The title refers to a comment made at another blog when a parallel was suggested by a commenter between homosexuals and the incestuous. Note that I used the term "parallel" rather than "comparison". This is very important considering the sensitive nature of the homosexual activists and their enablers. You see, any "comparison" between homosexuals and anything not sweetness and light is derided as hateful and bigoted. Laurie Higgins, with Illinois Family Institute, notes this in a recent piece speaking on the heat Cardinal Francis George received by daring to suggest similarities between the "gay liberation" movement and the KKK. Oh, the horror. At the end of her column, she concludes in this manner:
"The reality is any comparison of homosexuality to any behavior of which society still has permission to disapprove will generate bilious howls of outrage and nastiness from homosexual activists. The closest analogue to homosexuality is not race or skin color. The closest analogue is polyamory or adult consensual incest. Try using those, especially the latter, and witness the torrent of non-rational, ad hominem-infused, fire-breathing that ensues from homosexual activists."
And we who visited Dan's blog recently had another taste of this very tactic. It is from there the "uglyass" comment came.
I say all this to set up this installment of Agenda Lies. The lie is that there is something vastly different between the argument for same-sex unions and the argument for adult consentual incestuous unions. The lie is that one is perfectly fine and the other a manifestation of some mental disorder. One healthy, the other not.
Of course, all Dan does is to assume the best of his favored class and compares it to the worst of that which he does not favor. He assumes that because he claims most incestuous affairs are oppressive, usually rapes I guess, that to imagine a person having a committed, loving and monogamous relationship with a sibling or parent is not possible. Or that it is mentally disordered. Funny. There's far more "disordered" about sexual attraction between two of the same gender than a male and female of the same family as far as I'm concerned.
And as far as I'm concerned, incest is just wrong. Sure, most people would be turned off by the thought of hooking up with a parent or sibling. But that's a cultural thing, and one that is from the same source as the cultural revulsion toward homosexual behavior: Scripture.
Yes, I know. Biologically bad things can happen should a dude hook up with his mother, daughter or sister. But that's only a risk if both carry similar defective traits, like hereditary things. If all parties are perfectly healthy, the child that might result from their union won't automatically suffer from defects.
However, as I recall, having children isn't necessarily the point of marriage, if the new age secular bozos are to be believed. So assume children aren't in the cards. One or both parties has strategic snips made by medical professionals and that issue is now in the "non" category.
The attraction itself can't be "weird". What is more weird than one dude pining after another dude? But one dude hot for his hot sister is weird? Imagine a 16 yr old Angelina Voight giving up her baby boy for adoption, never to again have contact with him. Then, in 2012, a 20 yr old young man has a nasty crush on Angelina Jolie. The fact that he is her son (without knowing it) would not likely play any part in his attraction, nor would it hinder his crush. And considering just how hot she is, had she not given up the kid at all, but raised him herself, what makes anyone think he would not appreciate her hotness just because he's her son? Enough to "want" her? Who knows? But what if he did and she reciprocated? They are both adults. Who's to say that they should be denied simply because of their biological relationship? On what basis?
Sure, people don't generally think of their family members as good looking (not counting parental bias), and generally come to agree, if that is the case, begrudgingly at first. But if it is plain to one person that his/her sibling or parent is a stud/babe, are they "disordered" for admitting it? Of course not. (Only uncomfortable) Hot is hot.
But we're to take the position that such unions are wrong (and they would be), but homosexual unions are not. And we're to take the position that such unions are SO wrong, that to dare draw any parallels or comparisons to homosexual unions is itself heinous, evil, "uglyass". On what basis?
Such unions cannot be less healthy than homosexual unions. (Keep in mind that unlike Dan, I am comparing in as much a one-to-one manner as I can. All subjects are physically healthy before entering their respective unions and none are capable of producing children. This is just about "people in love".) We can pretend that all unions of either group are platonic, but then, who would we be kidding? In this day and age? No one. So we must consider how they would express their "love" for each other and that, of course, is through sexual contact. And if acting in the least risky manner possible while still engaging in sexual contact, the incestuous would not risk at all, considering their sexual equipment would be used according to the owner's manual. They would not have to use any body part in a manner against its purpose or intent in order to engage in sexual contact. The homosexual cannot say the same thing without limiting themselves severely to handshakes and tongue wrestling.
But then, it's not really a question of healthy sexual practices at all, or whether one group's desires (homosexuals) more obviously constitutes some mental disorder. It's about the definition of marriage and who qualifies. Clearly the homosexuals do not as the definition requires one man and one woman. Clearly the incestuous do not, because the definition requires one man and one woman who are not close relations. And of course, the polygamous do not because of the numbers involved. But in each of these groups are those who feel as if their desires are true, natural and deserving of the same rights and privileges the state and culture bestows upon one man and one woman. In that manner, each of the three groups are exactly identical and the distaste Dan and those like him have for the incestuous is as irrelevant as what Dan and those like him find irrelevant about the opinions of honest people who find homosexual relationships distasteful, sinful, abnormal.
And for Dan and others like him to regard the incestuous as disordered is as hateful and bigoted as he accuses honest people of being for their understanding of the abnormal attractions and sinful desires of homosexuals who insist on pursuing their agenda (that doesn't exist). There is simply no difference between the homosexual and the incestuous except for the specifics of what floats their boats. Support the demands of one, and you must support the demands of the other. And then you must support the demands of any other who insists their "love" is equally worthy. And then "marriage" will be totally meaningless.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
290 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 290 of 290Hey, I was comment #200! What do I win?
Parkit,
“The only parallel that seems at all reasonable, given your claim of nature and design, is that incest is most similar to heterosexual intercourse.”
UM, HELLO! If the incest is between members of the opposite sex it IS heterosexual intercourse!!! DUH!
“Reading your comments, you are more ‘okay’ with this than homosexual intercourse. Which is a little more than messed up.”
Well, if the two are consenting adults, then there is nothing biologically wrong with it, and only morally wrong because God put a stop to it after 2500 years of earth history where it was morally right to populate the earth. While I think incest is wrong because God called it wrong (society’s values have no bearing - just look at how society says abortion and same-sex unions are okay!), but it is certainly less abhorrent than homosexuality - again, it is male with female. It certainly is not “messed up” to see consensual heterosexual relations as being much more morally and biologically proper than any homosexual sex.
That doesn’t mean I approve of incest, it merely says it is a more correct use of human sexuality and design than is homosexuality.
Oh Parkie,
I forgot to respond to your snark about approving sex with minors. Sorry to disappoint you, but that is something only homosexualists approve of.
Does NAMBLA ring a bell? From one perversion to another..
"If you all are truly defending incest..."
The problem is that no matter how often we say it you don't seem to understand that no one here is supporting incest.
Thanks for sort of quantifying your earlier "every case" comment. I'm still not convinced your experience supports your judgmental conclusions, but it's something anyway.
Just to recap your argument. You are saying, in effect, because I haven't seen it (in actuality you might have without knowing) it doesn't exist.
In much the same way as you have conjured up hypothetical situations where you pile worst case scenario upon worst case scenario, it is possible to come up with a hypothetical in which all of your marriage equity arguments completely support incest. You may not like that fact, but that doesn't mean you can wish it away either.
"As shown, incest is generally a problem with ABUSE. Therefore, comparing UNHEALTHY, sick-as-HELL, abusive incest with healthy gay relationships is NO comparison at all."
First, where have you "shown" anything definitive? Where have you shown that all incestuous relationships are always "UNHEALTHY, sick-as-HELL, abusive..."?
Second how many of your incest statistics are male/male incest?
"...could you even begin to try to justify its legalization."
And here we come to the heart of the problem. NO ONE in this conversation is suggesting, campaigning, or in any way trying to legalize incest. We ALL think that incest is SIN. The fact that you have ignored multiple comments pointing this out makes me wonder if you are able to understand the ACTUAL comparisons being made.
I'm pretty sure that you consider it sinful to mischaracterize someone else's position. Yet, you continue to do so after being repeatedly corrected on this matter. Why would you continue to blatantly misstate peoples position after being corrected multiple times? Again, it severely undermines your credibility when you do this after chastising others for the same sin.
Glenn.. Given that you are a man of God.. surely you can control yourself and not attack me personally.
"Parklit"
Hmm.. that didnt last long. Glenn.. I thought you were an upstanding member of a church. Not some.. well. lets just say that I had high hopes.
For starters.. I should have described heterosexual intercourse a different way. I hope you understood what my point was / is. Did you? Or are you just searching for a way to dodge the comment.
"God put a stop to it after 2500 years..."
?
Im guessing that you're not going to fight back with anything resembling evidence. Thanks. Please try again.
"Does NAMBLA ring a bell? From one perversion to another.."
Mr. Chatfield.. Remember.. you.. you are the one advocating incest. Seems like you favor all heterosexual activity over homosexuals. This is an argument with yourself. I hope you can sort it out.
Really.. this thread and original post is so far outside of what is proposed, its not even funny. The topic at hand, in voting booths around the country is same-sex marriage. Not polygamy.. Not incest.. Not bestiality.. Its sad that the arguments against have dissolved into this.
PS.. "homosexualists" Did you ever look it up? :)
It isn't just NAMBLA. It is anyone (read: Liberals) who advocates the Planned Parenthood style sex education, condoms in schools, etc. Think about it: Their message is that 12 yr. olds are able to decide if they are ready to have consensual sex, so they want to equip them to make it just slightly less dangerous.
But if a 12 yr. old can decide if she is ready to have consensual sex with a 14 yr. old, why not a 20 yr. old? Or a 30 yr. old?
Believe me, the pro-pedophilia groups will be making this argument soon, if they haven't already. The pro-gay "Christians" have helped them along.
Parklife,
I said “Parkit” as a pun for parking your trolling elsewhere. I did not attack you personally, but you seem to be pulling a card from Dan’s victim deck.
Evidence for God allowing and then stopping incest. Try reading the Bible. Adam & Eve were the only couple and they had children. In order to populate the world those children would have to marry one another, and as time went by they could marry first cousins, etc. Population grew by leaps and bounds but so did evil, so God used a flood to wipe out all humans (besides other living creatures) except those on the ark. Now, since there was only Noah’s family to re-populate the earth incest would again be the norm, and we have an example of Abram marrying his half-sister. 2500 years after creation began, according to Scripture, Moses brought down the LAW from God and in the Law incest was for the first time forbidden from that time forward. THAT is my evidence, but that requires taking the Bible as the literal history that it is. And you have no proof that it is NOT literal history, contrary to the claims of so-called Christians who make up a God in their own image - one who approves of abominable behavior.
As Marshall pointed out, you are misrepresenting our position. There is not a person here who is advocating incest. Also as Marshall pointed out, you have been told this many times, which means you conveniently overlook the truth and are spreading lies or else you are unable to comprehend the written word.
Again, you stated that I favored ALL heterosexual activity over homosexual activity. I never said that, nor did I even intimate that. Incest between consenting adults, although immoral, is certainly a proper biological use of the human body while homosexual behavior is not. We were making comparisons. Homosexualists are abhorred by incest of any sort, claiming that only “mentally ill” people would participate in it, and yet you think perverse and deviant homosexual use of the human body is right and proper. The point is that you have no logical moral ground to stand on!
A homosexualist is one who may or may not be a homophile, but supports homosexual behavior as right and proper. You can be a happily married heterosexual and yet support the homosexual agenda and that makes you a homosexualist. I didn’t make up the word - I just like it.
The topic at hand is same-sex fake marriage, and all the reasons for legitimizing such perversion can be used to legitimize every other sexual combination. Including animals, because you have no moral ground but your own opinion to say it has to be “consensual” (and if you demand consent from an animal for sex, then you should have their consent to be enslaved as a pet). And if a person gives their consent to use their body for sex when they die, you just lost your “consent” clause for necrophilia.
The rub is that all the reasons you homosexualists give against polygamy, incest, necrophilia, bestiality, etc can be pointed right back at same-sex unions. You are inconsistent in your arguments, demonstrating all you have are opinions as to what is right and wrong rather than an objective standard given by God.
You have no logical, rational or moral argument for homosexual behavior at the exclusion of any other sexual behavior. And that has been the point from the beginning.
Marshall...
You also fail to realize that the first response to YOUR experiences would be that it isn't surprising that you wouldn't encounter "healthy" relationships in a context where the unhealthy seek assistance.
That would be a valid point, IF there were ANY evidence of "healthy incest" somewhere in the real world. You have yet to produce ANY.
You DO realize, though Marshall, how very important your observation above is? This is EXACTLY the reason why "homosexuality" was once considered a mental illness: Because the only gay folk psychologists were encountering were those who were already in mental health care for mental issues. Once they realized that there WERE healthy gay folk out there, they realized the error of their way and that "homosexuality'" was not a mental illness itself.
Which is obvious to any rational thinker today, but at the time, went missed for a long time.
The thing is, this is where the evidence leads. That is another reason why you're losing this argument, the evidence is against you and all you have our cultural prejudices.
Dan, you were given at least one example of healthy incest, but you have decided a priori that ALL incest is unhealthy. You have become the final arbiter because YOU don't like it.
And yet there is positively no such thing as healthy same sex relations because it is an abuse of human sexuality - as well as being unnatural. No one in their right mind would have sex with someone of the same gender. And that goes without saying.
Evidence, Glenn. You can hold on to all your cultural and religious prejudices if you wish (although I would call that immoral and illogical), but for most people, you will have to provide evidence.
We just don't think you are god enough to think your OPINIONS are infallible.
End of argument, short of, you know, actual evidence and logic on your part.
"End of argument, short of, you know, actual evidence and logic on your part."
Since you've actually not shown any evidence that all incestuous relationships are "UNHEALTHY, sick-as-HELL, abusive...", maybe you could take your own advice.
"I'm not sure that it matters on the numbers. The point is, there are tens of thousands (millions?) of instances of abusive incest in the world..."
Nothing like some precise accurate made up numbers there.
"I am unaware of a single healthy instance."
You haven't provided a number that is closer than 10 million (plus or minus), but you know for a fact that all of them are unhealthy or abusive or mentally ill. Impressive.
I've made no such claim, Craig. I've said simply and factually, all cases I KNOW OF are abusive. All evidence OF WHICH I AM AWARE points to incest being unhealthy and abusive and horrible.
I know of NO EVIDENCE to support any suggestion of "healthy incest."
Do you?
On the other hand, I'm plenty aware of healthy gay and straight relationships.
And, I repeat, end of argument, short of, you know, actual evidence and logic on your part.
"All evidence OF WHICH I AM AWARE points to incest being unhealthy and abusive and horrible."
So you are led to conclude that your limited experience equips you to draw conclusions about millions of other relationships, again impressive.
Perhaps you'd care to address the continued misrepresentation you are engaging in as I pointed out earlier.
Glenn,
Once again, don't waste your time with Parkie. He demands substance without ever having provided any himself. You'll only be spinning your wheels dealing with his pathetic remarks.
I, however, don't mind spinning my wheels. I enjoy giving him room to continually prove what a fool he is. He seems to enjoy proving it as well.
Parkie,
"Ahh.. dear sweet marsha..."
I knew you couldn't keep up that false front you were trying to pretend was a new Parkie. That resolution didn't last long at all. In no time I'll have to start deleting your comments once again.
"I have offered you sources in the past and you have dismissed these mainstream.. and rather ordinary comments."
You have? When? Go back through the archives and link to the post that carries comments of yours with links to any source that was worth anything. I'll gladly go through the comments myself to find it and then I'll tell you why you just wasted my time once again, so you'll at least have that pathetic joy.
"You respond with American Thinker and believe that to be reasonable."
While you have never, ever, demonstrated why my link to any AT article fell short of being reasonable. You don't even read them, you hopeless buffoon, so who do you think you're kidding? What's more, unless specifically mentioned otherwise in the post that carries a link to AT, I use them for the links THEY carry to back their opinions and no lefty but Vinny has ever attempted to argue those. YOU certainly haven't.
"Now, you cry about those having a different opinion than yourself."
I never cry. I do grieve when bad opinions lead to public policy. Someday you'll have to present an opinion of your own that isn't merely a bad example of mockery toward opinions with which YOU disagree, but don't have the wit or wisdom to know why.
"Then you whine about wanting open dialog and state that your opinion can be changed..."
"Whine" about wanting open dialogue? Don't I already have it? And of course my opinion can be changed. Dan changed my opinion about what "serious and prayerful study" means, for example. Geoffrey and feodor have changed my opinion about the value of higher education, for another. And my opinion is in constant flux regarding the extent of your pathetic nature. Thus, my opinion is quite changeable given the proper provocation. It's just that my opinions on the topics I discuss have not yielded any compelling reasons from my opponents that would lead to a change. YOU'VE not come close enough to count as an attempt.
I wish to state once again that Dan does not "know" of any healthy homosexual relationships. The best he can say on the subject is that as far as he can tell, the relationships of which he is aware are "healthy" based on some subjective scale of health in his own subjective mind. How many of us have known couples who have split up after years, or even decades, and much to our surprise, because we were absolutely certain that if anyone had a solid relationship it would be them? These people had their issues, some of the quite serious, but kept them in house until they determined it was no use and they began divorce proceedings. And still, there have been more than a few such relationships that stay together in spite of their difficulties and no one is the wiser regarding them. Dan's confidence in the soundness of the relationships he can only scrutinize so closely without drawing an order of protection is no more than wishful thinking on his part, a hope that they don't disintegrate before he can chase away all who would criticize his corrupt position on human sexuality. He has no idea what the private lives of these people are really like. None.
Unless they all sleep in the same room with Dan and his wife after working side by side all day long and taking long vacations together never being out of each others' sight, in which case I apologize for doubting Dan's level of familiarity with these people.
At the same time, he has admitted knowing no situations of adult consensual incestuous pairings that parallel these allegedly perfect unions. And this is all he needs to deny the same legal considerations he so proudly supports for his homosexual friends. His Fred Phelps-like attitude toward all people with incestuous desires, based on his extremely vast experience with ONLY abusive incestuous situations, has not moved him one step toward supposing that non-abusive relationships might occur or even have occurred. He just opposes them outright and can't see that he is what he accuses of those of us who stand against the invented "marriage equity" for homosexuals in favor of God's intention and the traditional form of marriage that serves us best.
And I also want to restate that there has been no justification for calling the comparison between the two "orientations" and their push for legitimacy "uglyass". What's more, as I also stated, "uglyass" is the assumption that Dan made regarding the comment from John B that started this whole thing, that John was comparing what Dan refers to as "healthy" homosexual relationships to what he believes is always without question sick and abusive relationships. I continue to question Dan's selective graciousness. There was nothing gracious about that assumption whatsoever.
more...
Dan tries this ploy:
"You DO realize, though Marshall... edited for space--see original comment ...and that "homosexuality'" was not a mental illness itself."
This is not the case and I fully doubt you could substantiate this if your life depended upon doing so. Examples of homosexuals living as married goes back to ancient times. Homosexuals living otherwise normal lives goes back to then as well, and to suggest that psychologists never dealt with such people who merely wanted to deal with that issue alone is crap. What a desperate attempt to defend your anti-incest bigotry.
Homosexuality is considered disordered because of the obvious abnormal attraction one person has for a member of the same gender. That attraction alone is abnormal based on the the intention of God and nature for creating two genders. It is illogical. It doesn't even matter if it is dangerous or not to come together with another of the same gender, the attraction itself is abnormal BECAUSE of the biology of the subject and to what nature intended for that gender to be attracted.
Which is obvious to any rational thinker today except where an otherwise rational thinker allows himself to be corrupted by worldly influences. If you were a rational thinker, you would see the parallel as being totally appropriate and you would support "equity" for the incestuous as well. But you've dispensed with rational thought since becoming a liberal because rational thought is disallowed in the liberal club. If you were ever indeed a conservative, and I highly doubt that as you have never shown anything akin to an understanding of what it means, you need to come over from the dark side so that you can once again become friendly with rational thought.
more...
But Dan demands that the whole conversation is moot without evidence of "healthy" adult consensual relationships. To that end, I perused the world wide web to see what I could find. Amongst the following links will be found three: One between a university professor and his student daughter, but two between adult siblings, a German case and an American case. Three of the four siblings did time for the crime of incest and neither of the stories suggest any mental problems, abuse or manipulations, though I won't vouch for the professor. Also included in the links provided are a Stanford paper on the subject of legalization. This one is especially enlightening as it mentions the pros and cons very well and one can easily see the similarities, stark similarities, between the arguments for incest and homosexuality. Particularly noteworthy is the mention of the degree of infant defects compared to other unions. For example, Jews and blacks both carry genes that will lead to defects or harm to the child but are not barred from uniting in any way legally. I don't recall the Jewish condition, but most of us have heard of sickle cell anemia, which is a problem for blacks. Another is that the likelihood of defects amongst first cousins is no worse than it is for 41 yr old women, and yet we do not prohibit 41 yr old women from marriage or sexual relations.
Another link speaks of the movement to legalize adult consensual incest in Switzerland for immediate family members like siblings or parent/child. They already allow 1st cousins. The report lists other countries that allow 1st cousins.
And another link lists famous people who married 1st cousins or closer. A surprising list indeed. I believe it is the first link.
1.
2. A legalization debate.
3. A blog that asks atheists what's wrong with it. Makes good points.
4. ABC News report about the Swiss
5. Stanford article. A must read. Also speaks of the offense principle in civil law.
6. Another professorial blog, but with a bit less serious, though not altogether irrelevant considerations.
7. Just a great article from a really sharp chick who brings as much logic as any honest man could need.
All of the above are worth the time, though it remains to be seen if any pro-homosexual marriage proponent will take that time. Far easier it is to carry on pretending no good arguments or evidence exists. At the same time, should any actually read them, it will be fun to see how they blow them off without offering real arguments to counter them. Let's watch!
This was supposed to be the first one. Don't know what happened there.
Marshall, citing a source that references that incest has happened between adults is not evidence that the relationships are healthy.
Again, should ever come up with any solid evidence, I'd be glad to consider it. Hearsay is not very compelling especially when, as one of your sources notes, incest is mostly associated with cases of abuse and where we have had ZERO reports of healthy relationships between healthy individuals.
In case you missed it or can't figure it out for yourself, the problem with incest is one of abuse of power and authority, if not outright physical and emotional abuse. A father or older brother could indeed so warp his daughter/sister so as to convince (brainwash) her that marriage between them would be good, but that is an abusive situation because of the abuse of authority.
But consider this: IF you search and search and find an actual case of brother/sister incest that DID turn out to be amongst mentally well, non-abusive, consenting adults, then all you would have done is make a case for the legalization of those sorts of incest, IF they even exist.
That you all find it so impossible to defend this with actual examples is more evidence in support of my original contention: That comparing healthy gay relationships to incest is just ugly as hell, because the vast majority (if not all) incest cases are about abuse.
"I wouldn't worry too much about what goes on in others' bedrooms as long as it appears to be coming from this healthy place of self-giving love."
I think the above quote from Dan goes a long way towards answering your questions (how he knows that these relationships are "healthy").
As long as things appear to be healthy, then they must be healthy.
Of course this doesn't scratch the surface of what subjective criteria get used to determine health etc.
So, to your original point. If something appears to be "uglyass", then it must actually be "uglyass".
Again, Dan continues to persist in his false assertions.
Dan, NO ONE here is arguing for legalization of incest. Why do you continue to ignore this often repeated and clearly stated fact?
Marshall,
For the sake of disclosure, I linked to this blog post and comment thread on my blog. I had posted some general positions and lines of thinking taken partly from the discussion here, but was challenged in my representation of specific statements of position. As some specific concerns were raised, and I provided excerpts from your comment string and linked to your post I am writing to let you know I referenced your material. I am including the web address of my post and following comments here.
http://jeremydtroxler.blogspot.com/2012/01/dangerous-territory.html?showComment=1326809405468#c214720132159715851
Dan, you are such a hypocrite!
YOU have decided there is no such thing as healthy incest, therefore there is no such thing.
YOU have decided there IS such a thing as healthy same-sex unions, therefore there is such a thing.
You ASSUME there is always coercion or abuse with incest and you ASSUME the same is not true of same-sex.
You have put your OPINIONS up as fact. You have decided what is or is not abuse, coercion, etc. You have set your own standards as facts.
Again, I have to say - you are a fool in every sense of the word.
I need to stop following this comment string because all it does is irritate me to see the blatant stupidity of arguments from Dan and Parklife, as well as their continued pretense that we are in favor of incest.
"That is, I find falsehoods (real, demonstrable falsehoods, that is, not empty claims of lies, unsupported by fact) - and especially those designed to demonize an entire group of people, to be ugly as hell. Since these folk generally shrug it off when I point out there falsehoods as simply "falsehoods," I upped the ante to describe how wrong FALSEHOODS are. They are, indeed, ugly-ass, ugly as sin, ugly as hell. I don't like 'em."
So, Dan, when can we expect a stop to the "uglyass" falsehod, that anyone here supports incest or the legalization of incest?
Jeremy,
I have no problem with you for linking to my blog for any reason. This goes for anyone. I prefer the manner in which you've done it, giving any who care to do so the ability to see everything in context as it came to pass so that their judgements, if the decide to pass any, can be based on reality. That's far better than what Parkie routinely does as far as posting even the briefest pieces of a statement I may have made in order to twist it to mean what he needs it to mean.
Dan,
"Marshall, citing a source that references that incest has happened between adults is not evidence that the relationships are healthy."
I'm not sure of which link you are making reference. But the cases I found most compelling for this purpose involved the sibling from Germany and Wisconsin, neither of which mentioned any mental or emotional health concern among the subjects.
I'm well aware that one school of thought submits that it is not possible for mutual consent amongst family members (I'm speaking only of adults) because of ingrained notions of authority that transcend their ages. That is to say, one is always the child of the parent. And while it is true that many people still jump to the demands of their manipulating parents, such people are commonly viewed by society as cowards.
To put it another way, Dan, how often do you engage in that which you know is wrong because of what your parents demand. Oh sure. You'll defend the integrity of your parents by saying they'd never try to compel you to sin. But the question is would you allow it now that you are an adult?
Even in the case that Glenn provided about the billionaire and his daughter, their emails between them do not suggest she was "manipulated" at all, but that she allowed the situation to progress for what seems possibly to be reasons of greed. There is no mention of disorder between them in all of the seven page article. It is only assumed by people like you for whom the taboo is still strong and the thought of incestuous relationships "icky".
So I ask again: Could you be "manipulated" by your parents or older sibling or cousins into committing acts you would otherwise view as wrong? If the answer is "no", then you cannot use that as an argument for opposing incestuous unions because an adult cannot be manipulated against their will to do something they know is wrong. The can only allow themselves to be. This is the case with homosexuals who allow themselves to be manipulated into believing they commit no sin, that their attractions are normal.
Furthermore, while you insist on evidence of healthy adult consensual incest (which I reject as it is as spiritually sick as homosexual unions), only to deny they exist in the face of cases brought before you, you have yet to provide any evidence of incest alone as being proof of disorder. And this is how your argument fails, amongst so many reasons.
So of your many experiences with incest, just how many of them were deemed disordered or mental/emotional health issues merely for the attraction one party had for the other? This is, after all, the only factor that can be judged as disordered in these types of discussions. It is the attraction itself that must be judged before one can insist no healthy situations are possible.
And what do we have at its core, but a person of one gender attracted to a person of the other? This is not disordered, so what is? That the are related? But the relation is a sidebar. Though it might enhance the desire, as taboos against anything seems to enhance the desire for it and the pleasure of having it, it is doubtful by a wide measure that the taboo would be compelling on its own if no attraction were present first.
more...
You also try to use my own words against me, but doing so blows up in your face. To wit, the case attempted to be made when beginning thus:
"You DO realize, though Marshall..."
This taboo has not yet earned the level of acceptance enjoyed by homosexuals. It is more than reasonable to believe that, although adult consensual incest occurs with far less frequency (perhaps due to the taboo rather than in spite of it), what occurs is likely well hidden from public scrutiny. Many more may be wishing they could act on their attractions, wondering how they can broach the subject without incurring rebuke and scorn, as well as the hateful belief by people like you that the person is a mental case merely for digging his sister's ass.
In the meantime, we still have the obvious disorder manifested in an attraction for one of the same sex. Let's again compare the two attractions:
Homosexuality--
1. contradicts social and Scriptural taboos
2. contradicts intention of subject's biological design
Incest
1. contradicts social and Scriptural taboos
Remove the taboos and only one involves something biologically unnatural and contrary to one's design. That, more than anything, denotes disorder.
So yes, if we allow homosexual unions to be licensed and tolerated by society, there is less reason to deny it to any arrangement involving male and female adults. And that is true on every level, be it Scriptural, social, mental health, whatever. This has been well supported throughout this discussion, but only merely dismissed and rejected without evidence by Dan, Jim, Feodor and of course Parkie, who never contributes anything substantive anyway. And really, it is indeed "uglyass" to be so ready to deny a group of people their "rights" simply because of personal prejudice, or so we are told when we defend traditional marriage in the face of the agenda that doesn't exist.
It's confirmed. Parkie is unable to maintain the false front and has reverted to his familiar and pathetic ways. Note his last three have been deleted. You'll all have to catch his foul act while it lasts, because I will be deleting all his comments until he posts one that demonstrates some thought, substance and respect for my visitors. Though some lefties break what few rules I have now and then, no one does it as if breaking rules is itself a rule like Parkie (who thinks I'm the least bit affected by being called "Marsha"---I'm not. I'm affected by his belief that I would be by such a lame attempt to affect me. I prefer more creative insults.).
Marshall, I'll have to say from an outsider's point of view: You kept responding to Parklife like an asshole and he responded in kind. To which you respond with deleting.
It would be reasonable, then, that you delete your jerk-ish responses that brought on Parklife's, if you were being reasonable.
Whatever a man sows, this will he also reap.
~St Paul
"You DO know, don't you, that bearing false witness IS clearly condemned in the Bible? Since you don't know me at all, I will assume you have made an innocent mistake.
Still, bearing false witness is a serious sin, brother. Making mistakes happen though, so you certainly have my forgiveness, but how about being a good fellow and offering an apology for the false statement? Or at least an acknowledgment that you have misspoke? Why not keep things on an adult and respectful level?"
Dan,
Given that the above is clearly your position (they are your exact words so how could it be otherwise), why do you persist in an action that you yourself call a serious sin.
In the name of Jesus Christ or Lord and Savior I rebuke your sin and beg that you repent for your own spiritual health.
Or at least man up and acknowledge what is self evident to everyone else here with the exception of Parkie.
Craig...
why do you persist in an action that you yourself call a serious sin.
What in the name of all that is holy are you talking about, Craig?
You drop this like a bomb from nowhere. WHAT false witness?
Are you still persisting in the many claims you've made that I've ignored because they did not pertain to me?
You asked earlier, "Dan, when can we expect a stop to the "uglyass" falsehod, that anyone here supports incest or the legalization of incest?"
WHEN did I say that anyone did?
The problem appears to be your understanding moreso than any false witness on my part.
But apologizing is always a good thing, Craig, when one is wrong.
The closest thing I can find to your unsupported charge, Craig, is when I said...
If you all are truly defending incest (and trust me, guys, that sounds batshit nuts), you'd think you could produce SOME evidence to support your position.
But as a reminder of how conversation works, when one asks a question ("IF you all are truly defending incest...") then one is not making a charge, one is asking a question.
Does that help you?
"If you all are truly defending incest (and trust me, guys, that sounds batshit nuts), you'd think you could produce SOME evidence to support your position."
The fact that it has been pointed out to you multiple times that this NO ONE IS DEFENDING INCEST. For you to ignore this and to suggest that any are doing this is quite clearly false.
So, you could just apologize and move on, but I doubt it.
"...when one asks a question ("IF you all are truly defending incest...")"
When one asks a question that has already been repeatedly and clearly addressed, that seems to be less of an attempt at "conversation' and more of a cheap rhetorical gambit. Don't be surprised when people react to what you say.
Craig...
The fact that it has been pointed out to you multiple times that this NO ONE IS DEFENDING INCEST.
Way back on Jan 13, Glenn said...
I suggest these are examples of "healthy" relationships. My proof they exist.
On Jan 14, Marshall said all sorts of things, including...
A girl seeks a mate for marriage and she knows she wants someone just like here father because he's a good man, an obviously good husband, has been a great dad, and is handsome to boot.
And on and on it went. So, you'll have to excuse me if it SEEMS they are defending incest as "normal" and "healthy." (Especially when they say things like, "examples of "healthy" relationships. My proof they exist.")
Dan,
You are no outsider. It seems as if you are not very good at being an insider, though, if you think that what has been going on between Parkie and myself is limited to this thread. This punk has been as I have stated repeatedly, both in this thread on threads past, one who came here with a bad attitude, mocking and ridiculing not only me, but my guests, and worse than that, doing so in a most pathetic manner wholly lacking in cleverness. He never adds anything substantive to the discussion and, like Geoffrey, accuses me of ignorant and ridiculous comments without ever explaining just what makes them so.
Then, he puts on this act of having become a changed man, possibly some New Year's resolution, but hasn't earned the right to demand that we accept it as legit. We see now that it was all a ruse, as he's reverted to his old self. Yet even during that brief period, he failed to add anything substantive. He merely cut the mockery and in exchange, became very much like you, whining about bullying and acting the victim. Through it all, from the very first, I have welcomed better, giving him every opportunity to actually engage, to stick his neck out and offer a sample of his true opinions and the reasons for it. This is very much what most of us do as a matter of course.
But you, Mr. Psuedo-sanctimonious, show again your own fraudulent nature by calling me an asshole. Either you are the man of grace and Christian brotherhood you say you are, or you are a regular joe. The latter can call me asshole all day long if he thinks he has a good reason he can demonstrate. You've set yourself up so that you are a fraud if you do even if I go out of my way to be a complete asshole.
Indeed, this thread is about you being an asshole yourself, for your asshole remark to John B at your blog, daring to suggest he was comparing your angelic homosexuals to abusive and mentally dysfunctional people who cause suffering to helpless family members. Only an asshole would make that Grand Canyon leap, especially after constant whining about seeking clarification when others have FAR more reason to think negatively after reading your words.
We have constantly insisted we do not support incest any more than we do homosexual behavior, and this thread has clearly been about how YOU deny to the incestuous what you whine about with regards to "equity" for homosexuals. We have been showing the parallels, not only in the arguments that are being used by the incestuous and polygamous, but the parallel between what you are doing and what you we've been doing when we continue to oppose the agenda that doesn't exist.
Here is more asshole stuff from you:
"So, you'll have to excuse me if it SEEMS they are defending incest as "normal" and "healthy.""
We have clearly and plainly stated that if you are going to speak of what is healthy and what is not, then it is only right that we look at which is healthier of the two. You simply deny the logic of why our position is true because of your corrupted nature. As in every other discussion where homosexuality is a part, we have met every objection with fact and logic and you have yet to answer questions regarding those incestuous situations of which you speak, such as: how many of them are considered disordered for no other reason BUT their incestuous activity? What about the attraction of one person to a family member is disordered?
You are too up the butts of the homosexual community to have any shred of integrity. Every sinful act is a taboo that is broken, including your calling me an asshole. You must be disordered. The attraction of a man to a woman is never disordered, even if the woman is related. When you can prove otherwise, then you might have something you can work with. When you can prove that a person desiring to have intimate relations with another of the same gender, then you might have something you can work with. You have provided no proof for either, and you simply dismiss the logic we've brought to the table that counters your positions.
Dan,
I think I've pretty much done what I hoped to do in this thread.
It is now quite clear that you do not favor "marriage equity" for all despite your earlier statement. It is further quite clear that the line you draw to exclude folk from said "equity" is arbitrary. Your exclusion is not based on scripture, it's based on what you (who trumpets your fallibility) perceive that you see in your circle of acquaintances. The key word in all of that is YOU, you don't point to anything beyond your self and how you perceive things. You misrepresent the positions of those you disagree with while railing against those who "misrepresent" your positions.
So, thank you so very much for making your position clear. I for one really appreciate it.
Craig, I am always glad to clarify my positions. In fact, I shall do so again, right here...
It is now quite clear that you do not favor "marriage equity" for all despite your earlier statement.
I have been consistently in favor of marriage equity for ALL rational adults with the caveat of no harm. This is only rational.
Craig...
It is further quite clear that the line you draw to exclude folk from said "equity" is arbitrary.
No, in fact, unlike you all who base marriage on the whimsy of your subjective opinions, my position IS consistent: Marriage equity for all rational adults with the caveat of no harm. That is not arbitrary, that is consistent and rational and evidence-based.
Thanks for allowing me to clarify yet again the difference between our position and your alls.
And it is Dan who decides what "rational" is. To him it is irrational to say that God says marriage is only for opposite sex couples and that homosexuality is an abomination to God, but it IS rational for him to claim homosexuality is okay and same-sex fake marriage is okay.
Isn't it great to be the arbiter of what is rational and irrational?
Would it do any good at all, Brother Glenn, to point out that I have not stated this and it is not my position? That this is a false representation of my position?
Would pointing out that factually, you are making a false statement make a difference at all to you? Would doing so result in your admitting your mistake and apologizing?
OR, would pointing out that fact (actual fact, not one of your "opinion-facts") only result in your displaying even more abusive and arrogant and unsupported false charges?
What would experience tell us?
Dan, that is the summation of your stated beliefs. It is YOU who claim what is rational vs irrational. YOU consider homosexuality and same-sex fake marriage to be rational or you would not be supporting it. It is you who claim incest is irrational against all the evidence contrary to your belief. So that makes you the final arbiter as to what is or is not rational in human sexuality.
You condemn incest based only on your limited exposure to it while at the same time condoning and even promoting homosexuality.
As has been demonstrated by Craig, et al, incest is at least biologically rational while homosexuality is not.
But you refuse to admit that. There is no false witness by me.
Very well, my brother.
God bless you and keep you.
In Christ, Dan.
"I have been consistently in favor of marriage equity for ALL rational adults with the caveat of no harm. This is only rational."
Dan,
You quite clearly said earlier in this thread that you favored "marriage equity" for ALL. You have then modified your definition of all a time or two, but clearly you either misspoke or have changed your position. Further, your inclusion of the terms "rational" and "harm" are not universally applicable. While it might be self evident to us in the enlightened west that FGM is harmful, a number of societies around the world did not get the memo. Is it your contention that you (specifically) or we (the enlightened west) should define marriage based on what is self evident to you (or us)? Or would you just consider marriages that don't meet your standard or rationality or harm to be void? Your entire construct hinges on the word rational which leads to the obvious question, retinal to who? You? God? Society? Which society?
"...unlike you all who base marriage on the whimsy of your subjective opinions,..."
Other than the fact that this statement is not actually true, you are welcome to your hunch. Fortunately hunches aren't required to conform to reality.
"...my position IS consistent: Marriage equity for all rational adults with the caveat of no harm."
Based on your definition of rationality and harm, which are obviously subjective and binding. Or based on your previously expressed "If I haven't seen it it doesn't exist attitude". Again, other cultures define these things differently, are they wrong?
You'd deny marriage equity to and abusive irrational gay couple as well as a rational non-harmful couple engaged in incest.
"That is not arbitrary, that is consistent and rational and evidence-based."
Maybe I don't understand what you mean by "evidence based". You have provided no evidence to support your contention that all incestuous relationships are by definition irrational or harmful. You have made a couple of statements indicating that most incestuous relationships are thus, bur certainly nothing to suggest all are. Further, you have not answered my earlier question regarding the number of "bad" incestuous relationships that are homosexual v. heterosexual. Obviously a rational person would not conclude that data about homosexual incest, would have any bearing on heterosexual incest. Again, some clarification would help. So, if your conclusion as to the acceptability of who gets "marriage equity" is evidence based, you will surely have no problem providing the evidence on which you based your opinion.
Personally, I'm comfortable with the fact that a reasonable reading of the plain Biblical text prohibits both incest and homosexual sex. How this is arbitrary and whimsical is beyond me.
Dan,
Your lack of insight on who gets to define things like "rationality","harm" and any other limits you feel should be placed on "marriage equity" could be why people assume you presume to define these terms for others. Or potentially what standards one could use to objectively determine these things. Obviously other cultures see these types of things differently than you (or us), yet it seems that you have provided nothing to suggest that their culture is "wrong". Maybe if you could be more forthcoming about this it would preclude folk coming to erroneous conclusions.
Craig...
I'm comfortable with the fact that a reasonable reading of the plain Biblical text prohibits both incest and homosexual sex. How this is arbitrary and whimsical is beyond me.
You wish to assert as reasonable a literal reading of some rules (but not ALL rules) given specifically and only to the people of Israel 6000 years ago in their ancient and vastly different culture, and assert that this is a reasonable measure for what should and shouldn't be encouraged today, but you don't think we ought to also kill them (which the text plainly asserts, too) or that these ancient rules - given plainly, specifically and explicitly to ancient Israel - don't apply for things like eating shrimp or hair cuts or menstrual rules... THAT seems irrational, arbitrary and whimsical, and does NOT appear to be based on a plain reading of the text, which also contributes to the appearance of whimsy and gross subjectivity on your (collective) part.
Dan,
You would have to provide a case where our understanding of Biblical guides for human behavior is arbitrary, whimsical or a mere hunch. We've backed everything we've put forth (together or individually), and also backed our objections to YOUR purely subjective positions. Just in my blog I have offered numerous examples of why some Levitical laws stand as applicable today and others don't, having begun my blog with a post containing an excellent explanation to which your counter argument was no more than "I don't buy it". (WOW! THAT seals the deal for ME! It's all clear now!)
But you continue to conflate punishments God mandated for Israel to exact upon perpetrators of bad behavior with the bad behavior itself. And you dare speak of "rational"? The reason we don't put sinners to death for their sins (aside from civil law that carries capital punishment) is the whole reason we are Christian---because Jesus paid the price and no sacrifice, of all were reflections of "the wages of sin is death" is required if we repent of those behaviors and accept Jesus as Lord and Savior.
But such purposely bad comparisons are common with you, as this post was based on just such a bad comparison of which YOU accused John B, when HIS comparison, if grace really means anything to you, should have been taken by you to mean ONLY adult consensual activity by BOTH groups.
OF course you do it constantly with trying to say there is no difference between say, lying and mixing fabrics, or stealing and how one cuts one's hair. And you dare speak of rational.
We all share positions held by scholars and teachers throughout history. You share positions with recent liberal heretics and pretend they come from serious study, prayer and God writ on your heart. Your positions are clearly and blatantly counter to Scripture and thus it cannot be God who is writing on YOUR heart. And what is truly arbitrary is when you decide it apply YOUR notions of grace and civility.
I, for one, am more than willing to go back to "START" and rehash the entire debate between us as if it never occurred, in order to demonstrate as true and factual all I've said here (echoed by Craig, Glenn and surely by Neil, Stan, Bubba, and others). Maybe you would add actual evidence for your positions to make it interesting and/or show why the evidence and arguments I put forth are "arbitrary" or "whimsical". Pick one issue now where you think that is evident and I'll provide a separate post where we can see if it is true.
Dan,
we have been down this road before. The O.T. texts on homosexuality are not the only ones - the N.T. soundly condemns homosexuality also. But not all the O.T. laws were just for Israel, and the whole section on homosexuality, incest, bestiality is NOT limited to Israel, as I demonstrated in my article using proper biblical hermeneutics.
In order for you to say it was only for Israel, then you have to say bestiality is okay if homosexuality is okay.
You are in denial. You blaspheme God every time you say He approves of homosexuality in any form. Your claims about "healthy" homosexual behavior are irrational and illogical. Common sense says so.
The context of eating specific foods, etc is totally separate from the sexual laws, yet you and your homosexualist ilk have to twist the scripture to justify what God condemns. It is foolish for you to continue to excuse perverse and unnatural behavior, and it is a lie to claim that homosexual sex isn't unnatural and perverse.
Everyone on this comment string has stated that no one is for promoting incest, rather we are demonstrating YOUR hypocrisy. Incest is listed with homosexuality as a sexual sin God condemns and yet you pick and choose which one to celebrate. Our position is that at least with incest there is natural biological sexual relations and not abuse of the human body.
I am sick of your blaspheming God in your continued justification for that which there is no justification. As I have stated before, since you worship a God who condones sin of the such perversity, you worship a different god than the one in the Bible, and Your Christ also condones and promotes homosexuality, again not the same Christ of the Bible. You are no more a Christian than a Mormon.
And your false teachings in many other subject areas as identified in your many blogs are also unbiblical as well as anti-biblical.
Marshall Art has more patience with you than I could ever have because I quickly tire of your foolishness and am now done throwing pearls before you.
Sorry, sports fans. I've decided to re-engage comment moderation due to the reprobate troll-boy Parkie reverting to his usual antics. I really hate situations where everyone has to suffer for the infractions of one person, but I don't know how to block his sorry ass without causing difficulty for everyone else. My apologies for that. Should anyone have any ideas along those lines, I, and everyone else who dislikes comment moderation, would greatly appreciate it.
Glenn, just read your last comment and not the whole thread, but you are correct. What the pro-gay "Christians" say about God is blasphemous.
What is interesting is that of the three types of pro-gay theology views of the Bible -- all of which are wrong -- only one claims that we are misunderstanding the text. The other two concede what authentic Christians and even most atheists and other non-believers know, namely that it clearly defines homosexual behavior as sinful. Some people, like Dan, jump between type 1 and type 2 as it suits them. If they would pick a lane and stick with it they wouldn't be quite as transparently phony.
Type 1: The Bible is either not the Word of God, or most parts of it aren’t. This view claims that we can ignore the prohibitions against homosexual behavior because they were written by homophobic Jews.
Type 2: The Bible is the Word of God, but it doesn’t really say homosexual behavior is wrong. This view holds that people just aren’t reading the Bible properly, and that God’s Word is actually affirming of gay relationships.
Type 3: The Bible is the Word of God and does clearly and emphatically describe gay behavior as sinful. However, the Holy Spirit has given additional revelations such that this behavior is now acceptable. This view holds that God has changed his mind on this moral issue and not only is it now acceptable, but it is sinful if you don’t affirm this behavior and same-sex relationships.
Wordpress has some good moderation options. Mine are set to put any new commenters in moderation, so you don't have sp*m or trolls slipping in. Once you approve the first comment they have regular rights.
You can put an individual on moderation so you have to approve each of his comments while letting others comment freely.
If you want to ban someone completely you can have all their comments go to the sp*m filter. They don't come into your email at all. I don't read the sp*m before clearing the filter, but now and then in scanning it I am surprised how many banned people still leave comments.
Jeremy recently posed a Pascals wager type question to me and I think it is worth considering for all of us (maybe even on a new post, Marshall?).
What if we are mistaken about our opinion on marriage equity? What then?
For my part, from where I sit, if I am mistaken...
1. Then I will be mistaken. I will have sincerely thought that two folk committing together in love and fidelity to love and support one another in their life and (for Christians) in their walk with Jesus and I will have wrongly offered my opinion on that point to anyone who cared to listen.
2. As a result, maybe some folk will have heard my opinion, added it to their own Bible study and contemplation and agreed with me, and they might have then (wrongly, but sincerely seeking God's will) engaged in a marriage arrangement that turned out to be a sin.
3. That would certainly be bad, sin always has negative consequences, although we may not always recognize them right away.
4. Nonetheless, for some of those who thought my position made sense and who were gay, they would have possibly engaged in limited sin (committed, monogamous sex) as opposed to more licentious sin (uncommitted polyamory) and would have done so for good reasons (love of God and their partner, respect for community and family, etc).
5. Beyoond that, I (and we) would have been humbly mistaken in our efforts to follow God and would have sinned in ignorance, failing to heed the wisdom of traditional teachings on this point (IF we were mistaken).
6. Fortunately for us, since we are saved by God's grace and not by perfection of understanding, God would one day say, "You knuckle-heads, what were you thinking on that point?? Nonetheless, come on in my good and faithful servant and enter into your rest in my realm of love and grace..."
That is what I see happening IF I/we were mistaken...
On the other hand, what if YOU were mistaken?
1. Then you will be mistaken, having sincerely thought that telling other people that marriage equity was wrong and having wanted to try to honor marriage the best you knew how, you nonetheless will have disputed what was good and holy and wise.
2. You (or at least those of you who insist that you "can't be mistaken on this point" - either verbally or in your hearts), will also be guilty of the sin of arrogance, for presuming that you were infallible on this point, despite the self-evident fact that we all are fallible.
3. You will have chased some people away from God's Realm, with your negatively judgmental, condemning behavior and (for some, not all, of you) for the way with which you have disagreed - the name-calling, the arrogance, the presumption and slander.
4. You (some of you) will have chased some people away from God's Realm, with your saying that an innate behavior trait which is not, itself, sinful is "an abomination" before the Lord. Factually, there are gay people (people I know and love) who were rejected, ridiculed and hated out of the church by the behavior of some Christians who insisted they were right on this point and that any and all gay behavior - even loving, committed, monogamous behavior - is disgusting and filthy. And the chasing away of people from God's realm is no small thing, I hope we all could agree.
5. You (some of you) will have engaged in the demonization and slander of fellow Christians for the "sin" of disagreeing with you, calling these faithful believers "fools," "simpletons," and "NOT Christian." Some of you have held out that "I'm not slandering this person if MY OPINION is right...," but IF your opinion is wrong, you will certainly have engaged in slander.
6. You will have called the work of God in the lives of fellow believers "unholy" and "of the devil..." the very thing that the pharisees did with Jesus and the very thing that Jesus cautioned was coming close to blaspheming the Holy Spirit, by calling that which was of God, "NOT of God..." This would seem to me to come perilously close to being what is referred to as "the unforgivable sin..."
7. In short, in the Bible, there is no harsh condemnation for the "sin" of being sincerely mistaken on a behavior's sin nature, but there is extremely harsh condemnation for the sin of calling something Good and Godly, "bad," and "of the devil..."
8. So, you will have been mistaken, and yet saved by God's grace. But you (some of you) will have also been arrogant, slanderous, and possibly blasphemous, none of which is of the kingdom of God, according to the Bible.
So, given the question, "What if I'm mistaken...?" I'd suggest a bit more humility and grace would be prudent on all our parts, but especially yours, given the consequences.
Readers,
In deleting Parkie's numerous childish comments since engaging comment moderation, together with having just finished a 15 hr shift, I got carried away and deleted one of Craig's comments. Sorry Craig. Here it is:
-----------------------------------
Dan,
You are free to impute any motives you wish to me (and others), however the fact that you type something does not make it either accurate or true. It is however a reasonably effective way of diverting attention from the concerns and questions raised in my comments.
That's the problem with blogspot - at least as I can figure it. Either moderate or don't. I had to go to moderation because of too much spam.
Parkster,
As to "meeting up", if your intent is merely to continue your grade school schtick, I'm not interested. But regardless of comment moderation, or any method of banning you outright that I find workable to my satisfaction, you, like anyone else, is always welcome to post an actual comment, rather than the crap so common to you. Because of your history here, I hold you to higher expectation of behavior to which no one else is, even feo if you can believe it. That's your cross to bear to which you have nailed your own self. Which ever you like is fine with me. Continue acting like a jackass, and no comment will stand, if it gets published at all. Engage in a thoughtful, mature manner, accepting every shot that comes your way as if it wasn't triggered and see what comes of it.
Dan,
Having wasted time deleting and addressing the troll, I will hastily respond to the second half of your last two comments.
1. Impossible to be mistaken on this issue. Fallible or not, some things are just so obvious and crystal clear. Fallible to you would mean not understanding what that stop sign means. In this case, the prohibition is just as clear and concise and could not be more so. To oppose "equity" means that we oppose a fallacious notion, but also, providing the opportunity for people to engage in that clearly prohibited behavior. How nice they might be to each other whilst sinning does not lessen the sin.
2. Again, being fallible does not mean that we might be on so clear an issue as God's clear prohibition against homosexual behavior. Especially since we clearly aren't wrong. Therefor, there is no arrogance in standing for God's Will on the subject. Are you arrogant to insist that hit men are sinning by murdering for hire?
3. I have no problem "chasing people away from God's realm" by insisting on the truth of what God's Will is. Indeed, it has done so for many homosexuals already, and, like you, they pretend there is something about the way they were enlightened about God's Will, when the truth is that they simply don't want God's Will to include denying what they want to do. This---the name-calling, the arrogance, the presumption and slander.---is you casting aspersions in the same manner.
4. No one was chased away from any church except those who refuse to repent of their sins. Paul tells us to cast out such unrepentant sinners, so boo-freakin-hoo for those who wish to play the victim. A more accurate likelihood is that these people of whom you speak bolted under pressure to repent, not wanting to, preferring to make their sin holy as you do, and left to cry out like victims, embellishing their experience in way they hope would draw sympathy from people like you.
5. This is a lie, Dan. We do not do anything simply because people like you disagree. That's ridiculous. And now you contradict yourself by insisting that "if we are wrong" then we have indeed slandered. But if we are sincere, as you say in regards to those who believe they are NOT engaging in an abomination, then we have not done a damned thing wrong either. But it can't come to that since we are not wrong.
6. "You will have called the work of God in the lives of fellow believers "unholy" and "of the devil...""
This is pure and authentic bullshit. Which makes you a liar. We have NEVER said ANYTHING that comes close to this, but instead you have chosen to frame things in this manner. We have said, or at least I have, that claims of "beautiful people of God" as you call your homosexual friends, are not all that "of God" if they insist on engaging in clearly prohibited behavior, teach, preach or support the behavior in others, and proclaim that God blesses it all. The "work of God" does not show up in a manner contradicting Scriptural teaching.
7. "...but there is extremely harsh condemnation for the sin of calling something Good and Godly, "bad," and "of the devil..."" I don't know why you think this is relevant here since none of us has ever done this. But you consistently manifest the other side of the coin by calling something extremely sinful, beautiful and God-blessed or of God. And there's no way you or your friends can be "sincerely mistaken" in the face of thousands of years of Biblical scholarship.
8. All of this has been covered above.
So you can stow your recommendations as you are the one in dire need of adjustment. The fact that we continue to engage you despite your flawed Swiss cheese arguments (full of holes) demonstrates more grace than you are aware.
As I thought about Jeremy/Dan's question I immeadiately went to "Well the logical consequence of living a life of unrepented of continuous sin is going to lead to any one of a number of bad outcomes." Then I realized something, I'm pretty Calvinist in my theology and given that I'm not sure it matters. I realize that Dan has already deemed Calvinism close to heresy, but that's a pretty fringe position and I'm not worried.
The short version, God is going to save those who He will save. So no matter how much some folks try to lead folk away from God, God will call His own.
I actually think it's a bit o hubris to give ourselves so much credit for what is really a work of the Holy Spirit.
I will say that Dan left out one possibility from his position. Given that some (Dan included) believe that one can lose ones salvation, then being wrong about something like this could potentially lead someone else to lose their salvation. If I believed that to be the case, I'd be really worried that I would cause someone to lose their salvation.
I will give Dan credit for this newest attempt to not address earlier questions and concerns. If it goes on long enough, then the difficulty of finding them justifies not answering.
Oh, didn't Jesus chase away at least one guy with His uncompromising stand for Truth?
Marshall,
Here is my response when asked the wager question about my own position, and also a link to the comment string where Dan got the question for context of how we arrived at that point and what drove the question initially (for completeness):
Jeremy's response:
"Your answer to my version of Pascal's wager does make it sound like the worst case scenario of making those extensions we've been discussing really isn't too bad.
What do I think. I think that the greatest sorrow I will ever know is standing before my Heavenly Father face in hands coming face to face with what I look like against His glory and the knowledge that I have fallen so far short. I cannot imagine how devastating it would be to see any situation before Him where I led someone else through teaching and preaching to endorse and celebrate an activity that He did not clearly reveal as being Holy but that I made extensions on my own. When you and I go on the internet and speak as believers we are teaching and preaching something and will be held accountable for what we are teaching as teachers of God's Truth, it is a fearsome thing. God may well say to me "well done my good and faithful servant," but out of recognition of His Holiness and Righteousness and Glory I cannot make those extensions or teach and lead others into making them."
Link to comment thread:
http://jeremydtroxler.blogspot.com/2012/01/dangerous-territory.html#comments
But the point is, Craig, if you are MISTAKEN and you're NOT standing for Truth, but a falsehood, AND you're chasing people away, what did Jesus say about that?
As to Marshall (et als) insistence that it is "Impossible (for him/you all) to be mistaken on this issue..." I'd just ask that you all consider the hubris implied in that comment and pray about your approach to disagreement.
Peace.
Craig...
being wrong about something like this could potentially lead someone else to lose their salvation.
?? How so?
And would you care to consider the question for yourself? That was sort of the point.
"But the point is, Craig, if you are MISTAKEN and you're NOT standing for Truth, but a falsehood, AND you're chasing people away, what did Jesus say about that?"
I don't think He said anything. But more importantly, "if" could count for something "if" we are mistaken. We're not. That's not hubris, Dan. That's understanding the clearly revealed intention of God on the issue. So we are indeed very much standing for the truth, as well as the Truth. That's enough to chase lots of people away, but that's not on us.
And bear in mind this plain truth: should some young person feeling the temptation to indulge their desires and attractions for another of the same sex come here and seek real answers about my position, I would deal with the young person with love and patience, answering every question about the discourse between us. If this person (and it really need not be a young person) focus on my "tone", I would try to find some of the oldest blog discussions between us so that they could see just how I was in the beginning when I first heard of your position. It would be a simple thing to explain how my "tone" could change over time dealing with the same porous arguments you use over and over again, as well as the manner in which you've pushed your position and opposed mine. I am unafraid of how anyone would view my "tone", especially should they indeed go back and see how things have gotten to this point.
As to the position itself, if that person was reasonable, honest and really interested in knowing God's position, he would understand why he needs to resist those desires as any hetero needs to resist any number of possible sexual desires he might have for one of the opposite sex. That person, if he was truly interested, would learn that how we feel has nothing to do with how we act and what we strive to become. We are all "born that way", eager to scratch that itch.
As to hubris again, what of your own? Do you equivocate on murder, or do you know it is forbidden by God and always sinful in any form it might take? You didn't answer the last time I asked. Certainty is not hubris. Am I arrogant to insist that 2+2=4? I am certain because ALL the FACTS back me up. ALL of them. That's not a hunch. It's called reality.
Marshall...
I don't think He said anything [about chasing people away].
Jesus, in Mark 9, says...
“If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them if a large millstone were hung around their neck and they were thrown into the sea."
Now certainly, in that example, he was holding a child, but I think the Truth would apply for those beyond children. If someone causes another believer in God to stumble, "it would be better for them if a large millstone were hung around their neck and they were thrown into the sea..."
Causing a believer to stumble, or turn away, then, that is a serious serious thing.
More from Jesus on this topic...
"But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. They tie up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them...
"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the door of the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.
“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when you have succeeded, you make them twice as much a child of hell as you are."
IF you are mistaken in the laws you are adding and the manner in which you add these "cumbersome loads," then it would seem you come perilously close to being like these Pharisees, for whom Jesus had tremendously harsh words.
Humility, my brothers, and caution about what you say, I'd think are in order.
"I can't be wrong..." does not appear to me to be of God, but closer to something the Pharisees might say.
Dan the only way we can be wrong about what God says about homosexual behavior is if we are also wrong that gravity exists and 2+2=4. All have the same truth.
"But the point is, Craig, if you are MISTAKEN and you're NOT standing for Truth, but a falsehood, AND you're chasing people away, what did Jesus say about that?"
"And would you care to consider the question for yourself? That was sort of the point."
Actually I already answered the question for myself. I don't see any reason to do so again. If you can't find it let me know and I'll copy paste it for you.
"being wrong about something like this could potentially lead someone else to lose their salvation."
"?? How so?"
Since I'm not one who believes that salvation can be lost, I'd have to get some help from some one who does. My point was/is IF you (as I remember you say you are) someone who believes that salvation can be lost, THEN I would be extremely concerned that my words/teachings/actions/opinions could cause someone to lose their salvation. Personally, I would find that prospect to be quite frightening.
Again, you can see my answer above for more detail.
BTW, well done on the continued avoidance of previously asked questions and raised concerns.
One example. You mentioned studies that showed that a certain percentage of incestuous relationships were "harmful". I asked if your studies delineated between homosexual and heterosexual 'harmful" incest. Because it seems self evident that homosexual incest would not provide any insight into heterosexual incest.
Again, one example just to be helpful.
Dan,
"Causing a believer to stumble, or turn away, then, that is a serious serious thing."
My Bible says not "stumble", but "sin". Whoever causes one to sin. But regardless of the perfection of the translation, you would clearly be more guilty, and here's how:
What we're doing is to point out clear revelations from Scripture. If this leads believers of any level or seekers to turn away from God, it is because of their own issues with dying and being born again. They cannot give up what they prefer to do even if God's clear revelation prohibits that behavior, and the truth itself, the revelation turns them away, not our speaking it. If the effort of repentance seems to them to big a chore, are we to withhold that revelation or pretend THAT behavior is OK? I don't think so.
YOU, on the other hand, are clearly contradicting those clear revelations, pretending there is some unspoken loophole through which they can squeeze themselves in order to presume THEIR situation is so different as to preclude their obedience. You're not just leading them to stumble, you're sticking your foot out and giving them a push.
This also is a difference between what the Pharisees were doing and what we are doing. We are not looking to control or manipulate for our own purposes, perhaps justifying or hiding our own lack of perfection while nagging others of their own.
YOU, on the other hand, enable one set of violators of one Levitical law while demonizing and denying another who violates theirs in the exact same way. Talk about "Pharisee"!
We don't shut the door to heaven by our firm support for God's Will. We stand beside it showing how wide open it is for those who live on God's terms and not their own.
Finally, you speak of "woes" for things of which we are not guilty while forgetting a serious woe for preaching that evil is good.
Marshall...
But regardless of the perfection of the translation, you would clearly be more guilty
You continue to miss the point of the exercise, Marshall. IF YOU ARE WRONG, then what? IF YOU ARE WRONG, then I'm not "more guilty," IF I am right. Guilty of what? Teaching them the right way?
IF YOU ARE WRONG, THEN WHAT?
That is the question before you.
Your incredibly arrogant and presumptuous answer (I can't be mistaken) stands for itself as how seriously you consider the possibility.
You all frequently ask non-believers to consider the Pascal's wager question, but it appears that isn't anything you're willing to do yourself because your pride in your own inability to be mistaken keeps you from it.
That SHOULD be a red flag for you, that your pride keeps you from even CONSIDERING what if you were wrong.
Pray on this, brother. You ain't God and you have not achieved perfect understanding.
Dan,
"IF YOU ARE WRONG, THEN WHAT?"
If I am wrong, show me how. I defy you to demonstrate just how I am wrong on this issue. It can't be done, but I am always ready to answer whatever objection you may have. You have not shown yourself to be so willing.
For example, the Biblical understanding of "marriage" has always been man/woman and never any other arrangement. Anytime the word is used, aside from metaphor, it therefor suggests man/woman and never anything else. Thus, if the Bible says marriage is a good thing, it can only be referring to man/woman marriage and never anything else because that's what the Bible means when it uses the word "marriage".
YOU like to pretend the word can be applied any way you want so as to include two of the same gender in order to proclaim such unions are also good things and worthy of and/or entitled to God's blessing. In order for this to be true, you must have some Biblical example whereby the word "marriage" suggests something other than man/woman unions. If you cannot supply such a verse, you cannot then presume that God would bless an arrangement that would logically and reasonably be expected to result in the abominable sin of Lev 18:22.
You can wish and pray that He would bless such a union, but you can't reasonably expect that it's ever gonna happen.
So, show me how I am wrong about any aspect of my position regarding homosexual behavior. You haven't done so yet, even on a secular level.
As to "what if I AM wrong", there is no point to such a question, as it just isn't possible given the evidence so easily found in Scripture. It isn't possible given the inability of ANY pro-homosexual proponent to counter the arguments of the opposition or totally fill the holes so easily exposed by the opposition.
You continue to speak of arrogance and prideful behavior on my part. Why? Because I know the truth and proclaim it? "What if you're wrong?" But I'm not wrong. Prove I'm wrong and then we'll talk about my being wrong. What if's do not matter in the least. "Oh, I might be wrong, but God says 'don't murder'." No, wait! He clearly says not to murder and He clearly says not to lay with a man as you would with a woman. No where, EVER, does He give any hint, no matter how miniscule, that there is any way that it might be OK.
"You all frequently ask non-believers to consider the Pascal's wager question,..."
Please oh please, show me where I or anyone else here has asked a non believer the Pascal's wager question.
As to if I'm wrong, I've already dealt with it but I'll elaborate.
If I'm wrong I'm wrong in calling folks to a HIGHER standard of behavior, rather than a lower standard of behavior.
If I'm wrong God can and will work in their lives to draw them to Him if it is His desire to do so. Because this whole thing is not about me anyway, it's about God. As long as God draws His own to him it will be despite us anyway.
I'd still be interested in hearing your thoughts on the earlier questions/issues you've not addressed.
Conservatives in general often ask the Pascal question, Craig. I wasn't saying you, specifically.
Craig...
If I'm wrong I'm wrong in calling folks to a HIGHER standard of behavior, rather than a lower standard of behavior.
You mean you would MISTAKENLY be calling folks to WHAT YOU MISTAKENLY THOUGHT was a higher standard of behavior, but you were mistaken in so doing. And if, in the process of you and thousands and thousands of Christians like you (and me, formerly) telling folk that their God-given sexuality were wrong and even evil, folk leave the church behind, then do you think that should be a matter of concern for you?
Does the phrase "It would be better if they had a millstone tied around their neck and were thrown into the sea" not cause you ANY concern, IF you were mistaken?
Fascinating reading, Marshall. I'm not going to get the stick out for homosexuals as people, but it seems obvious that homosexuality is naturally illogical, and I can't follow the reasoning that it's just a variation.
Dan,
"And if, in the process of you and thousands and thousands of Christians like you (and me, formerly) telling folk that their God-given sexuality were wrong and even evil, folk leave the church behind, then do you think that should be a matter of concern for you?"
"God-given" sexuality? This is absurd. I'm well aware that the activists and their enablers like to believe that whatever it is they want and desire is "God-given" simply because they lack the desire to live a life more in tune with Scriptural teaching, as well as lacking the desire to put in the effort to deny themselves what is clearly revealed as sinful.
So, if Craig (or I) am wrong about what we believe about homosexual behavior (not possible), what we are encouraging is for people to put Christ and God's Will ahead of their own personal desires. (Yeah. THAT'S worth a drowning!) Because that is the bottom line of our position. If doing so results in people fleeing God, that's on them, not us.
And there's no possibility that such encouragement will cause an otherwise rational person to stumble, or to sin, if that encouragement is to be more Christian in their lifestyle choices. So no. No reason for concern whatsoever.
Thus, again, if we're wrong (not possible), we're still leading people to God, regardless of whether or not they follow. YOU, on the other hand, if YOU are wrong (an actual fact without the least bit of doubt and entirely supported with an honest reading of Scripture), you ARE causing people to not simply stumble, but fall flat on their faces, breaking their noses and two or three teeth, not to mention a serious concussion. If YOU are wrong, you are welcoming them to a life of sinfulness with a laurel and hearty handshake (brownie points for film citation).
Also, I do not believe you would continue to use that passage as a means to stifle our encouragement, especially since you are suggesting that Jesus is promising disaster for being sincerely mistaken, particularly since YOU have always, until now anyway, insisted that we cannot be held accountable for sincerely believing wrongly about a behavior. Make up your mind how you're going to twist Scripture to your benefit.
Marshall, a point that you seem to be missing is that yes, we ARE saved by grace; yes, we WILL be mistaken and yes, God's grace covers our mistakes. BUT there is ONE area that, given what the Bible has to say, reasonable Bible lovers ought to be concerned, and that is calling unholy that which is holy. Calling "NOT of God" that which is of God. Blaspheming the Holy Spirit by arrogantly presuming you know best and that you speak for God... these were the very sins that the religious in Jesus' day stumbled over and which Jesus blasted quite harshly.
NOT merely being mistaken on a behavior (which you all freely blast all to hell all the time), but being arrogant, presumptuous, hypocritical and calling that which is of God, NOT of God.
For that reason, I'd think you would be concerned and approach this topic a bit more humbly than "I can't be wrong..."
Or at least that is my prayer for us all.
"You mean you would MISTAKENLY be calling folks to WHAT YOU MISTAKENLY THOUGHT was a higher standard of behavior,..."
So it is your contention that calling someone to a higher standard of behavior is somehow problematic?
Seems self evident that a higher standard would be better than a lower standard.
It also seems self evident that answering questions/dealing with issues somewhat promptly is better than not doing so.
"Does the phrase "It would be better if they had a millstone tied around their neck and were thrown into the sea" not cause you ANY concern, IF you were mistaken?"
Not if I'm erring on the side of a higher standard of behavior rather than a lower standard. Nor does if concern me since I am not suggesting that anyone do anything, I am suggesting that folks should NOT do certain things. I am unaware of any serious consequences for not buggering some dude.
Not that you're actually answering questions at this point...
"Does the phrase "It would be better if they had a millstone tied around their neck and were thrown into the sea" not cause you ANY concern, IF you were mistaken?"
You seem quite concerned about the consequences of us saying "The Bible says gay sex is wrong so you shouldn't engage in gay sex." but not so concerned with your position of "As long as your sexual relationships fall within certain criteria that I have picked, go ahead and bugger away."
Maybe you could answer your own question, your certainly avoiding mine.
Dan,
"BUT there is ONE area that, given what the Bible has to say, reasonable Bible lovers ought to be concerned, and that is calling unholy that which is holy. Calling "NOT of God" that which is of God. Blaspheming the Holy Spirit by arrogantly presuming you know best and that you speak for God... "
Whew! Thank goodness I haven't been doing that! What I have been doing, and what I will continue to do, is humbly state what God has said and said quite clearly. I will continue to call abomination what God has called abomination because I am at least humble enough to admit He likely, being the Supreme Being and all, knows best.
"...these were the very sins that the religious in Jesus' day stumbled over and which Jesus blasted quite harshly."
Not quite. They were not struggling to understand God's Will and failing. They were abusing their positions of authority, using their knowledge of the Law to manipulate and oppress and burden the people and it was for THAT that Jesus blasted them. It was NOT for properly restating God's clear intention.
"NOT merely being mistaken on a behavior (which you all freely blast all to hell all the time), but being arrogant, presumptuous, hypocritical and calling that which is of God, NOT of God."
Again, it's comforting to know what I'm not doing. You truly are no longer mistaken on what you believe after these several years of being corrected. You now consciously deny the truth without anything resembling a logical counter argument. Thus, we don't blast anyone for being mistaken because you are NOT "mistaken", but clearly and blatantly and unquestionably WRONG. It is not "arrogance" to say so if all I'm saying is restating the clearly revealed Will of God on the issue, which I am and have been doing. As it is all crystal clear, there is no presuming necessary. And I really don't know how "hypocrisy" has been my crime as I don't pretend I am not a sinner struggling with my own shortcomings. I would be hypocritical if I was clearly engaging in bad behavior and claiming it was "of God". Where have you seen that?
What is most clear at this point, is that you're plea that we acknowledge that we "could be wrong" is no more than another way to stand pat with your false and unBiblical position on homosexual issues. Your plan is to get us to admit that we could be wrong so that we would have to back off of our claims and you could go on pretending you've got some Biblical support for supporting sinful behavior. Not gonna happen. Not when the truth is so apparent.
You are, of course, still free to try and make your case for abomination. I don't know why you're holding back with the slam-dunk argument that ties together all the loose ends of your position. I patiently and humbly await the revelation.
"...calling that which is of God, NOT of God."
I'm quite sure that there will be some evidence forthcoming to demonstrate that homosexual sex is "of God".
Marshall,
It seems Dan has moved on.
Perhaps.
It's too bad, there's so much left on the table undealt with.
Yes!!!! Please, please take Michael's advice: take a step back for the love of God and let the rest of us get on with our incendiary lives of real democracy, liberty, and our damning agenda of tolerance.
If Marshall and Simp shut up, stand down and enter their well stocked and well armed Christian bunkers, we'll gladly take the responsibly for loving the world too much.
Please, please take Michael's crisp, clearly Biblical advice.
Feo,
"take a step back for the love of God and let the rest of us get on with our incendiary lives of real democracy, liberty, and our damning agenda of tolerance."
I prefer to take a step forward for the love of God. It was better men than I who in the past took a step back and now we have sexual deviants demanding that they be given licensing and state recognition like normal people, and the morally corrupt standing beside them, encouraging and enabling them in their sinfulness, as if there is some Scriptural argument that supports them doing so. I don't know if I curry God's love by standing back while this crap goes on, infecting our culture further, leading our youth to immorality.
Real liberty and democracy was not envisioned by our founding fathers as abusing that liberty in the pursuit of sinfulness and corruption. What you're pushing is childishness of the type that is seen by kids who do not have adult supervision to guide them, or the type of childishness that ignores all manner of instruction in order to wallow in selfish pleasure, consequences be damned.
And yes, in an extremely rare display of honesty, you rightly call it "damning agenda of tolerance", for you truly damn yourselves (and those you enable) by tolerating sinfulness as if it brings you blessings.
"If Marshall and Simp shut up, stand down and enter their well stocked and well armed Christian bunkers, we'll gladly take the responsibly for loving the world too much."
First of all, you smarmy punk, I know it's beyond your capacity as a reprobate false priest to in any way transcend your foul personality, but I would prefer that you refrain from messing with the real names of my visitors. You'll note that I do not engage in such base crap, mocking only the pen names of chuckleheads like yourself and Parkie, and never do worse than to say something along the lines of "Danny", "Danny-boy" or "little Alan" (at Dan's blog) or "Geoffie", which I haven't done in some time, having thought better of it. But I certainly haven't touched their family names, though if I ever knew yours, it would be mud right about now. (And I wouldn't on my worst day be so lame as to call someone "Fartshall"---how freakin' lame indeed) Know that in the future, any comments containing anything like "Simp" (as if anyone as simple as you has the right to), will be deleted. Like Parklife, you have a far narrower path to walk in order to post comments here.
Secondly, as it happens, our "bunkers" ARE well stocked and armed with the plainly revealed truth of God's Will for us on earth. If we were truly wrong and you, with your alleged education and background, had any solid counter arguments, you wouldn't stoop to such ridiculous rhetorical drivel.
Finally, if you had any real love for the world, you would not enable such wickedness. But you don't. As a reprobate, you're already damned and incapable of the kind of love that God intends for us to have for each other. You're a sad, sad case. You don't love the world or seem capable of loving it. But you do love worldliness.
Post a Comment