• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Is what is good for one sex good for the other?

Off-Grid Artist

Off-Grid Artist

Member
Here is a theoretical scenario I would like to put forth to you.

During debate about plural marriage, a man states that it is not a sin for men to have multiple spouses but that God does not like it. (Seeing that this is a common argument).

Often during such a debate a man will cite a "rule of equivalency" or something. I can't recall the name of this artificial construct, perhaps you can remind me. In essence, what is good for the man is good for the woman. If there is an instruction in the Bible written for one sex then it should apply to both sexes equally.

This argument is often brought up in conjunction with pointing out that anti-sodomy instructions govern the behaviors of men.

So, test out that theory on the initial premise given. The idea that it is not a sin for men to have multiple spouses but that God does not like it. Flip the premise, does the inverse still apply?

"It is not a sin for women to have multiple husbands but God does not like it."

Roll that around in the theoretical conversation. Does the logic hold? Does it sound right? Or would the debate opponent be averse to this statement.

Please point out any logical fallacies I may be employing.
 
Off-Grid Artist said:
Here is a theoretical scenario I would like to put forth to you.

During debate about plural marriage, a man states that it is not a sin for men to have multiple spouses but that God does not like it. (Seeing that this is a common argument).

Often during such a debate a man will cite a "rule of equivalency" or something. I can't recall the name of this artificial construct, perhaps you can remind me. In essence, what is good for the man is good for the woman. If there is an instruction in the Bible written for one sex then it should apply to both sexes equally.

This argument is often brought up in conjunction with pointing out that anti-sodomy instructions govern the behaviors of men.

So, test out that theory on the initial premise given. The idea that it is not a sin for men to have multiple spouses but that God does not like it. Flip the premise, does the inverse still apply?

"It is not a sin for women to have multiple husbands but God does not like it."

Roll that around in the theoretical conversation. Does the logic hold? Does it sound right? Or would the debate opponent be averse to this statement.

Please point out any logical fallacies I may be employing.
Click to expand...
I think you are trying to point out the ""rule of equivalency"" is a bad rule. I agree!

There are rules for men and there are rules for women. They don't always end up being the same rules. Just as there are rules for priests that do not apply to other men. And on and on... :-)
 
What about the rules of menstruation, childbirth, post natal care… some things just aren’t able to apply to both. It’s poor judgment to assume all rules are universally applicable. That’s even before you delve into how the Bible describes what sexual adultery is.
 
Human reasoning has often gotten mankind into trouble when it contradicts God's Word.

It is quite obvious, even to the casual observer, that the commandment against homosexuality is gender specific. Leviticus 18:22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.

There is no gender specific command for women, so the God who gave us this instruction is clearly making a distinction.
 
The rule for everything to be equal is not a rule that Yahweh set up. We see that naturally for adults vs children, Employers vs employees, men vs women, and some cultures human vs animals. so bad premise.
 
Maddog said:
The rule for everything to be equal is not a rule that Yahweh set up. We see that naturally for adults vs children, Employers vs employees, men vs women, and some cultures human vs animals. so bad premise.
Click to expand...

Heavens Declare said:
Rom 7:2-3 clearly call it adultery.
Click to expand...

Just to be clear, I do agree with you both.

This hypothetical came to me as a method for breaking the "rule of equivalency" (thanks Man-in-the-Middle) during debate when people bring it up as an argument.
 
The Bible clearly does not treat men and women the same. For me this is what I saw that really "broke the camels back". The "rule of equivalency" is just the doctrine of equality masquerading as the Bible. The Bible requires or applies things differently for men than from women. Without accepting this you cannot understand male and female relationships according to the Bible.

Men are to be circumcised, women are not.
Men are allowed multiple wives, women are not.
Men are prohibited from sex with other men, women are not. - there is no possibility of one-flesh happening without the male.
Men are responsible for paying a bride price, women are not - dowry is not a Bible concept.

Men are likened to the Christ while women are likened to the church - the church worships the Christ, not vice versa so the modern romantic thing is kind of an inversion of the Bible because it end up with the man worshiping the woman. The man sacrifices his life for the woman, but he is at liberty to make a similar sacrifice for another woman if he is able and choses to.

Modern Christianity tells us all of these has passed away in the New Covenant. It's amazing how almost everything has passed away in the new Testament except Tithing and Circumcision. I mean, whole wrote Christian doctrine?

There is a reason why the first human Adam was male. There is a reason why the first of the new creation Jesus was male and not female. There is a reason why God is conceptualized as the Father not the mother. When you honestly look at the Bible this issue is beyond sex and marriage. It's about the story we are living under. We all live under a mythology (a story), it is said that one person myth is another persons religion. At the end of the day it's a matter of truth. The modern Christian myth has deviated from the Bible in so many fundamental ways.
 
From my New Book : Headship Denied How False Equality Rewrote Marriage

Few ideas have infiltrated Christian marriage as quietly and destructively as the belief that husbands and wives are equal in authority. This is rarely defended from Scripture, and if they do, it is by taking a verse or two out of context. It is assumed. Repeated. Enforced. Questioning it is treated as a moral failure rather than a theological disagreement.
Yet nowhere in the Bible does God describe marriage as a partnership of equals.

Scripture teaches that men and women are equal in worth, value, and dignity before God. It does not teach equality of authority, role, or responsibility within marriage. Those are not the same—and never have been.

From the opening chapters of Genesis, God establishes order:
God over man.
Man over woman.
Christ over the church.
This order is not the result of sin, culture, or patriarchy. It is woven into creation itself—before the Fall, before the Law, before any human institution existed.

Modern Christianity did not uncover a forgotten biblical truth about equality. It imported an external ideology and then attempted to retrofit Scripture around it.

In doing so, headship was redefined as oppression.
Submission was recast as weakness.
Obedience was reframed as abuse.

And women were told that freedom required rejecting the very structure God designed for their protection and flourishing.
This book does not argue that women are inferior. The Bible never teaches that.

It argues something far more offensive to modern sensibilities:
That God never intended wives to be equal to their husbands in marriage—and that denying this truth has fractured homes, burdened women, weakened men, and destabilized the church.

Truth does not become false because it is unpopular.
And God’s design does not require cultural permission
 
I have been reading Tom Shipley's book, "Man and Woman in Biblical Law". His first seven chapters, or as he refers to them as "articles", establish patriarchy as the created order, using none other than the writings of Paul to establish this.
 
Heavens Declare said:
I have been reading Tom Shipley's book, "Man and Woman in Biblical Law". His first seven chapters, or as he refers to them as "articles", establish patriarchy as the created order, using none other than the writings of Paul to establish this.
Click to expand...

What? I have the book here. His primary thesis comes right out of Genesis, and it is one of the most powerful I've ever seen.

Paul quotes the Foundation.
 
Am also reading Tom Shipley's book. It's really sad how far removed the modern church is from these truth. Someone said the church always just lagging the current culture by one generation. in the next few decades the mainstream church will fully embrace transgenderism.
 
RealmUncertain said:
Am also reading Tom Shipley's book. It's really sad how far removed the modern church is from these truth. Someone said the church always just lagging the current culture by one generation. in the next few decades the mainstream church will fully embrace transgenderism.
Click to expand...
Sad but true.
 
cnystrom said:
Assuming that commands for one sex apply to both sexes when the text does not support that may be the worst mistake you can make about understanding what God's will is for the two sexes. And you see this all of the time. Very common modern mistake.
Click to expand...
Indeed Matt 5:28 is a glaring example of how people like to insert "[or man]" into the text.
 
RealmUncertain said:
Am also reading Tom Shipley's book. It's really sad how far removed the modern church is from these truth. Someone said the church always just lagging the current culture by one generation. in the next few decades the mainstream church will fully embrace transgenderism.
Click to expand...

I'm only about 10% of the way into this book, reading the downloadable pdf version. Just started reading it based on the recommendations on this thread. I just purchased half a dozen of the print copies and am going to blow up my social life distributing them to people I know.

#1 - the girl who liked me but was peer-pressured out of communicating with me
#2 - her father (sent directly to his home since I've never met him)
#3 - a family friend father who is a close social friend of mine and his family has been aggressively anti-poly with all their daughters
#4 - his adult married daughter who is a friend of me and my wife (bring up the topic and see fiery snakes emerge from her eyes)
#5 - uncertain recipient (maybe an older man Bible study mentor tied to that family)
#6 - uncertain recipient (me, or maybe my pastor but I don't think I want to go there yet, or #1's feminist churchianity mentor boss)
 
Off-Grid Artist said:
I'm only about 10% of the way into this book, reading the downloadable pdf version. Just started reading it based on the recommendations on this thread. I just purchased half a dozen of the print copies and am going to blow up my social life distributing them to people I know.

#1 - the girl who liked me but was peer-pressured out of communicating with me
#2 - her father (sent directly to his home since I've never met him)
#3 - a family friend father who is a close social friend of mine and his family has been aggressively anti-poly with all their daughters
#4 - his adult married daughter who is a friend of me and my wife (bring up the topic and see fiery snakes emerge from her eyes)
#5 - uncertain recipient (maybe an older man Bible study mentor tied to that family)
#6 - uncertain recipient (me, or maybe my pastor but I don't think I want to go there yet, or #1's feminist churchianity mentor boss)
Click to expand...
Perhaps #7 should be the girl's "mentor".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top