Support Little Help? LIVE Polygyny Debate Online Next Week!

[Mark C]

Seen in the comments:

"I'd rather be single [and lonely] forever than be some man's second wife."

This from someone (actually named 'Karen,' ) who cursed herself, but had no clue why. And the more vociferously the 'preacher' twisted Scripture, the more they fawned. Agreed, it was hard to watch, and a big part of the reason I quit participating in such debates.

I have found that people are often open to being challenged, and "seek out the Truth for themselves" when they come to a forum voluntarily (as I like to say, it's why I do radio: they can either listen, or 'spin the dial.') But, admittedly, even those of us who came from here largely went already knowing what we believed.

Even here, where people supposedly come to learn about marriage, there is a big element of 'confirmation bias.' We see it, I contend, whenever issues from His Instruction OUTSIDE of 'sex, marriage, and polygyny' come up. Folks tend to be blind to the twisting they heard with those same itching ears.

I'd be interested in hearing if any actual unconvinced Bereans were watching. I hear from some through radio shows on occasion; more often, the focus is "arming people" who have loved ones, friends, or neighbors, with the Truth.

 

[The Revolting Man]

I watched the whole thing. @PeteR did great. He was over prepared and far more gracious to those fools than I could have been. @robbkowalski was a good moderator, he never became a factor and didn’t favor either side but kept the debate moving towards its stated goals.

Bible Marriages brought a fresh perspective and several insights I hadn’t heard before which caught me off guard. He’s going to be a real asset going forward.

I think some cages got rattled last night. Some seeds were definitely planted. I saw about 200 people watching at the peak and the monogamy only side was exposed to many of them for how weak it is.

Well done men and thank you Father!

 

[Mark C]

I think some cages got rattled last night. Some seeds were definitely planted. I saw about 200 people watching at the peak and the monogamy only side was exposed to many of them for how weak it is.

I generally avoid TwoFacebook like the plague - last night was an exception. I didn't see any stats on who was watching, perhaps for that reason. But I do note that most who were KoolAid drinkers (ok, Bud Lite drinkers, now) were the most vocal, as is to be expected.

Again, I'd be curious to see what comes from the 'lurkers.'

 

[JudahYAHites]

We are having a scriptural debate online on Thursday, December 21st at 9 pm EST. I would love to have as many of you as possible show up and fire questions and comments at the opposing side to trip them up. You can set a reminder here:

Also, we just started a Facebook Messenger chat for the Biblical Families Facebook group. If you haven't joined the Facebook group yet, you can do so here: https://www.facebook.com/groups/BiblicalFamilies

You can join the Messenger chat directly here: https://m.me/ch/AbbUChsITmhyELOR/

Looking forward to meeting many of you at the retreat next month! If any single men are interested in splitting a room, shoot me an email, rob@robbkowalski.com

View attachment 5793

Maaaaaaaaannnnn missed it....

 

[nathan]

>>Maaaaaaaaannnnn missed it....

No you didn't - just click the youTube link, it's all there (all 3.3 hours of it). I've only made it thru the first 45 min, I might be biased, but clearly Pete was the standout. Maybe we could get some hour:min markers here to the 'good stuff', for those who won't make it thru the whole thing.

 

[Mark C]

Maybe we could get some hour:min markers here to the 'good stuff', for those who won't make it thru the whole thing.

Do you mean the 'good stuff' - or the Really Bad stuff?

(Like Mr. Twister calling out everyone from Abraham and Gideon to Jacob for being "adulterers." And saying he didn't need actual Scripture to support his Theology - he had the 'common sense' bible.)

 

[JudahYAHites]

>>Maaaaaaaaannnnn missed it....

No you didn't - just click the youTube link, it's all there (all 3.3 hours of it). I've only made it thru the first 45 min, I might be biased, but clearly Pete was the standout. Maybe we could get some hour:min markers here to the 'good stuff', for those who won't make it thru the whole thing.

Started watching it....
The live game is always better than the reruns though

 

[MaryandJim]

I watched the whole thing this morning. MR Rambo did a great job and so did the gentleman from biblefamilies. It was hard to watch and JD kept saying the same thing over and over and brought everything down to sex. Poly is not about sex as Mr. Rambo tried to point out but about the covering and Rob tried to reiterate as well. But...our side did very well and used scripture to back their position. Well done gentlemen.

 

[NVIII]

brought everything down to sex. Poly is not about sex as Mr. Rambo tried to point out

Amen. It absolutely is deeper and broader than sex. Unfortunately the preoccupation seems to be a common theme among drive-by pundits and those who have never lived the life. I think the preoccupation exists here too, but at least here it is dealt with more as a foundational definition of marriage. I'll never forget the comment from the very first man who ever learned of my conviction: "It's a common sexual fantasy. It will pass."

 

[JudahYAHites]

We are having a scriptural debate online on Thursday, December 21st at 9 pm EST. I would love to have as many of you as possible show up and fire questions and comments at the opposing side to trip them up. You can set a reminder here:

Also, we just started a Facebook Messenger chat for the Biblical Families Facebook group. If you haven't joined the Facebook group yet, you can do so here: https://www.facebook.com/groups/BiblicalFamilies

You can join the Messenger chat directly here: https://m.me/ch/AbbUChsITmhyELOR/

Looking forward to meeting many of you at the retreat next month! If any single men are interested in splitting a room, shoot me an email, rob@robbkowalski.com

View attachment 5793

Classic framing and reframing tactics by JD from approximately 50minutes in.
And he butcher's the scriptures.
It is sad and pitiful that both men with their "titles" handle the word like a mallet not a sword.

 

[JudahYAHites]

Classic framing and reframing tactics by JD from approximately 50minutes in.
And he butcher's the scriptures.
It is sad and pitiful that both men with their "titles" handle the word like a mallet not a sword.

He actually said that God regulated an evil institution to make it LESS evil... the other agreed and said exactly..... And they call themselves pastors !!!!!!

That is a future classic soundbite for "when pastors say dumb things"

 

[Joleneakamama]

"I'd rather be single [and lonely] forever than be some man's second wife."

Yet she has possibly been the 2nd....or maybe tenth lover of men that just avoided marriage or commitment.
If not her others have. They are all part of the problem, making the mistake of thinking that the man will love them, or commit to them in the future, so they sleep with them now. In reality the man is not commited until he stakes a claim and wants everyone to know she is his!
But....why buy the cow when she can kick you to the curb and the courts will give her half the farm!?
Let the men who earn keep their substance and Ole sugar daddy "uncle sam" will no longer be pimping out huge numbers of Amercan women....while the delusional ninnies keep looking for Mr perfect while getting it on with Mr whoever is there.

 

[frederick]

But....why buy the cow when she can kick you to the curb and the courts will give her half the farm!?

Best analogy ever!

 

[Joleneakamama]

In hindsight, I would have LOVED to see the opposing side answer 1 Timothy 4:1

When has marriage been forbidden? The council of Trent was dealing with disputed doctrines and it was when "forbidding to marry" was given teeth. This when shunning by the compliant became religiously correct....a practice that resulted in Bible translations being changed to conform to the religious POLITICS that thought to change times, (sabath) and LAWS, polygyny outlawed!!

 

[Transformator Reformator]

I watched debate twice. live and the next day. And the debate was almost replica of my own debate with my mother. I sent the link to my family and few pastors to open their mind and to see how silly their arguments look when looking from sidelines.

Great job to all representing. Lessons I learned that even if the greek words for "his own wife/woman" vs. "her own husband" were the same, it does not prove monogamy only positions. Whenever I read without knowledge of greek variation, I understood it to mean that Paul wanted to make sure that everyone should have an outlet for sexual drive to prevent pornei. Singleness is predestined gift if there is no sexual drive, otherwise call is to find someone.

another thing, I think it was mistake to concede that God compares himself to unjust judge. From Christ's illustration, the unjust judge admits that he does not fear God. God is outside of that illustration. So God cannot compare himself to something sinful or immoral. By admitting that God compared himself to unjust judge we made our cause weaker by suggesting that God as polygynous Husband who used sinful practice to illustrate a point. From that illustration of unjust judge, I see Christ communicating that even if unjust judge will end up listening to plea of poor woman, certainly righteous Holy God will be eager to listen to you as you persist in your dependance through prayer.

 

[BiblicalLiteralist]

Listened to a little bit today, maybe this was addressed later, but wanted to point out something pastor Mike failed to catch after speaking about the bride church being singular, during his initial argument presentation. I caught this as he was reading through the covenant spoken of in Jeremiah 31. Notice the verbiage used and who it is speaking to. I'll give you a hint, Their/They/Them.

 

[Daniel DeLuca]

Chris Sylvius from the Young Earth Creation Facebook group one time challenged me to a debate, but he did a no show. I attempted to get his attention a few times, but to no avail.

My honest feedback from the debate, was that I felt uncomfortable when Peter was a bit flumoxed during the Q&A over some of the rebuttal to his "God Blessed it" proof, but I was thrilled to see BibleMarriage pull out Psalms 18, although I would have liked to see him hammer that one a bit more. David wrote this under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, so it wasn't just his opinion, but God inspired him to write this. It was also at a time prior to his sin with Bathsheba or his numbering of the troops. Also, I heard JD call these second marriages, "fake" several times, and I would have liked to see you call him out on that. He kept saying "other women", when it is not just "other women" at all!!!! These are WIVES!!!! He mentioned having a fake ceremony, as if the ceremony is what unites, rather than a covenant before Almighty God! I loved it where BibleMarriage called him out for using As Hominem. I also loved where he responded to the "Adam and Steve" remark by saying that we need the "whole counsel of Scripture", but it would have been good to use that with the whole "pornography" argument, because Paul does tell us to think about things that are pure and lovely! Also, there in fact WAS a prophet who rebuked Solomon and told him that the kingdom would be taken away from him, except for the two tribes. The "abortion" and "drug use" argument, is one that I have refuted numerous times, by pointing out that this is an "apples to oranges" comparison. There is NEVER any mention of drug use (unless we consider pharmekia translated as sorcery) or abortion in Scripture, but there are dozens of references to polygyny! I also think the Matt 19:9 was raised by JD in his opening statement, and I would have loved to see how that one might have played out, but it was never really challenged. There are two approaches that I have taken. One of them is backed by the Wycliffe translation of Mark 10:11, where it says that he commits adultery upon her, instead of against her, which fits what Jesus said in Matt 5:31 about causing her to commit adultery. Also, the I Cor 7:2 challenge has at times been met by the fact that this is not a command, but rather, a recommendation, for if it were a command, those who have zero wives or husbands, would be in violation of it. It is rather a recommendation in order to avoid fornication. As Paul later says, "It is better to marry than to burn with lust." JD made an interesting point. He said that most single women COULD get married, if they were willing to marry beneath them. Well, even if they did, and God obviously has not given them the desire to do so, it would still mean that there are even fewer single men available for the women who are not marrying beneath them in the situation as it is today!

Over all it was a good thing to have a debate, and it is always good when the other side is willing to join us in debate. It helps us hone our own arguments, and we can see what works and what doesn't work. At Biblical Families, it is somewhat of an echo chamber, where we are never really challenged, so it is hard to know what to expect in a live debate.

 

[Daniel DeLuca]

A couple of other points come to mind:

David did not continue in adultery, which is something they would disagree with, but Paul speaks of being murders and adulterers in teh past tense, when he says "such WERE some of you". That is kind of hard to get around, if they want to claim that David was still committing adultery.

I would have liked to see Moses brought up as an example of a polygynous man whom God sided with in his disagreement with Aaron and Miriam. I found it a real stretch when they tried to argue that you are reading into the text and arguing from silence, when it came to pointing out Joash didn't have problems. By that rationale, we could say that Joseph and Mary and Zechariah and Elizabeth MIGHT have had a bad marriage, because we never hear that it was a good marriage! We know that Isaac and Rebekah had problems in their marriage! I LOVED the counter point Bible Marriages made that we have all these monogamous marriages today where couples are having to go to counseling! The point about Gideon, could have been countered by pointing out that Abimelech was the son of a concubine, so the 70 sons who perished didn't commit murder. One might be able to argue that this is a good reason to not have a concubine, but then we look at Caleb and you have an example of having a concubine that didn't go bad. Speaking of Abimelech, that is one that could have been brought up, that he attempted to take Sarah to be his second wife and God said that he did so in the integrity of his heart. Really the whole "polygamy always causes problems" argument is like looking at a few events and extrapolating that out to the whole marriage. First, polygamy did NOT cause the problems in David's family, so if you can bait someone into making that claim, you have II Sam 12:10 to refute it. Also, the rivalry between Jacob's wives was caused because Jacob did not love Leah. That is why God opened her womb and left Rachel's womb shut. Gen 29:31 clearly states this! Third, indeed Hannah DID have problems, and Jacob's wives did have a rivalry UNTIL the births of Samuel and Joseph, respectively. Also, I find it interesting that neither Mike nor JD had to marry their sisters in law. Even if we were to grant that the brother of the deceased was unmarried, you have to wonder if either JD or Mike were in that situation where they were required to marry their sister in laws, if they would have still considered it to be a sin and go ahead and marry the women whom they eventually did marry.

 

[Daniel DeLuca]

In JD's opening remarks he employed a "No True Scottsman" fallacy, by saying that the only women who would allow their husband to have another wife, are women who have been manipulated. This is where the other side ignores all the conditioning that our society has bestowed upon women, to where they expect to have a husband all to themselves, so of course they have to be deprogrammed from what they have already been conditioned to believe. In his closing remarks, he employed "Argument from the Future" to say that all these polygynous marriages are bound to fail. Mike pulled a "Cherry Picking" on unfavorable data (or favorable to his argument), when talking about the women who leave polygyny.

I was surprised to see that Israel was actually married to another after her divorce, but I guess you can read that from Jeremiah 3. I do believe the claim that Jesus called the Father an "unjust judge" is inaccurate. He was simply stating that even an unjust judge would give the persistent widow justice. This is like where He said that if you being evil know how to give good gifts to your children HOW MUCH MORE will your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him. He wasn't calling God an unjust Judge AT ALL!!! I don't like using the "God has two wives" as an argument FOR polygyny, but rather as a rebuttal to Jesus having only one wife.

JD and Mike need to realize that they are embracing a doctrine of demons. They know full well that godly men are in short supply, but there answer the the reality of this shortage, is to tell the women to marry other men, which if they did, would still leave a shortage of godly men!

 

[frederick]

Perhaps a couple of points to keep in mind for future debates. When people make irrational remarks about nothing good coming from polygynous marriages, ask them how many of Jesus Christ's ancestors were polygynists? When they say polygyny brings disaster and monogamy is best, ask them if Adam and Eve were polygynists when Eve ate the fruit and gave it to Adam and he ate? The most devastating failure in human history was by a monogamous couple who brought suffering and death into God's perfect creation and the MO adherents need to be reminded of that.