Commenter Feeriker nailed it:
It speaks volumes that your challenges to the churchian loudmouths to refute your points, Sola Scriptura, have so far gone unanswered. Expect more of the usual doubling down on the extra-Scriptural nonsense in response.
Churchians don’t like what God’s Word says in general, but more than that, they do not like what God’s word does not say. The aptly named commenter Don Quixote is an excellent example and the recent exchange with that person is an excellent example of the fact that Churchians are religious SJW’s. They always lie, they always double down and they always project.
The family is the foundation of all society and there is an all-out war on family that started with churchians who created the adultery epidemic. The battle to destroy the family continues to this day with churchians striving to give feminism the moral strength and backing that it needs to destroy men, women, families and children.
Why does Don Quixote hate children?
The churchian doctrine of sexual equality based on the claim of only one standard of sexual morality for both men and women is the moral foundation of feminism. Commenter Don Quixote is standing in the gap, defending the foundation of feminism with his attempts to re-define the definition of adultery.
We’re supposed to get the impression that it must take a feminist village to produce an idiot like Don… and Lord only knows what they did to him. An outside observer might think Don is one of the walking wounded from the war on men… one of the brain-damaged variety.
Actually, his arguments are designed to confuse while sliding home a very sophisticated set of points. He plays the part of a “full Gospel” buffoon but in reality our Don Quixote is an intelligent churchian feminist who fully supports the destruction of families, marriages… and children.
Playing The Part of the Village Idiot
It is impossible to have a rational discourse with the Village Idiot because he has an agenda. The objective truth of what the Bible says is meaningless because his goal is to redefine the Bible into the feminist vision of what it should be, which allows them to destroy men, marriages and children at will.
After seeing his arguments destroyed a year ago, Don worked hard to put his arguments back together and he’s now out to re-define the definition of adultery. Moses said that if a man found some “indecency” in his wife, he could divorce her, but Moses did not define what indecency meant. By the time Jesus had His earthly ministry there was a school of thought that said burning a husband’s breakfast was sufficiently indecent to justify divorce.
Jesus provided the definition of what indecency was, when He defined it as sexual immorality and stated that was the only reason a woman could be legitimately divorced. Our village idiot is well aware of that, but he has an agenda that involves furthering the goals of feminism.
Observe what our village idiot is doing. First, he’s confronted with his completely incoherent and wrong argument that Jesus taught marriage to any divorced woman is adultery. I took the bait and gave him a lot of line.
The inconvenient truth is that adultery is defined in the Law and that definition is set in stone. Don leads with a lie, making the implicit claim that other definitions of adultery exist. Then he makes an outrageous claim that paints him as something of a conservative fundamentalist (he isn’t, he’s a feminist churchian through and through).
Don KNOWS his claim that marrying “any” divorced woman is adultery is ridiculous. So, why is he making this absurd argument? Because his argument is a lot more subtle than you’d think. Observe:
Forget the dialectic, Don goes straight for churchian rhetoric with a bit of linguistic sleigh of hand. Adultery is a PHYSICAL ACT that is a betrayal by virtue of the ACT. Without the physical act of adultery there is no adultery.
The entire goal of Don’s argument is to gain acceptance that “adultery includes betrayal” because from that point onward, adultery can be defined as betrayal. But what does that mean? It means anything feminists want it to mean because the term is completely undefined in the same way Moses did not define “indecency”. What did Jesus do? He taught that “indecency” was “sexual immorality” and explained that God would not accept a divorce for anything other than that.
- Adultery is the act of a man having sex with another man’s wife.
- The act of adultery is a betrayal of the marriage by the woman.
- A betrayal of marital trust is not adultery without the act of adultery.
- The crime of adultery requires a married woman.
What if we put this slightly differently? Who would argue that someone could be guilty of murder without killing anyone?
- Murder is the act of willfully killing a person without just cause.
- The act of murder is a very bad thing.
- Doing bad things is not murder without someone’s unjust death.
- The crime of murder requires someone to die.
The secondary benefit of this argument is to convince others that Don is not a feminist churchian. “Why, no feminist would ever claim that marrying any divorced woman is adultery! Don must be an ultra-conservative! But, he does have a point, adultery is a betrayal.”
Adultery is specifically defined in Scripture at Leviticus 18:20 and 20:10. Adultery is the crime of a married woman having sexual intercourse with a man who is not her husband. This is beyond dispute. A betrayal of marital trust is not adultery and cannot be adultery until that betrayal of marital trust is marked by the physical act of adultery. Which requires a married woman to have sexual intercourse with a man who is not her husband.
Don, your village is looking for you. Go home.