• 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.

BibFam gets the shoutout... from the pulpit! šŸ˜‚šŸ˜‚

Bartato said:
It is the church's YouTube page, not his personal. Maybe he isn't keeping up with our comments.

Or... Maybe he is hiding because he has no good answers.
Click to expand...
You'd think someone in his congregation would be updating him on what's being posted in the YouTube Comments(?) And since he's advertised BF repeatedly, even reading from information on the BF site, it would seem probable he'd have some spooks poking around here, reading these comments!

Yes, your second suspicion would be quite likely. If he has the B passage to prove A is sin, he'd have thrown it at us by now! Perhaps, like many pastors (including my former self) he's found the truth about marriage, however, unlike some of us, he's too scared to take to flack when he admits it and the SHTF. The cost can be huge to stand for the truth. Is he willing to pay that high a price??
 
frederick said:
No, I don't think he's the Fivesolas guy. The Fivesolas guy introduced himself to Joel Saint in comments on the first video before most of the negative comments came in.
Click to expand...
Thatā€™s what I would do if I was trying to throw @Daniel DeLuca off.
 
frederick said:
Perhaps, like many pastors (including my former self) he's found the truth about marriage, however, unlike some of us, he's too scared to take to flack when he admits it and the SHTF. The cost can be huge to stand for the truth. Is he willing to pay that high a price??
Click to expand...
That is when his God/god will be revealed. If the God of the Bible is his real Master, if Jesus Christ is his true Lord, then he will tell the truth. If anything else is his true lord, then he won't.
 
I this newest installment of bad hermeneutics 101 we find Joel admitting something peculiar, perhaps unwittingly, that polygyny is not a sin. In response to the idea that the patriarchs Abraham and Jacob wouldnā€™t be welcome in his church, he states that if someone was already a polygynist before coming to his church he wouldnā€™t throw them out. He says that they could attend but wouldnā€™t be allowed to have any position of leadership. Joel, in previous videos has place polygyny as a sin on par with homosexuality. So my question to Joel would be, is polygyny sin or not sin? You canā€™t have it both ways. Were the patriarchs engaged in life long sin in their polygyny or not. If itā€™s not sin, why do you continue to attack it as if it is. If it is sin why would you allow people who are already in polygynist marriages to join your church?
 
Well, he says that he is going to respond to all the YouTube comments, so that will be interesting to see.

I just added a bunch more that he can respond to, and I am looking forward to Rambo's response videos. This should be great!
 
Last edited:
Asforme&myhouse said:
I this newest installment of bad hermeneutics 101 we find Joel admitting something peculiar, perhaps unwittingly, that polygyny is not a sin. In response to the idea that the patriarchs Abraham and Jacob wouldnā€™t be welcome in his church, he states that if someone was already a polygynist before coming to his church he wouldnā€™t throw them out. He says that they could attend but wouldnā€™t be allowed to have any position of leadership. Joel, in previous videos has place polygyny as a sin on par with homosexuality. So my question to Joel would be, is polygyny sin or not sin? You canā€™t have it both ways. Were the patriarchs engaged in life long sin in their polygyny or not. If itā€™s not sin, why do you continue to attack it as if it is. If it is sin why would you allow people who are already in polygynist marriages to join your church?
Click to expand...
I endured him to the end... he contradicted himself, twisted Scripture, and misrepresented various righteous characters in the Bible. He'd allow those wicked Patriarchs to stay in his church, yet he concluded referring to polygyny as sin which you can't get out of once you are in it. How could he allow such sinners to remain in their sin in his church??

Joel, throw out the shovel now, stop digging yourself into the pit before you bury yourself! It's pitiful to watch those videos.
 
frederick said:
I endured him to the end... he contradicted himself, twisted Scripture, and misrepresented various righteous characters in the Bible. He'd allow those wicked Patriarchs to stay in his church, yet he concluded referring to polygyny as sin which you can't get out of once you are in it. How could he allow such sinners to remain in their sin in his church??

Joel, throw out the shovel now, stop digging yourself into the pit before you bury yourself! It's pitiful to watch those videos.
Click to expand...
Well it is good for us to watch this and hone our arguments even better. If we are using arguments that someone like that can undermine, find better arguments. Either that, or strengthen the arguments that he has somehow undermined.
 
Asforme&myhouse said:
Let me know if he defeats an argument. He hasnā€™t defeated one yet.
Click to expand...
It is more of a question of how you should respond to his claims about I Cor 7:2 where he addresses idios.
 
He literally stepped in it when he tried to make the claim that David's sons killed each other as a result of polygyny, and that Michal was the only one whose son's didn't kill one another. Oops! He forgot to mention that she didn't have ANY children!!!! Not to mention the fact that 2 Samuel 12:10 clearly tells us why David's sons killed one another. Abigail's son didn't get killed, nor did he kill anyone. Oh, but she was not the first wife, so we don't want to mention that.
 
I tried to sign in to my You Tube to comment and that took me on an endless adventure of authentication. That ended when they finally demanded my phone number. No thanks.
 
Daniel DeLuca said:
He literally stepped in it when he tried to make the claim that David's sons killed each other as a result of polygyny, and that Michal was the only one whose son's didn't kill one another. Oops! He forgot to mention that she didn't have ANY children!!!! Not to mention the fact that 2 Samuel 12:10 clearly tells us why David's sons killed one another. Abigail's son didn't get killed, nor did he kill anyone. Oh, but she was not the first wife, so we don't want to mention that.
Click to expand...
Guys like Joel try to use troubles within families that were polygynist as a sign of Godā€™s disapproval of polygyny. As if God, in some sort of passive aggressive manner was punishing them for breaking a command he never bothered to give them. ā€œGod didnā€™t tell them not to have more than one wife, he just made bad things happen in their lives in the hopes that they would make the connectionā€. Itā€™s such a stupid argument. For instance, Adam and Eve, the claimed archetype of monogamous marriage plunged all of humanity into sin and produced the first murderer. Cain killed Abel, but they never make any connection between their family problems and monogamy. Then there is Jacob and Esau, whoā€™s parents as far as we know were monogamous, and yet they had all kinds of strife and deception among them.

Davidā€™s real family problems started when he actually sinned against God by committing adulteryā€¦ weird how it didnā€™t start when he took a second wife. šŸ¤”
 
He made a big deal out of the fact that Michal was the only wife that David fought for, as if that somehow implies that he didn't really want the other wives. I suppose this pastor went out himself and killed a bunch of Philistinians in order to get his wife...or perhaps he didn't want her in the first place.
 
Daniel DeLuca said:
He made a big deal out of the fact that Michal was the only wife that David fought for, as if that somehow implies that he didn't really want the other wives. I suppose this pastor went out himself and killed a bunch of Philistinians in order to get his wife...or perhaps he didn't want her in the first place.
Click to expand...

Yes, I wondered where he was going with that. Maybe he's trying to encourage the women in his church to have men fight over them(?) Or perhaps those women should divorce their husbands because they obviously didn't want them as their wives since they didn't fight for them.

Poor Abigail, since David just proposed to her she mustn't have been particularly desirable.
 
frederick said:
Yes, I wondered where he was going with that. Maybe he's trying to encourage the women in his church to have men fight over them(?) Or perhaps those women should divorce their husbands because they obviously didn't want them as their wives since they didn't fight for them.

Poor Abigail, since David just proposed to her she mustn't have been particularly desirable.
Click to expand...
Her attitude was extremely desirable.
Then David sent word to Abigail, asking her to become his wife. 40 His servants went to Carmel and said to Abigail, ā€œDavid has sent us to you to take you to become his wife.ā€

41 She bowed down with her face to the ground and said, ā€œI am your servant and am ready to serve you and wash the feet of my lordā€™s servants.ā€ 42 Abigail quickly got on a donkey and, attended by her five female servants, went with Davidā€™s messengers and became his wife. 43 David had also married Ahinoam of Jezreel, and they both were his wives.
 
frederick said:
Yes, I wondered where he was going with that. Maybe he's trying to encourage the women in his church to have men fight over them(?) Or perhaps those women should divorce their husbands because they obviously didn't want them as their wives since they didn't fight for them.

Poor Abigail, since David just proposed to her she mustn't have been particularly desirable.
Click to expand...
No kidding! Next thing you know, he'll make a big to do over the fact that Abigail expressed the desire to wash the feet of David's servants! She must have been totally desperate!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top