Monday, April 06, 2009

From An Email I Received

From an email I received.

This is just the type of underhanded, sneaky crap that really riles me about government in general, and liberal politics in particular. I hadn't heard anything about this and likely wouldn't have had I not been getting newsletters from this source. Everything about this agenda is against basic American priniciples, and how they seek to implement their self-serving and perverted view of the world is the worst example of it. Why backdoor it if it isn't both controversial and widely opposed? The answer is simple. It's because they realize that they lack the support and agreement of their fellow Americans, so going through normal protocols won't help them. So, because they care more for how they satisfy themselves sexually than they do their country, the welfare of children or anything else, they sneak it in when no one's paying attention, or find willing judges to over rule the will of the people.

I offer the email because the author covers several bases, but not nearly all as regards the underhandedness and out and out lying that is at the heart of the pro-homosex movement. Share it with friends. Encourage everyone who doesn't think with their crotch to stand up for decency, and more than that, defend a kid's right to be free of the influence of those who DO think with their crotches. They have it tough enough as it is without being exposed to such things on purpose.

And while you're at it, encourage those who support the National Day of Silence to really go for it and shut the hell up every day.

174 comments:

4simpsons said...

Yep, par for the course. You don't need this nonsense to prevent bullying. It is just more of their aggressive pushing of perversions on kids. I expect this from pagans, but the liberal "Christians" who support it really nauseate me.

Dan Trabue said...

So, you're coming out against coming out against bullying? THIS is how you're going to truly show that you love gay folk?

Neil, I suppose we're even: the "Christians" who would stand opposed to taking a stand against bullying nauseate me. Why don't y'all just hang 'em all and be done with it?

If you support crucifying our gay brothers and sisters, then have the backbone to stand up and admit it. Stop with this mealy-mouthed pretending to "love the sinner but hate the sin" and just admit that you want them all to go away. Bullying, death, decapitation, whatever it takes.

God bless ya.

Democracy Lover said...

Perhaps looking at the actual source rather than a web site condemning the Day of Silence might be helpful.

From the Day of Silence web site:

"9 out of 10 LGBT students report verbal, sexual or physical harassment at school and more than 30% report missing at least a day of school in the past month out of fear for their personal safety."

Try putting yourself in that situation. What if the statement were:

"9 out of 10 Christian students report verbal, sexual or physical harassment at school and more than 30% report missing at least a day of school in the past month out of fear for their personal safety."

Would you then advocate a day of silence or a day of prayer? Probably you would be advocating much stronger measures. As a wise man once said, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

Dan Trabue said...

Marx, right?

Les said...

Completely unrelated topic:

I heard a rumor that Barry just made a surprise visit to Iraq and was booed mercilessly by the troops. Is this true?

Les said...

Hang on a sec - I think I read that wrong. Apparently, he was "cheered wildly" by the troops:

http://www.breitbart.com/article.
php?id=D97DP9U83&show_article=1

My bad.

Marshall Art said...

Well, Les, you funny, funny lurker, your link came up broken. I'll try it again later. In the meantime, I went directly to Breitbart and found no article that included descriptions of cheering, wildly or otherwise. I wonder how many of them voted for Barry?

Les said...

Go to Drudge and click on the main story. I just tried it and it was still working.

Marshall Art said...

Dan,

Nice try with the fake outrage. No. I'm sorry. I'm sure you're outraged. You're so wildly out of left field on the topic of homosexuality.

What I should say is that you'll need to do better trying to smear anyone regarding our stance on this issue. As both Neil, the author of the post, and by extension if not directly, myself is saying, it that if they were truly concerned about bullying and harrassment, they would not need to highlight this unfortunate condition to make the point. Kids in schools are hazed for any number of reasons. To be on the receiving end of a hazing is no fun no matter what motivated the hazers.

But of course, you've shown that you believe the homosexual community is worthy of special considerations in our society, so I guess you're being consistent in insisting they have their day to speak out against hazing of perceived homosexuals. Tough shit for the fat kid, the nerd, the poor kid, the different kid, the foreign kid, and all the others that take shit during their childhood for whatever reason. They'll just have to find a way to deal with it, but hey, those homosexual kids, they need special attention because of... what exactly? Because they're homosexuals? They COULD just stop. They COULD just seek help from school counselors in finding... wait. My bad again. There's no help for those who wish to be like everyone else. In order to further the goals of the homosexual community, the kids will just have to bite the bullet on that.

But YOU Dan. YOU are a special case, too. YOU somehow have perceived what doesn't exist in either Neil, myself, Eric, Bubba, Mark and others who understand the truth of the Biblical teaching, both in how to reject sinfulness and how to love the sinners. Instead, you've decided to pretend we feel otherwise because we stand up for righteous teaching and proper understanding of plainly written Biblical teaching.

So our backbone is just fine. We're prepared to stand for truth even in the face of misled and/or weak Christians like yourself. We'll suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous charges and accusations for His sake and offer real love and help to those who are pressured by their particular temptations, and pray for those who reject God's truth and those who enable them.

And God Bless you as well.

Marshall Art said...

DL,

A problem or two with your last comment.

First, you seem to make the assumption that we will find more truth at the website of the organizers of this worthless day. As I have mentioned repeatedly, the activists are not shy about stretching the truth, inflating numbers, over-the-top rhetoric and outright lies to further their cause. Indeed, it's S.O.P.

Second, as they are not concerning themselves with non-homosex kids who are often harrassed and bullied for a variety of reasons, this day is a sham as far as hazing goes and merely another promotional event for homosexuality.

You will not find that I have ever advocated any similar "day of silence" for the benefit of any group of kids that take shit during their growing years, but instead, have insisted that bullying in general be dealt with as it should, which is a problem with the bullies who likely bully kids other than homosex kids as well.

This event suggests that there is something MORE wrong with bullying homosex kids than to bully anyone else. This is crap. Even a goofy lib like yourself should be able to see this plain truth.

Marty said...

Yep Obama was cheered "wildly" by the troops the article said. I hope someone made a video of that. So far I've not seen one.

Can't wait to compare apples to apples Marshall.

4simpsons said...

Blog Stalker Dan,

Nice straw man. Don't light a match!

Love,
Neil

P.S. Yes, if you try to single me out and can't just ignore me like I (otherwise) ignore you then I'll remind you of what a strange person you are and why I refuse to converse with you.

-------
All,

The gay lobby and the fake and/or ignorant Christians who support it are clever marketers. I'll grant them that. They sneak sex clubs into schools under the guise of preventing bullying, and if you point out why we don't need sex clubs in schools they'll act as if you are in favor of bullying. Sweet.

Of course, here's the only anti-bullying message you need to give to all kids, and then enforce:

"If you physically or verbally harass other students on or off school grounds you will have swift and serious consequences. It doesn’t matter if you are bullying because they are gay / straight / fat / thin / smart / dumb / pretty / ugly / etc., or if it is just because you are a jerk. Zero tolerance. Training over. Now go to class and learn something."

4simpsons said...

"From the Day of Silence web site . . . "

Yeah, you can trust those folks! They definitely don't have any agendas -- http://www.massresistance.org/

Dan Trabue said...

Marshall said:

you've shown that you believe the homosexual community is worthy of special considerations in our society

If, by "special consideration" you mean not having the snot beat out of them, yes, I think gay kids ought to have the same special consideration that we show all our kids. You disagree?

You think that gays and their supporters all "think with their crotches"? You think slander and lies are okay? Shame on you.

I disagree with the slander, lies and beatings.

Craig said...

Dan,

Would it be OK with you if someone just said "All bullying is bad, stop now?". Or should there be some "day of silence" or equivalent for every type of kid that gets bullied.

No wait, I think they're on to something. Let's draw attention to every kid in school who is "different" by giving them their special day. Because you know how much marginalized kids like being the center of attention.

Oh, they don't... sorry, bad idea.

Let's just go back to punishing bullies instead.

Democracy Lover said...

Marshall, give us a break with the constant right-wing talking point BS.

If there was bullying at this level for any other group of people - blacks, Christians, Jews, whatever - there would be organized outrage and you know it. What you object to is homosexuality - just face up to it and say "I am a homophobe." There, that was easy wasn't it?

Instead of falling back into some right-wing drivel you read on another site or some lame interpretation of the Bible as your excuse, you need to wake up to the fact that you are afraid of gay people and ask yourself why? Why do you want to deny them the same rights you have? Why do you view them as a "threat" to heterosexual marriages? There's no objective rationale for such bias, so you need to come clean on why you have it.

4simpsons said...

More fact-free, anti-religious bigotry from DL. It is ironic that the most prejudiced people I come across are on the Left. Read his comments carefully and see how they are nothing but one logical fallacy and personal attack after another. It is frustrating to debate people like that because real conversation is virtually impossible, but the good news is that middle ground people can see the reason and logic vs. the petty ad hominems. I suppose that is easier for them than dealing with facts.

But watch out Marshall, if he can read your mind so well on this topic he must know everything you think!

Dan Trabue said...

Craig asked:

Would it be OK with you if someone just said "All bullying is bad, stop now?"

That would be a good thing to do and most schools do it, as far as I know. However, if it appears that a problem has cropped up - Muslims are being specifically bullied or Christians, or blonde blue-eyed girls or any other group is being specifically targeted because of that trait, then it makes sense to many if not most of us that you would do some education about that bit of ignorance.

Why would someone target Christians? We need to let them know that Christians are good people, too, not worthy of being targeted and picked on because of their faith tradition.

Generally speaking, it is best to cover the general topic - Bullying in this case. BUT, if there is a specific group that is being especially singled out and bullied, then it is reasonable to do some targeted education.

And those who would try to distort and lie and slander (saying people are only doing this because they think with their crotches and other such vile lies) ought to be called on their grievous error.

Use your head, don't be sheep.

Dan Trabue said...

Neil gibbered:

More fact-free, anti-religious bigotry from DL

Rather ironic that Neil would make a fact-free statement about someone else's supposed lack of facts. There was nothing anti-religious in DL's comment. I've read it and re-read it.

His comments were rather opposed (righteously, I'd say) to Right Wing drivel, but right-wing does not equal religious. If you all are seeing religious persecution where there is none, perhaps that explains why you see NO gay persecution where it does exist.

You all need to get some glasses or an eye exam or something. Your worldview is blinding you.

Dan Trabue said...

And to be clear, there was nothing anti-religious in my comments, either. That's a fact.

Mark said...

Because I was very short when I was in school, I was bullied constantly. So what? That's what kids do. I learned to live with it and I learned to defend myself. Now, I'm 57 years old, no longer the shortest guy around, and I am stronger and tougher for the experience.

These homo's need to suck it up....uh, sorry...wrong word...pun not intended...at any rate, we need to stop molly coddling these kids. Maybe if we left them alone to learn how to handle various situations on their own, they would grow up stronger and less likely to be come weak spined Liberal victims. Like Dan.

Tell me, Dan, were you molested as a child or did you receive your indoctrination by way of the public school system?

Listen: Kids don't know enough about sex to know whether they want to be deviant or not.They are much too young to be instilling sexual confusion into them. But, that's the whole point of these type of protests. To encourage kids, who are flexing their independence wings, so to speak, to try different lifestyles.

In other words, these projects are nothing more than recruitment tools. The homosexual activists have been practicing this technique to indoctrinate otherwise normal kids into the homosexual lifestyle for years, with the willing aid of government schools.

There are several effective ways to change normal children into abnormal children. The most often used technique is to simply molest them. That usually has the desired results for the homosexual activists, but taking their agenda directly into the school system accomplishes much the same purpose but on a much bigger scale.

This way, they can indoctrinate masses of impressionable young children all at once instead of the all too time consuming one at a time molestation.

The only problem with this type of mass recruitment technique is most students are not going to turn gay no matter how hard they push it. The success rate of personal one-on-one molestation is much higher, but the mass indoctrination technique captures more at one time, so it probably equals out.

So, the question is, are homosexual students, who consist of maybe 1/2 of 1% the total enrollment of schools all across the country, the only ones who need or deserve protection from bullies? If not, then why do they need/deserve a special day all for themselves?

Oh, I forgot. The other victims of bullying get thrown a bone in this thing, too.

Les said...

Yet another glorious contribution from Saint Mark. Keep talkin', genius.

Mark said...

Why, Thank you, Les. Finally someone other than a Conservative recognizes my intellectual superiority over the Liberals.

There is hope, apparently.

Just reading the comments made here by Eric, Marshall, and myself has apparently raised the intelligence level of the Liberals somewhat.

At least now they see me for the intellectual giant I am.

Keep reading, Libs, and perhaps you'll finally learn something.

Anonymous said...

Marshall, et al good afternoon!

Two issues here: bullying and the homosexual agenda.
Using the subject of "bullying" to advance the homosexual lobby agenda is a rather cowardly and disengenuous maneuver. This certainly doesn't come as a suprise to this reader. The homosexual lobby and their sympathizers/enablers also always trot out parallels with blacks and the Civil Rights movement to advance their agenda.
My three oldest children all in elementary school are exposed to bullying in which homosexuality is not even a remote issue. It's not a stretch to assume that when our youngest is in school, he too will be exposed to bullying. If I had some discretionary income, I'd wager that their kid's kids will be exposed to bullying too. As Dr. John McWhorter said in "End of Racism?" Forbes (11/5/08), "There are also rust and mosquitoes, and there always will be. Life goes on."
Secondly, a day of silence might be welcomed news to the teachers, but of little to no other value. Unfortunately we have many busybodies with their pet causes be it the environment, diversity, homosexuality and transgender issues, etc. that wish to emphasize matters of little to no value instead of truly getting about the business of educating the students in their charge. Remember this the next time you hear or read statistics of how our students are being out performed by their counterparts from other countries with less resources, and more importantly, far less pet causes to promote.

Respectfully,
Joseph

Anonymous said...

These homo's need to suck it up....uh, sorry...wrong word...pun not intended...

Oh no he didn't???

Thank goodness I had finished my Coke Zero before finding this gem, otherwise I would have ruined a pile of data and my keyboard!
Thanks for the guffaw!

Best,
Joseph

Marshall Art said...

It's quite alright, Neil. Unlike some of our weak-sister liberal friends, I'm not about to pout and whine about someone being a "mind reader" if they have lept to conclusions or make off-the-mark assumptions. I'll just clarify the best I can until it seems they're only playing games by persisting. Then I'll mock 'em.

Dan,

Kudos on your grasp of the demonization strategy of homosex activists. You've really got it down pat. I refer to your charges of slander and "vile" lies. There's been none of it from THIS side of the discussion, and that's for sure.

Your side, however, not so true. Take the "homophobe" charge. A phobia refers to an irrational fear of something. In addition, for the homosex activist/enabler, the term "homophobe" is used to denote hatred of the homosexual on the part of those who have a sound understanding of the condition, from either the biological or theological points of view.

First off, to say that we on this side of the discussion "hate" homosexuals is in itself slanderous and so far from the truth as to be hatred itself. There's only so many ways it can be said that our concern is for the person and while our intolerance is for their behavior.

And there is absolutely nothing irrational about our stance on this issue as it is informed by both what is and isn't known about the issue from as many angles as possible, be they biological, psychological, theological or anything else. And this is where "thinking with the crotch" comes in. When all the facts are considered rationally and objectively, including the possibility that "they're born that way", a possibility that I have never in any way discounted, we're still left with the undebatable fact that it is their crotch, or how they choose to pleasure it, that is the absolute core of their agenda. Everything revolves around what they want to do sexually, including their push to have the entirety of civilization perceive them as "normal" and "just like everyone else".

So the real lies and slander come in when activists and enablers like yourself pretend we have nothing but their annihilation in mind, when our concern is for their own health and salvation as well as the impact on our culture should we acquiesce to their demands.

Dan Trabue said...

Marshall said:

I refer to your charges of slander and "vile" lies. There's been none of it from THIS side of the discussion, and that's for sure.

Ha. Is it that you are blind to your lies or that you realize it and are trying to cover it up. If it's ignorance, here, I'll help show you the light...

LIE #1:
Everything about this agenda is against basic American priniciples


What agenda?? The anti-bullying gays agenda? What is unAmerican about that? There is no proof of any agenda here other than concern for gays. Lacking ANY proof whatsoever, I'll charge it to a lie.

LIE #2:
they seek to implement their self-serving and perverted view of the world


Bad news, brother: No one is trying to implement anything other than an end to targeting a group of vulnerable children for abuse. Lacking any evidence, I'll have to charge this to a lie, too.

LIE #3:
because they care more for how they satisfy themselves sexually than they do their country, the welfare of children or anything else


Again, no evidence. There is no evidence because it simply isn't true.

It's a lie.

LIE #4:
...the underhandedness and out and out lying that is at the heart of the pro-homosex movement.


What "underhandedness?" What "lying"? Again, no evidence. Lacking any, I'm calling it a lie.

LIE #5:
Encourage everyone who doesn't think with their crotch to stand up for decency


Once again, no evidence. It is a lie AND slander, to boot. I'm not "thinking with my crotch" when I oppose kids getting the snot beat out of them because they're suspected of being gay. And suggesting that those who DO oppose such behavior are only thinking with their crotches is a way of demonizing the other, making them less human so that it is easier to abuse them verbally and physically.

LIE #6:
It is just more of their aggressive pushing of perversions on kids


No evidence. Just a lie and a smear.

LIE #7:
They sneak sex clubs into schools under the guise of preventing bullying


Lie. No evidence.

LIE #8:
these projects are nothing more than recruitment tools


No evidence. A lie, and an ignorant one from an ignorant pervert with his own agenda and issues to work through.

I could go on all day, but that is enough to prove the point. Without even trying, I bounced down eight quick easily dismissed lies and slanders.

You want to repent now or at least try to bring some evidence to support these unsupported and unholy lies? folk who cast unsupported charges that are clearly untrue are liars. I don't know if they're trying to be hateful, or if it's just extreme ignorance or that they're sheep who will believe whatever Fred Phelps or Rush Limbaugh tells them or what, but with no evidence, these are just black, diabolical lies. Naught else.

Good luck with that.

Marshall Art said...

Regarding this special day to protect homosex kids from bullying, it is incredibly dishonest to say that it is in any way required because there is perceived, a greater degree of harrassment of this group of kids, as if it matters. If there is any targeting to be done, how 'bout targeting the kids actually doing the harrassing and deal with them as adult supervisors should. I'll tell you why: because then, the activists and enablers within the school system lose an opportunity to endoctrinate the youth of our nation about the lies regarding homosexuality.

Some of the enablers actually believe in the rhetoric and nonsense of the activists because they've only had a cursory look at the issue, if any look at all, and see it as a benign situation. Others, have, like Dan, pretended to give it deep meditative thought and even in the face of the truth, proceed as if the lies are true. Still others maintain that opposition is totally faith based and because they've not really researched the facts about Christ, regard people of faith as backwards, bigoted and out of touch, as if the faith should change with the world rather than the world conform to faith.

Next, there is the issue of the influence itself. Kids, as they are entering their teen years, and then enduring them, are overwhelmed with the changes going on within them and their actions are often compelled by their raging hormones. They are especially emotionally vulnerable and easily swayed into engaging in all sorts of activities, most of which they'll later regret, if they survive them at all. Of their compulsions, those of a sexual nature are especially strong and an outlet is greatly desired. This is how they get into trouble and why they need the guidance of parents, teachers and the culture in general to help them refrain from that for which they lack the maturity and discipline to handle.

Instead, they get homosex sponsored "Days of Silence", liberal sex-ed, complete with condom distribution, and a host of cultural messages to get jiggy as soon as possible. Some of these kids are greatly confused about what they are feeling and it is these kids who are most likely to be influenced by this cultural depravity. It is said that many people have had homosexual thoughts or fantasies at some point in their lives. If this is true, the likelihood of it having happened during this phase of life is great and it is no leap of logic to posit that some have turned to the backside, I mean, darkside, as a result of this influence, when they might otherwise have passed through it with their honor and bodies and orientations intact.

Some will demand proof of this notion. I don't see how we can accurately gauge such things once the action has taken place. You can't go back in time and change the situation that led to the decision to explore homosex behavior. But honest people understand the dynamic. It's akin to the children of alcoholics becoming alcoholics themselves, or, more accurately, like the children of abusive parents becoming abusive themselves.

Finally, for DL, this is only part of the extensive and exhaustive rationale already laid out for our "bias". And yes, I am extremely biased against bad behavior and willingly discriminate against it. I pray that the perpetrators of this bad behavior get the help they need.

4simpsons said...

"So the real lies and slander come in when activists and enablers like yourself pretend we have nothing but their annihilation in mind, when our concern is for their own health and salvation as well as the impact on our culture should we acquiesce to their demands."

Excellent points, Marshall. The real homophobes are the liberals who deny natural law, common sense and, in the case of "Christians," their God because they'll do anything to avoid having the gay lobby criticize them.

Marshall Art said...

I see Danny has snuck in another comment before I could finish my last, but I'll have to correct, I mean, respond later. I can't wait.

4simpsons said...

The "day of silence" folks make logical partners with many liberal "Christians," as both are wolves in sheep's clothing.

Dan Trabue said...

And so, when asked for proof, there is none. Only more slander and lies.

I wonder, is the absence of even ONE SHRED of evidence for your position somehow "proof" that it is all a sneaky plot to make kids gay, because if there were evidence, you'd have found it, so its very absence is "proof" of the conspiracy???

Do you all not even have a shred of decency amongst your whole lot?

Shame.

Anonymous said...

FWIW...I recall a similar stunt when I was an undergraduate at Washington Univeristy in St.Louis in the early '80s. There was a Wear Jeans If You're Gay Day. The GLBT group wanted to make a point that gays were as common as jeans, a staple of most, if not all students. The only thing that I recall from that day besides how few people decided to wear jeans was a guy wearing jeans with a huge "NO" painted in white across his rear.

Best,
Joseph

Marshall Art said...

Dan,

Keep it in your pants, for pete's sake. Even being without a job I am unable to simply sit in front of the computer all day. Patience.

"LIE #1:
Everything about this agenda is against basic American priniciples"


I don't recall that I personally said this, but I wouldn't necessarily disagree. Basic American principles might allow for the pursuit of one's own happiness, but not at the expense of the rest of the country, which is indeed what is at stake with this issue as exhaustively shown in previous threads. And BTW, I don't recall that ANYONE said those exact words, so you should know that to say so is lying.

But then you again ask the stupid and dishonest question, "WHAT agenda?" I have shown in the past on numerous occasions, both at this blog and others, where one might find a full and complete description of the "gay" agenda, and you still pretend that one does not exist. If you're going to pretend that each post requires rehashing every bit of known information on an issue, then I have no choice but to charge you with being a liar, a distorter, a bearer of false witness, a slanderer and a complete idiot that you would expect me, or anyone, to fall for that lame ploy.

"LIE #2:
they seek to implement their self-serving and perverted view of the world"


A well known part of the agenda is to get their lies into regular instruction in all of the schools that they can. As we've explained, there is no need to single out a target in order to teach about the evils of bullying. As anyone with a real brain can understand, what needs to be taught is kindness to all even when faced with opinions and beliefs of which one might disagree. This event is to protect a segment of society that the lobby wishes to be considered as "normal", "just like anyone else", and for the sake of the captured audience, just another sexual destination to explore if the kid so chooses. Horrible example for adults to level upon our kids, and for anyone to insist this isn't the point, I must charge as an unmitigated liar.

"LIE #3:
because they care more for how they satisfy themselves sexually than they do their country, the welfare of children or anything else"


This is self-evident. It is further supported by the simple fact that they are not satisfied with merely being left alone to engage with each other in any manner that pleases them, which is a legitimate expectation, but that they insist that everyone accept them on THEIR terms, regardless of the facts surrounding their condition and the beliefs of those who disagree. If it was truly a matter of real love for each other, and by that I mean the agape type of love that has real value, and not lust, why would it matter that they don't have the same advantages of the traditional marriage which is the only form of value to the state? Because what matters most is what they want and not what the other 98%, or at least 70%, of the nation wants.

"LIE #4:
...the underhandedness and out and out lying that is at the heart of the pro-homosex movement."


Again, Dan, in his deceitfulness, pretends this hasn't been covered before. But I'll give one or two examples:
1) That there was science behind the removal of homosexuality from the list of mental illnesses of the APA, when it was activism that forced it's removal.
2) That it is an unchangable condition in the way race is. This has been proven false thousands of times.
3) That there is biological proof that one is born homosexual. Though I don't doubt that something will eventually be found to support this, there hasn't been anything yet or we'd hear it everytime the subject comes up. We don't because it hasn't happened. No research has provided any results that have been duplicated later or have removed any doubts surrounding a given premise. In addition, biology alone cannot determine whether a behavior should be tolerated by society.

There are plenty more lies that are routinely used to further the "gay" agenda, but as I said, they've been covered before and I'm not willing to rehash every one of them now.

"LIE #5:
Encourage everyone who doesn't think with their crotch to stand up for decency"


First of all, this cannot even be a lie as it is a request for action. Secondly, Dan engages in a favorite ploy of deceitful debate by applying words of one context to another unrelated context. He says, "I'm not "thinking with my crotch" when I oppose kids getting the snot beat out of them because they're suspected of being gay." No. But he is thinking with his ass to suspect that we on this side of the issue support the beating of anyone who is homosexual, child or adult, just because the child or adult is homosexual. This thread has absolutely nothing to do with that, but with the notion of having a "Day of Silence" is only concerned with hazing and not a promotion of the practice of homosex behavior. That makes Dan a liar again.

Do you all see a pattern here? I suspect Dan is having trouble with his position and is wavering. This rattling of his apparently not so firmly held beliefs regarding homoseuxality is the result of continually running up against solid walls of logic and truth as regards this issue from a theological standpoint, so that he has lately been reduced to distortions and rhetorical trickery to try and shake OUR position. But he can't since we are grounded in that logic and truth, and have remained consistent in our position.

Anyway, for the first five points, I haven't even had to provide proof of anything since each point is based on such a lame premise. I've merely had to dismantel the premise. All the lies have actually been from Dan or his side of the issue as I have pointed out. But I must leave to prepare for bowling nite. We are closing in on first place in the few remaining weeks and I've cashed in each of the last four weeks. But I'll return tonight and even under the influence of a few beverages destroy the rest of Dan's points. See ya's then.

Dan Trabue said...

1. Each of the LIES were direct copy and paste quotes were from this specific post or the comments therein. That you can't find them doesn't mean they're not there.

2. You are right (when you say - and I quote - "I haven't even had to provide proof of anything since each point is based on such a lame premise."), you have offered no proof to support the false claims.

3. There is no gay agenda beyond wanting to be treated with respect and humanity and not be beaten to death. To say there is with no evidence is a false, unproven charge. A lie.

4. Your one lame attempt to actually address the false charges was done by laying out more false charges (that there was no science behind changing the classification of homosexuality in psychiatry, etc).

In short, you lie, demonize and slander, and then you defend the lies and slander with more lies and not one bit of actual support.

I don't know that you hate gays, or if you're just afraid of them, that you'll "catch it" or something, or WHAT your reasoning is, but when you and your perverse crew build a case on lies and slander, I can easily see how some might make that assumption.

I'm being generous and thinking that you all could be so woefully ignorant and superstitious that you're unable to discern Truth from Fiction, a sort of compliant brainwashing. But that may not be it, either.

To be honest, I don't know WHAT your twisted reasoning is for spreading lies and slander and doing so in such an ugly, hateful way that no one reasonable would ever want to be associated with you or any of your causes.

I just know that you all have posted lie after lie after lie and not even tried to make shit up to back it up (well, you may have tried a little bit to make shit up, but not you've not done much of it).

4simpsons said...

Marshall, you were spot on regarding their agenda and their accomplices. I'll try pasting this link but it usually doesn't work, so I pasted the whole text of the column below. Sorry for the extra-long comment, but it is a good summary of the gay agenda -- http://townhall.com/columnists/MattBarber/2008/02/13/unmasking_the_“gay”_agenda?page=full&comments=true


By Matt Barber at Townhall.com

"Americans who self-identify as “gay” or lesbian comprise roughly one to three percent of the population. Yet the homosexual movement — led by extremist homosexual pressure groups like the so-called Human Rights Campaign (HRC) — represent, per capita, one of America’s most powerful and well-funded political lobbies. Consider that HRC and the HRC foundation alone have an annual budget in excess of 50 million.

Through a carefully crafted, decades-old propaganda campaign, homosexual activists have successfully cast homosexuals — many of whom enjoy positions of influence and affluence — as a disadvantaged minority. They have repackaged and sold to the public behaviors which thousands of years of history, every major world religion and uncompromising human biology have long identified as immoral and sexually deviant.

The Goal

As with every major political movement, the homosexual lobby is pushing a specific agenda. It is often called the “gay agenda.” At its core is a concerted effort to remove from society all traditional notions of sexual morality and replace them with the post-modern concept of sexual relativism. That is to say, when it comes to sex, there is never right or wrong. All sexual appetites are “equal.” If it feels good, do it.

Ultimately, the homosexual lobby’s primary objective is to radically redefine our foundational institutions of legitimate marriage and the nuclear family by unraveling God’s natural design for human sexuality. In so doing, they hope to elevate their own spiritual and biological counterfeit and establish a sexually androgynous society wherein natural distinctions between male and female are dissolved.

This creates cultural and moral anarchy.

Plan of Attack

Ironically, sexual relativists are anything but relative. They are quite affirmative in principle. But the principles they foist demand comprehensive acceptance of homosexual conduct — by force of law — through federal edicts such as “hate crimes” legislation, the so-called “Employment Non-Discrimination Act” (ENDA) and by imposing government sanctioned “same-sex marriage.” All such government mandates grant special protected “minority” status to those who define themselves by aberrant sexual preferences and changeable sexual behaviors. These laws put people with traditional values directly in the crosshairs of official government policy.

Throughout society, homosexual activists demand that homosexual behaviors not only be “tolerated,” but celebrated. (That’s what the euphemistic slogan “celebrate diversity” supposes). They have masked their true political agenda by hijacking the language of the genuine civil rights movement and through the crafty and disingenuous rhetoric of “tolerance” and “diversity.”

Anyone who believes the Biblical directive that human sexuality is a gift from God, to be shared between man and wife within the bonds of marriage, is branded “homophobic,” “hateful” or “discriminatory.” They are to be silenced by all means possible.

In Their Own Words

What you are about to read is just a quick, though disturbing, glance behind the homosexual lobby’s lavender curtain.

Below are two of the central demands put forth by homosexual activists in their “1972 Gay Rights Platform”:

• “Repeal all laws governing the age of sexual consent.” (This should send a chill down the spine of any parent. It would legally allow pedophiles, and homosexuals who were so inclined, to access your children and teens for their own predatory sexual gratification — so long as those children “consented” to having sex.)

• “Repeal all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit.” (Once marriage is redefined, there can be no logical or ethical objection to any conceivable “marriage” combination, including polygamous “marriages.” By watering down marriage, “gay” activists and like-minded politicos [usually activist judges] remove this foundational institution’s intrinsic value.)

Here are just a few of the demands the homosexual lobby put forth during the 1987 (Homosexual) “March on Washington”:

• “The government should provide protection from discrimination based on sexual orientation in employment, public accommodations and education just as protection is provided on race, creed, color, sex, or national origin.” ([ENDA] This would force all religious business owners, landlords and schools to abandon — under penalty of law — sincerely held and constitutionally protected religious beliefs and adopt a view of sexual morality that runs entirely counter to central teachings of every major world religion.)

• “Anti-homophobic curriculum in the schools.” (Translation: pro-homosexual, government-mandated indoctrination. This is already occurring in thousands of public schools throughout America. Children are being force-fed the absurd notion that male-male anal sodomy is a perfectly acceptable, “alternative” sexual “orientation.” This calculated propaganda continues to expand, despite the fact that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has acknowledged that such behaviors place participants at extremely high risk for dangerous and often deadly infectious disease.)

• “The government should ensure all public education programs include programs designed to combat lesbian/gay prejudice. … Institutions that discriminate against lesbian and gay people should be denied tax-exempt status and federal funding.” (This means churches, religious schools and religious businesses. Some jurisdictions, such as the state of New Jersey, have already begun removing tax-exempt status from church related ministries that refuse to provide “commitment ceremonies” to homosexuals.)

• “Public and private institutions should support parenting by lesbian or gay couples.” (This is now being mandated in many states such as California and Massachusetts. In Massachusetts, Catholic Charities’ adoption service was recently forced to close down because it refused to assign children to homosexuals for adoption.)

The push for federal “hate crimes” legislation is another activist tool intended to silence traditional views on human sexuality and sexual morality. Similar laws have already been used around the world, and even right here at home, to persecute Christians and other traditionalists. For example, in 2004, 11 Christians were arrested in Philadelphia and charged with a “hate crime” for merely preaching the Bible at a public homosexual street festival. They could have served up to 47 years in prison.

More recently, a Christian photographer was dragged before the New Mexico Human Rights Division for refusing to photograph a “commitment ceremony” for a lesbian couple because lesbian behavior is inconsistent with Christianity.

Such stark examples of homofascist persecution continue to mount. And they’re by design. Noted homosexual activist and pornographer Clinton Fein addressed the “gay” agenda in a 2005 article candidly titled, “The Gay Agenda”:

• On “hate crimes” laws: “Hate Crime laws are just the beginning. Once those are passed either federally or in all 50 states, begin campaign to eliminate homophobia entirely.”

• On “hate thoughts” and “hate speech” laws: “Homophobic inclinations alone, even without any actions, should be criminal and punishable to the full extent of the law.”

• On influencing public policy: “Make sure that gay representation permeates every level of governance.”

• On “same-sex marriage”: “Demand the institution and then wreck it. James Dobson was right about our evil intentions. We just plan to be quicker than he thought.”

• On “gays” in the Church: “Reclaim Jesus. He was a Jewish queer to begin with, and don’t let anyone forget it.”

The homosexual lobby’s goals have been clearly defined for decades. But for any goal to be successfully achieved, clever stratagem and sound methodology must be diligently applied.

In their manuscript, After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90’s (1989, Doubleday/Bantam), Harvard educated marketing experts Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen meticulously laid out the homosexual lobby’s blueprint for success in what is widely regarded as the handbook for the “gay” agenda.

They devised a three-pronged approach that the homosexual lobby has masterfully implemented in subsequent years: Desensitization, Jamming and Conversion.

Kirk and Madsen summarized their approach this way:

• Portray gays as victims, not as aggressive challengers.

• Give potential protectors a just cause.

• Make gays look good.

• Make victimizers look bad.

Desensitization

“Desensitization,” wrote Kirk and Madsen, means subjecting the public to a “continuous flood of gay-related advertising, presented in the least offensive fashion possible. If ‘straights’ can’t shut off the shower, they may at least eventually get used to being wet.”

As previously stated, glamorizing and normalizing homosexual conduct in our public schools is a full time endeavor. But the schools represent only one field of battle in the war over America’s body, mind and soul.

With the aid of a willing mainstream media and a like-minded Hollywood, societal desensitization has been largely achieved. Blockbusters like Tom Hanks’ Philadelphia, the late Heath Ledger’s Brokeback Mountain, and television programs like Will and Grace and Ellen represent a modern-day fairy tale, creating a dishonest and sympathetic portrayal of a lifestyle which is emotionally, spiritually and physically sterile.

Reality is replaced with fantasy. Gone are references to, or images of, the millions of homosexual men wasting away in hospice due to behaviorally related diseases such as HIV/AIDS, Hepatitis and Syphilis. (Unnatural behaviors beget natural consequences. As Romans 6:23 says, “The wages of sin is death.”)

And gone are references to, or images of, men and women trapped in the homosexual lifestyle who aimlessly seek to fill a spiritual and emotional void through promiscuous and meaningless sexual encounters.

The homosexual group, GLAAD, even offers awards to the television networks that most effectively carry the homosexual lobby’s water. The more distorted and positive the portrayal of homosexual conduct and the more frequently the networks shows such portrayals; the more likely networks are to win the coveted awards.

As Kirk and Madsen put it, homosexuals should be portrayed as the “Everyman.” “In no time,” they said, “a skillful and clever media campaign could have the gay community looking like the veritable fairy godmother to Western Civilization.”

Prophetic words from two very smart men.

Jamming

“Jamming” refers to the public smearing of Christians, traditionalists or anyone else who opposes the “gay” agenda. “Jam homo-hatred (i.e., disagreement with homosexual behaviors) by linking it to Nazi horror,” wrote Kirk and Madsen. “Associate all who oppose homosexuality with images of ‘Klansmen demanding that gays be slaughtered,’ ‘hysterical backwoods preachers,’ ‘menacing punks,’ and a ‘tour of Nazi concentration camps where homosexuals were tortured and gassed.’

“In any campaign to win over the public, gays must be portrayed as victims in need of protection so that straights will be inclined by reflex to adopt the role of protector ... The purpose of victim imagery is to make straights feel very uncomfortable,” they suggested.

But, perhaps Kirk and Madsen’s most revealing admission came when they said, “[O]ur effect is achieved without reference to facts, logic, or proof.”

And so words like “homophobe” and “heterosexism” were pulled from thin air, not because they had substance, but because they were effective jamming tools. Anyone who holds traditional values relative to human sexuality suddenly became a “homophobe,” a “hatemonger,” a “bigot.”

Not even churches are safe.

“Gays can undermine the moral authority of homo-hating churches over less fervent adherents by portraying [them] as antiquated backwaters, badly out of step … with the latest findings of psychology. Against the atavistic tug of ‘Old Time Religion’ one must set the mightier pull of science and public opinion. … Such an ‘unholy’ alliance has already worked well in America against the churches, on such topics as divorce and abortion. … [T]hat alliance can work for gays.”

And, oh, how it has.

Conversion

“Conversion” means, in the words of Kirk and Madsen, “conversion of the average American’s emotions, mind, and will, through a planned psychological attack, in the form of propaganda fed to the nation via the media.”

“In the early stages of any campaign to reach straight America, the masses should not be shocked and repelled by premature exposure to homosexual behavior itself. Instead, the imagery of sex should be downplayed and gay rights should be reduced to an abstract social question as much as possible. First let the camel get his nose inside the tent — and only later his unsightly derriere!”

So, as Kirk and Madsen both astutely understood and surprisingly admitted, homosexual activism is really a big game of “hide the ball.” In order to achieve widespread acceptance of “gayness,” they had to remove the focus from what homosexuality really is (deviant sexual conduct) and shift it onto the craftily manufactured specter of “gay civil rights.”

In order to cut through much of the propagandist sugarcoating, one need only consider what two men must actually do in order to “consummate” a so-called “gay marriage.” Kirk and Madsen understood that. Most people are repulsed by the mechanics of homosexual conduct, but everyone is for “civil rights.” Of course, in reality, the homosexual lifestyle has nothing to do with civil rights and everything to do with conduct.

Therein lies the deception.

But There’s Hope

There’s hope for people who are trapped in the homosexual lifestyle or who suffer from unwanted same-sex attraction. Part of our fallen condition as humans is that we are all subject to sin. Those who know the Savior of the world, Jesus Christ, are no better or worse than those who engage in homosexual sin.

But through the loving and redemptive power of Jesus Christ, we can all find salvation from sin. So can homosexuals. “Gayness” is not an “immutable” or unchangeable condition as homosexual apologists would have you believe. People can find freedom from homosexual behaviors and even from same-sex attractions. It’s not easy, but untold thousands of former homosexuals have done it.

There’s also hope in the ongoing battle between the “gay” agenda and our national moral integrity. Concerned Women for America (CWA) endeavors on a daily basis to counter this destructive movement throughout all facets of culture and public policy.

With God’s help, we can turn back the tide of sexual and moral relativism that has both permeated our society and offended our founding principles. "

Anonymous said...

Dan Trabue asked
So, you're coming out against coming out against bullying?

Sounds eerily similar other offerings straight from the liberal playbook:

Who can be against “affordable housing”?
Who can be against “affordable health care”?
Who can be against a “living wage”?
Who can be against clean air? Clean water? Green Space?
When speaking of abortion: who can be against the women’s right to choose?
When speaking of the death penalty: who can be against upholding the sanctity of life?
Who can be against (insert favorite agenda here) when:
It’s for the children…..
It’s for the poor…..
It’s not about the money….

With each of these examples as well as others not mentioned, the devil is in the details. I wish that I could go on, but George Costanza is at my door asking the wife and I to contribute to the Human Fund. Who could possibly be against that?

Respectfully,
Joseph

Dan Trabue said...

Aaaand, more people heard from, more false charges, not the first bit of evidence (beyond Neil finding a couple of people who fit his distorted slanderous caricature of gay folk and their supporters - no one is saying that there aren't a few people out there with nefarious motives; look at Mark the Pervert, just because he's a pervert pornographer and a heterosexual doesn't mean that all heterosexuals have a secret agenda to seduce boys and puppies).

The only evidence you're all providing is your own homophobia and lying, slandering tendencies.

Fortunately, more and more people are seeing through your hateful lies.

But thanks for playing.

4simpsons said...

Blog Stalker Dan is a funny guy. He demonizes Marshall left and right for no evidence, calling him a liar over and over. Then you show him evidence -- bulletproof evidence -- and he scatters like a crawfish and throws in few more ad homs to boot. Pathetic.

What is wildly ironic and pretty funny is how well Dan executes the game plan that he says could only come from a "couple of people who fit his distorted slanderous caricature of gay folk and their supporters - no one is saying that there aren't a few people out there with nefarious motives."

Well there are at least three now: The two mentioned in the article and Blog Stalker Dan.

Seriously, folks, read the long comment (the third one up from this one) carefully and see what we mean by an agenda. Again, to their credit, the gay lobby and the fake Christians who support them are good at marketing. The marketing of evil, that is.

Anonymous said...

The only evidence you're all providing is your own homophobia and lying, slandering tendencies.

Fortunately, more and more people are seeing through your hateful lies.

But thanks for playing.


Going against my better judgement, this will be an attempt to reach out (once again) and engage Dan in a respectful fashion.

Dan, that is a mighty big brush that you paint with. From this thread, all those who disagree with your position are not merely those with a contrasting point of view, but are hating homophobes, liars, and slanderers. Nevermind that you have no idea betwen the distinction between slander (verbal) and libel (written). Is it not possible to have a contrasting point of view without any or all of the above ad hominems that you toss around so freely?

Respectfully,
Joseph

Bubba said...

Hey, Dan?

You remember how you got really, really testy when I accused you of lying, about four months ago?

"Lying takes intent and I had no intent to lie...

"As I have noted frequently, Bubba, you are simply not god enough to know my thoughts, nor my motives. In this, you are mistaken. Is it a lie? I don't know, for I don't know your motives."


Do you now know everyone's thoughts? You must, because you hurl the accusation of lying as if you're being paid by the pound of mud you sling.


It seems to me that you're playing fast and loose with the meaning of words in order to attack those with whom you disagree, to smear them as lying, hateful homophobes.

"There is no gay agenda beyond wanting to be treated with respect and humanity and not be beaten to death. To say there is with no evidence is a false, unproven charge. A lie."

An unproven assertion is NOT necessarily a lie. It's not even necessarily false until/unless it is shown to be false.

Even then, it's not necessarily a lie. For the unproven assertion to be an actual lie, the person presenting the assertion has to know it is false: it has to be an act of willful deception.

The lack of evidence being presented, doesn't prove that that evidence doesn't exist; it certainly doesn't prove that the assertion is false; and it doesn't go anywhere NEAR proving that it's a deliberate deception.

When you take what you routinely dish out -- I recall that you've accused me of bearing false witness against you on multiple occasions -- it seems to me that you hide under the umbrella of intent and accuse me of megalomania for daring to utter the accusation you do not forbid for yourself.

But it is apparently only when you are the target that that intent matters.


By your own standards, you are not "god enough" to accuse anyone else of lying.

But, then, it's no secret that I believe you're very rarely consistent in applying the very standards you invoke.

Mark said...

You know, Dan is floundering more than usual on this thread. And that is one feat that isn't easy to top.

I think Dan is just angry that I am smarter than him, so, in his frustration, he makes up for his lack of intelligence by making ridiculous charges in hopes no one will notice he is just stupid.

Assuming that to tell a lie makes one a liar, May I remind Dan that he once promised to stop commenting on this and a couple of other blogs?

Yet, here he is making his incessant accusations and ad hominen attacks.

Dan, when you said you were leaving and not coming back, were you lying?

Doesn't that make you a liar?

I've got a suggestion for you, Dan:

Why don't you salvage what little is left of whatever integrety you may have once had and keep your promise? You know you're wrong, and the more you protest, the more stupid and illogical you appear.

Leave, and never darken our towels again. Please. For your own sake.

Personally, I don't care if you do or not. Your inane leaps of logic are entertaining, to say the least.

Craig said...

Dan

How many kids (of school age) actually are "getting the snot beat out of them because they're suspected of being gay"? Any?

BTW, notice the subtle change, we've gone from kids who are bullied because they are gay, to "because they're suspected of being gay".

Seriously, why not just punish the bullies and move on. Of course, by making this such a big do, it does further the image of homosexuals as victims who need protection.

For the record, and I think most of the other liars here will probably agree. The way I "show I love gay folk", is to treat them exactly the same way I treat anyone else. Not to single them out.

If, for example, I was to come upon one child bullying another for being gay I would intervene to stop it. Just as I would in any instance of bullying. I might even (gasp from Dan) use force.

But, hey, who am I. The best part of this whole thing is the gay activists discriminating against other victims of bullying.

Dan Trabue said...

Joseph said:

From this thread, all those who disagree with your position are not merely those with a contrasting point of view, but are hating homophobes, liars, and slanderers.

I did not say that. I was not paint with a wide brush. I was speaking specifically of the false charges brought here by a handful of people. I never said "all those" who disagree with my position are anything.

That is EXACTLY my point, however, with y'all. ("Y'all" being the handful of folk here who have misrepresented positions - not all conservatives, just to be clear.) Marshall, Neil, Pervy (Mark) have all stated that "THEY" "THOSE PEOPLE" "THEM" "THE GAYS" "THE LIBERALS" etc, are thinking with their crotches, that they have a secret agenda, that they want to use bullying to advance some nefarious cause. Those are the specific unsupported charges that I am calling lies. The bitterness with which they cast these aspersions ("nauseate me," "perversions," "aggressive," etc) is the reason that I have said that makes it understandable why they might be hateful or homophobic.

I HAVE stated quite specifically that I don't KNOW if they're hateful, fearful or just ignorant or something else. I DON'T KNOW their reasoning, but it sure sounds hateful and homophobic.

Joseph also said:

Nevermind that you have no idea betwen the distinction between slander (verbal) and libel (written).

Joseph, surely you can read a dictionary? You DO know, don't you, that slander CAN apply to written slander? The slander/libel thing is mostly legal terminology.

Look it up:

Slander:
–noun
1. defamation; calumny: rumors full of slander.
2. a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report: a slander against his good name.
3. Law. defamation by oral utterance rather than by writing, pictures, etc.
–verb (used with object)
4. to utter slander against; defame.

In regular usage, slander need not be only referring to spoken slurs. So yes, I DO understand quite well the difference between slander and libel. Do you?

And now, I've done my bit of education here today.

Marshall Art said...

Hi. Allow me to introduce myself. I call myself Marshall Art and I'm the humble host of this blog. It is I who decides who is welcome to comment here. Right now, at this point, all are welcome, even trolls who are legitimate targets for ridicule and mockery should they choose to act like trolls. Those who storm off in a huff, or a minute and a huff, are welcome to return when they feel they've adequately composed themselves.

I just wanted to make that clear.

(Sorry Mark)

Oh yes, and one more thing. Even though I've often insisted that nasty name calling only be directed toward your humble host and not any of his guests, doing so does not mean automatic bannishment. It only means the name caller is a jerk. Dan, you might want to re-read that, especially since you unjustifiably continue to call Mark names. He has given a weak apology, but an apology nonetheless and you're supposed to be forgiving if you're truly the Christian you like to present yourself as being. But also, I acknowledge that you do this to demonize someone who disagrees with your position on homsexuality. How very homosex-agenda of you.

Dan Trabue said...

craig asked how many gay kids are bullied. Some numbers:

"More than 22% of gay, lesbian, and bisexual youth skipped school because they felt unsafe, compared to 4.2% of their heterosexual peers. Forty-six percent of gay lesbian and bisexual youth attempted suicide compared with 8.8% of their heterosexual peers."

(Massachusetts Department of Education, 1997)

source

"It is estimated that only 13-14% of anti-gay violence is reported to the police. Victims often believe that discussion of their sexuality will subject them to further victimization."

source

"The two teen girls, both 15, attacked a fellow freshman in June because she is gay. A video recording of the assault was posted online. Though the attackers admitted the crime was bias-motivated, the state of Michigan does not include sexual orientation in its existing hate crimes laws, and the FBI was unable to investigate the case because the assailants were younger than 18..."

"Results from the survey concluded that nine out of ten LGBT teens have been verbally harassed in the past school year because of their sexual orientation and nearly half were physically harassed because of their sexual orientation. Nine out of ten reported hearing anti-LGBT language frequently. Three-fifths of the students felt unsafe at school and over one-fifth reported being physical assaulted because of their sexual orientation. About one-third reported skipping school in the past month because they felt unsafe."

source

How many does it take, Craig, to be a problem? If nine out of ten Christians were being harassed and one third of Christians didn't feel safe in schools due to their faith, would that be enough to raise concern?

Or is assault just "kids being kids..."?

I'll have to tell you that if, at MY kids' school, that 20% of a specific group were being assaulted because of being part of that group, I WOULD DEMAND that the school do some specific education about that group to help end the bullying.

You all are grabbing on to the wrong end of this. NO ONE is saying that we ought not work to end bullying in general. In the real world, everyone agrees that bullying ought to be stopped. So, it is another despicable lie to suggest that we don't care about other kids who are being assaulted.

But there's a difference between the ongoing challenge of dealing with bullies (bullies who pick on kids just because they're bullies and don't like the kid for whatever reason) and a specific population having ongoing problems being targeted for assault and harassment specifically because of who they are.

If 20% of the Chinese kids at my school were being assaulted because of their ethnicity, I would want some education done/policies put in place to that end. If 20% of Muslims were being bullied, I'd want some education done/policies put in place to that end.

If large segments of a specific population are being targeted, then you have a problem - whoever that population might be - and any school that doesn't deal with that specific problem is asking for a lawsuit.

Dan Trabue said...

Marshall said:

Dan, you might want to re-read that, especially since you unjustifiably continue to call Mark names. He has given a weak apology, but an apology nonetheless and you're supposed to be forgiving if you're truly the Christian

I can only forgive when he asks forgiveness. He committed two heinous sins: Public pornography, for which he gave a weak, mealy-mouthed half apology and verbal sexual assault of a lovely Christian lady whom he doesn't even know, for which the Pervert has NOT apologized and which he continues to be rather proud of.

He is a pervert and I do pray that one day he will admit his pornography and verbal sexual assault and I will be right there to forgive him. Until then, it would be a disservice to him and all the lovely people he has verbally sexually assaulted to forgive what has not been repented of.

Marshall Art said...

Neil,

Thanks for the presentation of the Matt Barber piece. I've referred to After the Ball many times, though folk like Dan like to pretend they've never heard of it or they simply dismiss that there is any "agenda". This is foolishness right off the bat. Yes, even if it is only to prevent homosex kids from getting the snot beaten out of them for being a homosexual, an agenda does indeed exist. But of course, the agenda is more than the Day of Silence event. But the Day of Silence is a manifestation of the agenda or a tactic of it.

I will concede that not every homosexual is concerned with the agenda or every part of it. Many simply want to live their lives and not be bothered. (I'm sure none of the thousands that Dan knows are activists and work to promote the "agenda". Naturally.) But as expressed in the Barber article, it is plain to see how the game plan has been implemented and how successul it has been. It has even swayed pliable minds like Dan's and some with far more sense. But to say that no agenda exists is one of the biggest lies of the homosex movement, particularly considering the various pro-homosex organizations have been using the strategies so well for so long.

But back to the corrections. I'll begin with Dan's response to my first corrections:

1) Who cares? I only said that I didn't recall making that statement.
2) One has to have a real charge of false claims in order to defend against it.
3) Proof has been given and you still deceitfully deny it. Sad for you that you lose homosex brownie points for facing this truth. That wouldn't happen on this side of the debate.
4) There IS no science behind removing homosexuality. This is not a lie in the least. Even the piece you offered to refute this did not support your position that it's a lie. Here's the funny part of that incident: You once chided Bush for appointing oil men to oversee oil company dealings (or something to that affect), yet in the "evidence" you offered to rebut my statement, there were references to homosexual psychologists giving their opinions. Does that make sense to you, really? That's like kleptomaniacs claiming that theft is just fine. But more importantly, if there was a scientific reason for dropping it from the list, it hasn't been presented and you damn well know it be constantly would if it existed.

Now for the rest:

"LIE #6:
It is just more of their aggressive pushing of perversions on kids"


This is not a lie, it's the purpose of the event. OK, perhaps it's not the most agressive form of their indoctrination attempts, but what do degrees matter? Again, if they want to end bullying, the target of bullying is not where the focus should be. But because they focus on the victim, they can't help but put forth the notion that homosexuality of the victim is just fine. Thus, they are promoting the behavior indicated by the perceived or known orientation of the victim.

"LIE #7:
They sneak sex clubs into schools under the guise of preventing bullying"


This is just like #6, but with one caveat: they're not sneaking, they're pretty much open about it. There have been cases of information passed out to kids who think they're homosexuals that are like how-to pamphlets. I've seen samples of them myself and one could search them out at pro-family web-sites. So they are indeed there to protect the kids from harrassment, but not to simply protect them, and they certainly aren't concerned with other kids harrassed for other reasons, but are there to support them in their questioning of their feelings. No school should have groups like these, even if they are hetero in nature. There should be no "guidance" regarding the how-to's of sexual behavior for kids under 18. It's reprehensible that there'd be anything like that for any orientation. Kids need to be reminded, encouraged, and even threatened to abstain from sexual activity until they are married to a member of the opposite sex. No real Christian should stand for anything else.

"LIE #8:
these projects are nothing more than recruitment tools"


Again, not a lie in the least. Those who promote these events indeed promote the lifestyle as normal and a legitimate option for anyone. To say otherwise is an out and out willful lie or abject ignorance, which I'll concede is likely the case with Dan. Another outright lie is Dan's regarding the commenter who put forth this "LIE #8". Mark is neither ignorant nor a pervert. Dan likes to use this ad hominem due to a dust up between them at another blog. Dan, who does not debate in an honorable fashion, was supposedly aghast at Mark's use of a graphic description of what may or may not go on between a lesbian Dan knows and any partner she may have, Mark's point being to determine if Dan found such behavior to be natural, normal or OK. Of course that doesn't make Mark a pervert, though it wasn't the wisest tactic to use with someone like Dan, who was overjoyed to have Mark's graphic description to distract from the point at hand, as Dan could not in good conscience answer respond honestly. Dan will likely call THIS a lie as well, though I stand by my recollection of the events, and my impression of how it affected Dan's reaction.

Anyhow, at this point, we can see that Dan has yet to point to any real lies from our side or to show any evidence of his own that the opposite of what we say is true. I suppose that he might concede if we had something like video taped confessions from homosex activists, signed and notarized documentation, or possibly to be present at a massive homosex convention where they all get together to recite their plans in unison. But that's the game he likes to play. He refuses the evidence of what is knowable and insists on something so solid as to be impossible to produce. Reasonable people can see for themselves what is going on and the ramifications for our culture should the agenda be realized in full. Dan's an apologist and part of HIS agenda is to deny everything at the mere mention of it, demand rock solid evidence while providing nothing of his own, and pretending that at least 70% of the population are full of shit when it comes to the issue of homosex marriage and other "rights".

We are not prepared to allow the furthering of the homosex agenda without a fight. We are not prepared to allow people like Dan to pretend we intend harm, physical or otherwise, on people of any kind due to their preference for how they pleasure themselves. We are not prepared to allow people like Dan to continue accusing us of hate, phobias, discrimination, or anything else while we stand up for the truth about the condition and what WE feel is better for our culture.

Marshall Art said...

"I can only forgive when he asks forgiveness"

That's not how it works, "Christian". And your friend could only have been "assaulted" or offended if you took it upon yourself to show the comment to her. It's dishonest to pretend Mark made the comment with the intent to hurt her feelings, but to try to compell you to answer his questions honestly. Your evasive tactics provoked the unfortunate description. It is also dishonest and judgemental in a most unChristian manner, to make more of the event that it deserves. You're proving yourself to be a fraud, particularly since I find it difficult to believe that your position on the issue of homosexuality was not influenced by your relationship with this lesbian. I've known homosexuals. One who was especially close I watched die of AIDS. My affection for the guy didn't wain from his coming out after he could no longer hide his condition. I simply don't roll that way. But your claims of prayerful meditation and close Biblical study seem less than honest with the revelation of this "beautiful" person.

It just dawned on me that this "dust up" between you and Mark occurred here at Marshall Art's. I recall deleting Mark's graphic description. I'll look for it and then link to it so others can see how the deal went down. Then, others can decide if you are justified in your intolerance of Mark's sin. They'll have to imagine the description by Mark of a possible lesbian encounter wherein he used common street jargon.

Dan Trabue said...

Anyhow, at this point, we can see that Dan has yet to point to any real lies from our side or to show any evidence of his own that the opposite of what we say is true.

I've pointed to false, unsupported allegations. You have responded by saying, "No, really, those allegations are true."

You understand, don't you, that merely repeating a false allegation is not proof?

Here's how it works:

1. I know that "the gays" are trying to recruit kids to be gay.
2. I know it because there was a news report about how "the gays" were in school recruiting kids to be gay.
3. The news report is HERE [insert credible link (ie, not WND or FOTF)].

That is what providing evidence to your claim looks like. As it stands now, you have not provided the first bit of evidence.

Here, I'll make it easy. Here's the false allegation:

because they care more for how they satisfy themselves sexually than they do their country, the welfare of children or anything else

Now, who are "THEY"? All gay folk? All gay folk and their friends and family? Some specific segment of gay folk, perhaps "the gay activists?"

If you're talking about the gay activists, which ones? All of them? Just a few? The majority?

I'll have to say that the way it reads, it sounds like this accusation is cast at all gays, and all of their supporters. And, as Neil helpfully pointed out, that must be a LARGE number, since the HRC has such a great deal of support. So, perhaps if you'd begin by defining who the "They" is you're casting aspersions upon, that would be a starting point.

If by, "THEY" you mean pedophiles, then you will probably find that I agree with you. Pedophiles probably DO "care more for how they satisfy themselves sexually than they do their country, the welfare of children or anything else..."

However, in context, it doesn't sound like they're the target.

Now, once you've defined "THEY," then you can provide some evidence that "They" care more for how they satisfy themselves sexually than they do their country, the welfare of children or anything else. A report of all of "them," a study, SOMETHING to back up this serious charge.

However, if you have no support for the statement, then it is a scurrilous and unsupported charge and should be considered such.

Now, one of you all are the ones making this serious charge. I don't have to (and indeed, CAN'T) prove a negative. The burden of proof is on the person making such a serious charge.

If I said, "ALL conservative Christian preachers are evil - THEY are child molesters!" that is a serious charge. People would rightly chastise me for saying that. They would not have to somehow "prove" that my charge is false. If I was serious about it, the burden would be upon me to prove it.

So, I've laid it out for you. One of you gave the false allegation. I've told you what you need to do to show me it is not a false allegation.

The burden is on you, or, conversely, the person who made the statement could apologize for making a false allegation.

Dan Trabue said...

Marshall said:

That's not how it works, "Christian".

Um, actually, it is. One has to confess before he can be forgiven.

If a person molests your puppy and is proud of it, and you say, "aww, don't worry about it, I forgive you," that is a mockery of what it means to forgive.

In 1 John, the Bible tells us, "if you confess your sins, God is faithful to forgive." Forgiveness without repentance is cheap grace.

If Neil were talking to me, he'd back me up on this. It's basic Christian doctrine.

Marshall also said:

It is also dishonest and judgemental in a most unChristian manner, to make more of the event that it deserves.

THIS is what is amazing: That you think I'm overplaying this verbal sexual assault! What Mark did was horrifyingly wrong, not a mere slip of the tongue. Can you imagine Mark saying something like that about your daughter? Your mother??

To me, the pornographic portion of Mark's sin is more in the category of being not that big of a deal. Yes, it's tasteless and vulgar to engage in written pornography on a public site such as this, but if he were merely fantasizing about his own supposed activities, it was mostly be gross and, well, pornographic.

But Mark undressed this Christain lady verbally. He placed her in sexual positons verbally. He committed verbal rape and it is an awful, awful, perverted thing he did and he did it to a beautiful woman he doesn't even know. It was sick and disgusting and, if anything, I've not made a big enough deal of it. I probably should have reported it to blogger and attempted to get him banned from the internet.

It's one thing to run across a creepy pervert like Mark these days, but what's really amazing is that you - as a fellow Christian - don't think it's that big of a deal.

Do you really think it "unChristian" to not defend the honor of friends? That's not the Christianity I know, nor the Christ we read about in the Bible.

I'd urge you to prayerfully reconsider your position and by God, don't you dare post that awful attack again. In the name of Jesus and all that is good and holy, don't you dare.

4simpsons said...

Painful as it was sorting through all of Dan's apparently incurable narcicism (what a perfect match with Obama!), at least we've established who the liars are. Marshall is right that only he gets to say who comments and who doesn't. I've just found it to be a big time saver not to converse with some folks and to skip over most of their comments (though that is hard when they are 30% of the thread).

Consider how Dan et al got a perfect score on executing the game plan created by those with "nefarious" motives (his term, not mine). All the evidence is right here in this thread -- over and over! Do they know they have been suckered by the gay lobby or are they willing accomplices? Does it matter?

I love evidence.

"Kirk and Madsen summarized their approach this way:

• Portray gays as victims, not as aggressive challengers.

• Give potential protectors a just cause.

• Make gays look good.

• Make victimizers look bad.

...

“In any campaign to win over the public, gays must be portrayed as victims in need of protection so that straights will be inclined by reflex to adopt the role of protector ... The purpose of victim imagery is to make straights feel very uncomfortable,” they suggested.

But, perhaps Kirk and Madsen’s most revealing admission came when they said, “[O]ur effect is achieved without reference to facts, logic, or proof.”

And so words like “homophobe” and “heterosexism” were pulled from thin air, not because they had substance, but because they were effective jamming tools. Anyone who holds traditional values relative to human sexuality suddenly became a “homophobe,” a “hatemonger,” a “bigot.”

“Gays can undermine the moral authority of homo-hating churches over less fervent adherents by portraying [them] as antiquated backwaters, badly out of step … with the latest findings of psychology. Against the atavistic tug of ‘Old Time Religion’ one must set the mightier pull of science and public opinion. … Such an ‘unholy’ alliance has already worked well in America against the churches, on such topics as divorce and abortion. … [T]hat alliance can work for gays.”

Dan Trabue said...

That's TWO people. So, is it your position that when someone here said:

because they care more for how they satisfy themselves sexually than they do their country, the welfare of children or anything else

The "THEY" being referred to were these two fellas? If so, I have no real position and you are free to think so.

But I'll have to say that I don't see the first bit of proof in your quotes that those two fellas care more for how they satisfy themselves sexually and might guess that you're wrong. Unless you have more evidence, you know, that actually deals with the false allegation.

4simpsons said...

[Un-shun]

Nice try, Blog Stalker Dan. You've been busted for your endless un-Christian ad hominem arguments and shameless and relentless advancing of the pro-gay agenda. It is all here for anyone to read.

That is a mainstream gay book and you have followed it perfectly throughout the thread, over and over. Really, just re-read my previous comment and anyone can see how you get a perfect score.

Go ahead and try to say it is just two people and see how many believe you [crickets chirping]. Your credibility is gone. We've already established that it is at least three now since you've so clearly joined them, and of course the mainstream media and apostate churches are accomplices as well.

Sweet. I love busting raging hypocrites with their own words, especially the "Christians" who advance all sorts of anti-God agendas.

Next?

[Re-shun]

My work is done for now. Off to the real job. You guys have fun with Dan today! Be sure to give him lots of attention. He needs it.

4simpsons said...

P.S. My apologies, I should have left the "Blog Stalker" part off that comment.

The rest is good, though.

Mark said...

(sigh) So much to cover.

I'll take these in no particular order:

Dan, Jesus said, "Father, forgive them..." But I don't recall "them" apologizing first. Do you think God ignored Jesus when He said that because they had not apologized first? Or was Jesus being non-Christian because he didn't follow Dan's rules of forgiveness?

Dan, It is impossible for me to be a pervert (as I've pointed out ad nauseum) because I am heterosexual. Perversion means deviant from the norm. Heterosexuality is the norm. Homosexuals are perverts.

It is a more accurate description of me (but still wrong)to say I am a pornographer. If you want to continue calling me a pornographer, I'll reluctantly accept that, but I am in no way a pervert. BTW, if I am a pornographer, why am I not rich?

You seem to have conveniently forgotten, that along with my rather graphic description of what your "beautiful Christian woman" does, I added, she is not a lesbian unless she engages in homosexual acts. If she doesn't act, she is just a woman in comfortable shoes, really. Because the act defines the sobriquet. You could have at least pretended you thought that was a valid point but you didn't.

Again, Dan, if the act of homosexuality was so wonderful and normal and natural and "blessed by God", as you say it is, why would the description of such an act be considered sick and disgusting?

What if I described a marriage ceremony in detail? Marriage is Blessed by God isn't it? If I described this "blessed by God" act of marriage in detail, wouldn't that qualify, under your definition, of being sick and disgusting, also?

Or, maybe marriage isn't blessed by Dan's God. I don't know.

Art, I have to take issue with your statement about my apology being weak. It was at least as strong an apology as all of Dan's favorite heroes, such as Dick Durbin, John Kerry, and Cynthia McKinney etc. If their apologies were good enough for Dan, why isn't mine?

And while I'm on the subject of taking issue with you, Art, you said, "I call myself Marshall Art and I'm the humble host of this blog. It is I who decides who is welcome to comment here. Right now, at this point, all are welcome, even trolls who are legitimate targets for ridicule and mockery should they choose to act like trolls. Those who storm off in a huff, or a minute and a huff, are welcome to return when they feel they've adequately composed themselves."

I didn't tell Dan not to comment. I merely suggested he make good on his promise to quit commenting on here. I mean, he said he was leaving and not coming back. I was simply asking him if he was lying when he said that, and does that then make him a liar? It was not a command so much as a request. I even said please!

In fact, I also said I don't care if he leaves or not, because his inane comments are entertaining.

Oh, by the way, Art...nice Groucho reference.

Dan Trabue said...

And Neil once again fails to provide any evidence (ie, NOT ONE WORD, not one single shred of any actual evidence to support the false allegation in question), instead trying to turn it into an actual ad hominem attack (y'all really need to study your logic more, just using words like "ad hominem" but in contexts that don't make sense doesn't really help your position).

But, again, thanks for playing.

Now here, let me try a different tack. Let's try just a bit of honest me-and-you reasoning... I have just four questions that I'd appreciate answers to, if you'd oblige:

1. IF group X is being harassed and attacked - with some 90% of group X reporting harassment or assault that is based on their being part of group X - do you think that the school where this is happening would find it reasonable to do some education about group X, to help decrease the hostile environment? Yes or no?

2. If yes, then we agree. If No, then do you at least find it reasonable that some of us might think education (as opposed to merely continuing punishing the guilty offenders, which apparently isn't working) is a reasonable answer?

3. If yes, then we agree. If no, then, do you at least acknowledge that those of us who think education about Group X is a reasonable answer might well be doing so simply because we think it's a reasonable answer and not for some nefarious reason?

4. If yes, then we agree. If no, then do you at least understand that reasonable people would expect some support for allegations of nefarious motives and, failing that, we will write you off as a unreasoning crackpot?

Four simple questions. Surely we can get some agreement here, yes?

Craig said...

Dan,

I asked a question, no reason to get so pissy. BTW I asked how many, not how many are estimated. Normally the answer to that question would be expressed as a number, not a percentage.

Since I apparently failed to make it clear previously, I will try to make my position clear so that you will be able to understand.

DAN, ANY CHILD WHO IS BULLIED FOR WHATEVER REASON IS A PROBLEM.

The answer is not to reinforce the victimhood of the bullied.

Now can you please stop misrepresenting my comments. If I was so inclined, I might refer to you as a liar or slanderer. But I realize that it is possible that you are simply mistaken. You should try it sometime.


Just to be clear since I missed the alleged pornography episode. What exactly is your problem.

Do you feel that all pornography is bad? If so, why do you feel that way?

Is (I assume) accurate description of a sexual act always pornography?

Do you feel that Mark should be banned from: this blog, the internet, writing?

Just curious

Marshall Art said...

Mark,

I knew you'd catch the reference.

My re-introduction was more of a pre-emptive action to avoid any more direct calls for others to leave. I didn't want your comments seen as a precedent upon which others might act.

I would never consider you on par with the likes of a John Kerry, Cynthia McKinney or a "Pencil" Dick Durbin. I would hope we would be more sincere in our apologies.

Dan Trabue said...

Craig said:

Now can you please stop misrepresenting my comments.

I did not misrepresent your position. I asked clarifying questions. I did not presume that you think it okay if a child is abused, I asked if that was enough evidence and if that number was sufficient to answer your question. Sorry if it sounded "pissy." Perhaps it was a bit.

I'm sorry.

But as to punishing bullies - how about answering my four questions? Do you think that it reasonable to have education if one particular group is being targeted for their identity? Even if you disagree, do you think it reasonable that others might think it reasonable?

Marshall Art said...

Dan,

Regarding apologies and forgiveness, it is one thing to describe our relationship with God as regards such things, but I don't believe we're to demand anything, but simply forgive. You've scolded others for attempting to play God, don't be doin' it yourself. Just forgive like you're supposed to.

I would also insist that you make yourself to be a liar by suggesting that I don't think Mark's comments were a big deal. If that were true, I likely wouldn't have deleted them. But the truth is, I said that YOU are making TOO MUCH of a big deal of the event. But don't worry, I've arranged to have Mark properly crucified later this week, abject remorse on his part or not. I trust that will suit you.

Moving on,

We have provided plenty of evidence for the statements made against the homosex activists and enablers. Using your own tactic, saying we're lying doesn't make it so. What we have is proof that there is indeed an agenda and given two examples. Then you say two isn't enough. Nice try. I've conceded that not all homosexuals concern themselves with any or every tenet of the agenda and if that isn't honest enough for you, then you are definitely being dishonest in your defense of them by demanding such high standards. Most of the statements made are self evident and demonstrated to be true by the actions of the various pro-homo groups, a number of which were sources for the info in one of the links of a recent comment of yours.

If I were running a school and broke up a fight, and one of the participants claimed to be a victim of harrassment because he was or was perceived to be a homosexual, I would be inclined to counsel the kid away from any sexual activity until adulthood, make him aware that such desires that he might have are deemed unnatural and correctable by a large segment of society, and suggest where he might go to seek proper counseling on the issue. Any pro-homosex org. such as "Gay/Straigh Alliance" would be aghast that I would act in this manner. They would not concern themselves with the "gay-bashing" or, more precisely, would consider my wise counseling to be bashing as well. If you think it would not be perceived in this manner, then you are nuts and deceiving yourself. Thus, the only thing that's important to these groups is the sex and it's acceptance by everyone everywhere. It's more important than anything else to them or they would not set themselves up as gay groups in schools, but join in true efforts to correct bullying behavior by bullies in order to protect all the weaker kids in school. More later. I have to go.

Anonymous said...

Dan likes those A B & C, X Y & Z people, the ones he likes to use for references; it's just conservative, sensible, Christians that he detests and makes a hobby of annoying with his blog posts. As a retired, blog reader, I find Dan on sooooo many conservative blogs. The few liberal ones I visited, I could not enjoy them because of the vile language and hatefulness of them. Let's all pray for Dan. Only God can change him. mom2

Dan Trabue said...

...aaaand STILL no answers to questions examples to support your unsupported allegations, only more lies and slander.

Come on folk, it's not that hard to have a conversation.

You say, "HI, how's it going?"

I say, "Fine, you?"

You say, "Okay. Say, what about those homos and their evil agenda?"

I say, "Homos is an offensive term, I'd thank you not to use it. What in the world are you talking about, 'agenda'?"

You say, "You know, how the gay folk and their supporters out there thinking with their crotches, trying to indoctrinate children and using bullying as an excuse to recruit them!"

I say, "No, I have not heard about it. Frankly, it sounds a little unbelievable. What 'gay folk and their supporters' are you talking about? It sounds like to me, if there's a big problem with gays being targeted for harassment in schools, some education would be a good thing."

You say, "No, it's not, because...[give explanation]"

I say, "well, it sounds reasonable to me. That doesn't make me a bad person, does it? It doesn't mean that those who think it is a good thing are pushing for the education for evil reasons, does it?"

You say, "Well, maybe not in some cases. But I think there ARE some who have evil intent."

I say, "Who? What evidence do you have?"

You say, "Well, James Dobson tells me that there are these two guys who wrote a book a long time ago. And these guys are GAY, you know, and they seemed pretty sneaky in the book..."

And so on. That's how adults normally have conversations, at least the good Christian (and not) folk around here. It ain't that hard, but it helps to be willing to use some reasoning and listening.

Dan Trabue said...

Regarding forgiveness, Marshall said:

but I don't believe we're to demand anything, but simply forgive.

You will note that I have not demanded anything. I have said that one can't forgive someone who does not wish to be forgiven. I can be standing ready and willing to forgive (and am, as I have said) when the Other repents, but one can't forgive someone who refuses to repent. That's not a demanding statement on my part, it's just a reality of how forgiveness works.

Again, I'll ask you a question (and an answer would be helpful): If some fella molests your puppy and is unrepentant, do you think saying, "Well don't worry about it, big fella, I forgive you" means anything? Or, do you think it is a mockery of what forgiveness means?

For my part, I will repeat what I have said and make it clear:

Mark, I stand ready to forgive you for your heinous actions should you ever wish to be forgiven for your pornography and for verbally raping not just my friend, but all decent folk out there with your obscene words. Come to the family, Mark. We'll forgive and accept you, even love you. Come home, Mark.

Dan Trabue said...

Marshall said:

I would be inclined to counsel the kid away from any sexual activity until adulthood, make him aware that such desires that he might have are deemed unnatural and correctable by a large segment of society, and suggest where he might go to seek proper counseling on the issue.

So, if you were a school employee and a kid were being beaten because he was gay, you would tell him that his natural orientation is "unnatural" and "correctable," THAT is how you would HELP an abused child??

You do realize that this is blaming the victim? That it only reinforces that there's something wrong with them so much so that they, themselves, are "unnatural"?

You see, this is why people who talk like this sound hateful and ignorant and why you are perceived as such. Any counselor who told person in Group X that they were just beaten up because there is something UNNATURAL about being in Group X, OUGHT to be an outrage to his/her community. That counselor is a piss poor counselor and an idiot, to boot.

What you OUGHT to say (if the question arises) is, "Some people - religious folk mainly - think that being gay is wrong and you ought to try to force a change in your natural orientation. The APA and AMA and other research oriented people and organizations tell us that research says that these religious people are wrong to think so, based on research and studies and science. Additionally, many religious folk disagree with the other religious folk in thinking that there is something wrong with being homosexual.

So, there's the information, you might seek some counseling on that point, it's not for me, as a public school employee to try to indoctrinate you with my religious views. That would be wrong and I won't do it. It's something for you to deal with with your parents, family, and faith community.

However that may be, this abuse WILL NOT STAND. The assailant will be punished and you can talk to the police about prosecution, if you so desire. This school will not abide the targeting of people for abuse for ANY reason. This school will be a safe place for you..."

Words to that effect are more appropriate... well, actually, it is probably inappropriate to get into the religious side at all, but if you did, you certainly can't proselytize on school time. We're against that, remember?

That's the very problem you have with the supposed "gay recruiters," trying to proselytize students? It would be wrong for them to do so and it would be wrong for YOU to do so.

Dan Trabue said...

Perhaps that's an area where we're having trouble communicating? The notion of proselytizing versus reasonable education.

Generally schools are, or should be opposed to proselytizing of any sort - to a religious cause, a political cause, etc.

However, it is okay to touch on political topics and religious topics as long as it's done professionally and has an educational component.

To that end, it is fine for a student to do a report on "Christian-Muslim relations in the Crusades Era" or "My Summer Mission Trip."

It is NOT okay to turn "My Summer Mission Trip" into an opportunity to lead students to Christ. School is not church. That crosses a line.

It is okay to have educational classes about homosexuality and culture where it is pointed out the wide range of cultural contributions by gay folk, or perhaps negative aspects of the AIDS problem and what the latest research is on that.

It is NOT okay for drag queens to come to school to try to convince children to be gay (of course, that doesn't happen in the real world, but just to confirm that we all agree on some basics...).

In short, Education in school = Good. Proselytizing in school = Bad.

It doesn't matter if the proselytizers are Muslims, Christians, military or gay folk, proselytizing is wrong in school.

Mark said...

Art, You've arranged to have me crucified? Who do you think you are? Pontius Pilate?

Dan, I have no interest in being loved by you or your degenerate "family".

I keep telling you this:

I am heterosexual.

Go love the perverts and be damned.

Dan Trabue said...

And now you can see what I mean by the term "Unrepentant sinner." I can no more forgive Mark than he is willing and desiring to be forgiven. I can't force forgiveness upon him.

Therefore, just as the Holy Spirit says, "Today if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts as when they provoked me, as in the day of trial in the wilderness...

"Therefore I was angry with this generation, and said, 'they always go astray in their heart; and they did not know my ways'; as I swore in my wrath, 'They shall not enter my rest.'" Take care, brethren, lest there should be in any one of you an evil, unbelieving heart, in falling away from the living God.


~Hebrews 13

Take care, brother Mark.

Mark said...

Dan, To expect forgiveness from the likes of you would be to allow myself to be unequally yoked with non-believers.

I'm tired of playing with you, as up till now, that's all I've been doing.

When you made the outlandish, blasphemous allegation that God blesses a lifestyle He clearly declared to be an abomination, you have yoked yourself to the satanic unbelievers who blaspheme God and His Holy Spirit.

You didn't just suggest it. You didn't just imply it. You didn't just infer it. You stated it clearly and with no misinterpretation. You said God blesses homosexual unions. You liar. You blasphemer.

I wish to have no part of you lest I be singed by His fateful lightening when dealing with blasphemers like yourself.

Yes, there are 66 books in the Bible (more if you are a false teacher)but no passage in any of them can be more clear than this: "Thou shalt not lay with a man as with a woman. It is an abomination." There is no need for further study. He said it. He meant it. His word is final.

There is no room for misinterpretation in that verse. Anyone who makes any sort of declarative statement that God would ever bless such an abomination to God is a blasphemer.

You, Dan, are a blasphemer, and in mortal danger of God's wrathful judgment.

Don't call me brother. I am not Satan's brother, nor will I ever be.

Unless you repent.

Dan Trabue said...

This, from the unrepentant pervert. And child molester, probably.

Hey, if it's okay with you to make shit up, I want to play, too.

Nonetheless, Mark, if and when you wish to repent, I stand ready to forgive and accept you into God's community of grace and love, in Jesus' our Savior's name.

Dan Trabue said...

I don't think you know what the word means, Mark. Here's some help.

Blasphemy (from Bible dictionary):

Generally denotes contemptuous speech concerning God, or concerning something that stands in a sacred relation toward God, such as his temple, his law, or his prophet. Our Lord was on several different occasions charged by the Jews with speaking blasphemy, because he claimed the right to forgive sins

From Easton's Bible dictionary:

In the sense of speaking evil of God this word is found in Ps.
74:18; Isa. 52:5; Rom. 2:24; Rev. 13:1, 6; 16:9, 11, 21.

It denotes also any kind of calumny, or evil-speaking, or abuse (1 Kings 21:10; Acts 13:45; 18:6, etc.). Our Lord was accused of blasphemy when he claimed to be the Son of God (Matt. 26:65; comp. Matt. 9:3; Mark 2:7). They who deny his Messiahship blaspheme Jesus (Luke 22:65; John 10:36)...

Others regard the expression as designating the sin of attributing to the power of Satan those miracles which Christ performed, or generally those works which are the result of the Spirit's agency.


I have not blasphemed God, according to these bible dictionaries. However, YOU, by claiming that I am of Satan (I, who am a child of God saved by God's grace by faith in our Lord Jesus Christ and your brother whether you like it or not, if you're a Christian) - by claiming that which is under God's grace is of satan, that does come dangerously close to fitting the definition of blasphemy.

Again, brother P, be careful.

But the tongue can no man tame; it is an unruly evil, full of deadly poison.

Peace to you.

Craig said...

Dan,

Since your 4 questions were not directed at me I did not answer them. But now I will.

1. I agree that it could be reasonable for the school in question to do something on an education front. However to use my sons High school (2200 students) as an example do you really think that by focusing on one particular (very small, >40 kids) you are doing anything beyond putting more attention the kids in that particular group. Would it not be more reasonable to put any efforts onto bullying as a whole rather than to raise bullying of one group above others, while at the same time marginalizing others who are also bullied?

2. It is reasonable that education could be a part of a larger strategy.

3. I will only go as far as to say that it appears that you have no nefarious reason for your position. Your uncritical support for those who are pushing this day of silence thing does make me wonder if you aren't a bit unaware.

4. I can't begin to unravel what on earth you are asking. But I will say that many interest groups do in fact have motives that lie beneath the surface, and that this group may be such a group. See above regarding your uncritical support.


Now that I've played your little game, It's your turn to answer my questions which were, in fact, directed to you.

I did notice further down the list where you told Marshall that he "ought" to do thus and so. I am fascinated as to what grounds you have for telling Marshall he "ought" to handle the situation your way.

Marshall Art said...

Well, at least on this point I can agree with Dan: "blaspheme" is the wrong word. What Dan is doing is spreading heresy, that is, false teachings. That's certainly bad enough, but then he continues with the name calling.

Another somewhat heretical view is that forgiveness requires something from the transgressor. "Forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors." This from a prayer taught to the disciples by Christ Himself suggests that should we place expectations on our opponents before we forgive them, that God will have those exact expectations of us. Conversely, should we forgive freely, without terms, our forgiveness from the Almight will come as easily. In any case, Dan describes it using verses that relate God's Word of how we relate to Him, but not to each other. Apparently then, it appears Dan equates himself with God, insisting that Mark repent to Dan's satisfaction. Seems to me I recall David apologizing to God for getting Uriah wacked in battle, because he rightly felt that whatever he perpetrated upon his fellow man was more importantly an offense against God. To make matters worse, Dan creates the sin of "verbal rape" and doesn't see how it looks as if he's going overboard with his concern for Mark's transgression. Kinda makes me regret having deleted the comment so I could have the exact words handy to show how goofy Dan's reaction truly is. Did Mark's words cross the line? Of course. I believe he unfortunately felt that Dan's form of debate provoked his move in order to make his point. I would agree, but would have gone a different route.

But in any case, I insist that there be no more talk of this event, even though I still intend to link to the thread when I get around to finding it. If anyone cares, stay tuned to this thread, for I'll not post it on a new one unless either party brings it up again. That means, that here at this blog, I don't want to see anymore of Dan referring to Mark as pervert, especially since it's not appropriate nor the least bit accurate. If either Dan or Mark cares to carry on with their spat, they can do so at either of their own blogs. Otherwise, both are welcome to debate whatever issues are raised here. Likely, it will be best to ignore each other.

Dan Trabue said...

Fair enough.

Dan Trabue said...

Does that go both ways? Can Mark call me a servant of Satan when clearly it is not appropriate or is it only those on the Left who can't name-call?

Using your all's example, I thought name-calling was fair game. And so, while I have never really engaged in name-calling much, when in Rome...

But, s it the case that you're asking the Left to do something you're not asking the Right to do?

Dan Trabue said...

Craig said:

Now that I've played your little game, It's your turn to answer my questions which were, in fact, directed to you.

What questions? I believe I've answered all your questions except the off-topic ones on the Topic Which Must Not Be Mentioned.

Marshall Art said...

Now to continue to correct Dan,

When I stated what I would do with the victim of harrassment, it does not imply that I would do nothing with the bully. More importantly, my point was the the pro-homo organizations would not stand quiet for such a reasonable strategy because they want me to teach that men having sex with men is normal, which it is not, and equal to a man having sex with a woman to whom he is married, which it is not. Their concern then, is not that a kid was bullied, but that he was bullied for being a homosexual, or perceived to be, and THAT is what concerns them. And for the record, if that was the ONLY reason that a kid was ever harrassed, a pro-homo day of silence would STILL be inappropriate, because it doesn't freakin' matter WHY the kid is bullied, but that he was bullied at all. So here's how I, as your humble school staff member, would handle the bully:

Agressively grabbing a heaping handful of the bully's shirt and pressing him firmly against the hallway lockers I ask:

"WHAT THE HELL DO YOU THINK YOU'RE DOING?!"

"He's a FAG!"

"SO WHAT? WHAT IF I KICKED THE CRAP OUTA YOU CUZ YER STUPID? FROM NOW ON YOU'RE HIS PROTECTOR!! NOW THE THREE OF US ARE GOING TO VISIT THE SCHOOL COP TO SEE IF HE WANTS TO PRESS CHARGES AND LET THE COP KNOW YOU'RE A PUNK!"

and leaning in close so only he can hear...

If I ever catch you bullying anyone else again, I'll see you regret it in ways you can't even imagine.

From this point on, constant contact with the bully to attempt to affect a paradigm shift will include disciplinary measures like detentions and/or suspensions, as well as meetings with the bully and his parents. A rough draft to be sure, but far more focussed on the real problem, which is bullying, not the sexual orientation, weight, thickness of spectacles, grade point average or anything else regarding the victim.

BTW, Dan. Neil's presentation of Barber's article is just the evidence for which you asked. Now, you say it's meaningless because there's only two guys mentioned in the article (actually more). But that's like saying that there's no communist agenda because only Karl Marx wrote a book, or no Nazi agenda because there's only Mein Kampf. What utter nonsense!

"The APA and AMA and other research oriented people and organizations tell us that research says that these religious people are wrong to think so, based on research and studies and science."

The above is the lie. Not that they don't say such things, but there is actual research that supports it. There has been neither biological nor psychological proof to support the pro-homo position. Remember that you tried to submit a poor attempt recently, from a biased source that didn't even support your position.

You say "Proselytizing in school = Bad." But the very presence of the GSA and other pro-homo organizations is in itself proselytizing because it defends the behavior as normal and acceptable. They don't say "Don't worry! We're just here to protect the gay kids!" They do far more than just that. They encourage kids to explore those feelings. So tell me, Dan. If you find your daughter is feeling desire for a certain boy, are you gonna tell her to go and explore those feelings? If so, then you'd truly be a false Christian, but I suspect you'd prefer she put those feelings aside at least until adulthood, if not until marriage. Visit American Family, Concerned Women for America and other pro-family sites, and you can find out what has been discovered concerning the intentions and "agendas" of pro-homosex organizations within schools. You won't see the pro-homosex groups advertize this stuff openly, because as Neil pointed out, they aren't concerned with the truth.

More later. Dinner, and my desire to eat it, calls.

Dan Trabue said...

...aaaaannd STILL the charge remains unsupported. Despite many, many words, not even an attempt to actually defend the false allegation I asked you to support.

Just in case anyone's counting.

False Allegation: 1
Actual evidence: 0

Marshall said:

my point was the the pro-homo organizations would not stand quiet for such a reasonable strategy because they want me to teach that men having sex with men is normal

They would not stand for it, nor would I, not because of an agenda but because we don't want you proselytizing our children. And we sure as hell don't want you beating up kids (even bullies) and threatening them yourself!

"Do as I say, not as I do, IF you want to live, punk." You've watched too many Dirty Harry movies, brudda.

Man, you'd be in jail so quick if you actually worked in school and tried that sick shit out, that you'd have an actual chance to prove your macho-ness with some hardened criminals instead of beating up on some child!

4simpsons said...

"BTW, Dan. Neil's presentation of Barber's article is just the evidence for which you asked. Now, you say it's meaningless because there's only two guys mentioned in the article (actually more). But that's like saying that there's no communist agenda because only Karl Marx wrote a book, or no Nazi agenda because there's only Mein Kampf. What utter nonsense!"

Excellent point, Marshall. The article describes Dan and his ilk with uncanny accuracy. But gee, he's denied it 25 times so we must be wrong. Seriously, as always I rejoice when middle grounders can see such things and decide for themselves. I don't expect honesty or repentence from the wolves in sheep's clothing. They are just following their job description. Our job is to point out their lies.

Mark said...

Well, Art, if you want to delete this comment, go ahead, but I will have my say.

I called Dan a blasphemer because he is attributing to God what God would never, ever say.

In Dan's copy and paste job: "Others regard the expression as designating the sin of attributing to the power of Satan those miracles which Christ performed, or generally those works which are the result of the Spirit's agency."

I don't think it's a stretch to say when one attributes a Satanic Doctrine to God it is blasphemous.

Satan would say God blesses Homosexual unions. But not God. In fact, as I mentioned, God says homosexual acts are an abomination to him.

God cannot and would not declare homosexuality to be an abomination and then reverse Himself and say He now blesses homosexuality. The two are mutually exclusive.

That means, Blasphemer Dan, Either God says homosexuality is an abomination or He says He blesses homosexual unions. He can't say both, and since we can find the chapter and verse wherein He says Homosexuality is an abomination, and no one (not even you, Dan)can find chapter, verse, or even the book wherein He says it is blessed...

Dan says God blesses homosexual unions. He is attributing to God a doctrine of Satan.

That is blasphemous.

Dan I will say one thing for you:

You are tenacious. In spite of overwhelming proofs and evidence to the contrary, you stick out your jaw and your protruding Neanderthal forehead, and stubbornly refuse to admit you are wrong, despite the fact that everyone (including God Himself) disagrees with you

Only a colossally stupid person would stubbornly stick with arguments that have been proven irrefutably wrong.

Are you that stupid?

I would like to think you aren't. I doubt anyone is.

The fact is, we know, and you know, and we know that you know that you are dead wrong.

Give it up. You have lost.

Craig said...

Dan,

Nice dodge, since the questions were posted before Marshall called his time out. I would argue that they are tangential to the ban and therefore fair game, but I will respect our host.

But being the full service blog poster that I am, I offer you choices. 1. You have my e mail address and can send your answers there. 2. You can answer at any post at my blog. Problem solved.


Now, back to the (sort of) point. From a Darwinist/materialist/evolutionist perspective isn't this just a circle of life deal? What we have here is the perfectly "natural" tendency of the strong to prey on those who they perceive as weak. If in fact those who have been "bullied" appear weak, then how can we fault the "bullies" for simply acting according to their nature?

Sorry, 4 1/2 hours of breathing diesel forklift exhaust makes one think profound thoughts.

Marty said...

The truth is same sex couples are here to stay and they are members of a church near you or maybe even your own church. Eventually every church will have to deal with this issue, like it or not.

Vermont just became the 4th state to legalize same-sex marriage. It won't be the last.

blamin said...

"And he asked him, What is thy name? And he answered, saying, My name is Legion: for we are many"

Marshall Art said...

No Dan,

I do not want Mark calling you names, either, even though his argument is, in my opinion, more legitimate according to MY understanding of plainly written Scripture. But note that I, personally, have NOT used such an expression. Rather, I merely continue to remind you that you are not only wrong in your belief, but have failed miserably to explain how any rational human being can pretend there is any Biblical support for it, since none exists.

AS to my strategy for dealing with bullies, I admit that it is illegal under the current liberal backed namby-pamby non-corporal punishment system of useless disciplinary practices in schools today. But even within the context of this failure of a system, (that is, failure to get through to the real hard-cases) I would work from the proven context of instilling true fear into those who only understand such tactics. The first order of business is to put a permanent end to the perpetrator's practice of bullying. It is from that point that one can then make the case to the bully that will be understood. One needn't follow through on threats, one need only have the subject believe the threats are real, and then only long enough to be able to prevent further bullying while you properly educate the bully on the wrongness of bullying. And you know what? This will amount to proselytizing, because it is an issue of morality, though not of a sexual nature.

You must also keep in mind that the scenario I has set up included actual violence between the two kids. There must be an equally high level of emotion regarding that as I, as a staff member, come upon the incident.

Just as an aside, my daughter is a high school teacher. When fights break out, teachers are not supposed to get in the middle. This is partly a result of the restrictions against corporal punishment. Should a teacher try, and the students also swing on the teacher, the teacher cannot hit back. That we've come to this point is worthy of it's own article at American Descent. Teachers are nowadays more in danger of getting smacked by a kid than ever before. Personally, being a good judge of such things, I'd take my chances with the law to put a hard ass back in his place. It's quite likely such kids missed out on their share of spankings throughout their childhoods. Better late than never because in adult life it could get them killed.

In any case, I'd be equally concerned for the future of both kids in this scenario, because without proper instruction, both are headed for sad times, even if it takes until the afterlife to endure it. By then, it's far too late, and adults who should know better are responsible for their fate.

I'd also take my chances with the repurcussions of helping the homosexual kid properly work his way out of his confusion so that he can live a proper life as regards his sexuality, marry and have kids of his own. As I said, and this is self-evident, those homosex groups who are allowed to set up shop in the schools are their to promote their lifestyle as normal and good. They are not needed in the schools to prevent bullying and like Planned Parenthood with abortions, they do not exist to help kids who don't want to be homosexual, nor do they much care about counseling them away from sexual activity during their youth. Again, visit the type of sites to which I recently referred you and you'll find out how they work their magic in the schools.

Regarding the alleged false allegation of which you're keeping score, restate it and I'll explain why it isn't false. I don't feel like trying to find it myself, only to see that it's one of the more lame accusations.

Marshall Art said...

Marty,

I don't think that we'll ever be rid of the sexually confused any more than we'll ever be rid of any other type of sinner or criminal. That's not how the world or life works. But like those other sinners and criminals, that doesn't mean we stop preaching truth and working toward a world or nation that reflects that truth. They certainly won't stop trying to do the opposite.

I also don't think Vermont will be the last unless we can get an amendment to the US Constitution, which doesn't seem likely. There's simply not enough good people in either the country or in Congress. But it is here that there is within me anything that remotely resembles a phobia regarding homosexuality. As divorce has long since become something about which most don't give a second thought, and as fornication has become almost a total given and virginity a joke, homosexuality has gained enough enablers and "good men doing nothing" for them to be the next common failure of mankind, soon to be followed by polygamy, incestuous marriages, and of course, any other depravity one can imagine. Then HE will return.

Marshall Art said...

Blamin,

Like Legion, many are those who call evil good and good evil, and they are leading our children astray, to their everlasting shame.

Marshall Art said...

Here it is, fight fans. The thread where Mark and Dan got into it. One needn't wade through all 188 comments before one finds the trouble area, but it is a ways down. For the most part, it's a pretty civil discussion, where Dan and Geoffrey's arguments are soundly and roundly exposed for their weakness, and I think it's a pretty good read. When you get to the part with two deletions, one by the comment author and the next by the blog administrator (your humble host), you will be at the point where Mark uttered the comment in question. To help, consider a likely sexual practice between two lesbians and describe it to yourself using common street vernacular, and you will have a good sense of how the comment was made. Then, you can see why Dan now considers Mark the most evil being ever, while at the same time seeing that Mark was attempting to make a point that Dan was avoiding. The graphic nature of Mark's comment provided a good distraction for Dan from that point on, but I think most will agree that Mark's intent was not to attack Dan's dear auntie in any way. It didn't appear so to me, even though the comment was inappropriate for the medium. You be the judge.

Dan Trabue said...

Craig, I don't have your email address (sorry I don't save old emails). Feel free to write me.

Boys and girls, as fun as it's all been, I've devoted way too much time here. Carry on.

Dan Trabue said...

Oh, and since Marshall asked, here's the last specific question I asked (of MANY) which have gone unanswered:

"Here's the false allegation:

because they care more for how they satisfy themselves sexually than they do their country, the welfare of children or anything else

Now, who are "THEY"? All gay folk? All gay folk and their friends and family? Some specific segment of gay folk, perhaps "the gay activists?"

If you're talking about the gay activists, which ones? All of them? Just a few? Two? The majority?

I'll have to say that the way it reads, it sounds like this accusation is cast at all gays, and all of their supporters. So, perhaps if you'd begin by defining who the "They" is you're casting aspersions upon, that would be a starting point.

Now, once you've defined "THEY," then you can provide some evidence that "They" care more for how they satisfy themselves sexually than they do their country, the welfare of children or anything else.

However, if you have no support for the statement, then it is a scurrilous and unsupported charge and should be considered such.

So, I've laid it out for you. One of you gave the false allegation. I've told you what you need to do to show me it is not a false allegation.

The burden is on you, or, conversely, the person who made the statement could apologize for making a false allegation.

Dan Trabue said...

And I'm sorry, I can't help myself, I do have to address one more tangential comment Marshall has said about education and bullies:

When fights break out, teachers are not supposed to get in the middle. This is partly a result of the restrictions against corporal punishment. Should a teacher try, and the students also swing on the teacher, the teacher cannot hit back.

1. I was briefly a special ed (behavior disorder) teacher, and have friends who still are, and my college degree is in this area - also, I have worked at a mental health agencies with some of these hard case kids. This is an area with which I am familiar.

2. I don't know what rules you have where your daughter teaches, but here, teachers are supposed to stop fights. Many of our teachers and all of our special ed teachers receive training in Safe Physical Management - how to defuse potential fights and deal with actual fights without engaging in fisticuffs ourselves. We do this because it is WRONG to fight a child. We are adults. They are children. When you say, "a teacher can't swing back," well of course not! You sound like that is a bad thing.

This is not the wild wild west. Again, I suspect you base your policies more on Dirty Harry movies and less on studies and reason and morality.

3. I say all of that just to say that educators and child care workers go to school for a reason: They learn how best to deal with situations - even difficult situations. Just because it might make you "feel good" to think about punching a bully or even just making him think you'd punch him, doesn't make it moral, ethical or efficacious.

4. When we teach children to not hit unless they want the snot beat out of them, all we do is teach them that violence is right in the right situation. To do that is to ENDORSE their hitting (or at best, to send mixed messages), not END their violent behavior.

You know, a little actual knowledge about situations can help before you form opinions.

Craig said...

Dan,

You still have option 2. But maybe I'll drop you an e mail if you choose not to exercise it.

Mark said...

Dan, Re: "Here's the false allegation:

because they care more for how they satisfy themselves sexually than they do their country, the welfare of children or anything else
"

And you know this is false? How, exactly, do you know this to be false?

Have you spoken personally to every single gay activist in the world? Do you possess some kind of previously unknown technique to get inside their minds and ascertain exactly what they think at all times?

To deny that any gay activists don't have indoctrination on their agenda is an extraordinary denial of facts on the same level as reading "God Blesses homosexuals" into the Bible where it doesn't exist.

Yes it is gay activists of whom we speak. Probably all gay activists, (otherwise, they'd just be gay supporters) but in the interest of fairness, lets say most, or even only some.

How does this omniscient knowledge change the facts that gay activists have an agenda?

As to evidence that they put their own sexual desires before anything else? All it takes to discover that fact is to open your eyes and look around.

And if they had the welfare of children in mind, they wouldn't be trying these underhanded schemes to recruit children into the lifestyle in the first place.

The only one here who considers this a scurrilous and unsupported charge is you. Therefore, there is nothing for which any of us who aren't being dishonest to apologize for.

You are the one who owes us an apology. You are the only one here who is misrepresenting the facts and the Bible and God.

You really should give it up, Dan. You're just embarrassing yourself.

Dan Trabue said...

...aaaand No Proof. Still.

It remains and unsupported allegation. I shall continue calling it a lie, because I don't think it's true and I think you all know it's not true.

Again, as always, I allow that you all may merely be extremely ignorant or bigoted and unable to discern truth from fact or some other explanation. Nonetheless, it remains an unsupported allegation.

I'll go ahead and stay away for now, unless someone can actually come up with some evidence (you can't) or an apology (you should).

Happy Easter, all.

Mark said...

I notice blasphemer Dan has no response to the indisputable fact that God cannot be duplicitous.

It isn't because he can't respond, because he has demonstrated often that he doesn't let facts get in the way of his arguments.

Therefore, he can dispute the facts. But, I suggest he is at least smart enough to know that attempting to dispute God will make him look even more stupid than he already does.

If he does respond, then I'll have to say calling Dan stupid is an insult to stupid people.

Mark said...

I also notice Dan didn't respond to my question, "how do you know this to be false?"

His question, which is a stupid question in the first place, has been answered over and over again by everyone here. He just doesn't like the answer. So he declares it wasn't answered.

But, that's Dan for ya. If he has no answer, he avoids the question.

Dan Trabue said...

Okay, last time:

I am not the one making a charge that is being challenged: YOU all are. You have made a ridiculous and scurrilous charge, the burden is on you to prove it.

Mark, let me help you understand: Do you ever see a court show on TV? Where they bring the accused in and the prosecutor says, "This man is guilty of Crime X," like on Night Court, right?

The prosecution has to demonstrate that NOT ONLY can they SAY "He is guilty," they have to provide evidence. If the prosecutor provides no evidence, the defendant is considered innocent. You have to prove the charge with actual evidence, not just repeating, "Oh, it's true, all right! You better believe it's true!"

Understand?

Or perhaps you can understand this, based on what you said, maybe you can get it: I CAN'T prove a negative. No one can.

I CAN'T "prove" that "All the gay activists (or even "MOST") DON'T care more for how they satisfy themselves sexually than they do their country," it is an unprovable charge. In a same manner, you CAN'T prove your charge. Since you can't prove it, it is by its very nature, an unsupported allegation. You can't provide any evidence because no evidence exists for such a charge.

It is nothing more than a wild and unsupportable accusation.

One more thing to consider Mark, especially this weekend: Jesus was also accused of blasphemy. Jesus was also arrested with false and unsupported charges.

Is this a path you really wish to continue down?

Forgive them father, for they know not what they do...

4simpsons said...

"One more thing to consider Mark, especially this weekend: Jesus was also accused of blasphemy. Jesus was also arrested with false and unsupported charges.

Is this a path you really wish to continue down?

Forgive them father, for they know not what they do..."

How perfectly nauseating! Fingers-in-ears-ignores-the-evidence-provided-multiple-times-I-can't-hear-you-Dan-Trabue is equating himself with Jesus! Yeah, he's a regular martyr for the faith. Exccept for the part where he disagrees with Jesus on so many key doctrines and encourages people in their God-mocking sins.

What a perfectly sickening thought here on Good Friday.

------

Here's a reminder of the evidence and how Dan is the poster boy for the gay agenda activists. What a tool.

"Kirk and Madsen summarized their approach this way:

• Portray gays as victims, not as aggressive challengers.

• Give potential protectors a just cause.

• Make gays look good.

• Make victimizers look bad.

...

“In any campaign to win over the public, gays must be portrayed as victims in need of protection so that straights will be inclined by reflex to adopt the role of protector ... The purpose of victim imagery is to make straights feel very uncomfortable,” they suggested.

But, perhaps Kirk and Madsen’s most revealing admission came when they said, “[O]ur effect is achieved without reference to facts, logic, or proof.”

And so words like “homophobe” and “heterosexism” were pulled from thin air, not because they had substance, but because they were effective jamming tools. Anyone who holds traditional values relative to human sexuality suddenly became a “homophobe,” a “hatemonger,” a “bigot.”

“Gays can undermine the moral authority of homo-hating churches over less fervent adherents by portraying [them] as antiquated backwaters, badly out of step … with the latest findings of psychology. Against the atavistic tug of ‘Old Time Religion’ one must set the mightier pull of science and public opinion. … Such an ‘unholy’ alliance has already worked well in America against the churches, on such topics as divorce and abortion. … [T]hat alliance can work for gays.”

-----

I'll skip this thread until next week and just think about all the real Christians out there. Constant reminders of all the wolves in sheep's clothing can wait a couple days.

Happy Easter, everyone! He is risen.

Dan Trabue said...

He is risen, indeed, brother.

Dan Trabue said...

It really is hard to let flat out lies (or false allegations, to be more exact) lay there, I'm sorry for coming back, but once more:

Dan-Trabue is equating himself with Jesus! Yeah, he's a regular martyr for the faith. Exccept for the part where he disagrees with Jesus on so many key doctrines

1. No, clearly I'm not equating myself with Jesus.
2. I am, however, a FOLLOWER of Jesus, saved by God's grace through faith in Jesus, the risen son of God.
3. And Jesus DID promise those who followed him that they would be treated as he was.
4. And Jesus WAS falsely accused of blasphemy by religious hypocrites.
5. And Jesus DID have false charges laid against him by religious hypocrites.
6. I don't disagree with Jesus on ANY "key doctrines."
7. Don't confuse that I disagree with Neil, or Marshall on a sin or two with disagreeing with Jesus. You are not Jesus.

These are facts. Nothing wrong in any one of the above statements. Each are wholly true and factual.

Those of who follow Jesus - Dan, Dan's gay brothers and sisters, Neil, Marshall, Craig - ALL of us have been promised that we will be treated like Jesus was treated as we follow in his steps.

Let's keep our eyes on Jesus, brothers, this is HIS weekend. No need for any of us to repeat the sins of religious hypocrites in the past.

Marshall Art said...

WooHoo! I'm 100!

Dan,

You're welcome to come back as often as you like. I do not tire of correcting you.

Mark,

I must insist you desist with the name calling of my guests. That right is reserved for your humble host, though, like my other guests, are welcome to call me whatever you like.

Marshall Art said...

OK. First, some corrections for Dan, then answers to his question.

1) Actually, you do tend to equate yourself with God/Christ and have done so earlier in this very thread. On the earlier occasion it was using the words of God to justify your unwillingness to forgive Mark. Obviously, the words you quoted were from God about HIS terms for forgiving us, not His terms for us forgiving each other. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that it was merely a poor choice on your part.
2) It is when you choose to follow that has always been in question.
3) No problem here.
4) Again, I think you're more of a heretic than a blasphemer. This is evident in your unsupported preaching that God blesses homosexual unions.
5) Yes, but that was Jesus, not you. Charges of heresy on your part are not false or unsupported by Scriptural evidence.
7) That's a disputable statement. Jesus says to obey God's commandments. You have sided with those who have stricken homosexual behavior from the list.
8) There's no confusion, except in your own self. You disagree on obeying God's commandments in full, and you're very shakey on other areas in terms of properly applying His teachings. (I won't begin to list them here, but will point them out as they come up again in future discussions---so please don't call this a false charge and demand proofs---I'm speaking of several years of debating various issues with you)

"Those of who follow Jesus - Dan, Dan's gay brothers and sisters, Neil, Marshall, Craig - ALL of us have been promised that we will be treated like Jesus was treated as we follow in his steps."

No one disputes this in the least. But you're attempting again to insist that anyone living the homosexual lifestyle while pretending it does not conflict with God's Will is a true follower. This is false of course. One can only be a true follower by doing so on His terms, not one's own. Indeed, one can even follow poorly, faltering and backsliding occasionally, and one would be a "better" follower if that backsliding was ackowledged as the backsliding it is.

Dan Trabue said...

Since you have invited me to visit regularly, I kindly thank you and will respond to a few of your comments. You said:

Again, I think you're more of a heretic than a blasphemer. This is evident in your unsupported preaching that God blesses homosexual unions.

I'd have to ask how you're defining "heresy." Generally, that would be one who disagrees with essential matters of the Faith.

I don't.

I disagree with you (in this case) on a sin.

Within Christian orthodoxy, I'm sure you'll agree, it is okay to have disagreements over a particular sin. Yes?

IF that's the case, then I am not a heretic (regardless, I'm not a heretic), I'm sure you can agree. That is, unless you have some extra-orthodox definition of heresy.

Dan Trabue said...

Marshall said:

But you're attempting again to insist that anyone living the homosexual lifestyle while pretending it does not conflict with God's Will is a true follower.

I believe we've addressed this before, but let's address it again.

We don't believe gay marriage to be ea sin. We're not "pretending" to think that. We genuinely don't think it conflicts with God's will. We genuinely think that you are wrong and out of God's will on this point.

Now, is it possible that we are mistaken on this issue? Could we be wrong on the nature of one action? Absolutely, we are fallible. You and I are both entirely able to be wrong on one issue.

But being mistaken on a sin is not the same as "pretending" something is okay when we know it is not. We are genuinely seeking God's will and striving to follow in Jesus' steps.

There is no heresy in that.

It's why I wouldn't call you a heretic (or a blasphemer), just because I think you're wrong. Under God's grace, we can be wrong, thanks be to God, eh? We certainly should strive not to be wrong, but brother, I'm here to testify, it happens.

So, what I'm doing is not pretending anything. I know for a fact that I am a follower of Jesus, saved by the Grace of God through faith in Jesus. I know for a fact (as much as I can know about someone else - the evidence is in their lives and their Holy Witness) that my friends at church (gay and straight) are followers of Jesus, saved by God's grace through faith in Jesus.

It is what it is. No heresy. No blasphemy.

Dan Trabue said...

Marshall said:

On the earlier occasion it was using the words of God to justify your unwillingness to forgive Mark.

Just to put this misunderstanding to death, here is what I have said, and I quote:

"I can only forgive when he asks forgiveness."

"He is a pervert and I do pray that one day he will admit his pornography and verbal sexual assault and I will be right there to forgive him."

"Mark, I stand ready to forgive you for your heinous actions"

...for example.

Those are not the words of someone "unwilling" to forgive.

Marshall Art said...

And this brings to mind a response to one of Dan's standing questions regarding improper beliefs. To paraphrase his concern, the question goes something like this: If one believes one's behavior is not sinful, or rather, doesn't know it is sinful, can one then fall short of salavation if one otherwise is a believer? Here's a hint:

Nevertheless, I have this against you: You tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess. By her teaching she misleads my servants into sexual immorality and the eating of foods sacrificed to idols. I have given her time to repent of her immorality, but she is unwilling. So I will cast her on a bed of suffering, and I willmake those who commit adultery with her suffer intensely, unless they repent of her ways. Rev 2:20-22

Though there is no indication whether or not Jezebel was acting initially with the knowledge that she was wrong or if she thought her actions were within specs, it's obvious that she was eventually made aware that she was wrong, but chose to proceed as before.

But how was she made aware? It doesn't say, but I think it likely that it was through contact with others who knew she was wrong by their better understanding of the truth. Heck, they probably cited doctrine and dogma just as we have, by whatever parallel to Scripture was at their disposal. She, like you and those on your side of the issue, lacked the "Scriptural" support and refused to change, likely believing she was cool. Thus, it's quite possible, that someone could engage in behaviors that God abhors, and while believing themselves to be right with God, still be considered in rebellion by Him. This falls under the "who can know the mind of God" category, but it has been our contention that without something more concrete than "prayerful meditiation", one must go where the known evidence leads, and that's toward a rejection of homosexual behavior.

Dan Trabue said...

Again, that is what YOU think. I think you are way off on this issue.

So, I'm not clear what you're saying. Is it the case that you think we have to be right on every sin in order to be saved? Surely not!

That is antithetical to orthodox Christianity.

Marshall Art said...

I'd rather focus on the sin in question. As in the case of Jezebel, you and yours have been repeatedly reminded of what Scripture says, while you continue on acting on what you'd like it to say, think it says "between the lines", or fails to say directly when the entirety of Scriptural teaching on the issue conflicts with your preferred belief. (That would be heresy---adherence to a religious opinion contrary to church dogma.) And indeed, it is truly a case of putting one's sexual desires above God's will (and everything else) using such skimpy arguments. And this goes to the allegation:

because they care more for how they satisfy themselves sexually than they do their country, the welfare of children or anything else

As I said, this is self-evident in the very fact that they are so greatly out numbered were their demands put to a vote, yet, they avoid a fair vote at all costs. Thus, they care more about their sexual gratification more than the will of their fellow Americans. The presence of their organizations in schools is unnecessary if they are concerned about bullying as they could support efforts to deal with bullying without calling attention to any single type of victim. If they truly cared about the kids, they'd work in tandem with everybody, schools, parents, local churches, disease control orgs, and pregnancy centers to encourage kids away from ANY sexual exploration at least until adulthood, if not proper marriage. But instead, they exist to "help" these confused kids explore their sexual feelings, which is shameful of any adult. It is said that many kids have homosex thoughts and feelings during their adolescent years, but emerge hetero after passing through it. Are you going to try and say that these homosex groups within the schools are able to know which kids will or won't emerge as if another phase has passed? That would be deceitful. These groups would nurture those feelings by trying to insist there's nothing wrong with it and that the lifestyle is just another choice of equal value. It's like saing that Plannned Parenthood counsels pregnant kids away from abortions. It just doesn't work that way. And why would that be? It can only be that they wish to legitimize the behavior within society and that takes precedence over everything, including the welfare of the kids to whom they are exposed.

Now if you're looking for some signed document that states they care about their method of sexual gratification over all else and will accept nothing else as evidence or proofs, then you are indeed playing word games as a good puppet of the lobby in an attempt to mimimalize the truth of my argument. That would be deceitful. A lie.

I have another point to make and this is regarding my methods to quell bullying. First of all, there has been far too much failure, confusion and differences of opinion with the world of psychology for me to put much faith in it. People spend their entire lives in counseling without overcoming their issues, and wise-guy kids are expert at saying what adults want to hear. So gentle counseling only works for some kids and as a teacher or administrator, I'm unwilling to wait. More to the point, when confronted by a fight, I'm unwilling to try counsel the kid unwilling to stop fighting and sometimes pain is the best medicine. It might not correct his bullying nature, but that's not my intent while knuckles are flying. Also, it can be referred to in later counseling: "Did you enjoy having your nose bloodied?" It gets the heart of the matter in ways easily understood. Don't make out like I'd enjoy beating a kid, but kids talk and soon, all will know that a fight on the property might result in serious pain. It's a good deterent that has been long absent in our schools since corporal punishment has been outlawed.

But here's the real point: You say that such methods only teach the kid that violence is the only way to resolve issues. How can that possibly be? Environment doesn't have any affect, only being born aggressive makes one aggressive. Isn't that the argument of homosexuals regarding their urges and compulsions? You make out like an agressive kid can be counselled out of his agression, but insist that homosexuality is immutable. You can't have it both ways as each is a behavioral issue that is opposed by the majority of the population.

Now let's put the ramifications of non-action aside for a moment and look only at the behaviors. I've known a guy for years who has always been surly for as long as I've known him (well over thirty years, and some who've known him longer attest that he's never been different). He has periods where he seems changed and the things that piss him off won't, but they don't last. But it indicates that he is totally capable even though it requires more work at times. The point is he is naturally a jerk and always has been. If he can change, as others like him have, and if there are thousands of homosexuals who have changed, then ALL homosexuals can change. And if all homosexuals can change, then the argument that they can't is not valid. Now I'm not saying that they must change, though indeed they should make every effort, but that there's no way that the argument that it's an immutable characteristic isn't the lie we've been saying it is. So any debate in favor of homosexual "rights" that begin from the argument of immutable nature is invalid since the premise is a lie.

Marshall Art said...

BTW, I said you were welcome here, I didn't say I was inviting you to visit "regularly". That would get annoying :)

Dan Trabue said...

Marshall said:

you and yours have been repeatedly reminded of what Scripture says

Brother, I need no reminding. I and mine have been reading the Bible for years and more likely are more familiar with what it says than you are. We know what the Bible says. We just disagree that you are rightly divining the Word of God. We think you have it wrong.

And you are wrong to suggest that one has to agree with a given church's position on EVERY point, including every little sin, in order to be considered a heretic.

What church? The Catholic church? You agree with every position that Catholic Church has? Cause, if not, then you're a heretic, according to your definition? Not only you, but every protestant in the world is a heretic according to that definition. Is that your position?

Or does everyone have to agree with every position of the Baptist church? WHICH Baptist church? If that's your position, then every Catholic and Methodist and all the rest are heretics according to your definition.

Do you see how your definition is not morally, spiritually or logically tenable?

Mark said...

Oh so now you equate yourself with Jesus? How much more Blasphemous can you get?

First you say God blesses homosexuality, then you say you are an equal with Jesus.

You are really digging yourself a hole, Dan. If I were you, I'd quit while I still have a slim chance of escaping Hellfire.

Marty said...

This conversation back and forth is all very interesting to me.

Now as I am reading all these comments and judgements being made against a certain segment of our human race, I begin to think about Rahab.

You know that slut in Jesus' ancestry??

You know the one who had all that faith? Was used of God to save the spies? Remember that story?

Two spies from Israel go to the harlot's house on the city walls of Jerico. She promises to hide and aid them during battle between her people and Joshua's army. Now, why is this women of ill repute willing to do this? Because she believes firmly in their God.

She hides the spies in flax on her roof-top. She and her family are saved when the walls of Jericho fall.

This slutty woman declared her faith: "The Lord your God, he is God in heaven above, and in the earth beneath."

"Was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?" (James 2:25)

Whoa! Still a slut. Yet justified by works.

"Only Rahab the harlot will live, she and all that live in her house because she hid the messengers." (Joshua 6:17)

Whoa! Still a slut. Yet she lives.

And something else! Drum roll please.......... She not only was a dirty freakin' slut, but a liar as well. (Joshua 2:4)

OMG..and then there's that other woman who whores around in the New Testatment. Eyes of fire staring her in the face, stones in hand, the death penalty about to be carried out.

But..wait!...up walks Jesus. Rather than highlight the woman's whoring ways, Jesus turns the spotlight upon the scribes and pharisees own self-righteousness.

More than once Jesus tried to correct hypocrisy by saying that even sluts would enter the kingdom before those whose works appeared more pious than they really were. (Matthew 21:31)

And, of course, throughout all this the Mosaic laws protested against harlotry.

Just something to think about.

Craig said...

Marty,

If we could slightly amend your comment to read something like, "even repentant sluts would enter the kingdom...", I don't know that I would have a problem with it. Aren't we all just repentant sluts in some form or another.

Dan, outstanding introduction of the royal we, very effective.

Dan Trabue said...

"We," as in, me and my church, my community of faith, and the larger church catholic who disagree with your position on gay marriage and agree with the one I've put forth (give or take).

My point was, I'm not defending me, I'm defending my faith community, the Church Triumphant, God's holy family.

We don't care much for the royal we, for what it's worth. We're more peasant-oriented...

Mark said...

(Sigh) Ok. I'll try to be more respectful, but Dan has to agree to quit making blasphemous or heretical statements like "God blesses Homosexuality".

Let's start by answering one question at a time. Let's make it easy, OK?

Dan, does Leviticus 18:22 say, "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination"?

Yes or no.

Craig said...

Dan,

Thanks for the clarification. Based on what I've read from you it makes a little more sense.

Your response raises an a couple of interesting questions.

When you say "me and my church, my community of faith, and the larger church catholic who disagree with your position on gay marriage and agree with the one I've put forth (give or take)." do you realize that both currently and historically the opinion that you put forth is a minority view?

Are you saying that "God's holy family" all hold your opinion on this topic?

Are you saying that this is a majority rules kind of thing?

Because we (me and my local congregation, historic Christian and Jewish orthodoxy) would disagree with you on this issue. So why not let's just speak for ourselves.

Dan Trabue said...

I recognize we're the minority on this issue within the church, as anabaptists are the minority on the issue of peace. Nonetheless, I still prefer to use the term "We" and "God's holy family," and "church" rather than "my specific church" or "Our specific tradition," because I don't think there are multiple churches. There is only One Church. God's Church. We are all family.

Even the ones who disagree about the issue of war, or on various economic matters, or on the topic of gay marriage. We may differ on various little matters, but we are still One Church, one body. You are all my brothers, and I am yours.

Like it or not, we're all one family. Sometimes dysfunctional and argumentative, but still one family.

My particular tribe holds the minority view on the topic of gay marriage (just as the Quakers and a few others held the minority view in the US on slavery back in the day), but we hold the majority view on the essentials of the faith: That we are saved by God's grace through faith in Jesus, the risen son of God.

Craig said...

Thanks, just wanted to clarify. It seemed as though you were misrepresenting the situation.

You are right about one thing it is God's church and we are saved through grace alone through faith alone, in Christ alone. We are also in the midst of celebrating his atoning death for our sins and his bodily resurrection. So that we might be called sons and daughters of God.

Let's also keep in mind that it is God's church, and he gets to set the rules.

Mark said...

I see Dan is once again avoiding a question he doesn't want to answer.

C'mon Dan, let's discuss. Answer my question. Yes or no?

Don't be afraid to answer. I just want to know if you agree that Leviticus 18:22 says that.

Dan Trabue said...

Craig said:

Let's also keep in mind that it is God's church, and he gets to set the rules.

Amen. God does.

And it is our responsibility to live within God's grace and follow in Jesus' steps by God's grace as best we can, as them's the rules God's set.

Marshall Art said...

Marty,

Don't think Rahab was an ancester of Jesus. And Josephus and other early sources refer to her as an inkeeper. But in any case, there's no indication that there is any approval of her lifestyle, which obviously changed AFTER the battle.

As to the others you've mentioned, Jesus often told such people to go and sin no more. Please don't confuse me and my feelings for the people when I'm only referring to the behavior. Jesus didn't tolerate bad behavior, why should I?

Marshall Art said...

Dan,

I wouldn't take a wager on which of us knows the Bible better. But I know it well enough, and particularly concerning behavioral issues, to know that you have not even come close to providing justification for ignoring the Levitical mandate Mark highlights in his recent comments. There is nothing in the prohibition that speaks to forms of the behavior that might be exempt from the restriction, there is nothing in it that speaks to any intention connected to behavior that is exempted from the restriction. It is a simple, straightforward easy to understand restriction against the participation in homosexual behavior. There is nothing anywhere that allows for ANY sexual activity beyond that which might take place between a man and woman bound as one flesh through matrimony. As I have just stated, as has been stated in various ways by various people in various blog discussions, you have not in any way provided anything from Scripture that in any way rebuts that position.

To make things even more plain, between the two camps, we agree that each firmly believes what we each are preaching on the subject. But here's the simple difference: You say, "We just disagree that you are rightly divining the Word of God. We think you have it wrong." "WE" are NOT "divining" anything. We are reading and repeating easily read and understood words of Scripture with which you and those you enable are in direct conflict. There's nothing fuzzy here that requires deep discussion and discernment. Your side of the issue simply goes to great lengths to inject doubt in the minds of some who don't take the time to read and learn themselves.

I recently directed you (for the umpteenth time) to review what I posted in the comments section of my first thread. There I pasted a somewhat lengthy but clear explanation of why some Levitcal laws are no longer applicable for Christians and why some still are. You simply said you don't buy it without any explanation at all of what is wrong with it or how you disagree. This is typical of the entire experience I've had in debating this issue, whether it be me and others who blog from my side of the issue, or more educated scholars such as Rob't Gagnon. Somehow, we never get substance. The ball is vollied back and forth and back and forth and then finally, your side meets a volley it can't return and cries foul, or dismisses the opponent, or simply falls back to "we don't see it that way" as if that point wasn't already clear.

So no matter how "saintly" you claim your homosex friends to be, they have to be pretty stupid saints to willfully believe that there is any allowance for their behavior in Scripture whatsoever. Each of you telling each other these lies threatens each of you. Here's the punchline: It's not a case of being right on every sin. It's a case that each of you know, because you've been constantly told and have had it explained in great detail so that even your own experts can no longer return serve, but insist on calling this sinful behavior something that God would bless. You are all in rebellion willingly and knowingly and that separates you from God no matter how "saintly" you might appear in other ways. You put yourselves at risk needlessly because that behavior is more important than risking life without sex.

Ya know, I could see the possibility that one might think there MIGHT be some way they could indulge their lusts in this manner without offending God. But there's no way an honest person can say there IS some way and that there is nothing to fear. There simply isn't the support available for such misplace confidence. Put another way, a homosexual who indulges himself while realizing he is in sin is a lot closer to salvation than those on your side of the issue.

Marty said...

Rahab was in the lineage of Jesus.

Josephus may have said she was an innkeeper, but the Scriptures CLEARLY tell us she was a harlot. Perhaps if she had an "inn", it was a bit like that famous "inn" in LaGrange, Texas.

The Scripture makes no reference to whether her lifestyle was approved or not. The scripture said she was justified by her faith in action. And what makes you think she changed her lifestyle after the battle?

And as to going and sinning no more. Who does that?

Marty said...

"Jesus didn't tolerate bad behavior, why should I?"

Jesus took all the bad behavior upon himself and it was nailed to a tree. And through his resurrection ALL who believe are justified and have everlasting life.

Dan Trabue said...

you have not even come close to providing justification for ignoring the Levitical mandate Mark highlights in his recent comments.

1. I fully understand that I have not been able to convince you of my viewpoint (not that that was my intent, I am just explaining my viewpoint - any change can only come from God). But my not being able to make you see that I believe my viewpoint on gay marriage is correct does not mean that I (we, me and my community) can't possibly have a honestly different opinion than you.

We disagree on the nature of this one particular action. We are Christians saved by God's grace who believe gay marriage is a great and holy thing. You are a Christian saved by grace who does not think gay marriage is good.

But two Christians (or a million Christians) disagreeing on the nature of a particular action is not the same as one or the other of the two groups deliberately sinning.

We believe we are right. If we are wrong, we are covered by God's grace. You believe you are right. If you're wrong, you're covered by God's grace.

That is the Christian faith. That is an essential belief, I believe. If one can't be wrong, then one isn't really saved by grace, but rather by being perfect, which the Bible and Christian orthodoxy teaches us is impossible.

That your hunch is that we don't answer substantively enough to meet your tastes is not to say that we agree. We think your view is built on straw and whispers, not solid understanding of history or of God or God's Word. We'd like you to be more substantive, too, but we don't get it, not in our opinion.

We have a difference of opinion on the nature of one action, naught else. It is not orthodox Christianity to demand that all other Christians agree with us on each sin. That is unorthodox and not logical nor spiritual nor moral.

2. Marty is right. Those of us who know the Bible know that Rahab is clearly in the lineage of Jesus and she was clearly - at least according to the Bible - a harlot.

Nothing wrong with reading the bible a bit more.

Dan Trabue said...

Put another way, Marshall, we've gone around and around on this gay marriage issue. We've both written thousands of words and quoted thousands more. I remain convinced that your view (my former view) is not biblical, moral, logical or Godly. I think it is hurtful to people and to the body of Christ.

You think the (I presume roughly) same about the view me and mine hold.

Now what? Do we call names? Do we tell everyone that THEY (the Other Group) are heretics or blasphemers or Not Christians?

For my part, I say no. You don't meet the definition of heretic, blasphemer or "not Christian," and so I won't go there (although, as I have noted before, I wouldn't want to be in the position of denying someone else is of God when they are, as that tends to get close to the definition of blasphemy and, as I've noted, it comes too close to being a repeat of what happened between the "religious" and Jesus and his disciples).

I say it may be a good thing to continue to discuss the merits of our arguments, but ultimately, we have to leave non-essential disagreements to God and stop catfighting in the house of God, in the family of God.

I don't believe that is seemly or Christian behavior and, frankly, when I look at it, I'm a bit disgusted by it (the infighting, sniping ugliness of it all).

What do you think we ought to do with differences between Christians on non-essential matters?

Dan Trabue said...

For my part, I think Paul is on the right track here, as he says in Romans 14...

Now accept the one who is weak in faith, but not for the purpose of passing judgment on his opinions. One man has faith that he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats vegetables only.

Let not him who eats regard with contempt him who does not eat, and let not him who does not eat judge him who eats, for God has accepted him.

Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls; and stand he will, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

One man regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Let each man be fully convinced in his own mind. He who observes the day, observes it for the Lord, and he who eats, does so for the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who eats not, for the Lord he does not eat, and gives thanks to God.

For not one of us lives for himself, and not one dies for himself; for if we live, we live for the Lord, or if we die, we die for the Lord; therefore whether we live or die, we are the Lord’s.

For to this end Christ died and lived again, that He might be Lord both of the dead and of the living. But you, why do you judge your brother? Or you again, why do you regard your brother with contempt? For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of God.


Happy Easter

Craig said...

Marty,

"And as to going and sinning no more. Who does that?"

So why would Jesus tell the woman "She said, "No one, Lord." And Jesus said, " I do not condemn you, either Go From now on sin no more."

Dan,

"But two Christians (or a million Christians) disagreeing on the nature of a particular action is not the same as one or the other of the two groups deliberately sinning."

If the action is a sin then it is deliberately sinning.

"We believe we are right. If we are wrong, we are covered by God's grace. You believe you are right. If you're wrong, you're covered by God's grace."

Paul would respond thus.

"1(A)What shall we say then? Are we to (B)continue in sin so that grace may increase?

2(C)May it never be! How shall we who (D)died to sin still live in it?"

and

"6knowing this, that our (L)old self was (M)crucified with Him, in order that our (N)body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin;

7for (O)he who has died is freed from sin. "

and

"10For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God.

11Even so consider yourselves to be (S)dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus.

12Therefore do not let sin (T)reign in your mortal body so that you obey its lusts,

13and do not go on (U)presenting the members of your body to sin as instruments of unrighteousness; but (V)present yourselves to God as those alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God.

14For (W)sin shall not (X)be master over you, for (Y)you are not under law but (Z)under grace.

15What then? (AA)Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? (AB)May it never be!"

and

"17But (AF)thanks be to God that though you were slaves of sin, you became obedient from the heart to that (AG)form of teaching to which you were committed,

18and having been (AH)freed from sin, you became slaves of righteousness. "

and finally

" 23For the wages of (AR)sin is death, but the free gift of God is (AS)eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord."

High. stakes gambling, that

Dan Trabue said...

If the action is a sin then it is deliberately sinning.

No. It is not. If an action is a KNOWN sin, then it is deliberately sinning. For instance, I think your disgusting position on the matter we were talking at your place is abundantly obviously sin. For you not to acknowledge that is "deliberately sinning," according to you.

BUT, you say, I don't think it is a sin. And, somehow, if you truly don't recognize your position as sinful and disgusting, then you are not deliberately sinning. God's grace covers you.

Thanks be to God.

Dan Trabue said...

And so, my question to you, Craig, is what do we do when two Christians disagree about an action? Do we disfellowship? Do we call names? Do we demonize? Or, do we live under God's grace, saying with Paul, "Who am I to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls; and stand he will, for the Lord is able to make him stand."

Craig said...

Dan,

You are again correct, that there has been a multitude of words written on this subject, and that neither side will likely change their position because of this, but I must point out some things.

You say,
"1. I fully understand that I have not been able to convince you of my viewpoint (not that that was my intent, I am just explaining my viewpoint"

And yet you have never provide one Bible reference, one extra Biblical reference from the early church fathers, one reference from one of the church councils, one piece of evidence to support your change of opinion.

You also say this.

"I believe my viewpoint on gay marriage..."

Why have you switched topics to gay marriage. The argument is that the behavior that gay marriage is based on is in itself sinful. The scriptural support for this position has been pointed out repeatedly, you dismiss it as opinion. Yet you can be quite dogmatic about things like whether Rahab was a harlot. You say you haven't tried to convince anyone, maybe you should.


Finally you say.

We think your view is built on straw and whispers, not solid understanding of history or of God or God's Word. We'd like you to be more substantive, too, but we don't get it, not in our opinion."

I'll not repeat myself save to say, just one Biblical(I'll be generous and throw in the apocrypha, the non canonical Jewish scriptures) reference to homosexuality that is either positive or neutral.


Paul says,

"21Test everything. Hold on to the good."

John writes,

"Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world."

You expect us to just accept what you are claiming, why should we not test what you are claiming?

So Dan, by what standard do you test?

What was the testing process you went through in order to form your opinion?

Please, share.

Craig said...

Dan,

First, as we established earlier, God gets to decide what is sin, not you or I. You refer to "my disgusting action" and yet there was no action. I expressed my opinion on how I would handle a hypothetical situation. Your response was to attack my method of handling a situation. I would choose to handle that particular situation with forgiveness and mercy, are those sins?

As to your second question, that is the crux of the matter isn't it. The answer is long, complicated and playing out in a number of denominations ("mine" included) across the country. I'll try for a short version so as not to go too far astray, and we can continue elsewhere if you want. Here goes.

If the basic nature of the disagreement is rooted in authority of scripture (as I believe this to be) then at some point is would be appropriate to go so far as to disassociate (officially) from a part of the Church. I'm not sure name calling and demonizing (not that anyone on your side would stoop so low) is productive, but at some point it is possible for a doctrine or teaching to go beyond the bounds of Christianity into heresy territory. So I think that it would be possible to label someone a heretic without it being considered simply name calling. So, I guess my answer would be maybe.

I did respond to your last comment at my place in a way that might help you understand (if you are interested) where I am coming from.

Craig said...

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Marty, I would point you to Dan's comment earlier in which he said.

"In 1 John, the Bible tells us, "if you confess your sins, God is faithful to forgive." Forgiveness without repentance is cheap grace."

Dan Trabue said...

You refer to "my disgusting action" and yet there was no action.

I'm sure you agree with me that inaction is action, too. Those who fail to step in and stop an atrocity are guilty of the sin of inaction, yes?

The action in question was atrocious. You failed to step in and take a stand.

I'm sure we agree on the point that inaction can be sin, too, even if you disagree on the sin in question.

Mark said...

Aaaand still, Dan avoids answering a question. A question so simple, in fact, it can be answered with a simple, desultory yes, or no.

Could there be a reason for his refusal to answer?

Dan Trabue said...

As to the gay marriage and the Bible question:

1. I use "gay marriage" as a shorthand way to say, "The notion that homosexuality itself is not a sin, just as heterosexuality is not a sin. It's what one does with their natural, God-given orientation that makes it holy or not." Instead of saying all that each time I refer to the issue, it seems easier and just as understandable to say, "the gay marriage issue," is that okay?

2. We've spent hours, days, weeks and written books as to why I hold my position and why you hold yours, do you think it beneficial for me to repeat myself? I'm not convinced. To what end?

If you really want to know my biblical, spiritual and logical reasons for why I am supportive of gay marriage, look at my friend Michael's detailed discussion of the topic here. We believe essentially the same and he explains it much better than I do. If you have a question about his series and you wish to ask me about it, I'm fine with an email or, if Marshall doesn't mind, you can raise it here, since it's tangentially related.

3. Myself, I'm more concerned with the question: What ought we do with other Christians when we have a disagreement on a non-essential-to-faith action.

We do agree that what one believes about gay marriage is not an essential tenet of Christianity?

Craig said...

Dan,

Your reasoning makes no sense here. I was not around when the action took place. I had/have no way to stop or have stopped the action in question. The fact that I would have dealt with the action in question differently than you is the point. I agree that to take no action can be sinful, but it is not necessarily sinful. However, in this case there was no action or inaction involved. You asked me a question, I answered honestly how I would respond to your hypothetical. For that honesty, You accuse me of, in effect, being an accessory to the original act. This is an error on your part, and those who would try to distort and lie and slander ought to be called on their grievous error.

That is what I am doing, you continue to accuse me of something I have not done, we disagree on the nature of this one particular action.

For you to continue to accuse me of complicity in this action by failing to step in or take a stand. Flatly, it remains and unsupported allegation. I shall continue calling it a lie, because I don't think it's true and I think you all know it's not true.

So,those who would try to distort and lie and slander ought to be called on their grievous error. My question to you is do you want to repent now or at least try to bring some evidence to support these unsupported and unholy lies? folk who cast unsupported charges that are clearly untrue are liars. It remains and unsupported allegation. I shall continue calling it a lie, because I don't think it's true and I think you all know it's not true.

The fact that you felt obligated to take this somewhere else, and now bring it back here to make these unsupported allegations, tells much about you. I, in good faith took the discussion elsewhere, I responded honestly to your questions and hypothetical, and this is how you respond. Do you all not even have a shred of decency? So, if you want to deal in the real world and keep this thread on topic, then respond to what I've posted here. If not get off your high horse, and stop the lies and slander. Your choice.

I know you believe that one has to confess before he can be forgiven. However, I forgive you no matter what you continue to post, I forgive you.

Craig said...

Dan,

I answered you question about what we should do when we disagree, and I am loath to go further off topic without an OK from Marshall. I will briefly reiterate that the root of this question is the authority of scripture. I would argue that the place of scripture is in fact an essential, therefore so are all issues that spring from it.

Craig said...

I went ahead and posted Dan's question about how to handle disagreement and my response at my blog. If there is additional discussion we could continue there.

http://jsmmds.blogspot.com/

Craig said...

Dan,

Glanced through your link, and my first impression is that I agree with his distinction between homosexuality (same sex attraction) and homosexual sex (acting on the attraction). However, his reliance of scholars such as Borg makes me question his commitment to one of his first constants (Biblical ethics is not and CANNOT BE identical with contemporary Christian ethics). It seems as though he has done just what he says should not be done. It is interesting to note that he has (to the extent I have read) failed to provide any biblical/apocryphal/Jewish citations that treat homosexual activity in any way other than negatively.

Craig said...

Sorry for the string of comments, moderate what you want.

Marty said...

"If we could slightly amend your comment to read something like, "even repentant sluts would enter the kingdom...",

Amend it all you want Craig, but the Matthew 21:31 does not say "repentant".

Speaking to the chief priests and leaders Jesus said:

"You can be sure that tax-collectors and prostitutes will get into the kingdom of God before you ever will. When John the Baptist showed you how to do right, you would not believe him. But these evil people did believe. And even when you saw what they did, you still would not change your minds and believe."
Matthew 21:31-32
Poverty & Justice Bible

Craig said...

Marty, I would point you to Dan's comment earlier in which he said.

"In 1 John, the Bible tells us, "if you confess your sins, God is faithful to forgive." Forgiveness without repentance is cheap grace."


32For John came to you to show you the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes did.

If you actually look at the text you will see that Jesus is clearly saying that the tax collectors and prostitutes have embraced the way of righteousness while the pharisees etc had not. So it would seem to appear that you are contending that the "way of righteousness" includes continued prostitution.


"And even after you saw this, you did not repent and believe him."

Then Jesus uses these prostitutes and tax collectors as examples of those who embraced the "way of righteousness". If we follow your line of thinking then what kind of example would unchanged lives be?

Jesus clearly expected some sort of change in his followers.

"13 But the one who was healed did not know who it was, for Jesus had withdrawn, a multitude being in that place. 14 Afterward Jesus found him in the temple, and said to him, “See, you have been made well. Sin no more, lest a worse thing come upon you.”
15 The man departed and told the Jews that it was Jesus who had made him well."

10 When Jesus had raised Himself up and saw no one but the woman, He said to her,[a] “Woman, where are those accusers of yours?[b] Has no one condemned you?”
11 She said, “No one, Lord.”
And Jesus said to her, “Neither do I condemn you; go and[c] sin no more.”

"12 Then Jesus spoke to them again, saying, “I am the light of the world. He who follows Me shall not walk in darkness, but have the light of life.”"

" When Jesus heard that, He said to them, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. 13 But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy and not sacrifice.’[a] For I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance.”"

"“The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand. Repent, and believe in the gospel.”"

"So they went out and preached that people should repent."

The key word used in those passages is repent, which means;

"To change the mind, or the course of conduct, on account of regret or dissatisfaction. To be sorry for sin as morally evil, and to seek forgiveness; to cease to love and practice sin."

Please feel free to demonstrate where you have come up with the concept that the unrepentant can enter the Kingdom of God?

Marty said...

"So it would seem to appear that you are contending that the "way of righteousness" includes continued prostitution."

No. I'm contending that the scripture states that the harlot Rahab was justified by her faith in action while she was still a prostitute.

Marty said...

"So why would Jesus tell the woman "She said, "No one, Lord." And Jesus said, " I do not condemn you, either Go From now on sin no more."

I said why. Because Jesus was turning the searchlight on the accusers self-righteousness. That statement was made for them. Jesus was teaching the lesson that all are sinners and cannot cast any stones.

Marshall Art said...

Marty,

Sorry, but I'm going to have to pile on regarding Rahab. (Geez, are we still on topic?)

You said Jesus said, When John the Baptist showed you how to do right, you would not believe him.

But what was John's message but (to paraphrase)"Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near!" That thrust of his message as related in Matthew. In Joshua, we are told that after the fall of Jericho, Rahab dwelt among the Israelites. How likely do you believe it to be that she lived out her life as a prostitute? How likely do you believe it to be that she would live amongst the twelve tribes of a very theocratic nation behaving in a manner that would get her put to death. Sure, her actions in regards to the spies justified her, but it would be a major stretch to imagine that her repentance didn't follow.

Next, is the issue of her career choice. Sure, my Bible also mentions her as a prostitute, but the notes say or innkeeper. The point is to consider that Jericho and all the towns being given over to the Hebrews on their way to the Promised Land were considered to be sinful peoples. So even as an innkeeper, the fact that she was a citizen of Jericho condemned her, and her life before the arrival of the spies was likely sinful as well. It's a minor point whether she was one or the other. I'm guessing that the original language suggests prostitution but in a manner that could also suggest innkeeper. Perhaps her in was a brothel. But again, it's a minor point. More importantly, I want you to understand, that unlike Dan, when I say things like this, I'm not just pulling them out of my butt. I've got something concrete to support my statement, or I'll indicate otherwise.

Marshall Art said...

In addition, (because I forgot to cover this point) I reread the entire episode regarding the spies, their agreement with Rahab, and the epilogue of the battle story relating how she came to dwell among the Israelites. I also checked both of the two NT references to Rahab. I found nothing that suggests she is an ancestor of Christ. Not a thing. I will say that my remedial understanding of the Bible may not be complete, but unless there was some "prayerful meditation" involved, I would appreciate a verse or two that states she was in the lineage of Christ. It's a far more minor point than her employment status, but I live to learn.

Mark said...

I can't tell chapter and verse, but I believe Marty is right. I've heard Rahab was an ancestor of Christ somewhere, but I don't remember where.

I don't see how it's germane to this thread, though.

I'd still like to know Dan's answer to the question I posed earlier. I have a hard time believing he just missed it. I think he's avoiding it, because if he says yes, his declaration that God blesses Homosexuality has to be false, and if he says no, he's admitting he doesn't believe in God.

Marty said...

Marshall it's in Matthew Chapter 1. Rahab was the mother of Boaz. Some translations say Rachab, however most scholars agree they are one and the same.

Perhaps she didn't live out her life as a prostitute. I don't know. I only know that they are still referring to her as the harlot in the NT.

All I'm contesting is that the word "repentance" is not mentioned in the story as to why she was found faithful and spared. She was justified not by her repentance, but by her works.

And yes, she did eventually become integrated into the life of the Israelites.

Marty said...

"I don't see how it's germane to this thread, though."

Sigh. I guess it was too much to hope for.

Marshall Art said...

No Mark. He'll just likely say it no longer applies. Which would mean that bestiality, incest and polygamy, as well as every other behavioral restriction is now A-OK, for there are no later references to those, either.

WAIT! Of course there are. But they only make those OT laws more restrictive. Christ says it isn't enough that one doesn't cheat on his wife, but if he has lust for another woman, that's adultery, too. And He says that one needn't murder another, but to hate another is just as bad. So when Christ DOES refer to any of the Mosaic laws, he tightens them up considerably, he doesn't loosen them. So if we didn't know that 100% of the Bible verses related to marriage speak only of one man and one woman, elementary logic dictates that the law prohibiting the lying with a man as one would with a woman would also be tightened, as if it needed to be.

Then also, there is the tired claim that Jesus never mentions homosex marriages, or homosex behavior. But any child in Bible study knows that Jesus is God, so that we know that He indeed DID say all he needed to say on the subject when he rendered Lev 18:22. Can a true follower really need more than "Thou shalt not..."? I don't think so.

Craig said...

Sorry Marshall,

Matthew 1:5

5Salmon the father of Boaz, whose mother was Rahab,
Boaz the father of Obed, whose mother was Ruth,
Obed the father of Jesse,
6and Jesse the father of King David.

Rahab was in the genealogy of Jesus. Not that she was the worst offender on Mary's side of the family. I am not aware that being in the genealogy of Jesus has any spiritual meaning. Or would indicate that any specific person was anything other than a relative. The main stops of the genealogy are Adam, David and Jesus. I've never heard anyone claim any special status for anyone else on the list.

Like you, I find it difficult to believe that Rahab continued as a harlot after she went to dwell among the Israelites.

As you look at the aftermath you see that her life was spared because of her actions in 6:17. Although some translations might use the term justified, I'm not sure it carries the same theological meaning that it does in the NT. Again in v. 25 we see that she dwelt in the land of Israel, which does not imply salvation, merely location.




17 Now the city shall be doomed by the LORD to destruction, it and all who are in it. Only Rahab the harlot shall live, she and all who are with her in the house, because she hid the messengers that we sent.

25 And Joshua spared Rahab the harlot, her father’s household, and all that she had. So she dwells in Israel to this day, because she hid the messengers whom Joshua sent to spy out Jericho.

Marshall Art said...

So this leads me to that which among Dan's favorite debate tactics, wherein he seeks to change the subject.

Beginning with his remarks of 4/11, 7:53 AM:

"But my not being able to make you see that I believe my viewpoint on gay marriage is correct does not mean that I (we, me and my community) can't possibly have a honestly different opinion than you."

But that's the point of these discussions. The fact that you have a different point of view is not in question. The credibility of it is. We continually point to our plainly written Biblical support for our point of view, and in return, you offer nothing but "prayerful consideration" or some such. Doing this puts you in the same camp as the KKK because they cannot legitimately use the Bible to support THEIR position any better than you can yours. We start with "Thou shalt not..." and from that point on find nothing that overturns that mandate. All you've ever done, indeed all the entire lobby has ever done, is make stuff up, such as claiming verses against homosex behavior having something to do with surrounding villlages or with temple prostitutes or other similar grasping of straws, but then cannot support that contention any better, either through scripture or other sources. And then you claim that perhaps you haven't done a good enough job explaining things, or that our side isn't understanding things, when the plain truth is you have no support for your position. You just choose to ignore God's plainly stated Will on the subject.

There's a real distinction here. You ignore what is plainly stated, give meaning to that which means something else, and twist and distort, insert and remove where it works to your advantage. In short, you and yours have gone through a lot of work to only get to the point of "we just don't see it your way". Based on all the data, there's simply no way one can't without a conscious decision to pretend otherwise.

"Now what? Do we call names? Do we tell everyone that THEY (the Other Group) are heretics or blasphemers or Not Christians?"

This represents another dishonest ploy. If someone disagrees with me that taking what doesn't belong to them without the permission of the owner is stealing, would I be wrong calling him a thief? But on this topic, the teaching is quite plain. Your refusal to acknowledge that has not been supported Scripturally, so preaching the opposite is heresy and saying so is justified. It's not done to hurt anyone's feelings, but to encourage them to repent of their wrongful position and get right with the Lord regarding the issue. Thus, you ARE a heretic to continue preaching this blatant nonsense that God blesses this behavior in any way at any time.

"We believe we are right." But you believe without any Scriptural support. Indeed, you believe in the face of overwhelming evidence and arguments against your weak and unsupportable position. You believe because you can't see your sweet auntie being cut off from God for all eternity just because she digs chicks. (I know, she has to act on her urges---no need to pretend I mean otherwise and further distract)

So the issue has nothing to do with our disagreement. That's a given. The point is you have not provided anything to support your decision to ignore this plainly stated behavior as sinful. And to NOT continue to point it out is what would be immoral or unChrisian, because on so plainly a stated point, you are fooling yourself and risking all over how some people enjoy bringing themselves to orgasm. Think on that. Try to imagine cutting yourself off from God because you insist on eating chocolate ice cream if He said not to. "Oh, Jesus never said anything about chocolate." I'll tell you what: I'd certainly want something more solid that the line of crap you and your side spews over this issue before I'd give in to an urge. Nothing is so important that I'd want to risk salvation.

Marshall Art said...

Dan,

Your 8:41AM comment regarding Romans 14.

You should at least paste verses that are relevant. I can't condemn any sinner to hell. I don't intend on refusing entry to any church I attend to sinners. This issue is simple: You must prove there is some Biblical justification for your position on homosexual behavior and/or marriage. There is none so you can't show any. Therefor, your position is wrong and heresy.

Marshall Art said...

"If an action is a KNOWN sin,"

This, to me, is the most egregious lie in the whole debate. I say that because you've read for yourself that the behavior is prohibited. It's been explained to you by more than a few people why it still is a prohibited behavior. Therefor, there's no possible way for you, nor for any of those you enable with any Judeo/Christian influence at all, to proclaim that you "don't know" that it is a sin. (It's less a lie to say you disagree, but without any way to legitimately support it, not by much.)

Moving on,

You gave numbered points later on including one that invites people to peruse your friend Michael's tiresome retreading of completely and exhaustively refuted arguments. You are all free to talk of that psuedo-intellectual drivel here if you choose. I attempted to question his laughable arguments and he banned me for my trouble. His excuse was that I monopolized the discussion, as if that's possible in a written forum like a blog. If I held to that, I'd have to have banned Dan long ago. Length of comment is no problem here. So if anyone does visit Michael's blog, be sure to dig the comments, too. If he hasn't deleted them, you'll notice how he was unable to answer my challenges to his unworthy dissertation.

Marshall Art said...

The Bulls are on. I'm done for now.


YEAH BULLS! IN THE PLAYOFFS! CLINCHED, BABY!!!!

Dan Trabue said...

Marshall said:

But that's the point of these discussions. The fact that you have a different point of view is not in question. The credibility of it is. We continually point to our plainly written Biblical support for our point of view, and in return, you offer nothing but "prayerful consideration"

I have pointed you to a whole series of excellent posts by my friend Michael that explains our position biblically, logically and morally. It's all there and quite clear. Why have you not repented?

That can only mean one thing: You are a heretic and possibly a blasphemer.

Do you get my point?

We've reviewed over and over why we have our respective positions. Your failing to convince me that your position is anything but hostile to God's Will is not an indication that you hold your position as a deliberate spit in God's eye. You are sincerely, ignorantly wrong, I conclude, but still within God's family.

Why? Because we ARE SAVED BY GOD'S GRACE THROUGH FAITH IN JESUS, and not by agreement with Marshall on some vague list of sins. Or by agreement with Dan on some vague list of sins.

Our salvation is not contingent upon agreeing with Marshall or Bubba or anyone else about a specific action. Our salvation is by God's grace.

And so, unless you have some specific question about some point on Michael's page that explains our position in great detail, my suggestion is we have reached a stone wall on this topic. Therefore, it seems to me a relevant question to ask at this point is WHAT NOW?

What do we do with disagreements within the body of Christ no specific actions and whether or not they are sinful?

Marshall went on to say:

You must prove there is some Biblical justification for your position on homosexual behavior and/or marriage.

I "MUST" prove to YOU that my position is in alignment with God's will? Is that what you're saying? I say, you're not my god. As Paul rightly notes, "Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls; and stand he will, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

I stand on the side of God's grace and against those who'd make a series of hoops to jump through in order to be saved.

Moreover, not even Titus, who was with me, although he was a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised [ie, put under the Law], but because of the false brothers secretly brought in, who slipped in to spy on our freedom that we have in Christ Jesus, that they might enslave us to them we did not submit even for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might remain intact for you.

~Paul, Galatians

Let's live under God's grace, this glorious Easter weekend fellas, not enslaved under the Law.

Christ is risen.

Craig said...

Dan

I don't mean to speak for Marshall, but I am fairly that his use of the term must "you must explain" was not an attempt to place himself in God's position. What he appears to be saying is more like; it is hard to take your opinions seriously when you provide no evidence.

The fact that you assume that the people to who refer are saved seems to indicate that you have some level of knowledge beyond other humans.

Once again I'll let Paul speak

1(A)What shall we say then? Are we to (B)continue in sin so that grace may increase?

2(C)May it never be! How shall we who (D)died to sin still live in it?"

14For (W)sin shall not (X)be master over you, for (Y)you are not under law but (Z)under grace.

15What then? (AA)Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? (AB)May it never be!"

Paul says,

"21Test everything. Hold on to the good."

John writes,

"Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world."

You expect us to just accept what you are claiming, why should we not test what you are claiming?

So Dan, by what standard do you test?

What was the testing process you went through in order to form your opinion?

Maybe you'll answer this time.

Marshall Art said...

Marty, Craig, Dan and Mark,

Looking at every verse that directly deals with the Rahab of the Jericho tale, I see nothing that speaks to her having any relation to Jesus. Marty points me to Matthew 1 and all I find is a list of people, one of whom is named Rahab, and she also gives me the assurance that "most scholars" agree it's the same chick. Well, what was I thinkin'? Of course there could only have been one woman named Rahab in all the time between Adam and Jesus. If anyone wants to give me the "most scholars" routine, I'll need a link to at least one of them so's I can see how he makes the case. Pointing to Matthew 1 doesn't do it for me as no connection to the Rahab of Joshua is made there. In addition, no mention of Rahab's family, either before her or after is mentioned in Joshua.

Mark said...

Art, that's because in OT times, The women's role or place in genealogy was not considered important.

But you have a point. There probably were thousands of women named Rahab throughout Biblical times.

But if you take into consideration that women were rarely mentioned in lists of genealogy, this particular Rahab must have had some very important role in Jewish history. Therefore,it probably is the same Rahab, but again, I fail to see the importance of that.

Marshall Art said...

"I have pointed you to a whole series of excellent posts by my friend Michael that explains our position biblically, logically and morally."

Yes you did, Dan. And as I stated, I commented there until he banned me, and I shredded his "explanation" just by the poor logic of the arguments he presented. Much of what he said, like your version, doesn't do anything to overturn "Thou shalt not...". I know YOU were impressed by his six-part waste of time, but I found it greatly wanting. He took no time, for example, to speak of the objections of scholars who rebut his "evidence", such as Robert Gagnon. Gagnon is one guy who's very detailed in his take on the issue, and unlike those on YOUR side of the issue, he WILL respond to counter arguments. This is unheard of by the pro-homosex guys, who go only so far and then disparage people like Gagnon when they are stymied by his arguments.

So, if you're going to point to ol' Michael's dissertation, it's as good as throwing in the towel. He's just got that same old same old, all of which has been expertly addressed many times.

Now, like a good enabler, you've tried to turn things around asking why I haven't repented. So, just like you haven't made your case regarding your heretical position on homsexuality, you are unable to show how I'm guilty of any wrong doing in labeling you rightly as a heretic.

What's worse is that you insist on saying that I'm trying to get you to agree with MY interpretation. But again, there's no mystifying interpreting necessary with "Thou shalt not...". What I'm trying to make you understand is that you need to agree with God's Word on the subject. You, instead, bend over backwards to justify rebellion against His Will. Good luck with that. But it's so much easier to comply with His Will. We are, of course, here to love, honor and serve HIM, not our own desires.

As to what now, I wouldn't want to be you and yours answering for your willful disobedience come judgement. Otherwise, I can only hope and pray that you all ARE as intellectually deficient as it must take to believe as you do. That's your only chance.

As to the rest, I'm not judging anyone. In this discussion, I don't have to. You condemn yourselves by your own willful rebellion. The Word is plain and you act and believe contrary to it. That obviously takes judgment out of any human's hands. As if that wasn't enough, pointing out sin isn't judgement, it's simply stating fact. It's up to God to judge whether you're worthy of heaven or not, not me. So you can drop THAT tactic now as well. But like all good Christians, you should not seek to avoid the hoops He's set up for us that are there to guide us to a holy sin-free life for His sake.

Marshall Art said...

Mark,

As I said, it's a very minor point of little importance. But it IS the type of Biblical point upon which we could all disagree without fear of losing our membership in the Jesus club. Not necessarily so on issues of sin, and the arrogant stance that one can say one's favored sin is no longer sinful.

Marty said...

Quickly here's one....in Matthew Henry's commentary:

"There are four women, and but four, named in this genealogy; two of them were originally strangers to the commonwealth of Israel, Rachab a Canaanitess, and a harlot besides, and Ruth the Moabitess; for in Jesus Christ there is neither Greek nor Jew; those that are strangers and foreigners are welcome, in Christ, to the citizenship of the saints. The other two were adulteresses, Tamar and Bathsheba; which was a further mark of humiliation put upon our Lord Jesus, that not only he descended from such, but that his descent from them is particularly remarked in his genealogy, and no veil drawn over it."

Craig said...

Sorry again Marshall,

I have spent a little time doing some online research and have not found anything that does not assume that the 2 Rahabs are the same. I'm curious as to why this is such an issue? It certainly has no bearing on the discussion here. The only reason we've gone down this road is Marty assuming that Rahab's life being spared by Joshua, implies some sort of salvation by works. The problem is the text doesn't actually indicate that, it indicates a straight business transaction. Something like, Spies- "If you hide us, we'll make sure you're not killed. Rahab- "since I'm really scared of the power of your God, I'll hide you if you protect my family too" Spies- "deal". The fact that she married a Hebrew and presumably lived under the Hebrew law is almost an afterthought. It is however a safe assumption that she ceased her prostitution career after marrying, and lived as a reasonably observant Jew. You might even say repented.

Marty said...

"I'm curious as to why this is such an issue?"

If I were to explain why, you would not accept it. So why bother explaining. You must have ears to hear anyway.

Marshall Art said...

Marty,

You're starting to sound like Geoffrey. If you have an explanation, present it. I don't understand why you should assume we wouldn't accept it unless it didn't serve your argument, in which case we'd explain why. That's how it's supposed to work.

Regarding your Matthew Henry bit, I don't see any proof there, only speculation on his part that it's the same Rahab. One could look at the geneology, use it to place the Rahab mentioned therein at the time of the Jericho incident, and all that would have been proven is that the Rahab in the geneology lived during the same time period of the Rahab of the Jericho incident. From there it is all speculation without something far more concrete than what has been presented thus far.

And that is what ties this whole thread together from beginning to now---speculation. To speculate on whether Rahab of Jericho is great-great-great-great-grandmother of Christ is an interesting exercise, but of no real consequence, particularly with regards to salvation.

And concede the use of speculation in my argument regarding the motivations of the homosex groups behind this inappropriate Day of Silence. Yet, there is far more logic in my argument when honest people look at the groups themselves and consider their purpose for existing.

But when we speak of Biblical teaching regarding restricted behavior, and what behaviors might enjoy God's blessing, one needs more than speculation, and particularly the liberal use of it that one finds in the arguments of the self-serving homosex activists, to expect that any honest person should take it seriously, and more importantly, that any of them should risk their salvation on such cheap speculations in order to prevent abstaining from forbidden behavior, the importance of which they've so elevated above the jurisdiction of God's Will and Judgement.

Worse still, folks like Dan bristle at the thought that anyone would defend a position using extra-Biblical sources, while all the while the bulk of their argument rests on such extra-Biblical sources.

Mark said...

I'm not sure I understand the argument here, but if I understand it right, we are debating when, or even if Rahab stopped prostituting herself before or after the siege on Jericho.

I don't think it's any kind of stretch to assume Rahab repented for her sin of Sexual immorality after she helped Joshua's men. I don't doubt she didn't repent and stop prostituting herself while she was collaborating with them, but I doubt she would continue to prostitute herself afterwards, especially after she was married.

We don't have to stop sinning to be saved. We stop sinning because we are saved.

And if she was an ancestor of Jesus, so what? I have have horse thieves in my ancestry.

Nevertheless, I think the point we are all missing here is that Rahab may have been an ancestor of Jesus, but Jesus was not a descendent of Rahab. He is the son of God.

Technically, since Jesus is the Son of God, and a third part of the triune Godhead, Rahab, as every other descendent of Adam, is a descendent of Jesus.

Craig said...

Marty,

I wasn't asking you I was asking Marshall. I honestly don't see what difference it makes whether the Rahabs are the same of not. As I said earlier there are three points that matter on Jesus genealogy Adam, David, and Jesus. The names or character of the others simply connect that dots.

Marty said...

Too bad that none of you can see the significance here.

The genealogy of Jesus, and the Rahab story in particular, among others, tells us a lot about God, His mercy, and grace.

God has always looked beyond a person's behavior and into the heart. He either justifies or condemns based on what He sees there. His harshest criticism and condemnation has always been reserved for the religious who in their own self-righteousness condemn behavior they see in others and in doing so make their own behavior more pious than it is.

I don't know what it will take for you you to understand this regarding homosexuality. You obviously have understood it regarding adultery, because I have yet to see you even suggest that a divorced person who has remarried should, once they have repented, stop their adulterous way, by divorcing their current spouse and remaining single and celebate the rest of their days. But no, that isn't necessary as long as they have repented, are married, and remain faithful to their current spouse. It's even ok to make them deacons, deaconesses, and pastors.

Mark said...

Marty, I agree with you on the subject of repentence. And I have always said, homosexuals can be saved, just as anyone else. But they must repent. Just as everyone else.

The only thing that could ever permanently separate us from God is unrepentant blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, which means refusal to accept the gift of eternal life He has offered us.

Marty said...

So Mark are you saying that homosexuals, like adulterers, can remain homosexual and be saved, as long as they repent and remain faithful to their spouse, same-sex though they may be?

Craig said...

Marty,

What the Rahab story may tell us, we really don't know since the text never addresses her spiritual condition, is that people can change their behavior.

When Rahab lived in a Canaanite city she was a harlot/innkeeper, then she became convinced that the God of the Hebrews was who he said he was. She provided a service to the 2 spies for which she was repaid by having the lives of her and her family spared. After that she assimilated into the Hebrew nation,(and this is where we begin to speculate)possibly married and through her marriage and children became part of the lineage of Jesus. That is all we know.

What it appears you are saying, is that simply being in Jesus' earthly family tree confers some sort of special status. David (as we know the critical link), was an adulterer and murderer, and we can see his repentance. Why would you hold Rahab to a different standard.

What about Tamar (incest)? Abraham (liar)? Solomon?

You actually sound like you are talking about some kind of beyond Calvin sort of postdestination crossed with works righteousness. Most Christians would say that what saves is not what we do, but what God has done for us. As we see in the crucifixion narrative, one of the thieves is assured of being with Christ in paradise, while having done nothing (except repent).

I'm not sure what gives you the insight to decide how people you barely know would respond on a topic not under discussion. Let it suffice to say, if there was a group of people aggressively promoting the right of people to divorce for any reason, and to continue in their behavior with out repentance, then it would probably be discussed more. Not only that, Jesus himself even gives some circumstances under which divorce is acceptable.

I can only speak for myself, in saying that If you want to know what I think, ask. There is no need to make stuff up. You should see how Dan reacts to this kind of thing. None of that from me, but please just ask.

Mark said...

No Marty. I am saying homosexuals, like everyone else, don't have to repent to become Christian, but if they truly sincerely want to please God, and do what God commands, they will repent and stop practicing the sin of homosexuality. If they don't repent, and continue in their sin, the probability of them really being a real Christian is doubtful at best.

Homosexuality is a choice. One isn't born that way. God would not create an abomination to himself. That simply isn't logical.

Therefore, once a homosexual is saved, he or she will no longer choose to practice homosexuality. If a homosexual is "married" (which is an oxymoronic concept really) to someone who is the same sex, they could conceivably continue living together without having sex, and that would be fine, but not too wise. The temptation to return to sin would be great. One would have to be a very strong Christian to manage that.

See, as I have told Dan many many times, the behavior is what defines the person. What that means is if one doesn't have sex with one of the same sex, that person isn't really a homosexual. Perhaps he would only be an effeminate appearing man. If he engages in homosexual acts, he is then a homosexual. Just as a Lesbian isn't a lesbian if she doesn't engage in sex with another woman. She's just a woman in comfortable shoes, really.

Marty said...

"If they don't repent, and continue in their sin, the probability of them really being a real Christian is doubtful at best."

OK. So here's the deal. This is what I hear you saying:

The Bible Clearly states that homosexuality is a sin, so....

Homosexual = sin
They must repent
And turn away
No longer live in homosexual relationship
in order to be saved for certain.

Now here is where it gets mighty confusing to me:

The Bible also clearly states that a person who divorces their spouse and then marries another is living in a sinful adulterous relationship, so.....

Adultery = sin
Must repent
However, in this case there is no need to turn away.
Can remain in this adulterous relationship and still be saved for certain.

I don't get it. Both are considered "sins" of a sexual nature. Both require repentance, but one is afforded grace and the other isn't.

And what about John 3:16?

It just doesn't make sense to me. Never has, and I suppose it never will.

Marshall Art said...

Wait a minute! Of course one must repent. We are all supposed to leave behind our sinful selves when we claim to be Christians. We cannot simply give lip service.

As it was stated, there does appear to be situations where divorce is not condemned. I'm not sure that in those situations the person who divorces over their spouses infidelity is then required to stay single. But guess what? That's another tangent, another topic and irrelavant to this one.

The homosexual who "marries" is wrong in two ways, he took a vow he shouldn't have and is bound by it, and he likely engages in homosex behaviors with his "spouse". Now, he isn't truly married since the union fails to be a marriage by definition, but he did take that stupid vow. So he'll have to break the vow he made and repent of that and his homosex lifestyle.

Now to be sure, there is no sin for which we will not be forgiven if we repent. And it's helpful to remember that there's a difference between the outright rebellion of maintaining the lifestyle and succombing to the temptations of that lifestyle after coming to Christ. Many people sin after coming to Christ, but to do so "on purpose", or to pretend that a favorite sin isn't a sin is rebellion. "Christian" homosexuals are in rebellion because their every argument has been exposed as nonsense and they carry on nonetheless, saying things like "We just don't see it that way" or "We've prayerfully come to a different conclusion of what 'Thou shalt not...' means" or even "The Bible's wrong". They have no argument, no credibility, no excuse, no truth in their position on the subject whatsoever.

The saddest part is that for too many heterosexuals, their tactics of portraying themselves as victims while demonizing those who defend the truth have been working all too well. I just wish they'd leave the kids the hell alone. That's unforgivable to me. It might also be for Jesus as He had firm warnings against any who would lead children to sin.

I'll tell you all the truth and I'm willing to take a vow myself. If the homosex lobby would drop their evil demands for acceptance by state and its people, I'll defend their right to abuse themselves as much as they want in the privacy of their own homes.