-
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.
Mike Winger
- Thread starter Gadsden1791
- Start date
That will just lead to which burning, or whom ever else they disagree with.
I think if it is intent on going that direction, that would be a bridge too far.
I think we as Christians need to be self reflective enough to realize that we have a poor track record of respecting the rights of others. All religions really.
There are many things I find wrong about America, but one of the things it got right is the basic principle that you can do what you want as long as you do not impede the rights of others.
Well, you have to admit, a lot of what we got wrong, happened before there was a USA, at a time when the colonies were under British rule and had no real say in self governance.
Let me try it this way:
Most "flat earthers" seem convinced that there are verses that 'prove' their case. And that they 'trump' evidence like GPS satellites and great circle routes (for those of us which have seen, used, and flown them) - because we haven't been into orbit personally, or seen any curvature.
So think about it. Shouldn't it be a piece of cake to show them that His Instruction makes polygyny - at very minimum - FAR more clear and undeniable?
Having said that, the abortion holocaust is not something that we can blame on Britain.
What is most infuriating is how they mock Rob for having his mic muted. I realize Rob is doing his sessions live, but that was embarrassig. These clowns are claiming that it was the Holy Spirit who managed to get in there and mute Rob's mic. They would love to shut us up. We gotta be careful to not shut ourselves up.
The comments section was LIT and a great testimony in the face of the mockery. I believe Yah allowed them to laugh and have opportunity to repent... He'll judge. For now there is much great material for shorts and responses. BibleMarriages is absolutely ROCKING it on X.
any engagement from wilson et al?
He "doubts polygamists have heard these [13] arguments".
He doesn't even use the proper terminology (but I bet he's "heard the argument" - just ignores it.)
What a moron.
(By the way, I addressed the fundamental point he tries to debunk at length last Sabbath, from the Beginning, in Genesis. You can find it elsewhere if you search...)
PS> Is he 'articulate'? So is the Adversary. And that one has a better grasp of Scripture. The reason I call him a 'moron' is because either he KNOWS he's lying, or he doesn't. And there are "hard teachings" in Scripture, but His Truth about polygyny "ain't one of 'em."
He doesn't even use the proper terminology (but I bet he's "heard the argument" - just ignores it.)
What a moron.
(By the way, I addressed the fundamental point he tries to debunk at length last Sabbath, from the Beginning, in Genesis. You can find it elsewhere if you search...)
PS> Is he 'articulate'? So is the Adversary. And that one has a better grasp of Scripture. The reason I call him a 'moron' is because either he KNOWS he's lying, or he doesn't. And there are "hard teachings" in Scripture, but His Truth about polygyny "ain't one of 'em."
Last edited:
He spent the first full hour (no, I skipped through the BS) on nothing but 'straw man' arguments. And the weak, arguably unsupportable (Moses - did he or not? Not fundamental) poor argument.
But this: "Monogamy destroyed the world." Good grief.
I made this 'argument' here, on this site, and my own, many years ago. But it's not really an argument at all - it's a REBUTTAL. The difference is key.
And he [deliberately?] picks a bad presentation to argue against.
The way it should be is this: (because we've ALL heard it! "God's IDEAL")
"IF 'Adam and Eve' are the prototypical, "God-intended" MODEL for all marriage,
THEN you have a problem:
THAT was the marriage by which "sin entered the world," and which also
PRODUCED the first murderer."
He hits on the claim that "monogamy destroyed the world," as laughable,
NOT the fact the that CONVERSE is worse, and laughably repugnant.
Honestly, I'd have taken him apart over that one. And, have - better 'scholars' than he.
But this: "Monogamy destroyed the world." Good grief.
I made this 'argument' here, on this site, and my own, many years ago. But it's not really an argument at all - it's a REBUTTAL. The difference is key.
And he [deliberately?] picks a bad presentation to argue against.
The way it should be is this: (because we've ALL heard it! "God's IDEAL")
"IF 'Adam and Eve' are the prototypical, "God-intended" MODEL for all marriage,
THEN you have a problem:
THAT was the marriage by which "sin entered the world," and which also
PRODUCED the first murderer."
He hits on the claim that "monogamy destroyed the world," as laughable,
NOT the fact the that CONVERSE is worse, and laughably repugnant.
Honestly, I'd have taken him apart over that one. And, have - better 'scholars' than he.
48:21 - he’s one of us!?!?!
1:13:48 I think we need to shore up the idios debate. He is pulling up uses of the word that are problematic for us. I’m sure he’s ignoring many uses of the word that are not problematic for us but we need to have an answer here. This is a critical issue for us. If each woman isn’t have her own exclusive husband then our case gets very difficult.
My understanding is that heautou is always exclusive ownership and idios can be exclusive or non-exclusive. I think I shared a link to a book a while ago that looked into the differences, but it was way over my head. I will try and find it again.
I'm not sure how this link will work, so the passage is the last paragraph of page 57 discussing a change in the use of idios over time and then continues on the next page. Can someone who knows what this all means explain it in layman's terms?
The Self, the Lord, and the Other according to Paul and Epictetus
This study explores the relationship between the individual person (the self), the divine, and other people in the writings of the apostle Paul and the Roman Stoic Epictetus. It does so by examining self-involving actions expressed with reflexive pronouns (myself, yourself, etc.) in various...
books.google.com
Alright, we need to be careful here. I just sat through the whole thing and this guy is the best we’ve ever faced. He completely dismantled both “Mia” and “idios”. I’m not saying he’s right but he was very, very effective.
We need to be able to face these kind of attacks because we going to face more of them.
Let me be clear, this man is a false teacher but he is a very smart, clever one. If we steel man ourselves against this then we will have leveled up. And we need to level up, more like this and worse is coming. We’ve been skiing the bunny slope for a long time. We might be about to get our shot at the slaloms.