Theology For Men of the West: Churchian’s Aways Lie

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.


This entry was posted in Churchianity, Theology For Men of the West. Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to Theology For Men of the West: Churchian’s Aways Lie

  1. Renee Harris says:

    that was bad ass !

  2. C H says:

    I’m brought to mind the Letter from Yeshua (in Revelation) to Thyatira. Yeshua held something against them, that they’d allowed Jezebel into the midst.

    But in another way, I’m also thinking of Laodicea, in that they are neither hot nor cold, Merely complacent, content to go along with whatever the goings on are. In all of their pseudointellectual codswallop about being inclusive, and modern (whatever you wish to use here) the Churchians have lost their way to such a degree that Yeshua HImself stands outside their door knocking, in the hopes that they might hear Him and let Him back in.

    The modern discourse among Churchians concerning the Truths of our reality and how God set it up is boring and lukewarm at best, pure apostasy at worst. They are terrified to commit, to be disliked, thus they champion nonsense that cannot be found in the Biblical texts.

    This will bit them in the ass. One hopes a few of them will wake up at some point, and decide to be hated if that is necessary.

  3. fuzziewuzziebear says:

    I guess that all people who embrace virtue have a problem with Churchians. Mine is more simple. They attend and love God because they are successful. Their love is conditional, and, yet they are rewarded. It could well be that Church is not a place for the virtuous.
    Good for you to call him on it. However, I would not like to be on the wrong side of your argument.

  4. Stephen says:

    It seems to me that a lot of tradcon churchians are sex hating betas who can’t stand the idea of a sexually free and happy man who is not a boring low sex drive vanilla monogamist. A lot of their hostility seems to come from their puritan hatreds of non-puritan men: they hate they idea that a man having oral and anal sex with his wife (wives) has not sinned, they hate the idea that a man can have six wives and God strongly approves, they hate the idea that women can have lesbian relationships and are sinless for doing so, and they hate the idea that men and widows can have all the extramarital sex they want and God sees no sin.

    The MGTOWs have a term called “male mother need”. This is when a man wants a woman he marries to act as a mommy replacement who unconditionally loves him but also has sex with him. Tradcon churchian betas seem to genuinely hate all sex that is not boring and conventional. They seem like they have a fixtation on punishing people with strong sexual appetites and a lot of them seem to hope that God is a sex hating bigot who will punish non-monogamous people whether they are sinning or not. When I read tradcons in the comments at churchian manosphere sites its usually them going on and on about how non-monogamous people (including men) are bad and evil and should be punished for their normal sex drives. Beta prude churchians seem like they even hate God when Toad explains to them that some of the sex positive are not in sin and will NOT be punished in afterlife. These people attach to God because they hope he is a vengeful prudish busybody like them and then get angry when this doesn’t appear to be the case.

    • Stephen says:

      Tradcons mistake having a low sex drive and/or thinking sex is “ichy” for righteousness.

      • You should also consider that many of the tradcon churchians are men who had the masculinity stomped out of them by the culture and their feminist churchian leaders.

        They’re typical boys and can’t sit still in school like little girls? Dope them to the gills with pills. Teach them to put women on a pedestal. Teach them the disgusting doctrines of “mutual submission” and “servant leadership” so they bow down to women until they are disgusting and repulsive. Teach them to “just be yourself” and that women are attracted to “nice” men. Rinse and repeat.

        Teach them that women hold all the power with a culture that empowers women to destroy their families and the men they supposedly committed to. Let the watch as their fathers, uncles and brothers are destroyed if they do not kowtow to the feminist party line.

        Soak them in an environment in which becoming a more attractive man is considered sinful, feed them loads of pre-processed McFood that makes them fat… and is it any wonder their testosterone levels are at record lows? Or that they fight for what little their feminist overlords allow them to have?

  5. jonanglosaxon says:

    Hello I’m currently exchanging emails with an Anglican who says that in the case of seduction a man has sex with the virgin, and then marries her in a public ceremony. Can you help me answer this? Thanks.

    • jonanglosaxon says:

      To better explain my question, I said that marriage with a virgin means marriage. He says that marriage with a virgin is just sex and that the man has to marry her afterwards. He says that God told men to marry the virgins they seduced to protect them from disgrace, and not because sex = marriage.

      • The problem is your anglican is a follower of the Easter Bunny and cannot accept that sex with a virgin is to marry her. You need to study this post:

        You could always invite him over here. I enjoy honest debate with people who are interested in rational discourse. However, you should understand that the central issue for your Anglican friend is the same problem that infects the other followers of the Easter Bunny: they believe the teachings and traditions of the church are superior to the Scriptures and hold that their creeds and statements of faith are as well.

        For them to recognize the supremacy of Scripture and the truth of Scripture is for them to turn their backs on the collection of lies and traditions they are involved in. For most of them, they simply won’t do it. The only thing you can do is show them they are wrong, from God’s Word and hold it up to the fact they are relying on the Book of Medieval Opinions.

        EDIT: You should also take a look at this post, which is more on point to the kind of objections you’ll receive if you talk the truth;

        • jonanglosaxon says:

          I just finished a reply. I did my best to explain how sex with a virgin equals marriage. I gave him a link to your blog, so he may show up.

          My email had a couple of rather angry paragraphs. Their teaching badly damages boys and young men which I can personally attest to. I don’t have much patience for it.

          Yes it may be a little easier to convince people form other christian groups such as Baptists who care less about tradition but you’re still going against the dominant belief which is very hard to do.

      • anglosaxon says:

        He won’t be coming to your blog. He said you and me sounded misogynistic, carnal, legalistic and mean. I said that non christians hate it when christians bow to political correctness and the lose all respect and interest in Jesus. I also gave him a couple of bible quotes that I knew he’d love…

        • Note that he said that to you, not to me. I am a complete asshole and obviously, he is a prick.

          If a churchian refuses to have a rational debate as to what Scripture actually says, they testify to the fact they are not rational. When they refuse to engage in honest discourse concerning doctrine, they testify they do not believe in the objective truth of what Scripture actually says.

          When they start tossing around words like “mysogynistic, carnal, legalistic and mean” you know you’ve won the dialectal argument but the rhetorical war will probably kick your ass if you don’t understand what is happening.

          If you have not read Vox Day’s “SJW’s Always Lie” then you need to do so immediately and understand the difference between dialectic and rhetoric. You offered dialectic, he rejected that and responded with rhetoric. Rhetoric is designed to stir the emotions and inflict emotional damage.

          You responded to his rhetoric with more dialectic, which is an exercise in frustration because he is obviously incapable of being persuaded by facts, evidence, testimony, logic and reason. Most of all, he cannot be persuaded by what the Bible actually says. Read SJWAL and learn how to respond to such individuals with rhetoric.

          You should be asking him about the paedophile problems in the Anglican church and why he supports pedophile priests. Why does he hate children? Does he harbor fantasies about buggering the alter-boys? Or maybe it’s little girls that he has the hots for.

          Obviously this is an issue of race and he’s a racist. Everyone can see that… Why does he hate the idea of multiple wives? It offers women the opportunity to be emotionally and sexually fulfilled within their marriage. Why does he oppose women being fulfilled in marriage? Why is he opposed to women having orgasms?

          Maybe there really is something to this paedophile thing. Does he like the power and control he has over little girls because adult women think he’s repulsive? Or is it that no adult woman would obey him and he has to go after children in order to be in control?

      • anglosaxon says:

        Hitting him with some emotional attacks sounds like fun. I’ll give it a try if he responds to my latest email.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s