Correct. Which is why most of us take a quick off ramp when the journey enters this stretch of the highway. If not, you’re in danger of getting stuck on the loop.
-
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.
False Witness on Polygamy: A Response to Michael Foster
And what follows is often a derailment of considerable proportions. But wait, this is BF forum. Derailment is a special feature of these threads.
When you ask a question like this, you demonstrate that you do not understand the laws of logic. I just had a similar back and forth on Facebook, one of our brother Cyrus Carter's posts:
Daniel DeLuca
Desi Escobedo You are employing the "Argument from Motive" fallacy. Also you employed the "Proof by Assertion" fallacy when you asserted that "Polygamy is a cruel mistreatment and disrespect for women." You also employed the "Argument from Motive" fallacy when you sated "Men who have excuses for it are simply players nothing more." You also employed the "Proof by Assertion" fallacy when you said "The practice is no better than pimping and whoring, it will rot your soul." Also it is dishonest for you to use the term polygamy, since polygamy is not what Cyrus Carter said that he longs for. He was specifically talking about polygyny. Other forms of polygamy are perversions and are clearly called out as adultery in Scripture, whereas polygyny is not!
Desi Escobedo
Daniel DeLuca you're employing the One Who Doesn't Know How To Do Life fallacy, & the One Who Doesn't Understand or Like Women fallacy.
Daniel DeLuca
Desi Escobedo Those are not fallacies, and even if they were, you would be employing the Tu Quoque Fallacy, and I love women very much! Ironic for you to claim that someone who wants MORE wives, doesn't like women! I understand women much better than most men! You don't know the first thing about logic! The point is, you are just a deceptive liar! Making up fallacies by pulling them out of your posterior, is full proof of that!
Desi Escobedo
Daniel DeLuca ad hominums will get you nowhere LOL
Daniel DeLuca
Desi Escobedo Pointing out your logical fallacies is not an Ad Hominem attack! You really fail to comprehend logic! It is astounding! I see you removed your comment about me loving my [male reproductive organ].
That is in reference to a comment to which I responded
Daniel DeLuca
Desi Escobedo Titus 1:15. You are rebuked! Shame on you for your impure mind!
Last edited:
Off-Grid Artist
Member
There is a better response to the suggestion that David did not have sex with Saul's widows.
Proof that David gets down.
David's son Absalom is staging a betrayal and has created an uprising against his father. So David flees to regroup.
----------
2 Samuel 16
16 And the king went forth, and all his household after him. And the king left ten women, which were concubines, to keep the house.
----------
So David leaves behind ten trustworthy wives to take care of the joint.
Then Absalom his son takes counsel on how to demonstrate his newfound strength and authority to the commonfolk.
----------
20 Then said Absalom to Ahithophel, Give counsel among you what we shall do.
21 And Ahithophel said unto Absalom, Go in unto thy father's concubines, which he hath left to keep the house; and all Israel shall hear that thou art abhorred of thy father: then shall the hands of all that are with thee be strong.
22 So they spread Absalom a tent upon the top of the house; and Absalom went in unto his father's concubines in the sight of all Israel.
----------
Okay. Just mull that image around in your head for a moment. Also I'm sorry lol. This is so bad.
Him fist-pumping the sky! "Yeeeeah!" The crowd cheering back. "Yeah, get some bro, woooo!"
What a mess. Then much later...
----------
2 Samuel 20
3 And David came to his house at Jerusalem; and the king took the ten women his concubines, whom he had left to keep the house, and put them in ward, and fed them, but went not in unto them. So they were shut up unto the day of their death, living in widowhood.
----------
So that is ten wives David stopped sleeping with.
Also Mary just pointed out that this is literally David's adultery sin being returned on him tenfold and alsp publicly, to rub salt in the wounds.
Also that was prophecized in 2 Samuel 12 just after God tells David I gave you all these wives so why are you taking another man's wives, you jerk?
----------
11 Thus saith the Lord, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun.
12 For thou didst it secretly: but I will do this thing before all Israel, and before the sun.
----------
My wife figured this out on her own without seeing it somewhere first. Her memory is very good. She's a rockstar.
Very true @Off-Grid Artist It was the judgement of YHWH for David's trespass against Uriah.
We have looked at that from that angle as well, including the "living in widowhood" proving a change in status.
The sad thing is those who are entrenched in monogamy only will actually claim that YHWH's solution for David desiring another woman sexually was to offer to give him more "platonic responsibility" like mother in laws which is what they want to claim Saul's wives were. It is actually ridiculous! It is saying that YHWH would do a "bait and switch" giving David something he didn't want, when Jesus said "Who of you if your son asked for fish would give him a snake, or if your son asked for bread would give him a rock? If you being evil know how to give good gifts to your children how much more will your Father in Heaven give GOOD GIFTS to those who ask Him."
I rest my case! Lol
We have looked at that from that angle as well, including the "living in widowhood" proving a change in status.
The sad thing is those who are entrenched in monogamy only will actually claim that YHWH's solution for David desiring another woman sexually was to offer to give him more "platonic responsibility" like mother in laws which is what they want to claim Saul's wives were. It is actually ridiculous! It is saying that YHWH would do a "bait and switch" giving David something he didn't want, when Jesus said "Who of you if your son asked for fish would give him a snake, or if your son asked for bread would give him a rock? If you being evil know how to give good gifts to your children how much more will your Father in Heaven give GOOD GIFTS to those who ask Him."
I rest my case! Lol
That’s hilarious!!!
The twisting people go through to see their viewpoint to illogical conclusions.
Funny and sad! That's why I say it's some strong brain bending delusion. Maybe because they fancied their own emotional sentiments were "Holier" than His revealed morality. ...and yet He is The Just Judge, and the only one with the authority to define sin....and righteousness.
Thanks very much for such clarity.View attachment 11794
SUMMARY:
In a theological landscape where pastors can thunder confidently while the text whispers otherwise, Kilian’s new rebuttal to Michael Foster’s anti-polygyny essay exposes the deeper issue beneath the rhetoric: false witness disguised as moral certainty.
This is not a quarrel over preference—it’s a confrontation with a pattern of pastoral overreach. With exegetical precision and historical clarity, Kilian shows how Foster’s claims collapse under the weight of Scripture itself: Torah regulates polygyny, the prophets employ it to portray God’s covenantal posture, and the New Testament never condemns it. Yet Foster imputes motives YHWH never names, condemns what YHWH regulates, and binds consciences where YHWH has not bound them.
Kilian’s analysis draws from pronomian theology, Jewish law, and early Christian canon. From the patriarchs to Basil the Great, he demonstrates that biblical plurality was never treated as inherently sinful—only human sin within marriage ever is. And in the process, he exposes a deeper danger: when a pastor adds sin where God has not, he unintentionally steps into the role of legislator, not teacher.
This rebuttal is not an advertisement for polygyny; it is a defense of textual integrity, covenantal consistency, and the Ninth Commandment’s demand for truthful testimony—especially from those who shepherd God’s people.
The conclusion is unmistakable:
Where Scripture permits, no shepherd may forbid. Where God is silent, no pastor may thunder.
Read the full rebuttal:
https://www.maximapotentia.com/post/michael-foster-polygamy-response