What Up, Dan?

I've notice changes in your on-line presence.  I hope it's not due to serious problems in your personal life.  Your profile connected to your name when it appears in comments does not go to what used to be for years.  It suggests you've just joined Blogger.  What's the deal?  Again, I hope it's nothing serious.

Thank Who? A Slightly Belated Thanksgiving Post.

I don't personally find it hard to be grateful, even during periods when I'm less than joyful.  The Mrs. and I having recently moved to a warmer climate state, a number of factors have dampened my enthusiasm.  For example, it was intended that I would retire, working only for something to do and to get a little "beer and ammo money".  But fools refused to vote for Trump and the thriving economy resulting from his tax and regulatory policies is now in the toilet because of the senile buffoon illegitimately ensconced in the Big Chair.  Yet despite the inflation inflicted upon us by this inept and unfit sniffing old codger, I remain thankful we made the move (of course, given I fled Illinois, where morons rule and the cost of living is even more expensive, how could I not be?).  

We miss the fam, but we're enjoying having each other to ourselves, while also thankful that our youngest, freshly married two months ago, is still planning to join us down here.  The wife is digging her job, while I'm digging not having to work more than a few days a week while still earning well.  And given our ages, we're in pretty good health...my excess 20-30 pounds notwithstanding.  So given the state of the nation, the world, the culture and other considerations, we're still very much thankful to our Lord for the many blessings we have no trouble recognizing every day.  (I could do without the cat, but he makes her happy, so...)

Two US Presidents saw fit to acknowledge we owe a great deal of thanks to Someone in particular:

New York, 3 October 1789

By the President of the United States of America. a Proclamation.

Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor—and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me “to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.”

Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be—That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks—for his kind care and protection of the People of this Country previous to their becoming a Nation—for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his Providence which we experienced in the course and conclusion of the late war—for the great degree of tranquillity, union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed—for the peaceable and rational manner, in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national One now lately instituted—for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed; and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and in general for all the great and various favors which he hath been pleased to confer upon us.

and also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions—to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually—to render our national government a blessing to all the people, by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed—to protect and guide all Sovereigns and Nations (especially such as have shewn kindness unto us) and to bless them with good government, peace, and concord—To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the encrease of science among them and us—and generally to grant unto all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best.

Given under my hand at the City of New-York the third day of October in the year of our Lord 1789.

 

Washington, D.C.
October 3, 1863

By the President of the United States of America.

A Proclamation.

The year that is drawing towards its close, has been filled with the blessings of fruitful fields and healthful skies. To these bounties, which are so constantly enjoyed that we are prone to forget the source from which they come, others have been added, which are of so extraordinary a nature, that they cannot fail to penetrate and soften even the heart which is habitually insensible to the ever watchful providence of Almighty God. In the midst of a civil war of unequalled magnitude and severity, which has sometimes seemed to foreign States to invite and to provoke their aggression, peace has been preserved with all nations, order has been maintained, the laws have been respected and obeyed, and harmony has prevailed everywhere except in the theatre of military conflict; while that theatre has been greatly contracted by the advancing armies and navies of the Union. Needful diversions of wealth and of strength from the fields of peaceful industry to the national defence, have not arrested the plough, the shuttle or the ship; the axe has enlarged the borders of our settlements, and the mines, as well of iron and coal as of the precious metals, have yielded even more abundantly than heretofore. Population has steadily increased, notwithstanding the waste that has been made in the camp, the siege and the battle-field; and the country, rejoicing in the consciousness of augmented strength and vigor, is permitted to expect continuance of years with large increase of freedom. No human counsel hath devised nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things. They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy. It has seemed to me fit and proper that they should be solemnly, reverently and gratefully acknowledged as with one heart and one voice by the whole American People. I do therefore invite my fellow citizens in every part of the United States, and also those who are at sea and those who are sojourning in foreign lands, to set apart and observe the last Thursday of November next, as a day of Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens. And I recommend to them that while offering up the ascriptions justly due to Him for such singular deliverances and blessings, they do also, with humble penitence for our national perverseness and disobedience, commend to His tender care all those who have become widows, orphans, mourners or sufferers in the lamentable civil strife in which we are unavoidably engaged, and fervently implore the interposition of the Almighty Hand to heal the wounds of the nation and to restore it as soon as may be consistent with the Divine purposes to the full enjoyment of peace, harmony, tranquillity and Union.

In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the United States to be affixed.

Done at the City of Washington, this Third day of October, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, and of the Independence of the United States the Eighty-eighth.

By the President: Abraham Lincoln

But for the last few years this day has rolled around, I can't help but wonder about all those who do not believe.  Few people consider the object of commemoration when federal holidays come about.  They're just paid days off and a time to party.  But this day is different than the others.  Atheists still have Santa, even if they don't have Christ, so they still can feel the "Christmas spirit".  But to whom are they giving thanks on Thanksgiving?  

If one believes all good things have been solely the result of one's own efforts, I would think every day is a day to give thanks to one's self.  But what of all those with whom such a person would spend the day feasting and watching football?  Does such a person expect gratitude from the rest?  How does that work?  Perhaps they just ignore the reason for the day and enjoy as they would any other party.  I've been at a gathering where, for the sake of teaching the kids, all around the table would take turns mentioning something for which they are thankful.  I think that's when the question first hit me...thankful to whom?  I don't recall if that was part of the exercise, though it certainly should have been if it wasn't.  But what of those who don't believe?  To whom do they give thanks for all the good things in their lives? 

George and Abe saw fit to set aside a time for giving thanks to Almighty God.  In this day and age, with faith constantly under attack, I'm surprised they still allow Thanksgiving to exist as a federal holiday, what with all that separation of church and state crap so many like to spew.  I know from Whom all my blessings flow.  It is to Him I give thanks.

Historically Oppressed? So What...?

The title of this post refers to one of Dan's most favorite banalities:  HISTORICALLY OPPRESSED!!!  He uses this trite expression in his defense of inane positions and support for those unworthy of the support Dan believes is deserved.  The three main demographics upon whom Dan bestows this label of sorrow are black people, women and the LGBT community.  

It's not as if these groups have not been mistreated throughout history.  Women were chattel long before any particular race was.  Blacks, of course, suffered greatly in American history as well.  The LGBT community?  Not as much as they and their enablers would have us believe, but yes, they have also been mistreated, though their behavior invited it from those who regarded their behavior as the abnormal perversion it is.  (Not at all a justification, but a reality which makes a significant difference which in turn puts them in a unique category.)

The problem with referencing history, however, is that Dan does this to stifle legitimate arguments, positions and opinions with regard to specific issues which arise in our society and culture:

1.  Prostitutes and loose women can't be criticized because women were historically oppressed. 

When Dan sought to disparage Trump on the basis of allegations from women against him, Dan was incensed in his usual pearl-clutching manner that I would scrutinize any of those allegations in any way.  Two of those on the list of "abused" women were Stormy Daniels and another woman whose name I don't feel like looking up again.  Both of these women I referred to as "whores" and "sluts" because they both traded their bodies for money (which makes them whores), and they both insisted they had affairs with Trump (which makes them sluts).  Despite the adjectives being completely accurate and thus appropriate labels, Dan sought to scold me as having insulted all women for calling a couple of whores/sluts whores and sluts...because women have been historically oppressed.

2.  When conversations regarding issue within the black community arise, and they deal with criminality, low academic outcomes, out-of-wedlock births and other negative issues, any attempt to deal with the actual reasons will compel Dan to once again speak of how blacks have been historically oppressed.

3.  And of course, Dan's most favored nation...the LGBT community...can never be discussed truthfully regarding their disorders and immoral behaviors and their demands for special privileges with again hearing Dan whine about how historically oppressed they've been.

But the issue here, and it's reflected in the second question of the title, is what does having been historically oppressed have to do with anything regarding whatever the current issue on the table is.  Since the recent shooting at the Club Q is in the news, I'll focus on the perv community.  And with that, the question is, what does any past oppression have to do with the fact that these people are disordered and immoral?  One can beat up a perv every day of the week and the fact remains the perv is perverted.  

So let's remove the daily beatings from the equation and what's left is the issue the liars...like Dan...wish to avoid.  More to the point, Dan uses the "historically oppressed" angle to stifle discussion of that which matters...of that which is on the table.  The focus is in one direction only...on the pervs and how sad it is they take heat as a result of the revulsion good people have of their perversions.  Dan brought up at Craig's some "sad" news of a "beloved transgendered" friend of his being denied Thanksgiving dinner with the folks.  "Do you know the harm that causes?"  No regard for the harm suffered by the folks knowing their kid turned out to be a perv and actively manifests it.  No.  All opinions and beliefs are to be made subordinate to the whims and whining of the disordered because they were historically oppressed.  

Well, I don't care how oppressed they were in the past when we're speaking to their behaviors in the present.  Bad behaviors have no justification and nothing a segment of society endured in the past factors into the perpetration of those bad behaviors.  It doesn't make the bad behaviors OK, nor does it justify overlooking those behaviors, enabling them, promoting them or refusing to speak truthfully about them.  

What's more, I don't need to hear a thing about past oppression if I encounter oppression taking place now, and given my own beliefs about how folks should be treated, I oppose all unjust treatment of anyone.  Thus, there's really no significance to it and to mention "historical oppression" is just a cheap and dishonest ploy to demonize ("oppress") good people who oppose that which people like Dan embrace, promote and/or enable.

When Morons Vote

I may take a couple or more posts to deal with the midterms elections.  One of the most moronic outcomes was the re-election of Democrat morons governors.  For example, my former home of IL re-elected JB Prickster who had already announced, and had analyzed by intelligent people, an act which will aid and abet criminals, called, "the SAFE-T Act"(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asVws3Ef9XI)(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sC_qdm501LM).  It's a horror.  Then in Michigan, voters rejected a bright woman of character, Tudor Dixon in favor of retaining Gretchen Whitless (https://michiganrisingaction.org/2022/08/01/governor-gretchen-whitmer-is-failing-michiganders/) so that they can be locked down again at a moment's notice should anyone get the sniffles.  It's a horror.  And of course there's Kathy Hochul. (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11394505/NY-Governor-Hochul-slammed-woke-MSNBC-anchor-NYCs-control-crime-wave.html)  She's just a horror.  (SIDE BAR:  As regards the last link above, it shows murder and shooting victim rates are down.  Is it the result of better law enforcement, poor ability to murder and/or hit one's target or a target poor environment due to fewer people venturing out where their lives are more at risk?)

So the sad troll feo tried posting this below in celebration of his stupidity and that of fellow New Yorkers who apparently want more crime, cost and emigrants so they can pay all the taxes themselves:

Oh. And we New Yorkers voted to protect our city from White Supremacists like you. All amendment proposals passed.

1. Ballot Question #1: Add a Statement of Values to Guide Government This proposal would amend the New York City Charter to: Add a preamble, which would be an introductory statement of values and vision aspiring toward “a just and equitable city for all” New Yorkers; and Include in the preamble a statement that the City must strive to remedy “past and continuing harms and to reconstruct, revise, and reimagine our foundations, structures, institutions, and laws to promote justice and equity for all New Yorkers.”

2. Ballot Question #2: Establish a Racial Equity Office, Plan, and Commission This proposal would amend the City Charter to: Require citywide and agency-specific Racial Equity Plans every two years. The plans would include intended strategies and goals to improve racial equity and to reduce or eliminate racial disparities; Establish an Office of Racial Equity and appoint a Chief Equity Officer to advance racial equity and coordinate the City’s racial equity planning process. The Office would support City agencies in improving access to City services and programs for those people and communities who have been negatively affected by previous policies or actions, and collect and report data related to equity; and Establish a Commission on Racial Equity, appointed by City elected officials. In making appointments to this Commission, elected officials would be required to consider appointees who are representative of or have experience advocating for a diverse range of communities. The Commission would identify and propose priorities to inform the racial equity planning process and review agency and citywide Racial Equity Plans.

3. Ballot Question #3: Measure the True Cost of Living This proposal would amend the City Charter to: Require the City to create a “true cost of living” measure to track the actual cost in New York City of meeting essential needs, including housing, food, childcare, transportation, and other necessary costs, and without considering public, private, or informal assistance, in order to inform programmatic and policy decisions; and Require the City government to report annually on the “true cost of living” measure.

Apparently, feo, being a self-loathing, white-guilted race-hustler thinks he knows a white supremacist when he sees one.  Obviously, he's a moron because there's nothing he could ever find among almost 15 years of blogging anything among my comments which suggests racism on my part.  But like a good little lefty, he regards everyone not as ideologically stupid as he is as a racist.  It's what lefties do.  They see "white supremacists" everywhere.   So rather than protect their fellow citizens, particularly lower income black citizens who are disproportionately victims of violent crime, they choose to protect themselves against a myth of their own making with the above laughably impotent amendments to their city charter.  Let's look at each briefly:

1.  The chief concern of this point and the next is "equity" (https://www.jordanbpeterson.com/political-correctness/equity-when-the-left-goes-too-far/) which at its heart for the left is simply equal outcomes or, the notion that lack of good outcome is somehow based on some form or prejudice or discrimination.  It never means a given failure is a failure through that failure's failure to strive for excellence or is limited by physical or mental challenges.  Equity, to the left, means "white man bad".  This is true because rarely (I'm being generously open-minded here) do we ever see anyone defend a white guy as being a victim of a lack of equity.  Thus, it's a racist concept because of how the racist lefties have perverted the term.  So the problem is in just how they will determine a failure to achieve or succeed is the result of some lack of equity?  So far, they simply assert it.  Point one doesn't provide any hints.  

2.  This point suggests part of whatever that plan is begins with a commission to provide plans to ensure "racial" equity, demonstrating the racism of the plan and the people who came up with this crap sandwich.  You'll note as you read through it that it's difficult to imagine that subjectivity won't play a major role in the implementation and enforcement of any "racial equity" plan.  What guarantee will there be to prevent and punish frivolous claims one is a victim?  As has been the case thus far, every charge of racism or "white supremacist"...and feo's the perfect example of this grievous slander...will require those charged to prove their innocence.  The accusation will be proof of guilt.  That's how it works with the left.  

3.  This point is government interference codified into law.  They'll tally what they believe the cost of living has become and then provide that to activists who'll seek to force employers to raise wages and benefits to accommodate that cost.  Not only will they not do a damned thing to teach and encourage people to live within their means while the costs is what it is at the time of implementation, they likely will never allow those wages and benefits to be reduced to reflect any positive change in the cost of living...that is, should things get less expensive.  What a great way to compel more businesses to flee the city!!  

Frankly, I can't see how any of these three reflect Constitutional principles which can't lead to their being struck down by a state or federal court, particularly the last one.  The second will likely increase the case load as every attempt to punish an entity for a perceived lack of equity will potentially wind up in court.  

So here we have a people...the citizens of New York City...doubling down on stupidity with these nonsensical amendments the City Idiot feo regards as reason for celebration and feeling superior to better people he falsely regards as "white supremacists".  Electing Hochul should have been enough to prove what morons New Yorkers are.  But they couldn't help themselves.  

Well, good luck to you New York (city AND state).  You deserve the suffering which will now increase.  You clearly wanted more of it.

Since Dan Won't Give Assurance...

 This post is in response to petulant questions posed to me by Dan in the comments section of the following post of his:

http://throughthesewoods.blogspot.com/2022/10/trying-to-answer-misunderstandings-and.html

The reason I'm doing it here is because Dan refused to assure me he's allow me the freedom to respond in my own way, as I do for him here at my blog.  He believes that because he allowed some comments of mine, which he says, basically, because I followed his rules, then I should not demand that assurance.  But I know better than to take his word for such things.   One false step and all the time I took to respond will be made a waste when he deletes for reasons no one can hope to follow.  

That's enough background.  Here we go:

It begins with this:

"Before you say anything else, PROVE this claim objectively or admit you can't. Support your claims/answer the questions in bold. Don't comment otherwise.

 Marshal...

Given Scripture's teaching about eternal punishment...even allowing for the fact you reject that teaching as you do so many others...it's clear God's opinion of sin is severe and more so than yours or you wouldn't defend so much of it so openly and happily.

? PROVE IT."

This is my response: 

 I have proven it many times in past discussions, and really, it's proven again in the very quote he wants me to prove.  Scripture teaches of eternal punishment.  That clearly suggests (at the utter least) that God's opinion of sin is severe and more so than Dan's.  Dan thinks eternal punishment is unjust for what he refers to as "minor" or "trivial" sins.  God simply deals in sin and is willing to allow that some will perish, even though He desires that none should.  

He goes on as follows:

"I know there are passages that speak of eternal punishment. There are also passages that speak of God not being willing any to punish. What is your PROOF, objective, demonstrable PROOF, that God thinks the every day "I took the last cookie even though I knew my wife wanted it" sins are worthy of eternal punishment, in God's opinion?

PROVE IT."

This is my response:

I've never made the case that God thinks "every day" sins...and here Dan is again referring to what he labels "minor" or "trivial" sins... are worthy of eternal punishment.  My position is that God isn't basing His sense of justice on any such ranking of the seriousness of sinful behaviors.  And while Dan demands proof that God wouldn't condemn on such a basis, he provides absolutely no proof that there's any specific line separating "minor" or "trivial" sins from "major" or "really bad" sins.  For my part, I insist my job is to avoid sinful behaviors of all kinds without regard to how someone like Dan might categorize them, because I know from Scripture that God abhors sin.  It's not a behavior which condemns us, it's our sin nature.

Dan said:

"This is an intentional distortion of the point.

Prove it, liar. What it is, is me making clear what my position is."

Of course, I stated my point and thus his words clearly distorted it as I go on to say in the next part he reprinted:

"Marshal...

Only you are suggesting the possibility of "some secret notions of sin and justice". To say God's ways are not our ways and we can't know God's ways as He does is not a suggestion there are secret notions of sin and justice.

So, what DO you mean that God's ways aren't our ways? Do you think we CAN reasonably understand morality and justice issues?"

This is my response:

The first sentence of mine he quoted speak tot he distortion mentioned prior.  More details of my point can be found by scrolling above (I had about a half-dozen comments in a row).  But his emboldened questions are nonsensical.  The concept of God's ways not being like ours is not a new or mysterious concept.  In the context of this discussion, Dan can't understand how there can be eternal punishment for anyone for any reason.  Personally, I don't even need to know why God has chosen to act as He does, but only that I have a duty to abide His Will, which is very clearly revealed to us in Scripture.  As to Dan's second question in bold, it's not a question about which he's truly concerned.  Dan seeks to promote ambiguity in which one can rationalize behaviors which aren't ambiguously prohibited.  He also seeks to impose upon God a human level of moral/justice understanding.  That is, if we don't have civil penalties for "minor" or "trivial" sins, by golly God mustn't concern Himself with them, either.  We're all imperfect humans.  We try to live by codes of morality and justice as we understand them and as we prefer them to be, with other cultures on earth having distinctly different codes by which they rule themselves.  God, however, is perfect and His "understanding" of morality and justice is not like ours.  Thus, if He is more offended by sin than we are, it is justice if He punishes those stained by sin more than the likes of a Dan Trabue would prefer.   Boo-hoo Dan Trabue.

Moving on:

"Marshal...

"I tolerate these people in order to help them. I do not, will not and let them know that they must never again indulge their bad behaviors if they're truly seeking help."

Not an effective method for dealing with some of these sins/failings. Addicts and racists don't respond well to ultimatums. I'm interested in reform, not judgmentalism"

This is my response:

There is no reform while bad behaviors continue.  There is no reform without having first judged a person who engages in bad behavior.  What the hell?  And addict isn't reforming if he's still using.  A racist isn't reforming if he's still a Democrat.

Dan said...

"D. None of us can objectively authoritatively prove our understandings of justice and morality. Not Marshal. Not me.

Marshal responded...

D. This doesn't make sense. Do you mean we can't prove our understandings are correct? I don't agree.

I mean PRECISELY that your opinions about justice and morality are opinions that you can NOT prove objectively."

This is my response:

Ah...the old, "I call myself a Christian but I don't know if I can trust what Scripture says about morality because I don't really have faith" line.  I regard Scripture as inerrant.  God's Will, as regards human behavior, is clearly revealed to us in Scripture.  Only lefties pretend there's ambiguity enough to rationalize behaviors they indulge or enable in others.  But to insist that clearly revealed Will of God is not proof is absurd.  Of course it is.  Scripture is the testimony of those who were servants of God or witnesses to their deeds.  It's proof of what morality and justice looks like.  

Dan said,

"You can't PROVE objectively that God is opposed to gay guys marrying."

This is my response:

Of course I can and have repeatedly over the years.  It begins with Lev 18:22 and, frankly, can end there given your inability to prove your self-serving opinion of it.  That verse prohibits the commission of a particular behavior.  It provides no context or scenario in which it might be indulged and not still be considered detestable by God.  As Neil Simpson's well known response states:

---100% of the verses addressing homosexual behavior denounce it as sin in the strongest possible terms.

---100% of the verses referencing God's ideal for marriage involve one man and one woman.

---100% of the verses referencing parenting involve moms and dads with unique roles (or at least a set of male and female parents guiding the children).

---0% of 31,173 Bible verses refer to homosexual behavior in a positive or even benign way or even hint at the acceptability of homosexual unions.

This is objective proof that God is opposed to SSM.  There is no early Christian apologists promoting or enabling the behavior in any way regardless of the context or scenario in which it might take place.  

In the meantime, Dan as NEVER provided so much as a hint of evidence to the contrary, and all attempts he's put forth require wild speculation based on his preference that God is not opposed.

Dan said:

"You can't PROVE objectively that we are saved literally by Jesus' blood to "cover" or "pay for" our sins."

This is my response:

Of course I can and have repeatedly over the years.  Indeed, there are a variety of ways we can show through Scripture that this is true.  I believe Dan expects and demands that there must be a stockpile of vials filled with Christ's blood in order for this to be true.  But of course, the salient point is that it is Christ's death on the cross which paid our sin debt, and thus to say we're washed clean by His blood shed on that cross is a metaphorical explanation of that most necessary sacrifice on our behalf.  It's basic Christianity 101 which any serious and prayerful student of Scripture knows.

Dan said:

"You can't PROVE objectively that transgender folks are "sinning.""

 This is my response:

Well of course I can and have every time the subject arose.  The problem here for Dan is that unlike actual Christians, he requires more than one verse or mention of a commandment of God to acknowledge the sinfulness of a behavior.  Indeed, he's taken a mocking tone for daring to present the one verse which makes this obvious.  But if mere cross-dressing is prohibited, how much more so is mutilating one's body so as to appear to be a member of the opposite sex?  His objection is absurd.  

Now, there is one caveat to this, which is that so many of such people are mentally disordered.  One has to be to believe amputating body parts will bring one joy and happiness.  I would hope mental cases aren't judged in the same way as those who simply find pleasure in indulging in prohibited behaviors.  I leave that to God, but will voice the truth when given the opportunity.  Some simply aren't aware of the truth.  Dan is and rejects it so as to appear more holy to those who most need to hear the unvarnished and unequivocal Word of God.

Dan said:

"You can't PROVE objectively that ANY of your opinions about what God thinks about moral questions are objectively correct. NOT ONE."

This is my response:

The three previous points completely destroy this claim.  What's more, all my opinions are totally grounded in and informed by Scripture...even those which I had already held prior to Biblical study (just lucky, I guess).  But again, for Dan to so insist this nonsense requires that he not take Scripture seriously.  He'll worry what non-Christians believe or that actual Christians might struggle to persuade non-Christians like him the truth of Scriptural teachings.  I don't know, but that he doesn't believe in Scripture when it's not convenient to do so...which is quite often.

Dan said:

"These are human traditions and beliefs that are not provable.

Do you admit that reality?"

This is my response:

It's not "reality" but your wish that it be so.  This "human tradition" trope is one you pull out when you have no actual argument in defense of your defenseless preferences.  You want and need to believe that because "humans" have a "tradition" that the "tradition" in question is somehow unBiblical because you desperately need it to be so.  There's not a single Christian tradition...I refer here to both actual Christians as well as those like yourself...which are not in some way informed by Scripture.  All are "human" so this "human tradition" mantra is crap and meaningless.  It's just a form of derision for that which you cannot intelligently oppose for lack of evidence, data or support of the level you demand of every opponent with whom you disagree.

 Dan said:

" If you THINK you can prove it objectively, do so. OR, admit you can't."

This is my response:

Clearly I've proven every claim I've made with regard to the morality of behaviors.  What we lack is Dan's body of evidences, proofs, data and support for his alternative positions.  Proof is only required by him of those who disagree with him.  He does not feel he is obliged to prove a thing he believes or wishes was true. 

It goes on....

""Do you agree that none of us - not even conservatives like you - have a perfect understanding of justice and morality?"

Marshal didn't answer, saying instead...

A foolish and irrelevant question. Perfection isn't required. And the real issue isn't a matter of perfect understanding anyway, but understanding what is clear and unequivocal.

Answer the question, directly. Given your non-answer, I suspect that you are willing to admit, "NO, conservatives don't have a perfect understanding of Justice and morality."

AM I RIGHT? ANSWER THE QUESTION PUT TO YOU."

This is my response:

Dan believes he's scoring points here.  Even his snippet of my response clearly demonstrates that I did answer his moronic question.  I don't know how many times I must refer to humanity as imperfect in order to prevent his need to ask such questions.  If I've continued to describe humanity as imperfect, then on what basis would this question be intelligent?  My answer is as direct as it needs to be if the questioner was an honest person.  I could also have answered in this way:  Conservatives have a far better understanding of justice and morality than any "progressive Christian" ever will.  But that's an entirely different debate for another time.

Dan goes on:

"Marshal...

"what is clear and unequivocal..."

According TO WHO?

ANSWER THE QUESTIONS PUT TO YOU, directly. Clearly. With no vague non-answers."

I always answer directly.  I don't deal in "vague 'non-answers'".   But according to whom?  According to honest people who don't pretend God's Will is vague and difficult to understand in order to continue indulging or enabling that which is prohibited but personally pleasing.  And example of that which is clear and unequivocal are any verses beginning with "Thou shalt not..."

Dan asks:

"
"Do you agree that we all, generally, CAN have a reasonable understanding of Justice and morality?"

Marshal responded without answering...

This suggests you're as reasonable as I am. You're not.

ANSWER THE QUESTION PUT TO YOU. Do you agree that humanity can and does have a reasonable understanding of morality and justice, even if it's imperfect?"

This is my response:

My answer was as direct as it needed to be.  Dan is unreasonable.  I would imagine there are quite a few among "humanity" who are less so and some that are only more so by small degrees.  Dan is a "diversity is our strength" guy, ignoring the diversity which clearly exists among those in this country with regard to crime in the streets alone.  The understanding of morality and justice among Dan's favored political party is vastly unreasonable and superior to mine alone, much less the conservative portion of "humanity" in this country.  Now consider Communist China/N. Korea.  How many citizens in those countries believe as their leaders do?  What about muslim majority nations?  Some will throw Dan's lesbians off roofs with their hands bound behind them because of their understanding of morality and justice. 

That's about where I'm going to leave it.  Dan goes on a bit further with his usual crap...pretending I'm "conflating hunches with God's Word".  Like I said...crap.  "Conflating hunches" is what Dan says when he's unable to prove his opposing opinion is Scriptural and unwilling to try.  He just wants those who oppose his enabling of immorality to concede they might be wrong, while never doing jack shit to support the possibility he could possibly be right.  

I've never failed to support my positions.  I've referenced Scripture and have been accused of "speaking for God" when repeating what Scripture says God has said.  I've never said anything which God has NOT said.  Dan does all the time.  Dan proves nothing, supports nothing, provides no evidence, proofs, facts or data.  He then dares to suggest HE'S the adult in an adult conversation. 

Now I have to decide if I'm going to bother to attempt to post this at his blog.