Recent content by Neopatriarch

It is not a matter of what he thinks, or his personal opinion, but rather his reasoning. Is it sound reasoning? You cannot even consider it because you assume an a priori. Let's look at the scripture again. Deuteronomy 17:17 Neither shall he multiply wives for himself, lest his heart turn away...

That is the rhetorical equivalent of the limerick, " I am rubber, you're glue..." However, you did ask a reasonable question in your follow-up, and I will address it next.

@Lon That is just a hot mess. You aren't addressing the arguments, and you haven't internalized or refuted those that have already been handled. Which I suppose is why you're presenting them again as if it were a new argument. You're zany cartoonish responses reveal your heart. I am content...

Pivoting to slavery doesn't help you and by muddying the waters you show the weakness of your position. Especially, in light of a large number of scriptures that do discuss polygamy. Try using some of those to prove your opinion. That was not an argument I made. I have continually made Biblical...

I oppose the doctrine of devils as I am sure you do. 1 Timothy 4:1-3 Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron...

Have you read this? Bob Enyart makes a strong argument for polygamy in the Old Testament. And why was it widespread? Because Now I wouldn't say that Bob Enyart is pro-polygamy by any means, but he acknowledges that it was a legitimate practice that protected women under the Old Covenant. It...

Yeah, conditions had changed. That works for me.

So are the Adamites. How is your reasoning different?

"Denunciation is the last resort of a defeated opponent."

That is just not a problem the Reverend Martin Madan had There are no general commands to marry but there are three conditional commands to marry. (If/then statements) None of them exempt men that already have a wife. for example: Exodus 22:16 “If a man entices a virgin who is not betrothed...

Yeah, that was the point. Why aren't you an Adamite? Considering that you use the same reasoning to support your beliefs, why aren't you an Adamite? Are you being consistent? Are you a vegetarian farmer?

I did address this reasoning before. Reasoning like those mad heretics of the second century, who called themselves Adamites, that Christians are to meet together stark naked without any shame because it is written, “Adam and Eve were naked and were not ashamed”.'

Never going to happen. It would be too great an embarrassment to the ruling class.

I forgot that I had edited this response to this argument. It is a different tact, by Martin Madan from his book, Thelyphthora or a Treatise on Female Ruin. I hope you'll consider it, and let me know what you think.

I have read that before. IF you like I can write a full rebuttal. I would have before but there is no place to post it under the article. As for the debate itself, it was just sad. Leland was not the sharpest tack in the box. I can think of a half dozen pastors and theologians that would have...