fair enough, it is more relevant among those for whom polygyny is not as fully normalized or accepted. i've gathered that you are already very successfully living a lifestyle that includes multiple wives
-
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.
Let's make some pro polygyny memes
- Thread starter Elijahsfire
- Start date
So, the memes are meant to be funny, but does anyone have any ideas on the content?
I appreciated that Bartato pointed out the the Anakin method above is maybe not the most effective way to introduce an idea that goes against centuries of tradition. But on the other hand, what I do like about the Anakin meme is that his posture is strong, he is clearly showing leadership with confidence, even if it seems to be lacking some reflection.
another example from the bike meme above: Is poly for exceptional men?
These days it takes an exceptional man to support a family and stay married.
So yes, to some extent it does take an exceptional man to take it to the next level.
And there are some less-than-exceptional men trying to play the game, the results aren’t pretty.
Thank you, Steve.
I think I may not only speak for myself when I say that this game is played with high stakes, and the potential payoff, both to the Kingdom and the individual have a poorly defined advantage over church tradition. Basically I am saying that someone telling me I should put all my money in the lottery because over a dozen people won the jackpots last year has questionable reasoning. To what extent is that true of the promotion of the poly lifestyle?
Now, much of this website promotes poly through the larger lens of living lives in obedience to God and God only. And through that lens, my previous question is meaningless. But this website is not primarily about rejecting man's traditions, but rather a specific tradition, so that motivates my question.
Yes and no. By the standards of the 1800's today's poly man would not be exceptional because everything he'd do would be unremarkable. By the standards of today he is.
Last edited:
But is them being gotten even your point, @Communication?nobody ever really gets them.
well, not quite. But maintaining some level of ambiguity is part of what is being attempted
I’m not sure that I understand where you are going, but we have hijacked this thread too much already.
You seem to have some points that you want to make, while not desiring to communicate directly. Let’s take the conversation elsewhere and leave the meme thread for its intended purpose.
I will try to be more direct. My desire is to communicate in as direct a manner as possible. In the new thread just created you can let me know if I have succeeded.
LMBO
i'm sorry but this is MY sense of humor in a nutshell
i'm dying over here rofl
I will give one clarifying response to this, hopefully not derailing the meme thread any further. I just think it's important as I think you've got a misunderstanding about what this website is for.
I don't think this website "promotes the poly lifestyle". The people who turn up here have usually already decided it's acceptable to God. This is just a meeting ground where such people get together. We're not trying to promote it - we don't need to. Rather, we exist to help those people who are in it, or anticipate entering it.
In fact, we often put our effort into trying to persuade people NOT to attempt it, because what they've shared of their situation raises so many red flags that we foresee disaster. Then, if they do it anyway, we switch to encouraging and helping them deal with the situation they now find themselves in. On the other hand, when God is drawing someone to polygamy we will encourage and support them. But none of that is promotion, it's all just offering advice for people in their own unique situations.
In short, nobody is telling you to be a polygamist @Communication. But if you decided to become one though (for good or bad reasons) we'd be your best source of support.
First of all, I've never complained about anyone calling me a polygamist. I've never claimed that someone was telling me to be one either. I hope that after some time passes, some of you will review what I have written and how I was responded to, because... well, the whole premise of what I was saying to steve makes sense if the person writing it (me) already looks favorably on polygyny. If I was trying to debate whether it was sinful or not, why would I be asking for a better explanation of its advantage over church tradition? Would you consider something to not be a sin if you could enumerate the benefits? I hope not. Look at the memes in this thread I made. Maybe instead of so many people looking at me as a possible [or definite, lol] POLY APOSTATE, they could have seen a man's struggle with speaking to his wife about polgyny (the Anakin one), acknowledging that she might not be all that comfortable with it? How did you interpret that meme?
Or the one with the bike, I think some people had a good laugh that some men (maybe me?) may have a Scriptural understanding of polygyny, and they may even be drawn to it, but they have difficulty explaining to their wife, or maybe even themself, that they may be a blessing to the world as a man with more than one wife? Maybe you have been reading too much of how other's have been painting me, but I am not anti polygyny.
I even mentioned that my bike meme was meant to start a conversation on how much of a common (vs. exceptional) occurence polygyny would ideally be in the body of belivers.
Steve's response was fine, I thought he was simply saying that polygyny would probably always be kind of the exception, and thus:
"And there are some less-than-exceptional men trying to play the game, the results aren’t pretty."
But then someone else followed up with:
"I just have to love what a cocky motherf***er you are, Zen Torah Trucker!"
So should I consider steve's response as meant to be some sort of "cocky" slam dunk? I didn't take it that way (although in another thread steve was pretty okay with assuming my motives and beliefs in an negative--and incorrect-- light)
You know, these things go by without much comment, and they slip away because this website at it's core has two characters contending for its soul: the character of a community of people who are seeking a spiritual connection through the sacred writings, and the other character of a run-of-the-mill 4chan insult-and-be-insulted community.
Who you rebuke, correct, respond to, or don't respond to usually pushed it towards one direction or the other.
Also, I mean, to say that a website that exists to "help people that are in it," and consists of people who have "decided it's acceptable to God" but "does not promote it" just stretches the language.
Come on, in the current environment of a Church which, across every major denomination, actively denounces polygyny, do you really think what you are saying is fair?
If you created a website that exists to "help people that are in it," and consists of people who have "decided it's acceptable to God," but instead of "it" being "polygyny", it was something like homosexuality or abortion, could I be forgiven for thinking you were "promoting" either of those two topics in the community that is Bride of Christ?
I know you're not evangelizing for polygyny, at least not you personally, and I understand that is not the point of this site. Simply saying that polygyny is acceptable to God is absolutely a promotion of it's current position in modern society. If you disagree with that you are probably too isolated from society. We are called to be "separate", and this is distinct in character to "isolated" which is why many good translations use "separate".
Well, you are a Kiwi, so I'll give you another chance, lol.
btw, don't sweat it that this is supposed to be a meme thread... underneath all the black and white rules there is a deeper truth. Maybe!
I won't debate the point @Communication, I was clarifying what appeared to be a minor misunderstanding of the core purpose of the site and I think I did that clearly already. I don't think we need to split hairs about the fine detail of the edges.
[The following thoughts, just like the tangential posts to which its reply-introduction refers, don't really have anything to do with the Original Post of this thread, but I'm going to simultaneously post them here for the sake of continuity, as well as posting this a couple other places where it might more properly be discussed if anyone has a mind to respond.]
Yes, you did, and thank you for that.
This recalls one of my pet peeves: the manner in which people mistake the concept of 'Western Civilization' as being some type of universal ideal model of how cultures should behave. Admittedly, those who originally forged Western Civilization in the 9th-6th Centuries B.C. deserve credit for some now-time-tested positive contributions, but on the whole I would say that humanity has been harmed by their philosophies. It may even be a case of the baby being immersed in corrosive acid, so I would encourage consideration of throwing the now-nearly-dissolved baby out with the bathwater, because here are some of the ongoing legacies of those pre-and-post-Socratic early Greek philosophers and their political counterparts, not listed in necessary order of importance, but starting with one near and dear to us here at Biblical Families:
This message wasn't written to most of you, as is occasionally the case with things I write, and it's definitely not written about most of you, but I pray it will provide further understanding about why I prefer to bring attention to any situation in which I think a sophistic camel has poked its nose under our tent walls.
If anyone is interested in an extended but brilliant article about how sophism and other self-destructive characteristics have been associated with the degradation of most empires and other initially-successful sociopolitical frameworks, I'd invite you to read: https://risingtidefoundation.net/20...gedy-a-lesson-on-defeating-systems-of-empire/. Socrates and Plato challenged the Sophists, but, while formally eschewing sophistry, they both -- and more pointedly Plato -- couldn't help but be influenced by it, given its status at the time as the water in which everyone was swimming. The point should not be lost on us as our own modern-day politicians blame everything on each other, as those who promoted a bureaucratized ruling class decry its effects while lying straight to our faces about how minor diseases and imaginary weather patterns justify stripping us of our freedoms, and as the members of a political party that had as its military arm the Ku Klux Klan project the moniker of Racist onto its opponents, all the while championing abortion as they claim to be the party of the little guy (just not that little).
Yes, you did, and thank you for that.
This recalls one of my pet peeves: the manner in which people mistake the concept of 'Western Civilization' as being some type of universal ideal model of how cultures should behave. Admittedly, those who originally forged Western Civilization in the 9th-6th Centuries B.C. deserve credit for some now-time-tested positive contributions, but on the whole I would say that humanity has been harmed by their philosophies. It may even be a case of the baby being immersed in corrosive acid, so I would encourage consideration of throwing the now-nearly-dissolved baby out with the bathwater, because here are some of the ongoing legacies of those pre-and-post-Socratic early Greek philosophers and their political counterparts, not listed in necessary order of importance, but starting with one near and dear to us here at Biblical Families:
- Invention of the monogamy-only imperative, utilizing a purposefully incremental long-drawn-out implementation designed to very slowly raise the temperature of the pot the frog was being boiled in, which was intentionally introduced along with . . .
- General demonization of the majority of then-common forms of cultural organization, for the purpose of . . .
- Shifting allegiance from decentralized extended family structures like tribalism to allegiance to centralized geography-based governments, thus bequeathing the world with . . .
- Statism, which many to this day continue to glorify, but which always leads inevitably to tyranny and totalitarianism, and one of its main mechanisms for its perpetuation is the Greek philosophy that arose in the 6th Century B.C. . . .
- Sophism.
This message wasn't written to most of you, as is occasionally the case with things I write, and it's definitely not written about most of you, but I pray it will provide further understanding about why I prefer to bring attention to any situation in which I think a sophistic camel has poked its nose under our tent walls.
If anyone is interested in an extended but brilliant article about how sophism and other self-destructive characteristics have been associated with the degradation of most empires and other initially-successful sociopolitical frameworks, I'd invite you to read: https://risingtidefoundation.net/20...gedy-a-lesson-on-defeating-systems-of-empire/. Socrates and Plato challenged the Sophists, but, while formally eschewing sophistry, they both -- and more pointedly Plato -- couldn't help but be influenced by it, given its status at the time as the water in which everyone was swimming. The point should not be lost on us as our own modern-day politicians blame everything on each other, as those who promoted a bureaucratized ruling class decry its effects while lying straight to our faces about how minor diseases and imaginary weather patterns justify stripping us of our freedoms, and as the members of a political party that had as its military arm the Ku Klux Klan project the moniker of Racist onto its opponents, all the while championing abortion as they claim to be the party of the little guy (just not that little).
It took 43 pages for this thread to go sideways... LOL.. might be a record.
However, @Keith Martin , GREAT thoughts, there. When I finally understood the root and reason of monogamy only (Greco-Roman : statism), it all made sense why poly is so violently opposed by such disparate enemies as traditional Christendom, feminism, LGBTQ, etc.... it is, imho, a lynchpin truth that exposes the falsehoods in many of the adversary's playgrounds.
However, @Keith Martin , GREAT thoughts, there. When I finally understood the root and reason of monogamy only (Greco-Roman : statism), it all made sense why poly is so violently opposed by such disparate enemies as traditional Christendom, feminism, LGBTQ, etc.... it is, imho, a lynchpin truth that exposes the falsehoods in many of the adversary's playgrounds.
Amen. This was solidified in our culture in the mid-1980s when radical feminism and social services bureaucracies formed an alliance with fundamentalist Christianity to further demonize heterosexuality.
