I’ve casually followed Michael Foster for some time on Twitter. Some of you may know of him from the “It’s Good To Be A Man” blog, which is shared with Dominic Bnonn Tennant. Readers here might have read Sharkly’s critical piece on the pair (from 2019) called “Bnonnas Foster: A Delightful Treat.” Michael Foster is the pastor of the East River Church. Foster has, in the past, read some of my articles and posted a couple comments.
I decided to listen to one of his live streams on Twitter, and he took questions from a man who wanted to know where in scripture the Bible explicitly states that polygamy is wrong. The result was so disappointing that I unfollowed Foster immediately.
Foster cited the two passages in the New Testament where elders of the church are told that they should only have one wife, but the listener pointed out, correctly, that there is nothing explicit in scripture to suggest that the requirements for elders are normative for those who do not seek the office of elder. Foster’s only other citation was Matthew 19, but when pressed, Foster was unable to demonstrate that Jesus was referring to polygamy, that is, that a man can only have one wife.
Foster disagreed with the man, but the way he treated him was horrifying. Foster explicitly stated that he didn’t care about him. I was taken aback by this personal attack. Yet, it didn’t end there. Shortly after announcing that he didn’t care about the man, he muted him and then after mocked him, finally called him gay and ceased interacting with him. Rather than deal with the very sensible objection (that Jesus never explicitly condemns polygamy), Foster resorted to ad hominem. I find it hard to believe that the elders in his church permit such brazenly uncivil behavior.
Never in my life have I witnessed a pastor act this way. The fact that he was using the live stream to promote his own denominational/theological foundation only makes it worse. What terrible advertising!
The other issue with Foster was his weak argumentation. As is typical with many apologists, he made a non-deductive inference, reasoning by induction. As readers here are aware, such arguments are essentially just a minor step above purely subjective personal opinion. They might be plausibly true, but are not logically determinative. The best Foster could have said was that his own viewpoint was logically possible, but not the only possible explanation. Instead, Foster presumed that his way was exclusive truth, something completely unjustified by the text. Although we’ve witnessed this behavior in various True Believer Manospherians many time, I didn’t expect to see it in Foster. There was no acknowledgment at all that other interpretations might be equally plausible.
Foster’s strongest argument, an inductive argument, is that the Bible never describes polygamy positively. He is quick to point out that the descriptions of polygamy are merely descriptive, not prescriptive, but he is then quick to claim that Jesus in Matthew 19 was prescriptively condemning polygamy, a stance that is simply unjustified in the text. This screams of special pleading.
Now read this for yourself:
Where does Jesus say that a man can’t have more than one wife? I’ll wait.
You know what I read? That a man can’t divorce his wife and he can’t have another man’s wife (e.g. he can’t marry a divorced woman whose husband is still alive). Nowhere does it say he can’t cleave to two different previously unmarried women. That’s because in the Old Testament, a man who did this was clearly and unambiguously—in the eyes of God himself—married to two women even if this practice was a bad idea.
As the listener commented, the prescription that a man have (and keep) his own wife does not preclude him from having more than one “own wife.” Indeed, that cleaving together is marriage necessarily implies that a man joining with more than one woman is married to more than one woman and cannot divorce either. Polygamy in that case is mandatory, even if the promiscuity that brought it about was a sin.
Foster’s inductive inference would have Jesus contradicting the Old Testament, for Jesus didn’t change the process by which David’s multiple wives became his: conjugation. Foster’s dual-consent-based marriage theology isn’t biblical, so he’s forced to put words into Christ’s mouth in order to justify it. This is a sad state of affairs.
Unlike Foster’s inductive argument, the argument that cleaving together produces marriage is purely deductive. Given this, it must be considered the default position.
Polygamy may well be a terrible idea, legally unlawful, and normally produced illicitly, but polygamy itself isn’t a sin. All this means is that you’d be wise to engage in self-control and not marry more than one woman (or try to marry another man’s wife).
For those who want to read about the arguments for polygamy, see Artisanal Toad’s Hall.
I personally believe that women in our society will be pushing for a man to have more than one wife.
Like feminism before it, it liberated the sex-act……..selling snake oil to men as well “see, you get to have sex too with no or little responsibility. Dont be a prude! Men cannot live without sex! Its fun! Its no big deal! ” and many men did sign up for it, and then the waiter brought the bill a few decades later……
After STD’s, HIV, broken and damaged women, and men. Single parent households, a deeper and more profound distrust between men and women. The next “solution” has arrived
“So many women just want to be a mommy and no real men are stepping up!”
Even right now, you see so many women having ZERO problem with sharing a “high value man” (financially / physically / status wise) and of course our friends in the manosphere will agree to this “well, Jesus wasnt really clear on this” so it must be okay….thinking that they too will “gain” from this by having lots of wives and of course, lots more sex is what they live for anyway…..
It will widen the gap of have and have nots between fellow men, it will throw a mess into a clogged and over paperworked legal system, and it will create more heartache, problems not even known yet and drive us all further from God.
But men cant live without sex, and all these other “beta / cucked men are not stepping up, so its our duty to fill in / the future is foer those who show up” and women will get the the culture and “guarantees” of more support, whil claiming how much of a “boss babe” they are. Also, these women will still not be happy
Id say go for it, because sex is the only thing that matters in this world (rolls eyes)
In this woman-worshipping democracy, the women will get what the women want. The churches will make a few squeals against polygamy but then switch to trying to make these new polygamists feel welcome amongst them. More and more men will not have their own woman, and so the societal push will be on how to harness these disenfranchised men to haul society’s load. Expect more forms of enslavement, like today’s child/spousal support payments, that allow women to ditch their husbands while still living off of their husband’s labors. While they may not call it a “bachelor tax” they’ll probably ramp up taxes and redistribution across the board, so they can covertly try to force the single men to fund others in a society which has disenfranchised them on behalf of following women’s whims.
Im already paying “bachelor taxes” now. My tax rate is higher because I d ont have / didnt father children. Doesnt matter how bad a dad you are….if you “showed up for the future” you get a tax credit and deductions for children.
Heck, you dont even have to be a good one……those “loser men” are responsible for my kid!!! Look at single men who own property? They have to pay “school taxes” for a place they dont get to utilize. At least if someone in California doesnt drive / own a car they dont pay the taxes to maintain the roads (gas taxes and the like)
Most of the state taxes go to education in California, I dont benefit from any of this. I dont have children, but boy oh boy…..beta / loser guy has to pay for MY kids education
”I personally believe that women in our society will be pushing for a man to have more than one wife.”
What has lately even been on TV is for women to be polyandry-with a handful or so of men(instead of the usual two guys i.e. AF/BB the ‘sphere has spoken of for years ) to care for her.
See if guys like Foster will do the same to them as they do to MEN then.
”Foster disagreed with the man, but the way he treated him was horrifying. Foster explicitly stated that he didn’t care about him. I was taken aback by this personal attack. Yet, it didn’t end there. Shortly after announcing that he didn’t care about the man, he muted him and then after mocked him, finally called him gay and ceased interacting with him. Rather than deal with the very sensible objection (that Jesus never explicitly condemns polygamy), Foster resorted to ad hominem. I find it hard to believe that the elders in his church permit such brazenly uncivil behavior.”
Foster only did that to the guy because he’s ‘allowed’ to, by almost everyone on the ‘left and right’.
Both the ‘ left and right’ will jump him for doing similar to any woman.
Exactly.
Because the only-thing-that-matters is if she wants to “f*ck your brains out”
Otherwise your marriage is doomed to fail. Relationships. Dates. She has to have that look immediately, or “you’re wasting your time”
So, it would make perfect sense when women start having “no problem” with these arrangements (will be pushed by women, and the ‘sphere will claim they are somehow “in charge” of this).
I remember in the 1980’s and into the 1990’s……porn was bad. Terrible. It exploits women! Beauty myth! Disgusting guys making-women-do-this! The “real guys” at the time (proto manophere types) “The feminists that hate porn are just fat and ugly, that’s why they hate it”
I dont know when it happened, but porn to Feminists suddenly became “okay” with them. A few years later “only fans” and “ashley madison” exploded on to the scene.
The porn got slicker, and all the big porn producers today say “the biggest growing market of viewer is women!”
Yet, the ‘sphere now and many feminists still claim its “loser / creepy / beta guys watching it” and the church???
Ugh…….still a decade and half behind on the “current” societal trends while thinking they are the cutting edge because the praise leader has a tattoo (rolls eyes). Still thinking only bad, loser, dirty, creepy, single men who are overweight with thick glasses and bad haircuts watch porn.
There was a British TV series a few years back called “date my porn star” and it was about guys who get that big chance to go on a date with their fav porn star. All of the men were not creepy losers. Average jobs. Average looking (if not above in a few cases) . They even had a gay guy get to date his fav porn star, and the porn star was actually straight, but did some gay porn because he was indeed a very “hot guy” and the money paid was evidently very high for that style of porn.
Anyway…..all the porn stars kept saying to the guys “look, you’re attractive, social, friendly, you have a job….you should be easily able to meet a pretty gal.”
All the guys tried to explain modern female standards but it didnt come out right, made them look creepy or strange.
How much was real or staged, I dont know but it did make for good Internet viewing.
This myth. Yes MYTH that all porn watchers are “beta / cuck / loser / Incel men who just need to go to the gym and find a good church and love-jesus-more-than-anything narrative needs to end. Yesterday.”
Well, if your religion tells you that even taking a second glance at a fully clothed woman is effectively the capital sin of adultery, then they’ve got to portray viewing naked women as mythologically bad for you. Like “you’ll go blind” from it. That’s certainly not something where Jesus should have been joking about plucking out your right eye and cutting off your right hand about. Doesn’t He know how critical it is to women’s sexual power and goddess status, to keep men’s sex drives all bottled up and frustrated? /S There’s seemingly a cottage industry of keeping men sexually defrauded and then blaming them for it. “Nobody owes you blah blah blah.” Means they’ll keep working to keep you defrauded, and to blame you for it. Regulating women is out of the question, so maybe men like you are just called to suffer. And we’d like you to drop a $50 in the plate as our fee for telling you that we’ve written you, and your life, off as merely a bad statistic. /S
This is one of those cases where the religion doesn’t need a propositional “If X, then Y” to show “Y.” It is bad for you all on its own. They don’t have to qualify it.
‘I dont know when it happened, but porn to Feminists suddenly became “okay” with them. A few years later “only fans” and “ashley madison” exploded on to the scene.’
Earlier feminism was to appeal to conservative ‘ let’s vote, go to church, raise a family, and go to war’ MEN that mostly died out during and after Vietnam.
But by the late ”80s/early ’90s feminists had to appeal to MEN who were mostly alienated from the ‘ let’s vote, go to church, raise a family, and go to war’ view, so along comes ones like Camille Paglia (who said on Conan o’ brian’ 90s talk show- she was pro strippers because they ‘had the power’).
It’s like the majority of MRAS(except for guys like angry Harry-who had been online in ‘newsletters’ when Martian Bachelor’s Space age bachelor pad and Eric’s deep water web was first up in ’95/’96? and long before Pual Elam showed up) were calling themselves egalitarians on the net then came the ‘official’ named first wave of online MGTOW-emblazoned (you’re Rob fedders=ferdz, Zed, eternal Bachelor, and some other long-forgotten ones) banner-waving between ’01 and ’06 whose ‘take-no-prisoners attitude was then were ‘copied’ by Roissys and Roosh alpha bogey MEN’ guys.
The ‘egalitarian’ MRAS would have never led to the golden age MANosphere like the first ‘official’ MGTOW with ‘alpha bogey MEN’ did when combined with the Mancession of ’06-’09.
I had dinner with Eric (Deep Water Web) in 1999. We had each others personal emails, phone numbers. I lived in San Francisco. He lived I believe in Santa Clara or San Jose.
Dinner? I think it was “Spaghetti Factory” and we did meet for coffee a few times (Mission City Coffee RIP)
Really cool guy, and he was on to many things before they became “mainstream” (despite what many in the ‘sphere claim Darlock or other “discovered” or “invented”
He liked to vacation in Japan. He was hardly a “weak beta male” he was def masculine, and was down to earth and personable. Today, he would be called a “chump” by the sphere I am sure.
As for Martian Bachelor, miss that webpage. Really well done for the time. I remember when I was at IBM, that page was “blocked” from access on the Internet there. As it was at Ford Aerospace, GE, and other older companies.
Never met him, never spoke with him on a phone. We did excahnge a few emails. He did go to a mens “retreat” type of thing in Monterey, California and I recall he wanted to meet up with me but it never happened.
This was 1998? 1997? I am sure there were other guys out there at the time on the early Internet doing similar work, and blogging before it became a “thing”
I recall at that time, I was one of the younger guys reading that material. Eric was my age. Most of the men reading or posting were that first proto-MGTOW wave of men in their forties, or late thirties (born in the mid 1950’s thru early 1960’s) who lost the house, the kids, in a soul crushing divorce….and we’re on the hook for alimony, child-support court costs and trying to see their kids while their x-wives stonewalled them at every turn.
Eric was a little more political being a GenXer who hated the Clintons as much as I did, and even back then in the Bay Area……we were a minority there being “conservative”
A long time ago now. Pushing thirty years.
You know Martian Bachelor nearly 12 years ago, questioned the mythology of ”game” @Dalrock?
Bachelor says:
September 29, 2012 at 4:41 pm
Game demolishes the premise that “men and women are exactly the same, except women can have babies”, by revealing that most women think differently in some critical ways from men, Game enables a man to see feminization for what it is, and the more it is practiced, the easier this becomes. To denounce Game is to insist that men should not know the truth about women. (anon rdr)
Wow, is there anything “Game” can’t do?
(or hasn’t already done)
It’s mythical superpowers are just never-ending, and get more fabulous with each retelling.”
Heres the full version i.e. with Martian name part- from a copy of the Dalrock site, the other one I had elsewhere.
Martian Bachelor says:
September 29, 2012 at 4:41 pm
Game demolishes the premise that “men and women are exactly the same, except women can have babies”, by revealing that most women think differently in some critical ways from men, Game enables a man to see feminization for what it is, and the more it is practiced, the easier this becomes. To denounce Game is to insist that men should not know the truth about women. (anon rdr)
Wow, is there anything “Game” can’t do?
(or hasn’t already done)
It’s mythical superpowers are just never-ending, and get more fabulous with each retelling.”
Well, I would disagree with Martian Bachelor on that.
Game may indeed enable a man to see feminization but what it has and DID become
“its foolproof / women love it when a man does x,y,z / if you disagree with Game you are chump, weak, beta man who pedestalizes women / I guess you must be gay / I guess you dont like sex, well more for me”
If it was so foolproof we wouldnt need still today a gazillion books, podcasts, drill, definitions, addendums, rules, more Laws, axioms, more lore, more retelling……..
it was and became a “reaction” to women and it continues to “react” today to WHAT WOMEN WANT!!!
It has little or nothing to do with “masculinity” today. Its still at its base “how can I get hot girl to have sex with me / like me / date me!!!!”
What really started Martian Bachelor up on that post wasn’t that anonymous reader guy , who he was responding to in the above comment but, Mr. game is Cool for Christian MEN
saint Rollo on the post before that one. Here:
Rollo Tomassi says:
September 27, 2012 at 1:12 pm
While I have no doubt that Cane Caldo is a concern troll, I think I understand why he, and others like him, are reluctant to endorse a christianized form of Game. They feel as though by employing Game they are wresting control away from God in matters of how they deal with women.
If we are to trust God in all things, then why would Game ever be necessary? Prayer in earnest faith should be more than enough to solve any inter-gender issue, any marital dispute, any problems with attraction or arousal, and any question about God providing us with the perfect mate reserved especially for us.
In fact, for them, learning and employing Game is like telling God you know better than He does, and you’ll take matters into your own hands – ergo, you are faithless (at least in this respect). I don’t know the exact scripture so I’m paraphrasing, but we are told “not to rely on our own understanding, but to trust God with all our hearts.”
The Holy Spirit is more than sufficient to correct any personal or social ill that feminization has instilled in the church or society at large. If you’re not receiving the desires of your heart, it’s probably because your faith is imperfect that God ignores your prayers to turn your wife into the insatiable sexual tiger you thought she’d be when you did the right thing and waited to even kiss her before marriage.
This is the rationale absolutists like Cane Caldo have. Pray the need for Game away.
That’s when Caldo was the main one against Christian Men learning game.
& Bachelor.
Martian Bachelor says:
September 27, 2012 at 1:34 pm
Reality check: Remind Me Again Why a Man Needs a Woman. (that was a link to a ’05 faith and society MGTOW (they have the ‘official’ logo and everything) blog article of the same name about our old friend pastor Albert Mohler denouncing Men for not marrying women)
The basic biological economics of the matter are this: human females get more out of their males than any other animal in the history of the planet. So… Remind Me Again Why a Man, Rather Than a Woman, Needs “Game”.
MOD,
You didn’t use to write posts for the MGTOW faithandsociety wp blog in the mid-2000s did you?
This doesn’t sound like something you might have written.
remind me again why a man needs a woman
06
Sep
05
remind me again why a man needs a woman
by the editor 23 Comments
Categories: Men/Women
We know the way of the birds and the bees. The males seeks the female. Reproduction occurs and the genetic legacy of a species is passed to yet another generation. With regard to human beings, the will to seek the opposite sex is no exception to the rule. And yet these days, many men are not fulfilling their so-called obligations in this matter. They are simply turning their backs. These men do not constitute just an isolated cabal of “bitter woman-haters.” The number of young single men refusing to play the game of love is now roughly twenty-two percent of the fish pond. And that has the status quo concerned.
Indeed, there are some culturally conservative pundits like Albert Mohler who want to charge single men with gross neglect of their supposed duty to “be fruitful and multiply.” But the raised eyebrows are not just coming from the right of center. Feminist journalist Susan Reimer has taken notice as well (viz., in her article “Young Men are Running from Marriage”).
What’s going on? Are men selfish? Have they become immature? As tantalizing as these questions may be, I submit that the pundits from left to right have collectively missed the short bus to Clue Elementary.
The matter is quite simple. Human beings tend to take the path of least resistance. Men have weighed the pro and cons of marriage and commitment, and now they have found the prospects of having long-term relationships with women quite untenable.
Consider that there is no frontier homestead that demands a familial division of labor between the sexes and no need for sixteen children to survive. In the wake of Maytag, Whirlpool, and Swanson, the functions of the family has been outsourced to impersonal corporations. So, there is an increasing number of men who have the temerity to ask, “Just why do I need a woman, anyway?”
Conclusion
It’s not looking good for you, ladies. I really hope you like the song about “sisters doin’ it for themselves” because that what the future is shaping up to be. And the thing is that I’m not writing anything here that is earthshattering. I am merely reiterating the sentiments of so many other male writers. Yet, it just feels so good to get the matter off my chest and have it said once more!
Go ahead and accuse us men of being bitter losers who can’t get dates. We don’t care. This and other accusations are but a small bruising of our male egos. That damage doesn’t compare to what women can do otherwise should we choose to care about them. Really, our bank accounts don’t have the human capacity for hearing what you women have to say. ”
Actually I did write a few. Very astute of you. I dont like saying the “I was MGTOW before there was MGTOW”
Because I wasnt. I was (and still am a chump). I came out of the whole “Game” (Neil Strauss / David DeAngelo and others) very, very ANGRY and BETRAYED again by fellow men.
I think it was the final slam of the hammer on the head. Combine this with coming off cocaine, drink….parents that no longer spoke to me. I stopped doing frugs, all the “friends” I thought I had vanished into the dark alleys of San Francisco……they didnt know me anymore. Severe depression. Sucicidal (and I sometimes think it would have been better just to have ended it back then)
When I stumbled into a church a few years later, I thought redemption would happen and I could be a part of this. Nope. No way. Church is for real men! Not me!
Men like we have on the other side of ‘sphere who slammed the door on me because I didnt look like, act like and of course didnt have the sexual prowness they all just had or learned through Saint Rollo. Men who took advange of my paltry gifts and then made themselves look great while still sh*tting all over me
Over the past decade and I half I learned to deal for the most part. Accepted my “chump” status around women (there are no good ones left anyway, unless you meet her at age 16)
Held my sobriety. Got respect and career back. Did some traveling and frankly could care less about “‘Murica” or what apostle said to what matry in 65 AD nor could I care who is “cucked” or isnt. The ‘sphere and Game is now about who has the bigger erection. Who did more. Who had more kills in the latest border skirmish the USA sends men to die for.
In the end, I have maybe 20 / 30 years left on this antheap. Im going out proper, and as a functioning adult. I dont deserve a medal, praise, an award, Social Security, a house, a wife, children, good looks….nothing.
All I want in the end is a “well done faithful one” and THAT does not require following Rollo, Roosh, certain masculine pursuits, going-to-the-gym, a wife, sex, IOI’s , when the church became “cucked” in 400 AD or whatever or what model, class, new way to get-women-to-like-you or any other worldly trappings. Anyone who tells me otherwise is a fool’s fool or more concerned with their own status and insecurities.
nuff said
”Accepted my “chump” status around women (there are no good ones left anyway, unless you meet her at age 16)”
Yes, the married and divorced Men of the ‘sphere long ago told young Men image-wise it’s useless to do anything other than game and then wonder ”wherefore comes the black pill?” and ”Why are they seen as the real Manosphere rather than us?”
”The ‘sphere and Game is now about who has the bigger erection.”
It was more or less that a long time ago too.
As told here as nobody listened(within 4 months the dalrock blog would struggle to get 80-100 comments per post whereas before it could easily get 150- 250 ones most of the time:
da GBFM lzzzzzzzlzlz (TM) says:
June 21, 2015 at 10:19 am
Because Dalrock, like so many of his fellow pastors, is not man enough to reform the schools, churches, and universities with the Spirit of Christ and Moses, he is passing around the butt lube of Game to his congregation here.
While the butt lube may help the husband score a bit more,
it won’t make a housewife out of a whore.
And when Dalrock’s buttlube of “Game” runs out, the corrupt family courts and legal system will still be there.
Again, Dalrock knows not to criticize the feminist institutions, but only the Men. If he did otherwise, his instalanches would cease.”
You do know that Instalaches used here were code for ENCHILADAS? As for a Mexican-Texan food that dal’ could easily get?
GBFM was telling dal rock what the image was of ”game”, which was essentially that Max Tucker guy who wasn’t technically a PUA but had sexual adventures(including analsex with a mentally disabled young woman as one in his ”fratire” books.
It was now the mid-2010s(the blackpill had begun in earnest the year before) and the majority of young guys had seen that the game didn’t always work(like when too many PUAS would claim a 5 girl was an 8 or 9 if she responded to them) and women’s demands kept increasing and what do Men get for it?-yet the Manosphere band kept proudly playing the same tune as the ship sank.
Yeah, it was and still is a “dance band n the Titanic” kind of thing. The crowd is saying “the ship is sinking” but the band played on and giving quizzical looks of “It is? If it is, we, the band would be with you guys trying to get off.”
Instead they have taken long ago Rap group “3rd Base’s” stance
From Sailboat Soliloquy
“How old are you? You’re 18 years old?! At your age boy I was the captain of a SHIP my boy! A SHIP! I owned and operated my own sea vessel”
Basically: it worked for me, and you must be lazy “not washing your own butt” kind of thing
And for this three-day-weekend?
Cleaning the apartment top to bottom, sleeping in, listening to records, talking to the cat while I do all this (he feigns interest at least).
Perhaps some reading too. I just re-read the life of Dieter Bonnhoefer and dare I say I could be 1 / 10th the man he was (hardly a gym rat, hardly top of his class in seminary, hardly a ‘real’ masculine man physically) and yet………..
Stood when NO ONE else did. Much has been made of the “vast German underground” after WWII was over, but it was puny. Father Uxralbahn as well made a stand from the Catholic side.
The biography becomes more real and visual because a long time ago in 1986, as an American Exchange Student living in West Germany……I did see the prison in Polensee / Trepowter Park Berlin where the German dissidents to the regime were hanged naked from meat hooks stung with piano wire. Gruesome. No museum shop. Nothing grandeur. Just a quiet place that silently remembers the few brave who did indeed died not all for a “free” Germany but for their faith and trust in God.