be. Oh vay my head is spinning… Maybe I should do it just in a quest to get on the right side of all this again despite what a Jerry Springer cluster f*ck of confusion and drama that would cause but to be honest I am too much of a chicken, plus I am not so sure about all this. However if he rejected me I guess I’d be free and clear or how exactly would that work?

    • Bloom, welcome to my working group.

      That is, if you don’t mind working with a murderer (pretty sure, not positive), adulterer (most definitely), drunkard (occasionally), liar and thief (more times than you could count), iconoclast, former debauched degenerate and contrary to all that is sacred to the Shintoist religion, a man who once desecrated the national honor of Japan by pissing in the moat of the Imperial Palace at Kyoto.

      If I’m right (and that’s sure what it looks like) then I’ve committed over 5000 acts of adultery and sired more than my share of bastards. I purported to marry a woman I knew was not a virgin and even knew she was lying about what her N was (didn’t matter to me). Not only that, but I’m sure as hell not alone with this problem.

      You need to read 2nd Kings 22-23, the story of good King Josiah, the greatest king to ever rule over Israel or Judah. Notice that you two have something in common, which means your heart is in the right place.

      I’ll be sticking another post up later today on solutions, but it seems to me that there is a silver lining to this dark cloud, which I’ll discuss.

      So. You want to be saved? Have faith. There’s nothing you’ve done that could possibly surprise Him and He said His burden is light and His yoke is easy. It is.

      Want to be screwed? Give up, lose your faith and quit. But just so you know, the Lord takes care of His own and once in His service if you try to quit and run away you’ll be dragged back kicking and screaming being spanked every step of the way. I’ve seen it happen.

      Saved *and* screwed? I don’t know, Bloom. You’ve got this serious infatuation with monogamy (which, I should point out, didn’t work out so well for either of us in the past), but if you could get past that… who knows. I suppose we could talk about it.

      I’ve reached the point at which the idea of sharing is really important- seriously, there’s nothing worse than trying to share a bed with somebody that steals the covers in the middle of the night. And it’s the little stuff that really causes problems, like… who gets to sleep in the middle where it’s warmest?

      Anyway, I digress. Solutions post is coming.

      • @ toad yes I am stuck on the monogamy point. I am a very deep but very private person. I do best one on one. I also have never really gotten “chick think” so mostly I prefer the company of guys. So much less drama. So when I imagine a poly situation, it just seems way too rife w intrigue and complexity, to me. But I can also see how for many girls that would maybe be exciting drama. I am kindof a tomboy, honestly. I am not very girly. For example I spend much more time in rubber boots, jeans, and flannels (I have a farm in the country) than I do in high heels or cocktail gowns. Not that I don’t enjoy that occasionally, but I am a pretty simple and low fuss gal at heart. I’d rather be gardening than nightclubbing, for example. I spend more on plants for my landscape than makeup, hair, or nails. I’d much rather get an irrigation system than a fancy jewel. But I am at the same time very feminine. Hard to explain…

        • There you go again. Trying to get me to reconsider monogamy.

          But I am at the same time very feminine. Hard to explain…

          Stop with the description and send a selfie of you striking a brave but uber-feminine pose in your rubber boots and pigtails.

          I grew up on a farm and I always liked farm girls. They never had a problem going skinny dipping in the creek. The ones that were really into horses were crazy, tho. I think it’s all the bouncing around in the saddle, but I’ve seldom been in a horse barn that didn’t have a pile of saddle blankets up in the hayloft.

          Women always say they don’t like drama, but it’s obvious they love drama. That’s why women are so darn good at creating drama. You may not recognize it, but I’m willing to bet the people who really know you could tell you exactly what you do to create drama in your life. Own a farm? Guaranteed drama baked into the cake. Mr. Murphy may be a grunt, but I guarantee you he grew up on a farm.

      • @ toad I am not trying to talk you into monogamy, lol. I am just explaining why it’s right for me. What you do is totally up to you. I’m sure there are lots of girls who prefer a poly life. I also don’t take selfies, so you’ll just have to use your imagination. I have a barn but no horses, I think they are beautiful animals but I am afraid of them up close, plus they seem like a big money eating machine to me. The only farm animals I have are chickens. You are likely right about girls and drama, running an ag based biz provides plenty enough drama for me. Too much at times but I’d still take that over the drama of a corporate workplace anyday! So anyway relax, I am not trying to convert you to monogamy nor am I trying to hit on you, I am simply trying to figure out how to jive what you’ve said here w my own personal situation. As I said below I am in a long distance relationship w someone who I met through a red pill blog of all places. He’s a monogamy guy and a believer. The distance helps w the staying celibate before marriage part, but we’re both plotting how to get to the other side of that while staying right w The Almighty because neither of us are celibacy types by choice and so we both believe what Paul advises, if you can’t be celibate than best to get married. 🙂

      • Actually there are numerous photos of me in my flannel and rubber boots online from various newspaper articles about my farm based biz because its kind of unique and because I also like to squabble w govt. officials about needless over regulation. I’d post the link but then I’d out myself and I prefer my anonymity. Since my red pill blog views might be considered controversial by some, and I don’t want to censor my writing based on whats “PC” to say, I prefer not to be too public about my true identity.

  6. nick012000 says:

    Was he a Christian, or not, redpillgirlnotes? If he is a believer, then yes, you’re still married to him, and you’re required to either reconcile with him or remain celibate.

    If he wasn’t a believer, then him separating from you would have been grounds for your divorce from him. That said, you *may* have committed one instance of adultery the first time you had sex after that, since the only grounds for divorce under the Law of Moses is sexual misconduct, so unless he committed adultery, incest, or homosex before then, you would have presumably committed the crime.

    Even if you were legitimately divorced, though, the question is repeated for each subsequent boyfriend: if you have sex with a man who intends to have relationship with you, you’re married to him before the eyes of God. Random one-night-stands and similar acts of harlotry wouldn’t count for this, though.

    • Was he a believer…. Interesting question. He was raised in a very religous family but at the time was himself disenchanted with religion and the whole bit (his mom was over the top, would not even answer the phone wo praying for a sign, etc.) so I don’t know. I think he believed in God in general but did not attend church or live a Christoan lifestyle at the time. Not that he was a heathen, more just kind of neutral on the subject.

      Anyway this whole idea is pretty interesting, yet I am not sure “what now?” To make things right except repent and beg forgiveness and be celebrate until I marry? Can I remarry even? I am actually long distance dating a great guy who is a believer and would like to marry so of course all this is on my mind. I do want to “do it right” although I would fully admit I have lived by the rules of the world more than the rules of The Lord. Not that I am a raging slut or anything, but I have had a few long term boyfriends.

      Anyway lots to ponder! Thanks for the reply.

  7. iamadamalan says:

    Actually, the most devastating aspect of this for the church is that by forbidding poligamy (1Ti 4:3), the entire visible church in this world marks themselves as apostate liars, having departed the faith and following the doctrines of devils.

    I could not name one church, much less greater association of churches anywhere teaching the truth on polygamy. There may be some isolated believers here and there, maybe a local body even, but 99.999999999% of them all all wrong on this.

    • The real problem is marriage, divorce, polygyny, the concept of “premarital sex” and even what people call “lesbianism” are inextricably tied together and they all start with Genesis 2:24.

      Genesis 2:24 is the authority to initiate marriage and it was given to the man. As Jesus pointed out in Matthew 19, it does not provide the authority to terminate marriage. Likewise, the grant of authority was not limited, so polygyny is not forbidden.

      The elements of marriage in Genesis 2:24 are elaborated upon with further instruction by Exodus 22:16-17 and Deuteronomy 22:28-29 and these passages say that taking a woman’s virginity is the act of marrying her. Safeguards in the form of the father’s authority to annul the marriage exist (Numbers 30) but that is the rule.

      There is literally no “sin” of premarital sex. Sex with a virgin is the act of marrying her, so it’s marital sex. Sex with a widow or a legitimately divorced woman is not forbidden *anywhere* in the Bible.

      All of this points to the central idea that marriage is the natural state of man and all the rules revolve around that central point.

      • iamadamalan says:

        I shall quote Exodus, the Deut passage is similar in its basic construct (just lacking the unless)…

        “If a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged to be married and sleeps with her, he must pay the bride-price, and she shall be his wife. 17 If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he must still pay the bride-price for virgins.”

        Notice the form. IF [sex] THEN [shall be wife] unless [father refuses]. No where does is say that sex creates the marriage. To the contrary is says ‘she shall be’ his wife. I’m not sure the tense in the original language but in English that is future tense.

        But even ignoring the tense issue the implication is clear, the consequence of sex is they are to be married. But it doesn’t say sex forms the marriage.

        Notice what happens after the sex: the father gives or refuses to give her. This is the other half of the leave and cleave construct. Usually its in that order, leave then cleave (i.e. consumate the marriage). But in this case the scripture teaches if there is a cleaving, there should be a leaving to create a marriage.

        This is much the same as our current wedding ceremony where the father gives away the bride. Until she is given there is no marriage.

        There is nothing in this passage to indicated the Gen 2:24 leave and cleave construct for creation of marriage is changed. Rather this is an enforcement of it.

  8. Notice the form. IF [sex] THEN [shall be wife] unless [father refuses]. No where does is say that sex creates the marriage. To the contrary is says ‘she shall be’ his wife. I’m not sure the tense in the original language but in English that is future tense.

    You are trying to read into the text something that isn’t there. Specifically there is no form, ritual or ceremony prescribed for marriage and the authority to marry is given to the man. So, by what act does the man marry the woman? By what act is she irretrievably no longer a virgin?

    While you are ignoring the obvious, trying to imply there is some future action required that is not described anywhere, look at what the text says. Sex with the virgin is a one-way street. The comparison between Exodus 22 and Deuteronomy 22 makes it clear that in one situation the father has the authority to annul the marriage and in the case of the virgin taken by force he does not. that points to Numbers 30 as the authority for the father to do so, because in the case of the virgin seduced she agreed (an agreement her father could annul) and in the case of the virgin taken by force there was no agreement for him to annul. In the case of the virgin taken by force in which they are discovered (it thus being impossible to claim there was agreement on her part) then they are married.

    “If a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged to be married and sleeps with her, he must pay the bride-price, and she shall be his wife. 17 If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he must still pay the bride-price for virgins.” Exodus 22:16-17

    Since we don’t have dowrys any more, skipping that part yields the “and sleeps with her, she shall be his wife.” Period. The word “shall” is imperative, meaning it’s going to happen, it is happening, it has happened. You are trying to paint it in terms of a future action, but that isn’t the point. “She shall be his wife.” Then comes the Numbers 30 response, in which Dad has the right to annul her agreements, because she very much agreed to get married when she got on her back and she was married when she gave him her virginity. Numbers 30 gives the father the authority to (after the fact) annul her agreements when he hears of it.

    Again, look at the text. You appear to be trying to find a way to say that they aren’t married, that there is some further act that if not completed means they aren’t married, but that isn’t what the text says. At *best* you’re creating a betrothal period, which is legally marriage. No matter how one wants to read the text, the only outcome, short of the father annulling the marriage, is that they are married. Period.

    The context is that the man seduced the virgin. He did not do things the right way, he didn’t get the fathers permission, he didn’t pay the bride price, he just married her without permission. Think of it as eloping puts it into perspective, because the idea of a couple eloping to get married is the idea that some third party decides when the couple is married.

    The problem is, God did not give any third party the authority to decide when a couple is married, that authority was given to the Man. Not the family, the community, the church or the state. The man. Yet, well over 1000 years ago the church usurped the authority of the man and said a marriage was not a marriage until they said so. When they really started losing control, they “spiritualized” the concept of marriage as a ‘sacrament of the church’ claiming that a union blessed by the state was nothing more than a civil union, not a sacramental marriage. They claim that to this day, which is why the Catholics don’t allow divorce but if you pay about $4000-$5000 a fatal flaw in the marriage is discovered and the marriage is annuled by the church.

    Later, the state took that authority from the church and claimed *they* are the sole arbiter of when a couple is married or not through their scheme of licensed marriages (which even the Supreme Court has ruled is nothing more than a polite suggestion because people have a natural right to get married and the State’s requirement for a license is “merely directory.” Meister v Moore, 1878; still controlling case law on that subject)

    I do not deny there could be a future action tied to this, but in all likelihood that future action is they shall be announced publicly as husband and wife because reading it otherwise is to claim there is some further form, ritual or ceremony required in order for a marriage to be valid. No, they shall be known as husband and wife, but that doesn’t mean they are not already husband and wife. That seems to be a reasonable thing because the seduction took place in private and whatever decision the father made was private as well.

    There is another point, and that’s usually overlooked. In Matthew 19, Jesus was asked about divorce. Isn’t it strange that He quoted Genesis 2:24, the authority to initiate marriage? The Pharisees asked what the grounds for divorce were, He quoted Genesis 2:24 and said it wasn’t just there were no grounds for divorce, there was no divorce: “What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”

    The Pharisees immediately said “OK, if there’s no divorce, then why did Moses command us to give her a certificate of divorce and send her away? Jesus corrected them and said “For the hardness of your hearts, Moses permitted you… but from the beginning it has not been this way.”

    Jesus was pointing out that the grant of authority to initiate marriage does not contain a grant of authority to terminate a marriage. Think about that. Jesus is pointing to what the text does not say. Well, by the same token, the authority to initiate marriage, granted to the man, is not limited to a single wife. I’ve been over that before, but God regulated, condoned, commanded and participated in polygyny so I think most reasonable people would agree the authority to initiate marriage was not limited to a single wife.

    Back to the issue of the church usurping the authority of the man to initiate marriage, in doing so the church created a whole new class of sin called “premarital sex.” This can easily be proved by taking a look at Romans 4:15 and 5:13. If the Law didn’t say it was a sin, it isn’t a sin. If you check carefully, you’ll notice that the Law says:

    Sex with a virgin is a marriage to her.
    Silence on Sex with a widow
    Silence on Sex with a legitimately divorced woman.
    Silence on Sex with a prostitute.
    Silence on Sex between two women.

    From the text, it looks like sex with a virgin is a much more momentous occasion than most thought because no matter how you slice it, it means she’s married. The only question is whether her father annuls the marriage later.

    Later, in the New Testament, there is a prohibition on having sex with a prostitute. However, it should be noted that the fact that Paul placed a prohibition into the text that forbids having sex with a prostitute speaks loudly that he didn’t likewise place any prohibition on extramarital sex with other women who are eligible to marry.

    Yes, you should get married and have sex within marriage. But, the definitions with respect to the initiation of marriage still apply and sex with a virgin is still the initiation of marriage. As to the others, apparently God doesn’t have a problem with taking it for a test drive before you buy it.

  9. frank says:

    Hi Toad,

    I’m trying to figure out if Deut. 22:28-29 is talking about consensual sex (not rape), or nonconsensual sex (rape).
    Are you sure Deut. 22:28-29 is talking about rape? It seems like an exact parallel to Exodus 22:16 where the sex is consensual, because he “seduces” her in Exodus 22:16.
    Deut. 22:28-29 says he “seizes her”, but often times that means basically to “grab a hold of” when used other places in the bible.
    Below is a link and a quote of a guy saying it is not rape (which is the common interpretation), and it seems Dr. Bahsen said it was not rape as well:

    “In addition, it is clearly evident from the immediate context of Deuteronomy 22 that rape is not being discussed in verses 28-29. We know that for two primary reasons. First, verses 25-27 give a clear instance in which rape is being discussed. In that case, a man raped a woman, she “cried out” (v. 27), but she was in the country and no one was there to help her. The text says that the man who committed the crime “shall die” (v. 25), but the Israelites were supposed to “do nothing to the young woman” since “there is in the young woman no sin worthy of death” (v. 26). It is of great interest that in this clear case of rape, the text uses a completely different word. The word translated “forces her” in verse 25 is the Hebrew word chazaq and yet in verse 28, the verb has been intentionally changed to tapas (see Shamoun, 2015). Second, the natural reading of verses 28-29 makes it evident that both parties are guilty of at least some of the blame. Notice that at the end of verse 28 the text says, “and they are found out.” When the passage discusses the obvious case of rape, the text specifically only mentions the man in verse 25 when it says “then only the man who lay with her,” and conspicuously leaves out any indication of “they” being involved in the sin. Dr. Bahsen compares Deuteronomy 22:28-29 to Exodus 22:16, which reads, “If a man entices a virgin who is not betrothed, and lies with her, he shall surely pay the bride-price for her to be his wife” (1992). Notice that in this verse in Exodus, there is no force and both parties shoulder some of the guilt.”

    So, can you prove biblically it is indeed rape?

  10. Hi Frank
    I’m trying to figure out if Deut. 22:28-29 is talking about consensual sex (not rape), or nonconsensual sex (rape).

    Simple answer: That passage is talking about non-consensual sex that is not rape.

    So, can you prove biblically it is indeed rape?

    Absolutely not. She was forced to have sex against her will, but, by definition, it is not a case of rape. I know, that’s tough to handle because the definitions have changed and we tend to go by what the law says in such areas. But… the law says a woman can partially give birth and the doctor can jam a pair of scissors into the babies skull, scramble its brains and suck the brains out with a suction tube, then finish delivering the dead, murdered body of the baby… and it’s legal. The fact it’s legal doesn’t make it any less of a murder, but that’s because God’s Law is the source of morality, not corrupt politicians.

    We are dealing with a case of semantics here in a case in which the “authorities” don’t want to acknowledge two issues:

    First, having sex with a virgin means you’ve married her because that’s what Genesis 2:24, Exodus 22:16-17 and Deuteronomy 22:28-29 all say. Period. Fussing about whether it’s rape or not is actually a doctrinal argument supporting the idea that the man is not the moving force in initiating marriage (which is what Genesis 2:24 and Exodus 22:16-17 says) but rather the church/community/state. This is the legacy of the Catholic church which usurped the authority of the man and claimed that only the church could determine when a marriage took place and by what acts a marriage was actually a marriage. In doing so they created the wholly unbiblical “sin” of premarital sex to support the idea that a man could have sex with a virgin and not be married to her because the church claims that having sex does not make you married (by the God-given authority of the man), only the church makes you married (by the self-claimed authority of the church).

    Second, it is only rape if the woman in question who was forced to have sex was married (either a wife or a betrothed virgin). Rape is a death-penalty offense, but only a married woman can be raped. That’s what the text says and that’s the way it is, but feminists don’t like it one bit so people like Dr. Bahsen will jump through hoops to explain this differently. I don’t know how this would play out with a widow or a divorced woman (they have agency and their consent is required to marry them) but in the case of a virgin, she does not have agency and to take her virginity is to marry her.

    Dr. Bahsen is full of shit because he’s a feminist trying to preserve the feminist narrative. You have no idea how far theologians have gone to “discover” that Deut. 22:28-29 that the passage does not say what it actually says, because the truth is worse than you might think. It is NOT describing rape, and that’s the problem. Rape is a crime of assault and theft, but only a married woman (a wife or a betrothed virgin) can be raped, so who is the property owner here? Hint- it isn’t the woman that was forced to have sex. That is the real problem because it reveals that with the exception of widows, divorced women, prostitutes and other women who are not virgins and not married, women are the property of men. Go ahead, say that to a feminist and watch their head explode.

    The fact she was forced to have sex does not make this a case of rape. Can a man “rape” his wife? Having sex with her made her his wife, so by the very act of forcing her, he was marrying her… so it becomes a chicken-egg question and at the end of the day we have a woman who is no longer a virgin. Forget what the crazy cat-women feminists say, the question is how a man can commit a crime by taking what belongs to him. The answer is he can’t. Everyone wants to call this rape, but if you call it rape then it means the Bible allows the rape of virgins with no penalty for the man and then requires the rape victim to marry her attacker. You can see how well that goes over with the feminist mindset. Better just to find a way to say it isn’t rape because she wasn’t forced than to call it rape, or worse yet, to say what the text really says: yes, she was forced and no, it wasn’t rape.

    This is very similar to the issue of a husband having sex with a woman who is not his wife. Is it adultery? Only if he does it with another man’s wife. If he does it with a virgin, he married her. If he did it with a widow or a divorced woman then it’s just sex, not adultery and not a sin. Women do NOT like that one bit, but pointing to the fact that he’s married and the fact that the woman he had sex with was not his wife does not mean he committed the crime of adultery. In this case, the taking of the woman by force (yes, by force) does not make this a case of rape any more than a man having sex with an unmarried woman who is not his wife is a case of adultery.

    Why? Because literally by definition taking the woman’s virginity was the act of marrying her. It is not a crime to marry a woman, but in Deuteronomy 22:28-29 taking her by force incurred a very heavy price to be paid to the father and the further restriction that the husband could never divorce her all his days. But, what if she was violated by a close family member? The person who did it is subject to the penalty for incest (it varies- could be death) but it could be even worse for the woman than having to marry the guy who forced her, because if it was her father who did it (or if it was her mother’s husband or her grandmother’s husband) then not only is he to die but the women get killed too (Leviticus 20:14). Is there room for justice and mercy there if the woman was forced? Sure, but the Law is what it is and what we find is that it’s supporting Genesis 2:24 to the hilt: having sex with a virgin is the act of marrying her.

    The comparison Dr. Bahsen used to the wife or betrothed woman is irrelevant because it’s a case of apples and oranges. The whole point of “crying out” was to settle the issue of whether the woman was actually forced or whether she was willing. If she was willing she was committing adultery, a death-penalty offense. So, how do you know the truth? Objectively, it’s part of the Law that a woman is expected to fight and kick up a fuss in the hope that someone will defend her. The truth is, it isn’t possible for one man to restrain a woman that doesn’t want to be restrained without a great deal of difficulty and if you want her quiet while you do it you have to either punch her in the head repeatedly or threaten to kill her so that she willingly chooses to be silent. Ask any cop how many men it takes to restrain a woman that does not want to be restrained and if it can be done without making noise.

    So, the question was whether the wife or betrothed woman was actually raped (forced against her will) or whether she was willing (adultery on her part) and to what extent she participated if she was willing. Well, did she cry out? No? Then she was a willing accomplice to one extent or another. Of course, if her unconscious body is found with her clothing in disarray, it’s pretty obvious what happened and the question of why she didn’t cry out is moot. But, that isn’t what the text is describing, which is a case in which they are discovered having sex. Look around: how many women today, when discovered having sex with someone they aren’t supposed to be having sex with claim they were raped? If they were discovered and he had a knife to her throat, I honestly don’t believe there would be an issue in that case, but women have not changed and we’re talking about the rule that cuts to the heart of the false-rape accusations.

    Rape: the man gets put to death.
    Adultery: they both get put to death.

    You can see a motivation for the adulterous woman to claim rape, can’t you?

    Back to the text of Deut. 22:28-29 though. The man has to pay 50 shekels of silver to the father and it isn’t called a dowry (which is different from Exodus 22:16-17). If you search Scripture you’ll find that a price of 50 shekels of silver was a very high price. Joseph, a healthy young man, was sold into slavery into Egypt for 20 shekels of silver (Genesis 37:28). In Exodus 21:32, if an ox gores a male or female servant (meaning they probably died) the owner of the ox was to pay 30 shekels of silver and kill the ox. In Leviticus 27:4, a woman between 20 and 60 years of age was valued at 30 shekels of silver for the purposes of a vow (the lifetime value of the person). In Leviticus 27:16, the value of a field dedicated to the Lord was 50 shekels of silver (this was for 50 years, from Jubilee to Jubilee), or 1 shekel per year. In Judges 17:8-10, the man Micah hired a Levite to be his personal priest for room and board, a suit of clothes and 10 shekels a year. In 2nd Samuel 24:24 King David bought a threshing floor (the land and a structure with a roof that kept the rain off the grain) and oxen from Araunah for 50 shekels of silver.

    With that we can see that 50 shekels of silver was a very high price. Note that in Exodus 22:16-17 there was no price stipulated but in the Deuteronomy passage the amount was fixed. In addition, because “he has violated her” the man cannot divorce her all the days of his life. Because he “violated” her? The text is not discussing a willing act of sex here, which is made clear by the high price, the act being described as a “violation” and the fact he cannot divorce her all the days of his life.

    There is another argument that she was taken by force against her will. Look at the dichotomy between Exodus 22:16-17, in which case the father of the virgin who was seduced (she gave her consent to the sex) can annul her marriage and Deuteronomy 22:28-29, in which case the father of the virgin who was taken by force (“seized” she didn’t give her consent) does not have the authority to annul (“absolutely refuse”) the marriage. The difference is the virgin seduced gave her consent (agreement) and the father has something to annul but the virgin taken by force made no such agreement and therefore the father does not have any agreement on the part of his daughter to annul. Notice that the text is specific that “if they are discovered” she shall be his wife. If they are discovered there is no question as to the fact that she did not agree to the act.

    The text does not define what constitutes discovery, but look at Judges 22. The 200 men of Benjamin seized virgins at the festival at Shiloh and carried them off to their land to be their wives. Did they “seize” them and take them by force? Absolutely. Were they “discovered” doing so? Absolutely. Are they married. Yes.

    Yes, she was forced to have sex with him against her will. No, she was not raped, she was married.

  11. frank says:


    Thanks for taking the time to work through this for me. A few more continuing questions:

    “it is only rape if the woman in question who was forced to have sex was married (either a wife or a betrothed virgin). Rape is a death-penalty offense, but only a married woman can be raped”

    The definition used today for rape is basically any nonconsensual or forced sex. That is the definition I was working from. It seems the definition of rape in the bible has to do with the marital status of the woman??
    So if the woman in Deut. 22:25-27 was a non-married virgin and everything else was the same, then it would be the exact same situation as verses 28-29??

    Different subject:

    If marriage happens when a virgin woman has sex, then isn’t every non virgin woman married (unless that man has died, or the father annulled it when he heard about it)?
    How could the Samaritan woman at the well in John 4 have had 5 husbands?

  12. Frank

    Sorry to be a bit late getting back to this, I’ve been a bit occupied.

    It seems the definition of rape in the bible has to do with the marital status of the woman??

    That is what the text says when we compare the treatment of a woman who is married versus the treatment of a virgin who is not (and a betrothed woman is legally married). If one truly wants to be technical about this, the description of rape does not include widows, divorced women or any other non-virgin woman who is not married.

    This is an extremely troubling point to many today, which is why this area of Scripture is simply not studied. Is this a case of God not caring enough about unmarried non-virgin women being forced to have sex that He chose not to criminalize it? Is this an incentive for women to be married as well as an incentive for men to care for and protect their female relatives? I don’t have an answer to that, I only know what the text says.

    So if the woman in Deut. 22:25-27 was a non-married virgin and everything else was the same, then it would be the exact same situation as verses 28-29??

    That’s what the text says, yes.

    If marriage happens when a virgin woman has sex, then isn’t every non virgin woman married (unless that man has died, or the father annulled it when he heard about it)?

    Yes (almost), and this is the exact point the church cannot stand to hear. If she isn’t a virgin, that means Exodus 22:16-17 OR Deuteronomy 22:28-29 applied to her: she was married when she lost her virginity. The only question is whether she is still married. The only way out is if her father annulled the marriage, her husband died or if her non-Christian husband divorced her for adultery or left her and refused to live with her.

    The last point is important because all non-Christians are under the Law while Christians are held not just to the Law but also to certain instruction in the New Testament. The relevant point for Christians is 1st Corinthians 7:10-15 and a Christian husband is forbidden to divorce his wife. 1st Peter 3:7 commands husbands to live with their wives and these instructions (commands, really) do not take the wife’s behavior into consideration.

    However, any woman in the last 50 years who was not a virgin when she had her wedding was almost certainly married to the man she gave her virginity to. That means that the vast majority of “married” couples in the church are not actually married to each other, they are living in adulterous relationships. The church does not want to touch this because Scripture is very clear what the solution is: REPENTANCE.

    How could the Samaritan woman at the well in John 4 have had 5 husbands?

    If Jesus meant literally that they were *her* husbands then divorce is the easy answer, although death works just as well. Given the implications of what He said, I suspect the answer is divorce because she sounds like an adulterous slut. Per my comments above, there was serious incentive at that time for women to be married and in addition to that men were not limited to one wife. Just as today, a reasonably good looking woman often finds it less than difficult to secure a man willing to provide for her if she demonstrated she can suck the lug-nuts off a truck… especially if his wife isn’t very interested in giving him sex. Works on men outside of marriage too and he doesn’t need to marry her in order to provide for her.

  13. Pingback: Is it All About Sanders? | caprizchka

  14. 1959chevy says:

    Toad, this is a HUGE amount of new perspective and information to digest.

    • Look on the bright side. It took me years of study to understand all this because of the cultural conditioning program that’s been going on for about 1600 years. But when it’s laid out all you have to do is look it up in the Bible and suddenly you can see it…

      Some folks find it frightening.

  15. Renee Harris says:

    So rape is ok.good to know 😎

  16. brandi1986 says:

    What you are saying about females with females is untrue. While the bible doesn’t specifically mention female/female sex in the same way it does with two men, it does indicate that such a thing would be unacceptable.

    From Romans 1:26-28:
    ’26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones.’

    Exactly what the heck to you think those unnatural sex relations were? I doubt it would be adultry or sex before marriage because those probably would have been considered amoral but still natural.

    And going by the rest of the passage
    It’s obvious to anyone that this whole passage is against both male and female homosexuality and sees both unacceptable:

    ’27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. 28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done.’

    The idea that female homosexuality would have been acceptable in biblical times is itself a modern day myth put forth by feminist, liberals and lgbt people who profess to be Christians. Of course it’s not true, but I’m sure they want to believe otherwise

    Truth is most girls were married off at a very young age back then and really didn’t have much of a choice or sexual freedom at all so female homosexuality likely didn’t even exist.

    These women were living in a society that would consider nudity amoral and would stone women to death if that commited adultry. Yet you expect me to believe the female homosexuality would have been perfectly ok? Nope not buying that for one minute.

    I’m sure porn addicted men who have a fetish for fake lesbian porn or people with political agendas want to belive this is true.

    This is a good example of people trying to take the bible out of context and insert their own beliefs and lifestyle where they would never have been historically. People do it all the time.

    Oh and by you silly way of thinking I guess pornography, and transgenderism should be acceptable too because the bible doesn’t say anything against those things one way or another.

    As for polygyny. No one needs it. 99% if relationships are monogamous. When men and women are given the free ability to choose how they live monogamy is what a majority choose.

    Polygyny made since in the past when women didn’t have a choice and when multimple wives were used to prove how powerful and influential men were. Today this kind of relationship is just pointless and will only cause turmoil and strife in most cases.

    As a woman I have no interest at all in competing with other women for my husbands attention and I shouldn’t have to. If I wanted to compete with other women for male attention then I wouldn’t get married in the first place. I would just stay in the dating scene where that happens all the time without having to go through a marriage.

    • Brandi, your problem is you are reading an English translation that does not provide a good translation for what the text actually says. In addition, you don’t understand how all of Scripture comes to bear on this subject. That, and you’ve been lied to all your life.

      The NIV translates Romans 1:26 as:
      Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones.

      However, look at the NASB and see the difference:
      For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural

      How about the Berean Literal Bible?
      Because of this, God gave up them to passions of dishonor. For even their females changed the natural use into that contrary to nature.

      God gave them over to degrading or dishonorable passions. These passions caused the women to exchange the natural function or use (of women) for the unnatural.

      Look at the Greek words and see for yourself what they are and what they mean. Isn’t it handy that you can hover your mouse over each Greek word and get the basic translation of each word? Or that you can click on the Strong’s number and get the complete data on the word?

      Doing that exercise raises a few questions.

      What is the natural function of women? Is it heterosexual activity? Because if that is what you think, you are making the claim that your purpose in life is to be a man’s sex toy and the more sex you have the more you are fulfilling your God-given purpose.

      In order to understand the natural function of women one must study the creation story in Genesis 2. Man was given his mission, to be fruitful and multiply, to fill the earth and fulfill it, to take dominion over it. Where was the woman when Man got his mission? She was still inside him as his rib. Later God brought all the animals to Adam to see what he would name them. But, after naming all the animals there was not a helper to be found for Adam. So, God said “let us make a helper suitable for him.”

      Got that? Woman was created to be a helper to man to help him accomplish his mission. Not to be his partner, not to be his equal, but to be his helper under his authority.

      Instead of creating woman out of the dust of the ground as He had created Adam, God put Adam into a deep sleep, removed one of his ribs and created woman from part of man. Adam named her “Woman” which means “taken out of man.” So, what we see is that woman was made from man, for man, to be used by man in order to accomplish the mission God gave him. Women were never the equals of men, they were created to be under the authority of men as their wives and the mothers of their children.

      That authority only got more rigid after the fall because part of God’s judgment on Woman was that her husband would rule over her (Genesis 3:16). You can read what that means in Numbers 30, as well as Ephesians 5:22-24 and 1st Peter 3:1-6.

      So, when we look at Romans 1:26, we see God punishing unbelievers, giving them over to degrading passions, with the women giving up the natural for the unnatural. The natural function of women is to be a wife and mother under the authority of her husband. The degrading passion is known as feminism. We also see the men giving up the natural function of women (refusing to take wives) and instead, they burned with lust in their hearts and committed indecent acts for which they received the due penalty in their own bodies.

      But…. But…. Couldn’t have Paul been talking about lesbian sex in verse 26?

      No. The major problem is that so-called “lesbian sex” is not a sin. How do we know this? The Apostle Paul told us in Romans 4:15 and 5:13 that where there is no law there is no violation and where there is no violation there is no sin imputed. So, we look in the Law and guess what we find? Take a look at Leviticus 18:21-22 and notice the three things we see:

      Men with men, forbidden.
      Men with animals, forbidden.
      Women with animals, forbidden.
      Women with women… *crickets* It’s not mentioned.

      Did God get it wrong? Let’s look at Chapter 20. In Chapter 20 the same offenses are repeated with penalties. Leviticus 20:13-16 we see the same thing:

      Men with men, forbidden.
      Men with animals, forbidden.
      Women with animals, forbidden.
      Women with women… *crickets* It’s not mentioned.

      And look at Leviticus 18:17-18, you will see that the offense of “uncovering the nakedness” of the mother/daughter or sisters is not the husband doing it, but the women doing it. Look at verse 17, the man is not to take a woman and her daughter, to uncover her nakedness, they are blood relatives. The incest has to be between the women, not the man and the women.

      In verse 18, the man is not to take his wife’s sister as a rival wife, to vex her, to uncover her nakedness. There is no mention of blood relatives here and this is a conditional prohibition that prohibits taking a wife’s sister as a rival to vex her by uncovering her nakedness. If the sisters were OK with both marrying the same man and it did not vex them then the prohibition does not apply.

      In other words, Verses 17-18 carry the presumption that within a poly marriage the wives may have sexual contact with each other and in order to prevent incest certain relationships are forbidden. So-called “lesbian sex” is not forbidden as sin within the Law and the incest statutes concerning poly marriages presumes the possibility that the wives will have sexual contact.


      Did the Apostle Paul issue a prohibition on so-called “lesbian sex” in Roman’s 1:26? No, he was being descriptive of God’s wrath being poured out on people who had rejected him. Not only that, but in order to presume Paul was talking about “lesbian sex” we must conclude that the natural function of women is to be a man’s sex-toy, not his wife and the mother of his children. His helper.

      But… Could Paul have made such a prohibition? Yes, but only to the Church. The Law states at Deuteronomy 4:2 and 12:32 that the Law cannot be changed. It is a violation of the Law to add to it or subtract from it and Paul (the Pharisee of Pharisees) knew that. Do we see any mention of the Church in Romans 1:18-32? No.

      Notice the three New Testament prohibitions that forbid something that was permitted under the Law: 1st Corinthians 6:15-16 forbid Christian men from having sex with prostitutes. 1st Corinthians 7:10-11 forbid divorce between married Christians. 2nd Corinthians 6:14-18 forbid Christians from marrying an unbeliever. Each of those prohibitions is clearly stated as a prohibition and applies only to the Church, the slaves of Christ. Do we see anything like that in Romans 1:26? Absolutely not.

      Can we conclude that because Paul mentioned male homosexual sex that he likewise meant female homosexual sex in verse 26? No, because male homosexuality was condemned and forbidden, female homosexuality was not. This is the same as adultery being forbidden but sex with your own wife is not. One is forbidden and thus is sin, the other is not.

      So, that said, all your bloviating is pointless because you don’t actually understand what Scripture says on this issue. Except for your last paragraph, which explains why you are really upset with this;

      “As a woman I have no interest at all in competing with other women for my husbands attention and I shouldn’t have to. If I wanted to compete with other women for male attention then I wouldn’t get married in the first place. I would just stay in the dating scene where that happens all the time without having to go through a marriage.”

      Of course you have no interest, you want a monopoly on him so you can nag, be passive aggressive, withhold sex and all the other things that good Christian wives do to their husbands these days. You like your monopoly because it excludes the threat of competition that would keep you focused on pleasing your husband.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s