• 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.

Logical Fallacies Anti-Polys love to employ

Daniel DeLuca

Seasoned Member
Real Person
Male
This is in response to the debacle Mr T. engaged in when he thought he could show the rest of us the reasons that we are wrong.

For those who are curious, they can take a good look right here:
The truth from southern Utah.

I pointed out some Logical Fallacies he chose to employ, and @frederick suggested that we start a new thread.
 
Last edited:
Copied from Mr. T's thread:

Exodus 20:12,17

12 “Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the land which the Lord your God is giving you.

17 “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor’s.”

The version I am using is the new king James version.

Look, I'm stating facts from the bible. I'm not saying this from what I know but what the bible says. The bible gets full credit. Why would you want to share your husband or wife?
The use of singular is not a prohibition against more than one by any stretch of the imagination. This is a combination of an Over-generalization and Non-Sequitor Fallacy; perhaps a Quantifier-Shift Fallacy. We do not advocate sharing wives, so that is a bit of a combination of Half-Truth and Straw-Man.

Look at exodus 20:12. Its all singular not plural.

You gotta be joking! Wait! You are serious! You actually believe that this somehow proves that polygamy is prohibited! Definitely a Quantifier-Shift Fallacy!
 
Also copied from Mr T's thread:

Come to think of it, this reasoning on your part takes the form of Denying the Antecedent. It states that if P then Q, therefore not P implies not Q. So if Scripture states that you are not to covet your neighbor's wife, somehow that means that your neighbor is not allowed to have two wives, because if he did, you would have been prohibited from coveting either of his two wives. That is logical nonsense!
 
Some attempt to establish the legitimacy of a man having only one wife by using the creation account in Genesis, Chapters 1 & 2. They suggest that since God created Adam and gave him only one wife, this sets the standard or God’s “creation ideal” for all subsequent marriages. But such logic is faulty, a naturalistic fallacy, proceeding from the particular to the universal without consideration of God’s specific instructions concerning marriage, and can be dangerous leading to cultic beliefs and practises. For example, using that same line of reasoning from Genesis 1 & 2, it could just as easily result in the condemnation of any who don’t follow a strict vegetarian diet since God told Adam; “See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food” (Gen. 1:29). Or it could be argued that all men are to be horticulturists because that is God’s “creation ideal” for work (cf. Gen. 2:15). Indeed, so-called Christian naturists use this very same erroneous logic to argue against wearing clothes since God created Adam and Eve; And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed (Gen. 2:25). Such faulty reasoning speaks for itself. God doesn’t require every man to be married monogamously, be a vegetarian, a horticulturist, or a nudist, having set these practises up as some sort of creation ideal. It is true God established marriage in the Creation Week but as we read through the Bible we learn that He never says it’s His creation ideal but rather, He allows some to remain unmarried, some to be polygynous, and others to be monogamous in their relationships. He doesn’t condemn any of these relationships and each has its place and purpose in His kingdom.
 
Some attempt to establish the legitimacy of a man having only one wife by using the creation account in Genesis, Chapters 1 & 2. They suggest that since God created Adam and gave him only one wife, this sets the standard or God’s “creation ideal” for all subsequent marriages. But such logic is faulty, a naturalistic fallacy, proceeding from the particular to the universal without consideration of God’s specific instructions concerning marriage, and can be dangerous leading to cultic beliefs and practises. For example, using that same line of reasoning from Genesis 1 & 2, it could just as easily result in the condemnation of any who don’t follow a strict vegetarian diet since God told Adam; “See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food” (Gen. 1:29). Or it could be argued that all men are to be horticulturists because that is God’s “creation ideal” for work (cf. Gen. 2:15). Indeed, so-called Christian naturists use this very same erroneous logic to argue against wearing clothes since God created Adam and Eve; And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed (Gen. 2:25). Such faulty reasoning speaks for itself. God doesn’t require every man to be married monogamously, be a vegetarian, a horticulturist, or a nudist, having set these practises up as some sort of creation ideal. It is true God established marriage in the Creation Week but as we read through the Bible we learn that He never says it’s His creation ideal but rather, He allows some to remain unmarried, some to be polygynous, and others to be monogamous in their relationships. He doesn’t condemn any of these relationships and each has its place and purpose in His kingdom.
Also, Dr William Luck pointed out to me that this also "sets the standard" that no man should ever remarry even after his wife dies, since God only created one wife for Adam. When I have a chance, I will try to identify the name of this fallacy, if no one else beats me to it.
 
Uh oh! Derailed thread. :(
You only derailed the thread once. That is evidence that you are only supposed to have one wife!! Repent!! Sinner!

Also if you look up 1 Corinthians 7 in the message bible.
It clearly states you are supposed to have “a” wife. A is the first letter in the alphabet. 1=A

“Certainly—but only within a certain context. It’s good for a man to have a wife, and for a woman to have a husband. Sexual drives are strong, but marriage is strong enough to contain them and provide for a balanced and fulfilling sexual life in a world of sexual disorder. The marriage bed must be a place of mutuality—the husband seeking to satisfy his wife, the wife seeking to satisfy her husband. Marriage is not a place to “stand up for your rights.” Marriage is a decision to serve the other, whether in bed or out. Abstaining from sex is permissible for a period of time if you both agree to it, and if it’s for the purposes of prayer and fasting—but only for such times. Then come back together again. Satan has an ingenious way of tempting us when we least expect it. I’m not, understand, commanding these periods of abstinence—only providing my best counsel if you should choose them.”
‭‭1 Corinthians‬ ‭7:2-6‬ ‭MSG‬‬
 
Last edited:
You only derailed the thread once. That is evidence that you are only supposed to have one wife!! Repent!! Sinner!

Also if you look up 1 Corinthians 7 in the message bible.
It clearly states you are supposed to have “a” wife. A is the first letter in the alphabet. 1=A

“Certainly—but only within a certain context. It’s good for a man to have a wife, and for a woman to have a husband. Sexual drives are strong, but marriage is strong enough to contain them and provide for a balanced and fulfilling sexual life in a world of sexual disorder. The marriage bed must be a place of mutuality—the husband seeking to satisfy his wife, the wife seeking to satisfy her husband. Marriage is not a place to “stand up for your rights.” Marriage is a decision to serve the other, whether in bed or out. Abstaining from sex is permissible for a period of time if you both agree to it, and if it’s for the purposes of prayer and fasting—but only for such times. Then come back together again. Satan has an ingenious way of tempting us when we least expect it. I’m not, understand, commanding these periods of abstinence—only providing my best counsel if you should choose them.”
‭‭1 Corinthians‬ ‭7:2-6‬ ‭MSG‬‬
LOL! Sounds somewhat like the same fallacy that Mr. T employed.
 
The common use of Matthew 19:1-9. They take a verse about divorce which condemns serial monogamy and use it against polygamy.

That's a category error I think.
 
You only derailed the thread once. That is evidence that you are only supposed to have one wife!! Repent!! Sinner!

Also if you look up 1 Corinthians 7 in the message bible.
It clearly states you are supposed to have “a” wife. A is the first letter in the alphabet. 1=A

“Certainly—but only within a certain context. It’s good for a man to have a wife, and for a woman to have a husband. Sexual drives are strong, but marriage is strong enough to contain them and provide for a balanced and fulfilling sexual life in a world of sexual disorder. The marriage bed must be a place of mutuality—the husband seeking to satisfy his wife, the wife seeking to satisfy her husband. Marriage is not a place to “stand up for your rights.” Marriage is a decision to serve the other, whether in bed or out. Abstaining from sex is permissible for a period of time if you both agree to it, and if it’s for the purposes of prayer and fasting—but only for such times. Then come back together again. Satan has an ingenious way of tempting us when we least expect it. I’m not, understand, commanding these periods of abstinence—only providing my best counsel if you should choose them.”
‭‭1 Corinthians‬ ‭7:2-6‬ ‭MSG‬‬
The mess-age bible is it’s own logical fallacy
 
Some attempt to establish the legitimacy of a man having only one wife by using the creation account in Genesis, Chapters 1 & 2. They suggest that since God created Adam and gave him only one wife, this sets the standard or God’s “creation ideal” for all subsequent marriages. But such logic is faulty, a naturalistic fallacy, proceeding from the particular to the universal without consideration of God’s specific instructions concerning marriage, and can be dangerous leading to cultic beliefs and practises. For example, using that same line of reasoning from Genesis 1 & 2, it could just as easily result in the condemnation of any who don’t follow a strict vegetarian diet since God told Adam; “See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food” (Gen. 1:29). Or it could be argued that all men are to be horticulturists because that is God’s “creation ideal” for work (cf. Gen. 2:15). Indeed, so-called Christian naturists use this very same erroneous logic to argue against wearing clothes since God created Adam and Eve; And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed (Gen. 2:25). Such faulty reasoning speaks for itself. God doesn’t require every man to be married monogamously, be a vegetarian, a horticulturist, or a nudist, having set these practises up as some sort of creation ideal. It is true God established marriage in the Creation Week but as we read through the Bible we learn that He never says it’s His creation ideal but rather, He allows some to remain unmarried, some to be polygynous, and others to be monogamous in their relationships. He doesn’t condemn any of these relationships and each has its place and purpose in His kingdom.


Anti-poly’s attempts to use Genesis 1 and 2 against polygyny is not only a logical fallacy, but it’s also a hermeneutical fallacy. One of the rules of biblical hermeneutics is that Scripture interprets Scripture. Genesis 2:24 is mentioned a couple of times and alluded to a couple more times throughout Scripture, but it is never used to address polygyny, it’s always used when addressing divorce. When Scripture interprets Scripture we see that God does not mean for Genesis 2:24 to condemn polygyny. In short, Genesis 2:24 is against separating what God has joined, it’s not a limitation on the number of women a man can be joined to by God.

There is no biblical reason to assume that Genesis teaches monogamy only, because monogamy only is simply not in the text, it has to be read into the text.
 
Anti-poly’s attempts to use Genesis 1 and 2 against polygyny is not only a logical fallacy, but it’s also a hermeneutical fallacy. One of the rules of biblical hermeneutics is that Scripture interprets Scripture. Genesis 2:24 is mentioned a couple of times and alluded to a couple more times throughout Scripture, but it is never used to address polygyny, it’s always used when addressing divorce. When Scripture interprets Scripture we see that God does not mean for Genesis 2:24 to condemn polygyny. In short, Genesis 2:24 is against separating what God has joined, it’s not a limitation on the number of women a man can be joined to by God.

There is no biblical reason to assume that Genesis teaches monogamy only, because monogamy only is simply not in the text, it has to be read into the text.

This my friend is freaking hermeneutical boss status!
:cool:
All the single ladies on BF should be drooling right now! :rolleyes:
 
The common use of Matthew 19:1-9. They take a verse about divorce which condemns serial monogamy and use it against polygamy.

That's a category error I think.
That is possible. I am thinking it is more of a contextual fallacy, of course it depends on which portion of that passage they are using to derive their conclusion.

Form wikipedia:
A category mistake, or category error, or categorical mistake, or mistake of category, is a semantic or ontological error in which things belonging to a particular category are presented as if they belong to a different category,[1] or, alternatively, a property is ascribed to a thing that could not possibly have that property. An example is the metaphor "time crawled", which if taken literally is not just false but a category mistake. To show that a category mistake has been committed one must typically show that once the phenomenon in question is properly understood, it becomes clear that the claim being made about it could not possibly be true.
 
I had to deal with the old "You just want more sex" argument, the other day. Somewhat of an Ad Hominem, but I asked him what objections he had to a man having sex with his wife. More precisely, it is called the "Attacking the Motive" fallacy.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com...igning_a_motive_and_then_attacking_the_motive

That's also an example of an argument that proves too much. One could use the same argument against getting married monogamously. "you just want more sex".
 
Back
Top