Okay, because I like you so much I'm not going to reply to this the way I could!
Lolololololol
-
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.
General One of our own gets called out
- Thread starter Pacman
- Start date
Lolololololol
"Dirty pasty faced weakling."
I hate that effeminate voice speaking all the pastor-merchants use. Part and parcel to the feminization of the church in pursuit of appealing to women.
The merchantile church doesn't like to submit to Christ anymore than their female customers do to their husbands.
Pastors sure do act like they expect God to submit to them.
I hate that effeminate voice speaking all the pastor-merchants use. Part and parcel to the feminization of the church in pursuit of appealing to women.
The merchantile church doesn't like to submit to Christ anymore than their female customers do to their husbands.
Pastors sure do act like they expect God to submit to them.
I sent him an email with respect to the video (and other related topics). Here's a relevant portion of my email:
Have you gotten to read Man and Woman in Biblical Law by Tom Shipley (the book I spoke about in my first email)? He answers some of the objections you stated in your video.
For example in the video you stated:
(If) " God regulates this practice so therefore he must approve of it... There's regulations concerning what to do when someone steals from someone.. the existence of those laws doesn't indicate that God approve of theft"
Of course not. I don't think that is what those who support plural marriage are saying.
Kaiser in OT Ethics (the book cited in the video) uses the same argument:
"S.E. Dwight spells out the syllogism that those who tend that the Old Testament tacitly approves of polygamy use:
Major premise: 'Moses here legislates on the case of a man who has two wives at the same time.'
Minor premise: 'But he could not lawfully legislate upon that which might not lawfully exist.'
Conclusion: 'To have two wives at the same time was therefore lawful.'
In Deuteronomy 23:18 it is said, 'Thou shalt not bring the hire of a harlot into the house of the Lord thy God for any vow' Taught by the schoolmen, we thus argue -- Moses here legislates upon the wages of a harlot, and therefore supposes the harlots will receive the wages of prostitution: But he could not legislate upon that which might not lawfully exist: To be a harlot and earn the wages of prostitution were therefore lawful..."
In response, Shipley states:
"This whole argument is ridiculous. First of all, it is a straw man argument and not what is being advocated by those who understand that polygamy is lawful. Secondly, every prohibition in the Bible constitutes "legislation upon that which might not lawfully exist." Dwight's minor premise is, therefore, absurd. Thirdly there is a difference between prohibiting something and regulating something. Deuteronomy 23:18 does not regulate and specify the proper manner in which the wages of harlot are to enter into the house of the LORD, no, the prohibited sinful practice having already taken place, it is further disapprobation by prohibiting from entering the house of the LORD even the very money which is associated with it."
Davidson in the 'Flame of Yah' makes a similar argument:
"A fundamental point to be recognized is that this is a case law, describing what should follow if a certain action is taken. Case laws do not legitimize the activity of the case described, but only prescribe what should be done in such cases. Thus this case law no more legitimates polygamy than the case law in Exodus 22:1 ("If a man steals an ox or a sheep...") legitimizes theft. The existence of such casuistic legislation does acknowledge the possibility of such circumstances occurring, but does not necessarily express approval of those circumstances."
Luck's response:
"This is another of those scholarly statements which discloses only half the truth. The impression is given that in case law you do not know whether or not the activity set forth in the "protasis" (the "if" clause) is approved or not. This is not really the case. Often the remedy (found in the "apodosis" or "then" clause) makes clear whether or not action is legally or morally acceptable. Sometimes the morality of the action in question is known from other laws in the near or far context. The example given shows the silliness of making such a blanket statement about case law. Stealing is understood to be immoral behavior in two ways. First, it is against the statute (i.e., the 8th commandment). It is part of the function of case law to clarify what does and does not under such statutes. Second, the fact that the action's remedy ("he must pay back..." is a reversal of the action itself shows that the action is unacceptable.
With respect to Deuteronomy 23:18, Luck goes on to say:
It is said that this regulation does not condemn prostitution per se, but only limits the use of its profit. However, a little thought shows the foolishness of this claim. The only reason that the profit of any labor could not be brought into the temple is that it is profane and unacceptable. If the inquirer understands much about the laws of purity, he would realize that this isn't a mere purity law issue. How so? Well, for one thing, in the Holiness Code we read:
Do not profane your daughter by making her a prostitute, so that the land does not practice prostitution and become full of lewdness Lev. 19:29
The term in both cases is zanah (prostitute). Thus to cite Deut. 23:18 and imply that it cannot be known whether or not the primary condition action is moral or immoral is misleading at best. Case laws are part of a greater code."
So both Shipley and Luck provide a direct refutation of your statement. You said you read Luck's book. Did you miss this?
//
I go on to talk about some other relevant things in my email. He told me he has read Luck's most recent book, but he has clearly missed some things from it, otherwise he wouldn't have said what he did in the video (and in his book).
I invited him for fellowship to continue to speak about these things given that I live near him.
Have you gotten to read Man and Woman in Biblical Law by Tom Shipley (the book I spoke about in my first email)? He answers some of the objections you stated in your video.
For example in the video you stated:
(If) " God regulates this practice so therefore he must approve of it... There's regulations concerning what to do when someone steals from someone.. the existence of those laws doesn't indicate that God approve of theft"
Of course not. I don't think that is what those who support plural marriage are saying.
Kaiser in OT Ethics (the book cited in the video) uses the same argument:
"S.E. Dwight spells out the syllogism that those who tend that the Old Testament tacitly approves of polygamy use:
Major premise: 'Moses here legislates on the case of a man who has two wives at the same time.'
Minor premise: 'But he could not lawfully legislate upon that which might not lawfully exist.'
Conclusion: 'To have two wives at the same time was therefore lawful.'
In Deuteronomy 23:18 it is said, 'Thou shalt not bring the hire of a harlot into the house of the Lord thy God for any vow' Taught by the schoolmen, we thus argue -- Moses here legislates upon the wages of a harlot, and therefore supposes the harlots will receive the wages of prostitution: But he could not legislate upon that which might not lawfully exist: To be a harlot and earn the wages of prostitution were therefore lawful..."
In response, Shipley states:
"This whole argument is ridiculous. First of all, it is a straw man argument and not what is being advocated by those who understand that polygamy is lawful. Secondly, every prohibition in the Bible constitutes "legislation upon that which might not lawfully exist." Dwight's minor premise is, therefore, absurd. Thirdly there is a difference between prohibiting something and regulating something. Deuteronomy 23:18 does not regulate and specify the proper manner in which the wages of harlot are to enter into the house of the LORD, no, the prohibited sinful practice having already taken place, it is further disapprobation by prohibiting from entering the house of the LORD even the very money which is associated with it."
Davidson in the 'Flame of Yah' makes a similar argument:
"A fundamental point to be recognized is that this is a case law, describing what should follow if a certain action is taken. Case laws do not legitimize the activity of the case described, but only prescribe what should be done in such cases. Thus this case law no more legitimates polygamy than the case law in Exodus 22:1 ("If a man steals an ox or a sheep...") legitimizes theft. The existence of such casuistic legislation does acknowledge the possibility of such circumstances occurring, but does not necessarily express approval of those circumstances."
Luck's response:
"This is another of those scholarly statements which discloses only half the truth. The impression is given that in case law you do not know whether or not the activity set forth in the "protasis" (the "if" clause) is approved or not. This is not really the case. Often the remedy (found in the "apodosis" or "then" clause) makes clear whether or not action is legally or morally acceptable. Sometimes the morality of the action in question is known from other laws in the near or far context. The example given shows the silliness of making such a blanket statement about case law. Stealing is understood to be immoral behavior in two ways. First, it is against the statute (i.e., the 8th commandment). It is part of the function of case law to clarify what does and does not under such statutes. Second, the fact that the action's remedy ("he must pay back..." is a reversal of the action itself shows that the action is unacceptable.
With respect to Deuteronomy 23:18, Luck goes on to say:
It is said that this regulation does not condemn prostitution per se, but only limits the use of its profit. However, a little thought shows the foolishness of this claim. The only reason that the profit of any labor could not be brought into the temple is that it is profane and unacceptable. If the inquirer understands much about the laws of purity, he would realize that this isn't a mere purity law issue. How so? Well, for one thing, in the Holiness Code we read:
Do not profane your daughter by making her a prostitute, so that the land does not practice prostitution and become full of lewdness Lev. 19:29
The term in both cases is zanah (prostitute). Thus to cite Deut. 23:18 and imply that it cannot be known whether or not the primary condition action is moral or immoral is misleading at best. Case laws are part of a greater code."
So both Shipley and Luck provide a direct refutation of your statement. You said you read Luck's book. Did you miss this?
//
I go on to talk about some other relevant things in my email. He told me he has read Luck's most recent book, but he has clearly missed some things from it, otherwise he wouldn't have said what he did in the video (and in his book).
I invited him for fellowship to continue to speak about these things given that I live near him.
Last edited:
Here is my initial response to Wilber...
https://natsab.com/2021/05/09/responding-to-david-wilber-and-jk-mckee/
https://natsab.com/2021/05/09/responding-to-david-wilber-and-jk-mckee/
And, FYI, there has been a significant uptick the last eight hours on my Biblical marriage page... People reading articles and posts like Marriage from the Bible alone by Samuel Dennis... 
Thank you guys for 'liking' my comment on Wilber's video as he did allow my blog address that now has my response and links stickied to the top.
Thank you guys for 'liking' my comment on Wilber's video as he did allow my blog address that now has my response and links stickied to the top.
I hereby rescind my earlier comment that I'm glad Wilber and McKee won't be attending our gatherings; instead I would welcome them. Just imagine if Rambo and Company were to be successful turning around these two internet luminaries to the point of them being proponents of polygyny!
The full intro to a multiparty series rebutting Wilber and McKee has been posted... i'll add links as they come out... addressing 'mutual submission' first, then progress to marriage.
And, FYI, increased traffic to Resources page on my blog continues... people are interested, I just think most don't know where to look.
Here's the intro.
And, FYI, increased traffic to Resources page on my blog continues... people are interested, I just think most don't know where to look.
Here's the intro.
The only thing Wilber said more than my name is 'um, you know'.... 147x!!! LOL....Hmmm, seems these guys are obsessed with a guy named Pete Rambo!
Evidently this is going to be more fun than I had expected.
Thank you for your trust and interaction. Praying we can engage a lot of people..
Now this is an appropriate response. I do like this
Of substance and measured to be of real effect.
Hey, we're eventually gonna get to poly, right?Evidently this is going to be more fun than I had expected.
Nice catch on the typo...I left it as I hope to interview some people in the series...
You have a typo in the description "is has no support".
Well done! Watched and left my comment.
