So we've begun another June and with that we will be inundated with references to "Gay Pride", and still I've no understanding of how anyone can take pride in how they want to get their rocks off. While I know throughout history men (and some women) have taken pride in how many sexual partners they've had, but that's also a matter of taking pride in degradation, not in anything noble or beneficial to society or its culture. The same here. There's nothing noble about giving in to carnal desires and less so when those desires are the result of disorder and dysfunction as it the case with the homosexual. It's no different than taking pride in being bi-polar (no pun intended) or schizophrenic.
And of course, our culture has not been improved in any way by promoting, enabling, celebrating and defending the abnormal as normal. To the contrary, it has greased the skid of moral degradation which was already problematic and harmful. This was piling on...adding to the problem of cultural decay. Just as was true with the Playboy/Penthouse era leading to Hustler and other raunchier materials, and Hollywood pushing the envelope with regard to what can be portrayed on film...and then the effect it all had on the culture (did the culture lead to all that, or was it the other way around...likely it was both sides impacting each other), so too has the "acceptance" and "tolerance" of this perversion led to far worse manifestations of carnal expression and influence.
Children are more at risk than ever before and it's more clear than ever how these moral monsters seek to persuade more and more children that all this is all well and good, therefore forcing the "prophesy" that in time honest people devoted to the Will of God and just plain common sense and truthful scientific understanding will die out leaving them to further despoil the culture.
So while I still breathe, I will proclaim the truth and speak against this evil in the strongest possible terms while the activists and heretics continue to lie.
ADDENDUM:
Here's something interesting:
https://washingtonstand.com/news/buyers-remorse-support-for-samesex-agenda-craters-among-republicans
And here's another:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7E6FuOdLYA
Dan wants us to listen to only the LGBTQ++++ side of stories for all the facts regarding their many woes and encounters with oppression. Yeah. Sure. Are there true stories of such? I'd wager there are. The problem is how many of the many related to us are the true stories? No way to tell if we go by Dan and his claims of having heard hundreds of them.
Tuesday, June 03, 2025
Perv Pride
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
355 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 355 of 355June 20, 2025 at 9:51 AM
"To put in terms of a logical argument, it might look like this...
* The Bible contains rules that are universally moral
* the rule, "a man should only marry one woman in his lifetime "
* therefore, God's rule for marriage MUST BE a man can only marry a woman
And that is, at this point, a failed rational argument."
What you've presented, first of all contains two unrelated premises, the second of which doesn't require anything referencing universal or case specific rules.
The third point is an unnecessary repetition of the second point. Thus, it's not in any way an example of "logical" argument and less so an intelligent one. Furthermore, it's not an argument anyone here, nor Gagnon is making. This again points to you having serious problems with comprehension.
"He/you haven't proven the first, underlying premise AND, further, y'all haven't dealt with the "not all rules are universal " problem in the second premise."
So now you're again saying there are no universal moral rules in Scripture. Please warn us when you're going to contradict yourself. I'm damned certain you've expressed agreement with at least the existence of universal moral laws in Scripture. And keep in mind, if you're insisting there are no such universality of any moral law in Scripture, and/or we just can't know which is which, then how can you suggest it's wrong for someone to slap the crap out of you?
"Those aren't the only rational and biblical problems in your (lack of an) argument, but they are huge and insurmountable resulting in a fatally flawed theory."
But you haven't demonstrated any problems in our arguments or that they are in any way flawed. You only assert they are without actual arguments to support the assertion. Another example of how ironically hypocritical you are. And I know you love irony!
WHERE does he support the premise??
Marshal...
"So now you're again saying there are no universal moral rules in Scripture. Please warn us when you're going to contradict yourself. I'm damned certain you've expressed agreement with at least the existence of universal moral laws"
1. YES. There is NO DATA to support the human theory that the Bible contains rules that are intended to be taken as universal rules.
2. I've been quite consistently telling you all the problem of viewing the Bible as a universal rulings book, because the Bible makes no such claims like that, nor has God told you that, and the claim is irrational on the face of it and in many ways contra-biblical.
3. I HAVE noted that there are rules in the Bible, of course, but that the rules that are universal are universal NOT because there is a line in the Bible saying it, but because the behavior is bad, harmful, oppressive, abusive.
That is, the Bible is clearly NOT a rulings book OR a book that contains some universal rules given to us by God. But there are behaviors that are bad because they're just bad, and the Bible notes that reality.
But I don't think you're getting the distinction.
And he still hasn't proven the premise.
Marshal...
"if you're insisting there are no such universality of any moral law in Scripture, and/or we just can't know which is which, then how can you suggest it's wrong for someone to slap the crap out of you?"
Because, ENTIRELY APART from your little magic rule book of your mind, humans have the capacity for moral reasoning. It's innately wrong to abuse human rights, for instance.
AND, that is PRECISELY the premise you're failing to prove or even ATTEMPT to prove.
(Rolls eyes..)
Marshal...
"You only assert they are without actual arguments to support the assertion."
I'm noting quite clearly and definitively that neither Gagnon not you have proven his premises. Period. That is a fact claim. Now, ALL you have to do is provide the place where he's proven the premise.
Or, admit you can't. The ball is in your court.
Whatever you think was a relevant omission from your first submission, and that the addition here of what was unintentional omitted there you think makes a significant difference, results in nothing more than that point two and three are redundancies with no relation whatsoever to point one. So let's review:
The Bible does indeed contain rules we are still obliged to abide. That goes without saying. Do dispute this requires an explanation for why it isn't so, and specifically, if it is stated in an attempt to defend abomination, even more solid evidence must accompany the claim. You don't get to come here and refuse to do for us what you demand like a petulant little girl what we're required under penalty of deletion what you want us to do for you.
Next, it's absurd to pretend that any line in the Bible which states we must do A, B & C is not the same as God setting forth a rule we must abide...unless there's something specific absolving us from that obligation.
I neither know nor care what bringing up personal attacks has to do with the rest of it.
Marshal...
"What you've presented, first of all contains two unrelated premises, the second of which doesn't require anything referencing universal or case specific rules."
I don't know what in the world you're talking about. Or, more likely, you don't know what you're talking about.
A. IS it the point of Gagnon and gang that God only wants men marrying women, and one woman at that (and vice versa)?
B. IS that an objectively proven universal rule?
C. HOW does Gagnon "know" that?
D. IS it because (he thinks) there are lines in the Bible that objectively prove that?
E. If so, WHY does it matter if there are lines in the Bible that he personally thinks mean that this is what God wants?
F. Is it because the Bible has universal rules for morality and marriage?
G.SAYS WHO? PROVE THAT PREMISE.
Do you see why you must prove your human opinion about rule book Bible to build that case?
IF the Bible is not a universal rulings book, then what difference does it make that Gagnon thinks there's a universal rule from God about marriage? Who should care? Based on what?
No matter how I frame it, you appear to not recognize the rational/biblical problems you have.
Way up above, Marshal declared, with no support...
"The Bible does indeed contain rules we are still obliged to abide. That goes without saying."
No. It does NOT go without saying. THAT IS the unproven premise.
WHO SAYS it goes without saying?? Marshal? Who in the unholy hell is he to make that sort of wild declaration? Because the humans in Marshal's human traditions REALLLLLLY want it to be accepted without challenge?
Bullshit. We got no kings in the free world of the beloved community... no human dictator is going to decide for us what we must believe.
THAT is a premise - the same one Gagnon and other pharisee types keep declaring without supporting.
THAT is the premise that must be proven before you move on to your other logical fallacies and biblical heresies.
Marshal...
"To dispute this requires an explanation for why it isn't so, and specifically, if it is stated in an attempt to defend abomination..."
1. Because there is NO OBJECTIVE PROOF to make it so.
2. Because the biblical authors never once made that claim.
3. Because most, if not all the time, rules found in the Bible are specifically written to specific people and situations.
4. Because GOD has never told us to embrace this heresy.
5. Because it's neither rational nor biblically rational.
And, once again,
6. It's an unproven premise.
Craig, tell me you at least understand the rational failure here and that, based at least upon Gagnon's little opinion, he hasn't even tried to support the premise.
Y'all DO understand what a premise is, don't you??
This is so deeply weird.
June 20, 2025 at 3:38 PM
"That's not an "unproven human opinion" give all the commandments, prohibitions, restrictions and teachings regarding what constitutes obedience or disobedience to the Will of God."
"I think you just don't understand."
I most certainly do. The above quote from me is directly referencing the following moronic statement of yours:
""That is, he's operating from the unproven human opinion that the Bible is somehow a moral rulings book.""
" He's operating based upon a premise he hasn't proven. NO ONE is disputing that one can find rules in the biblical texts.
Where is the proof they're INTENDED to be universal?"
Ah...I see the issue here: you think you get to demand proof for that with which you disagree, rather than facing your obligation to provide evidence justifying your disagreement. You don't get to come here and demand we prove our claims, or to demand we prove your claims are untrue. Indeed, while you are visiting here, you are the only one obliged to prove anything with actual evidence drawn from where I demand you must. Whether you're making a fact claim or just rendering an opinion, you're required to provide evidence which justifies either to MY satisfaction, just as you make such a demand of us at your Blog of Lies and Perversions. Given how stupid and false you are, no one is more required to do so here. Except your troll, but I don't allow his comment submissions to see the light of day, so it's just you. You're just that freakin' special.
"Where is the proof that these ARE universal?"
Where is the proof they aren't? Only YOU'RE required to prove your claims and your claim is that the prohibition against homosexual behavior is not a universal one for all time and in any context or scenario in which it might take place.
"What line in Gagnons little talk supports those claims?"
He's not required to present his case in a manner which satisfies your petulant and ever changing criteria. But YOU'RE required to provide evidence that his position is wrong or flawed, or that yours is worth more than the laughs it provokes.
"You don't have to come up with the answer. All you have to do is point to where he answers these problems OR admit he doesn't even try."
I don't have to do that, either. Especially since I don't see any problems at all with his brief explanation, much less his full career of comprehensively supported explanations. No problems with his dissertation exists just because you don't want to buy it. So ignore your bullshit claim problems actually exist in his presentation and get to providing evidence right here and now to support your ludicrous claims regarding God and SSM.
I had asked...
"Where is the proof that these ARE universal?"
Marshal did not answer, nor TRY to answer. Instead, he asked...
Where is the proof they aren't? Only YOU'RE required to prove your claims and your claim is that the prohibition against homosexual behavior is not a universal one for all time and in any context or scenario in which it might take place.
1. YOU all are the ones making an outlandish and unproven claim:
The Bible is a moral rulings book where we can somehow glean universal rules, approved/demanded by God. The one making the outlandish claim is beholden to support it.
2. My proof is that we have NO REASON to assume the Bible is a universal moral rulings book. The Bible and its authors make no such claims. God has not told you this. It is a premise held by a certain subset of religionists and it is an unproven premise. STILL.
If Ralph the mechanic came along and told us that the Bible is actually, in part, a car repair guide. Something the Bible never claims.
The ones is on Ralph to prove the premise, if he wants others to accept it.
We don't have to prove it's NOT a holy car manual.
We feel good enough knowing that both Gagnon and all of us argues our position far better than you and with actual evidence...not defaulting to "Nyuh uh" and "Prove it" when faced with that which is incontrovertible. Of course, you never present anything which is in the same universe as "incontrovertible", so you don't truly argue for or against anything at all. You assert abomination is cool if those eager to engage in it say "I love you" to each other. How childish! How Trabue-ish!
June 19, 2025 at 9:54 PM
"But go ahead and try to show where his case "falls apart"."
"It's not so much that his case falls apart... it just never starts."
Be honest. You didn't even watch the first ten minutes after all, did you. Only a lying enabler of perversion like you would pretend he wasn't making his case even that early in the video.
"Y'all DO understand what I'm saying about not even trying to prove his premises, right?"
Yeah. We understand that you're lying again because he was making a great case even within the first ten minutes you claim to have watched but probably didn't.
"I know I can't ask that question without sounding condescending, but you all respond to my points as if you're not grasping the problem."
Bullshit. We're responding to an asshole who hasn't shown there are any problems to grasp.
June 20, 2025 at 1:40 PM
"This has very little to do with theology, really, and so much to do with basic reasoning."
You've never presented anything remotely akin to true reasoning in any defense of perversion you've offered. Thus, for you to suppose you can identify where reason is or isn't is laughable.
"WHERE is the supporting data to support the Rulings Book Bibke that his opinions are loosely based upon?"
Where is your supporting data for criticizing or trying to rebut Gagnon or any of us? We're under no obligation here to respond to your petulant demands at this blog. Save that crap for your Blog of Lies and Perversions. Here, you provide evidence in support of your claims and opinions, be they for your positions or to argue against ours. Ours are backed by Scripture, as are Gagnon's. Yours are backed by your insistence they have Scriptural support or basis despite your refusal to provide it.
"I'm not saying I'm a genius or an expert theologian."
Is that supposed to be a gracious act of humility? You shouldn't dare say you're even casually familiar with Scripture. It's all I can do to keep from peeing myself with laughter at the very notion. What a condescending ass you are!
"I'm pointing to the complete absence of support for his first unspoken premise."
OK...this is confusing, Mr. Master (De)Bater. He's not supporting what he didn't say? WTF!!!
"By all means, point to the words where he tries to support that premise and I can apologize profusely for missing it."
You want me to point to unspoken words? WFT are you even doing?
"But failing that, y'all can't attack, belittle, demonize and otherwise bully adults into going along with unsupported premises."
What's with you "Rainbow" assholes pretending anyone is attacking, belittling, demonize or bullying anyone into agreement? Any demonizing of you is due to your being an asshole who lies supports that which God has called abomination, and then daring to "attack, belittle, demonize and otherwise bully" us for standing for the truth of Scripture.
"It doesn't take a genius to notice it's missing."
But it takes an honest man to point out evidence in support of his position. Not being such a person, you've refused to do that. Instead, you pretend better, more knowledgeable people haven't proven their position. "Nyuh uh" doesn't work here, Sally. You wouldn't know "Logic" if it kicked you in your lady parts.
Where have you ever supported any of yours? You're under the obligation to do so here...not to question the arguments of others. If you can't provide support for your claims or objections, you will not get satisfaction demanding ever more evidence for that which is well supported already.
June 20, 2025 at 5:57 PM
"So now you're again saying there are no universal moral rules in Scripture. Please warn us when you're going to contradict yourself. I'm damned certain you've expressed agreement with at least the existence of universal moral laws"
"1. YES. There is NO DATA to support the human theory that the Bible contains rules that are intended to be taken as universal rules."
This is childish bullshit. On what basis must Scripture make such a proclamation about God's laws, simply because you're too stupid to differentiate between ritual/purity/ceremonial laws and laws which remain in play? You only say this crap to provide you the loophole you need to celebrate, defend, support and enable perversions you find personally pleasing. This is the whole point of this long discussion: there's no Scriptural basis for presuming that God would ever bless an SSM. None whatsoever and certainly none that you've ever offered without perverting Scripture to do it.
"2. I've been quite consistently telling you all the problem of viewing the Bible as a universal rulings book, because the Bible makes no such claims like that, nor has God told you that, and the claim is irrational on the face of it and in many ways contra-biblical."
That's not an actual problem. That's a fiction you impose to allow you the ability to pretend your defense of your beloved perverts is acceptable to God. The real problem is that you refuse to defend your love of homosexual behavior despite God's unequivocal prohibition of it. Your a pervert and God's Will is inconvenient for you. When scholars like Gagnon get deep in the weeds of affirming what gives you the vapors, you lash out at him instead of providing a coherent, intelligent, honest and Scripture based counter argument...because no such thing exists.
"3. I HAVE noted that there are rules in the Bible, of course, but that the rules that are universal are universal NOT because there is a line in the Bible saying it, but because the behavior is bad, harmful, oppressive, abusive."
Says who? Where does it say anything like that in Scripture? Where is your support for your premise that behaviors you find personally disagreeable are universally immoral on the basis of your subjective criteria?
That is, the Bible is clearly NOT a rulings book OR a book that contains some universal rules given to us by God. But there are behaviors that are bad because they're just bad, and the Bible notes that reality. Why should anyone give a flying rats' ass that Dan Trabue believes a given "behavior is bad, harmful, oppressive, abusive"? How is your opinion binding on anyone, but God's Will is not? For actual Christians, harm and abuse is not a more serious and important factor than is God's prohibition of any such behavior. This is no more than you dictating morality and subordinating God's Will to your personal opinions about behaviors. Arguing against the universality of the prohibition against your homosexual desires because it doesn't fit the Dan Trabue standard for bad behavior is flipping off the God you pretend to revere and worship.
"But I don't think you're getting the distinction."
Yeah....sure. I get that you're making childish arguments to protect your favorite sin.
And he still hasn't proven the premise.
You're still apparently completely missing the point. There MAY be a point to some of Gagnon's biblical opinions and his personal hunches about how to understand that. But IF he's beginning as a critical point of his premise that "the Bible contains the objective moral rules that are universal in nature as it applies to marriage, issues around homosexuality and how to best play jumping jacks," THEN he must begin with proving his as-yet unproven premise that the Bible IS a moral rulings book where we can reliably, authoritatively find objectively moral rules that are universal.
If HE (you all) are the ones making that premise, THEN YOU ALL are the ones who need to prove it. I don't need to disprove it. I'm just noting the reality that you all have not led with proving your primary premise. AND that IS your primary premise. IF the Bible is not the moral rulings book where we find objective universally moral rules, THEN it doesn't matter one turd what you all theorize about how best to interpret marriage rules, selling your daughter rules or raping the kidnapped girls of defeated enemy rules. You must FIRST prove your premise.
Sorry, that last was from me, Dan.
Marshal asked some questions about me noting that what is moral is that which causes harm, that which abuses human rights. He asked (I'm placing Numbers in to track them and be clear)...
1. Says who?
Moral reasoning. A point which biblical authors have written to support, but it's not "proven" because biblical authors have noted as much. Why not? BECAUSE THE BIBLE IS NOT A MAGIC RULE BOOK.
Some examples of biblical authors agreeing with this common sense bit of self-evident reasoning:
(God speaking to Israel in Jeremiah):
“I will put my law in their minds
and write it on their hearts."
Or Paul, in Romans 2:
"(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them."
But again, it's not evident because there is a line in the Bible that says as much. It's just observable common sense.
2. Where does it say anything like that in Scripture?
Answered, but you're STILL MISSING THE POINT. The Bible is not a magic rule book.
Where is your support for your premise that behaviors you find personally disagreeable are universally immoral on the basis of your subjective criteria?
Human rights. Moral common sense. That which is common to humanity, ideals such as the golden rule, found in every religion and philosophy because it is self-evident. OF COURSE, we want our children and loved ones and ourselves to be treated kindly by others, so OF COURSE, it makes sense to do so to others.
I get that it's an imperfect and unprovable system in the details - and especially dangerous when we're talking about some malignant narcissists or others who are emotionally and psychologically troubled, but it's rational and demonstrable, even if imperfectly.
Once again: We don't HAVE at our human disposal, a perfect measure of morality, demonstrable, authoritative and provable. That's just the observable reality (unless you can provide something otherwise) and in part, you probably find that troubling because your ideas of moral philosophy are lacking. But out of time, for now.
Dan
Marshal...
Why should anyone give a flying rats' ass that Dan Trabue believes a given "behavior is bad, harmful, oppressive, abusive"?
Because what Dan is citing is not unique to Dan but rather, common to humanity. We should NOT abuse human rights of people NOT because "that's just what Dan thinks!" but because we humans tend to recognize the innate value of human life and that humans deserve some rights. Not all humans fully believe this, but it's a universal (in the sense of people everywhere generally agreeing with it) truism that I want to be treated well, not abused, killed or harmed unjustly, therefore, I should treat others the same.
Do YOU, Marshal, personally happen to think it's okay to abuse other humans and deny them their rights AS fellow humans?
How is your opinion binding on anyone, but God's Will is not?
Human rights ARE God's will, I'd say. Feel free to argue that if you want, but it's quite an evil little human opinion. And MY opinion is not binding on anyone but humans can generally agree to human rights, even if imperfectly.
Dan
The problem is that this isn't a matter of how we feel, it's following the scriptural evidence where it leads.
"and so much to do with basic reasoning"
It's refreshing when Dan acknowledges that his hunches have "very little to do with theology" and rest oh his Reason.
You kind of are saying exactly that, without providing any credentials to demonstrate it. You're big gotcha is that you criticize him for having an unproven premise (which is at lest partly based on taking this one video out of context), while your entire hunch is based on your own unproven premise. You've claimed repeatedly that you're intimately familiar with scripture because you've read it, and that you're intimately familiar with Gagnons (and other conservatives) arguments because you read something decades ago.
http://www.robgagnon.net/
A quick look at his CV indicates that calling him an expert is not a stretch at all, yet somehow your reverence for experts doesn't extend to those you disagree with. It certainly is more impressive than yours.
That you regularly try to attack, belittle, demonize, bully, condescend to, and spew vitriol adults into blindly accepting your unsupported premises doesn't seem to bother you when you do it.
Dan is just spewing his usual talking points based on his many unsupported premises, it's tiresome and childish but that doesn't stop him. His inability to actually address specifics, while belaboring something that is the foundation of his own hunches (unsupported premises) actually makes him look like a simpleton.
But he's content to belittle an accomplished scholar with the credentials to back it up as "a simpleton".
I think that Dan's problem with this is that he demands that a short video presentation, which is limited in scope, must cover every single objection that Dan can conjure up. This ignores the fact that Gagnon has been speaking and writing publicly for decades and that it is not unreasonable to conclude that it would be insane to recapitulate every single thing he's ever written or spoken about in a short video.
Just more of Dan's double standard.
June 20, 2025 at 6:03 PM
"if you're insisting there are no such universality of any moral law in Scripture, and/or we just can't know which is which, then how can you suggest it's wrong for someone to slap the crap out of you?"
"Because, ENTIRELY APART from your little magic rule book of your mind, humans have the capacity for moral reasoning."
Perv Queen...apart from not having any "little magic rule book" in my mind or in my hands, you've proven, and are proving yet again in this discussion, that you have nothing akin to reasoning ability, moral or otherwise. But again, "moral" based on what? By your "reasoning", based on personal subjective opinion. And when it's Dan Trabue's personal subjective reasoning, it's worthless.
What's more, your drivel doesn't answer the question.
"It's innately wrong to abuse human rights, for instance."
Says who and on what basis?
"AND, that is PRECISELY the premise you're failing to prove or even ATTEMPT to prove."
I'm not required to prove anything here. You're required to either provide evidence and argument I might be wrong, or to provide evidence or intelligent argument in support of your position. You're not even coming close to doing either.
June 20, 2025 at 6:30 PM
"You only assert they are without actual arguments to support the assertion."
"I'm noting quite clearly and definitively that neither Gagnon not you have proven his premises. Period. That is a fact claim. Now, ALL you have to do is provide the place where he's proven the premise."
That's not a fact claim, because it's not a fact. I'm not required to do anything, despite having actually supported my position by posting the video in the first place. In response, you're employing your tired tactic of demanding proof for the proof already supplied which proved what you demanded be proven. Prove the proof which proves the proof which proved the proof before it. A cheap dodge if ever there was one and another favorite of yours. It's bullshit when you pull this crap at your Blog of Lies and Perversions. It doesn't fly here.
"Or, admit you can't. The ball is in your court."
You don't get to make demands here. You're to respond to mine. You won't answer any question of mine at your Blog of Lies and Perversions, you don't get to ask any here. I'm quite fine with Gagnon's presentation and the sources he cites (mostly Scripture) which backs up what he's saying. If you want to insist his premise is wrong or flawed or false, you don't get to hammer me with demands. You're to appease my demand that you present you case with the very same quality of evidence you demand of everyone else, but never of yourself.
Craig...
"Dan is just spewing his usual talking points based on his many unsupported premises, it's tiresome and childish but that doesn't stop him. His inability to actually address specifics..."
So deeply strange.
June 20, 2025 at 8:24 PM
"A. IS it the point of Gagnon and gang that God only wants men marrying women, and one woman at that (and vice versa)?"
Obviously.
"B. IS that an objectively proven universal rule?"
Of course. How could it not be? Because Dan Trabue doesn't see anywhere God saying, "This is a universal rule for all time...in case some lover of perversion from a fake Christian church on Jeff St wants to pretend otherwise."???
"C. HOW does Gagnon "know" that?"
I don't think his presentation includes any mention of "universal rules", because as is factually true, there is nothing in Scripture to suggest the rule you think you have any authority or argument to reject had some limitation to it.
"D. IS it because (he thinks) there are lines in the Bible that objectively prove that?"
Again, you're asking if he's arguing universality, when he's simply stating that God's plan is made clear in Scripture with regard to human sexuality. When are you going to present your case that it is not true? When are you going to provide evidence that there is any context or scenario in which your favorite perversion can be indulged without being an abomination?
"E. If so, WHY does it matter if there are lines in the Bible that he personally thinks mean that this is what God wants?"
Because unlike you, he's actually seriously (very much so) and prayerfully studied Scripture, and this topic specifically and has actually proven to be so...that is, to actual Christians who regard Scripture as an actual record of God's intentions on the subject.
"F. Is it because the Bible has universal rules for morality and marriage?"
Obviously.
"G.SAYS WHO? PROVE THAT PREMISE."
Says all actual Christians who strive to serve God on HIS terms, without seeking loopholes to satisfy theirs, as you do. I'm not required to prove anything here. You're required to prove, with evidence of the stupidly specifically high quality you demand of others, that the position presented by Gagnon is in error, false or in any way untrue.
"Do you see why you must prove your human opinion about rule book Bible to build that case?"
No. I see that you put this condition on Scripture in order to compel you to abide the Will of the Almighty, rather than to appease your carnal lusts.
"IF the Bible is not a universal rulings book, then what difference does it make that Gagnon thinks there's a universal rule from God about marriage? Who should care? Based on what?"
You haven't established in the slightest that Scripture isn't a book of rules from God about how we're to behave. You haven't established there are no universal rules within it which compel obedience simply because God laid those rules down. They don't require "moral reasoning". They aren't moral or immoral without God having stated "Do this" or "Don't do that".
"No matter how I frame it, you appear to not recognize the rational/biblical problems you have."
It's impossible to recognize what doesn't exist. What does exist is that you're focused on legitimizing abomination despite God's clear and unequivocal prohibition against it. And you're only argument is, "Did God really say...?"
I asked the reasonable and righteous question:
"B. IS that an objectively proven universal rule? (that God only wants men marrying women)"
Marshal replied, with ZERO support, just yet another empty claim:
Of course. How could it not be?
Because, dear, dear little man, because it simply has never been proven as an objective fact in the whole history of all the world anywhere in any time. It just happened. Not even once.
NOW, IF you think that's not true, then ALL you have to do is provide a link to even ONE place in history when it HAS been objectively proven.
But I've said this all before. It seems you all are so blinded by your blind partisanship to a human religious tradition that you are no longer able to even SEE rational, reasonable, fact-based questions when put right to your face, in multiple different ways at multiple different times.
Look, it might be one thing if people accepted and agreed with your magic rule book bible premise. THEN you all could debate this all day long and go back and forth about the relative strengths and weaknesses of various arguments. BUT, not everyone agrees with this premise of your personal human tradition. IF you want to convince people outside of your circle of fellow sycophants in your human rulebookian tradition, THEN you have to start with proving some of your interior premises. And that begins by AT LEAST acknowledging these premises exist.
It's amazing how mad and upset you all get about all the wrong things... how you continue to miss the points of what I'm saying, no matter how I explain it.
But you just don't get that. I can help you no further. It's a pity.
June 20, 2025 at 8:39 PM
"Way up above, Marshal declared, with no support..."
"The Bible does indeed contain rules we are still obliged to abide. That goes without saying."
"No. It does NOT go without saying. THAT IS the unproven premise."
Not to actual Christians. For actual Christians, it's as if a given if not a given in fact. And since there are commandments, mandates, rules and teachings which have not been rescinded, altered or said by God/Jesus or any Apostle to no longer be sinful, this fact in and of itself absolutely "proves" the premise. In the meantime, you've brought nothing in the way of an actual Scripture-based fact which contradicts the premise.
"WHO SAYS it goes without saying?? Marshal?"
Aside from myself, who if an idiot is made genius just by your submitting clearly moronic comments, honest people who are actual Christians who have actually seriously and prayerfully studied Scripture enough to know it. Go ahead. Find an honest actual Christian and ask.
"Who in the unholy hell is he to make that sort of wild declaration?"
This is a really tough question because I don't know anyone in your household or in that little storefront church you attend on Jeff St. But there's nothing "wild" about the declaration and you saying so belies your suggestion that you reason.
"Because the humans in Marshal's human traditions REALLLLLLY want it to be accepted without challenge?"
Because honest Christians of good will don't make stupid demands about what Scripture needs to say in order to allow them to assume they have license to continue in their sin, like you fake Christians do. Indeed, I would wager that the vast majority of those who insist the Bible needs to identify itself as a "rulings book"...if not all of them...are fake Christians like you who need as much ambiguity in Scripture as possible in order to convince themselves they are at worst "mistaken" in their choice to indulge in abomination. And they will maintain that cheap rationalization without the slightest hint of factual Scripture-based evidence to support it when those honest actual Christians remind them of God's Will, while hypocritically demanding never ending amounts of evidence of what God's clearly revealed Will is.
"Bullshit. We got no kings in the free world of the beloved community... no human dictator is going to decide for us what we must believe."
OH LOOK!!! Dan's worked in the latest Trump-hater's slogan! And sure, girl. You can believe whatever made up lie you need to convince yourself you're right with God while indulge what He tells us is abomination. But while you're here, you'll hear that truth every time a subject like this comes up. And you'll continue proving you have no defense for embracing abomination, and less for pretending God would bless any "form" of it.
"THAT is a premise - the same one Gagnon and other pharisee types keep declaring without supporting."
Gagnon teaching Scripture is not in any way a "pharisee type", nor is anyone else who does just because the truth of Scripture indicts you as the reprobate you are devoid of reason, and more so devoid of a means by which you can make the illegitimate legitimate. Mock and attack better people all you like, little girl. That doesn't get your obligations here fulfilled.
"THAT is the premise that must be proven before you move on to your other logical fallacies and biblical heresies."
Again, this isn't your Blog of Lies and Perversions. Here, it's YOU who must prove or provide evidence in support of your evil premises and opinions or to rebut our Scripture based premises and opinions and, most especially, facts. You've exposed no logical fallacies on our part and certainly no heresies, you heretical little evil girl. WE haven't called evil good. But you have and do all the time.
"To dispute this requires an explanation for why it isn't so, and specifically, if it is stated in an attempt to defend abomination..."
"1. Because there is NO OBJECTIVE PROOF to make it so."
The objective proof is in the four points I borrowed from Neil that you stupidly tried to mock. Each of those points are absolutely factual and they support the truth of the conclusion that there is no way God has, does or ever will bless a same-sex union of any kind. YOU are obliged to provide "objective proof" the four points aren't fact, and the fiction that God is pleased by two lesbians living together in breach Lev 18:22. You don't have any such proof or evidence, and you think by demanding ever higher standard of proof from us to make those four point any truer and more factual than they are is just you being a petulant and whiny little girl, not a mature adult asking "reasonable" questions. Get busy.
"2. Because the biblical authors never once made that claim."
They're not obliged to just because some fake Christian thousands of years later wants to exploit the fact that they didn't in order to make it easier to pretend his false premise in favor of abomination is "reasonable" or "Christian".
"3. Because most, if not all the time, rules found in the Bible are specifically written to specific people and situations."
Which is in no way relevant to your obligation to present evidence to justify your ignoring His Will. Prove your Point #3 means moral law isn't universal.
"4. Because GOD has never told us to embrace this heresy."
Prove that moral laws are universal is a heresy. He certainly hasn't told you to embrace all your actual heresies!
"5. Because it's neither rational nor biblically rational."
By what rubric? Prove this claim or recant it. Our position totally aligns with the teachings of Scripture. Yours doesn't.
"6. It's an unproven premise."
Honest actual Christians don't agree with your kind.
"Craig, tell me you at least understand the rational failure here and that, based at least upon Gagnon's little opinion, he hasn't even tried to support the premise."
He doesn't have to tell you anything, nor would he tell you this. But you have to tell us what evidence you have to support your claim in favor of SSM.
"Y'all DO understand what a premise is, don't you??"
Yes. And yours is false and woefully unsupported by actual evidence from Scripture. Not true of ours or of Gagnon's.
"This is so deeply weird."
You're so deeply perverse and evil.
June 20, 2025 at 9:24 PM
"I had asked...
"Where is the proof that these ARE universal?"
Marshal did not answer, nor TRY to answer. Instead, he asked..."
Actually I did, many times. But I'm not required to do it yet again after having done it again and again and again and again since 2008. But YOU are required to finally provide evidence to support your presuming to assert God will bless what He called detestable and/or that His prohibition against indulging in it is somehow context specific as opposed to what it truly is...a prohibition against all "forms" of homosexual practice.
"1. YOU all are the ones making an outlandish and unproven claim:"
There's nothing whatsoever outlandish about stating the fact that universal laws exist and that among them is the prohibition against homosexual practice in any form. The claims have indeed been proven, or at the very least evidence given in support of our arguments attesting to that truth.
YOU, on the other hand, provide nothing but the same old demands that we prove yet again what has already been more than satisfactorily supported, if not actually proven. You don't address any of it. You just keep making demands, hurling insults and attacking the character of those who won't accept your cheap rationalizations for the sins you've chosen to embrace so tightly.
"The Bible is a moral rulings book where we can somehow glean universal rules, approved/demanded by God. The one making the outlandish claim is beholden to support it."
There's nothing outlandish about the truth that moral laws are universal, despite your asshole, arrogant, condescending and woefully unsuccessful graceless attempts to demean our positions as somehow irrational and unreasonable, using stupid but purposely chosen words for the purpose.
"2. My proof is that we have NO REASON to assume the Bible is a universal moral rulings book."
That's not "proof"! It's certainly not what would constitute proof if rendered by any of us at your Blog of Lies and Perversions! And it's certainly not a mature attempt to debate like an adult. Worse than that, it does nothing to support the baseless, unChristian position that God would bless SSM. It's just another cheap dodge so common to you. The exact opposite of what you demand of others.
"The Bible and its authors make no such claims."
When do we get to hear an argument proving it or they need to make the claims YOU demand they make in order for you to abide the Will of God?
"God has not told you this."
God has told us, "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman." He has NOT told us, "except for some forms of it". You've provided no factual Scripture-based evidence to support the presumption that somehow it means "some forms of homosexual behavior" rather than simply any form. It is a premise held by a certain subset of religionists and it is an unproven premise. STILL.
"If Ralph the mechanic came along and told us that the Bible is actually, in part, a car repair guide. Something the Bible never claims."
If Ralph actually said something like that, we'd know he's one of your people. Normal, rational and honest people would never say something like that, nor would they make up a stupid analogy with the most absurd claim as if it in any way compares to Scripture. What's more, Scripture isn't required to say anything about itself just so you don't have to give up your homosexuality unless it does. More childish reasoning unworthy of someone who claims to be a man.
"The ones is on Ralph to prove the premise, if he wants others to accept it.
We don't have to prove it's NOT a holy car manual."
Here's the thing, girl...we're not making any claims about Scripture which aren't true. The Bible IS..."in part"...a "rulings book" and that has been proven by pointing to the fact it contains so many commandments, laws, and teachings about what pleases and displeases God. So that box is totally and perfectly checked. The one which isn't is the one where you provide factual, Scripture-based support for your fiction that God would bless "some forms" of homosexual behavior. What you want to pretend the Bible does or doesn't say about itself is irrelevant to your obligation. Get to it or get lost. (I'm sure eventually you'll get lost because you have no basis for your fantasy)
Gagnon's "premise" is that McClellan's full of shit. This is made clear (though in not so many words) within the first ten minutes you pretend to have watched.
But again, and as always, no one here, including Gagnon, is required to submit to any demand of yours as to what they must prove and how they must prove it. The only person with any requirements or obligations to prove anything, is for you to prove there is some provision in Scripture which justifies your fiction that God would bless SSM...or that He wouldn't disapprove of what is basically committed abomination...or that He only prohibited "some forms" of homosexual behavior.
No shit, Shirley. Who else would say something so stupid and false?
Sigh.
I had said...
My proof is that we have NO REASON to assume the Bible is a universal moral rulings book."
Marshal responded...
That's not "proof"!
It absolutely is when we are speaking of unproven, mystical unknowns.
IF someone says, PROVE there are no flying purple unicorns on the moon...
ALL any rational person has to do is say: There is NO PROOF of your premise. Period.
And there literally is no proof of either mystical space unicorns OR magic holy rulebooks.
At that point, the "debate" is over until such time that the person with the outlier claim proves or even attempts to prove his theory, to support his premise and do so with something substantial, not mere bullying by saying something as vapid and irrational as, "But all TRUE space cowboys KNOW it to be true!!!"
Understand, now?
No, of course you don't.
Deeply strange.
Marshal....
"we're not making any claims about Scripture which aren't true."
Prove it. A claim isn't proof.
Marshal...
"The Bible IS..."in part"...a "rulings book" and that has been proven by pointing to the fact it contains so many commandments, laws, and teachings about what pleases and displeases God."
The question is not, Are there lines containing rules in the Bible..?
The questions are,
Are they universal rules?
Says who/based upon what?
Has that been objectively proven? Where?
AND, if so...
How does one authoritatively know (objectively) which rules are and aren't universal?
Saying, ALL TRUE Scotsmen REALLY "know" is not objective proof. It's literally an empty, unsupported claim. A begging the question fallacy.
But again, this has all been pointed out before.
You can't say I haven't tried to help.
June 21, 2025 at 9:09 AM
"Marshal asked some questions about me noting that what is moral is that which causes harm, that which abuses human rights. He asked (I'm placing Numbers in to track them and be clear)...
1. Says who?
Moral reasoning."
a) "moral reasoning" isn't a "who". It's a thing.
b) "moral reasoning" is subjective. Thus, what is "reasoned" as "moral" is not "moral" regardless of one's "reasoning" behind the conclusion leading to the labeling of a behavior as "moral" or "immoral". It's just one's personal opinion regarding the level of acceptability of a behavior. That others might agree means they've arrived at a consensus "opinion" about the behavior, and the consensus opinion rules a behavior either moral or immoral.
c) You have a clear inability to reason maturely and objectively, and thus, to suggest "moral reasoning" by the likes of you is abjectly unreliable, untrustworthy and general unintelligent.
"A point which biblical authors have written to support, but it's not "proven" because biblical authors have noted as much. Why not? BECAUSE THE BIBLE IS NOT A MAGIC RULE BOOK."
And here we see an example of your "reasoning" ability and it's clearly laughable. First, as we'll see, you've provide no evidence the claim Biblical authors agree with this "point", or even have considered anything resembling this "point". You just assert that it is, then "graciously" concede it's unproven because somehow this "not a rulings book crap" must be assumed to be true, despite the many commandments, laws and teachings about how God expects us to behave within it. So you defend a "point" which doesn't exist, yet with which you assert Biblical authors agree and then "prove" this non-existent point is "unproven" because the Bible isn't a "rulings book". This is what passes for "reasoning" in DanWorld. Then he's going to question Gagnon's scholarship! I'd say if one insists on being arrogant, one should be at least somewhat intelligent. Dan disagrees. Clearly.
"Some examples of biblical authors agreeing with this common sense bit of self-evident reasoning:
(God speaking to Israel in Jeremiah):
“I will put my law in their minds
and write it on their hearts.""
Absurd. In the above, there's no "reasoning" taking place by the writer of Jeremiah here. Rather, he's simply reporting what God said and not hashing out what is or isn't moral himself, which would be him "reasoning" what is or isn't moral. God's law is accepted as what morality is and it reflects what God has said is moral is written by God on their hearts. (And where is the chapter and verse you're required to supply when citing Scripture? Make sure you add that next time and also include which Bible version you're using. This is important for seeing just how badly out of context your citation is.)
"Or Paul, in Romans 2:
"(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.""
Here again we see no "reasoning". Paul states quite clearly that those he references are doing "by nature" what the law requires. They're not reasoning if they're doing because that's just the way they are. Nor is Paul "reasoning" about what is or isn't moral but rather accepting God's law as morality itself. That is, he (nor those about whom he was speaking) are "reasoning" for themselves what is moral, but relying on living by God's Will because God's Will determines what is moral.
"But again, it's not evident because there is a line in the Bible that says as much. It's just observable common sense."
Both your examples...aside from being lines in the Bible themselves...refer to what Scripture (as it was at the time) taught was moral behaviors. Thus, they regard as moral that which God hath said is moral. They didn't "reason it out" themselves".
"2. Where does it say anything like that in Scripture?
Answered, but you're STILL MISSING THE POINT. The Bible is not a magic rule book."
Clearly, you didn't answer this question at all. You just pooped in your hand, smeared it on the wall and expect that crap to be an actual answer. Again, at your Blog of Lies and Perversions, you routinely reject and delete far more mature and direct answers to your questions. You're required to do better here...not worse like this.
"Where is your support for your premise that behaviors you find personally disagreeable are universally immoral on the basis of your subjective criteria?
Human rights. Moral common sense. That which is common to humanity, ideals such as the golden rule, found in every religion and philosophy because it is self-evident. OF COURSE, we want our children and loved ones and ourselves to be treated kindly by others, so OF COURSE, it makes sense to do so to others."
Some might think so, but that doesn't make anything "moral". You simply assume that which Dan finds pleasing to him is moral and that which Dan dislikes is immoral. Dan is hardly a holy source for dictating either way. It's just Dan's opinion, which he thinks makes a behavior moral because others agree. Again, that's just consensus voting. It's what's fashionable and totally subjective.
"I get that it's an imperfect and unprovable system in the details - and especially dangerous when we're talking about some malignant narcissists or others who are emotionally and psychologically troubled, but it's rational and demonstrable, even if imperfectly."
The closest thing to truth you've said in this entire lengthy thread. It's totally imperfect and "unprovable". And because of that it's not rational and isn't demonstrable (I don't even know how that word fits in here! "Demonstrable"???). It's just your subjective opinion. God's Will is fixed and clearly revealed to us. Your subjective opinion is self-serving and allows you to pretend abomination no longer is abomination and thus, you don't have to worry about that silly old Bible and the Will of God therein if you don't want to when it opposes your perversions. You can pretend you've "morally reasoned" your way out of your obligations to Him.
"Once again: We don't HAVE at our human disposal, a perfect measure of morality, demonstrable, authoritative and provable."
Say that again once more, and you'll have once more lied. Scripture is always at our disposal with a perfect rendering of morality. Nothing is more authoritative (certainly not YOUR "reasoning"), It's morality is demonstrable simply by reading it and thus provable. It proves there's no possibility of any "form" of homosexual behavior is acceptable or not a detestable abomination.
"That's just the observable reality..."
No it isn't. It's just you asserting your fantasy is fact.
"(unless you can provide something otherwise)"
I provided Scripture. You don't like that as proof because it proves your love of homosexual behavior is unacceptable in any form to God.
"... and in part, you probably find that troubling because your ideas of moral philosophy are lacking."
Yeah. Right. Another opinion put forth as fact without having proved there's anything at all lacking in GOD'S "ideas and moral philosophy". His ideas are my ideas because He's God and has all moral authority. No reasoning required. Only reading and accepting His authority as a result.
When you return, bring some evidence for your position or against mine. All you've brought thus far is distraction and irrelevancy.
June 21, 2025 at 9:17 AM
"Why should anyone give a flying rats' ass that Dan Trabue believes a given "behavior is bad, harmful, oppressive, abusive"?"
"Because what Dan is citing is not unique to Dan but rather, common to humanity."
Ah...the "Appeal To Numbers" fallacy! Thus, if the whole world believes sex with goats is OK, then who is God to say otherwise?
"We should NOT abuse human rights of people NOT because "that's just what Dan thinks!""
Actually, that's what you're saying and couching it in the agreement on the issue you share with others. And even if I'm among that number, it still doesn't make the behavior immoral, even if we choose to slap that label on the behavior. It's still just a consensus opinion regardless of why we hold that opinion.
"...but because we humans tend to recognize the innate value of human life and that humans deserve some rights."
Still just a human opinion, and human opinion is not the source of morality nor does great numbers of people sharing an opinion on a behavior make is moral or immoral. It only means a great number of people find the behavior personally appealing or personal disagreeable.
"Not all humans fully believe this, but it's a universal (in the sense of people everywhere generally agreeing with it) truism that I want to be treated well, not abused, killed or harmed unjustly, therefore, I should treat others the same."
Thus, it's not universal. Universal implies everyone agrees, not a "general" agreement among some people. And what you want does not translate into moral or immoral status of a given behavior.
"Do YOU, Marshal, personally happen to think it's okay to abuse other humans and deny them their rights AS fellow humans?"
Irrelevant to the issue. I don't have the authority to dictate a given behavior is either moral or immoral. What I think is "OK" is based on what pleases or displeases God. Any "moral reasoning" in which I might engage begins and ends with that. Personally, I've found no potential behavior I might perpetuate for which I couldn't find Scriptural guidance to inform me as to its morality. It's really very easy to do.
"How is your opinion binding on anyone, but God's Will is not?"
"Human rights ARE God's will, I'd say."
There you go. More subjectivity. More opinion. If DAN says, well then God can rest assured Dan will abide on that given behavior. If Dan's opinion contradicts Him, well, God will just have to find a way to deal.
"Feel free to argue that if you want, but it's quite an evil little human opinion."
Proving my point: Dan decides what's moral and what isn't and any disagreement with Dan is and "evil little human opinion".
But it's God who decides and any disagreement with HIM is evil. That's been my point the whole time and remains so. Thus, God's opinion is that homosexual behavior is abomination and there's no caveat one can find which allows for the behavior in "some form" which isn't also abomination.
"And MY opinion is not binding on anyone but humans can generally agree to human rights, even if imperfectly."
Well, your opinion's worthless and you're the last person to whom I'd appeal for a ruling on what constitutes a human right. More importantly, "human rights" don't equate to behavior acceptable to God, nor is it synonymous with morality.
Yes you are, Danny-girl. Yes you are.
Marshal:
b) "moral reasoning" is subjective.
YOUR PERSONAL HUMAN OPINIONS ABOUT WHAT YOU PERSONALLY (AND THOSE IN YOUR PERSONAL HUMAN TRADITIONS) THINK IN YOUR PERSONAL HEADS WHAT VARIOUS BIBLICAL VERSES MAY HAVE TO SAY ABOUT MORAL QUESTIONS ARE SUBJECTIVE, TOO.
I've been abundantly clear: We can't - not me, not you (certainly not you!) - can objectively prove our opinions about moral questions (unless you're willing to concede self-evident notions such as human rights and doing no harm). YOU DO NOT HAVE objective opinions about morality.
Now, you can be adult and recognize and admit that or you can be irrational and arrogant as the "father of lies" and insist YOU are the one human who has objective moral rules you've definitively and authoritatively received from God... but don't be surprised if someone thinks you need to be locked up with the guy who think's he's Napoleon.
Reality is reality.
And, before you go there, what I'm clearly STILL saying is: YOU HAVE NO DATA AND NO PROOF THAT YOU have objective moral answers to questions about morality in general or marriage specifically.
You can't point to objectively provable data to support your weird, oppressive, invasive and abusive hunches. Could I be wrong? Sure. There COULD be a herd of unicorns living on the moon and maybe you have some super secret message from God or Satan, but you have not PROVE it objectively.
Rational adults are not required to take seriously the religious ramblings of oppressors who can't prove their harmful opinions.
As to the rest, I give up. You're daft and don't understand rational moral respectful adult conversations and notions of logical arguments.
Grow up.
June 21, 2025 at 6:41 PM
"I asked the reasonable and righteous question:
"B. IS that an objectively proven universal rule? (that God only wants men marrying women)"
Marshal replied, with ZERO support, just yet another empty claim:"
"Of course. How could it not be?"
"Because, dear, dear little man, because it simply has never been proven as an objective fact in the whole history of all the world anywhere in any time. It just happened. Not even once."
Dan again dares to condescend and given what he claims is true is not, it's an especially obvious and intentional lie. Gagnon has proven it as an objective fact, even in this brief video, and notably in the first ten minutes Dan claims to have watched. He cites Scripture and refers to the original language to back up the fact Dan finds so inconvenient for his lesbian friends. Boo-hoo. The petulant little girl with the little mind dares to regard someone as "little man" when the facts don't go Danny-girl's way.
"NOW, IF you think that's not true, then ALL you have to do is provide a link to even ONE place in history when it HAS been objectively proven."
The Gagnon video objectively proves the fact you find so inconvenient for your lesbian friends. I note you offer nothing more than "Nyuh uh" to refute his having done so. As compelling as you believe that is, it's really not good enough.
"But I've said this all before."
You may believe telling a lie often enough will get honest people to believe it, but no...that doesn't work here.
"It seems you all are so blinded by your blind partisanship to a human religious tradition that you are no longer able to even SEE rational, reasonable, fact-based questions when put right to your face, in multiple different ways at multiple different times."
You clearly need to believe that lie too is compelling. Wrong again. We're not blinded by anything. We're justified by the clearly revealed Word of God. You're blinded by your love of sexual perversion. It compels you to ask irrational, unreasonable opinion-driven questions based in no fact whatsoever in your ongoing efforts to legitimize abomination and those you know wallowing in it in unions some of them want to pretend are actual marriages.
"Look, it might be one thing if people accepted and agreed with your magic rule book bible premise."
That people disagree with Scripture isn't new, and those who do so while pretending to be "good" Christians...like yourself...is irrelevant. That cheap-ass attempt to disparage those who revere God's Word just serves to highlight your own corruption.
"THEN you all could debate this all day long and go back and forth about the relative strengths and weaknesses of various arguments."
I'm having enough fun confounding your weak attempts here to find fault in our and Gagnon's presentations of truth. It's amusing to me to see you carry on as if you've a leg upon which to stand.
"BUT, not everyone agrees with this premise of your personal human tradition. IF you want to convince people outside of your circle of fellow sycophants in your human rulebookian tradition, THEN you have to start with proving some of your interior premises. And that begins by AT LEAST acknowledging these premises exist."
You mean not everyone agrees with Scripture on the issue of homosexuality despite how clear and unequivocal God's prohibition is. But I'm not here to convince, but only to present the truth. Those like you aren't concerned with the truth and thus prefer rebellion. You'll have to do better than your weak attempts to convince us there are flaws in our positions, because you've failed in those attempts famously.
"It's amazing how mad and upset you all get about all the wrong things... how you continue to miss the points of what I'm saying, no matter how I explain it."
That's because there's no way to improve the shit you're trying to serve us. To say it another way, there's no way you can make a silk purse out of that pile of shit you call an argument. We're not mad and upset. Indeed, it's rather amusing to see how many ways you can try to turn your shit into ice cream only to still be left with a pile of shit! Pathetic, but amusing at the same time.
"But you just don't get that. I can help you no further. It's a pity."
Also pathetically amusing is you believing it's us who are in need of help. That would be hilarious if it wasn't so pitifully pathetic. Those most in need of help are all those you enable by your preaching the opposite of God's Will on the abomination of homosexuality.
June 21, 2025 at 10:38 PM
"Sigh."
That's funny. Dan sighs because he can't get us to enjoy the smell of his shit, must less swallow it!
"I had said...
My proof is that we have NO REASON to assume the Bible is a universal moral rulings book."
Marshal responded...
That's not "proof"!
It absolutely is when we are speaking of unproven, mystical unknowns."
No. It's not proof. It's just an excuse in lieu of actually backing up your objection to the truth.
"IF someone says, PROVE there are no flying purple unicorns on the moon...
ALL any rational person has to do is say: There is NO PROOF of your premise. Period."
Ah!....the "Flying Purple Unicorns" gambit. It doesn't serve you to defend something stupid you said with something stupider.
"And there literally is no proof of either mystical space unicorns OR magic holy rulebooks."
Not arguing for either straw man. I defend the clearly revealed teachings of Scripture. YOU, however, need to prove there's Scriptural support for SSM. You can't, because there isn't any, so you keep playing these cheap-ass games as if you're lessening the truth of Scripture by doing so.
"At that point, the "debate" is over until such time that the person with the outlier claim proves or even attempts to prove his theory, to support his premise and do so with something substantial, not mere bullying by saying something as vapid and irrational as, "But all TRUE space cowboys KNOW it to be true!!!""
Wasted keystrokes doesn't serve you in meeting your obligation here.
"Understand, now?"
Yes. All comments you've posted thus far have proven you have no Scriptural support for SSM, and therefore you are in rebellion against God.
June 22, 2025 at 10:30 AM
"we're not making any claims about Scripture which aren't true."
"Prove it. A claim isn't proof."
There you go again. You're presuming you have authority to demand anything of me. I don't have to prove Scripture is true. But YOU have to prove there's Scriptural support for the laughable claim you make that God would bless a same-sex union. After you do that, then you can get with proving any of the claims about Scripture we've made aren't true.
"The Bible IS..."in part"...a "rulings book" and that has been proven by pointing to the fact it contains so many commandments, laws, and teachings about what pleases and displeases God."
"The question is not, Are there lines containing rules in the Bible..?"
Stop right there, Sheila! YOU are the petulant little girl who keeps saying the Bible isn't a "magic rulings book". Thus, to say the question isn't if that is true or not is another deflection from addressing the correct and accurate response that it is..."in part"...a rulings book based on it being filled with commandments, laws and teachings about what God expects of us.
"The questions are,
Are they universal rules?
Says who/based upon what?
Has that been objectively proven? Where?
AND, if so...
How does one authoritatively know (objectively) which rules are and aren't universal?"
These are different questions than that which was answered above, though you pretend your position didn't provoke the question I answered. Nonetheless, all of these have also been answered, and you're not to be asking them over and over again, especially since you've not answered the question you're obliged to address. Stop dodging because there is no evidence you can provide to rationalize the false suggestion that God would bless a SSM. Just do it or be an actual man and admit God would not bless abomination in any form in which it might manifest, including "marriage".
"Saying, ALL TRUE Scotsmen REALLY "know" is not objective proof."
Well, it's a damned good thing I didn't offer it as proof, Danny-girl. I offered it as the statement of fact it is.
"It's literally an empty, unsupported claim. A begging the question fallacy."
No. It's not. It's not because no actual Christian would support, promote, defend, enable and celebrate that which is clear and unequivocal conflict with God's clear prohibition. Only fake Christians would dare presume they can say evil is good. Stop saying this evil is good.
"But again, this has all been pointed out before."
Falsely.
"You can't say I haven't tried to help."
Oh, no, Dan. I would say you haven't tried to help us lie along with you. That's all you have. What you haven't done is provided evidence from Scripture supporting your opinion that God would bless what you call a "same-sex marriage". OR, that God didn't mean ALL forms or manifestations of homosexual behavior in Lev 18:22. All true Christians know the truth you know means trouble for your beloved lesbians and homosexuals.
Using Danny boy's "moral reasoning" being just opinions, how could he say that Hitler's destruction of 6,000,000 Jews was immoral? What makes murder immoral? Real Christians can say that God unequivocally stated that murder is wrong. Ah, but Danny boy just claims that that Bible saying that is just your interpretation of what it says, and who says it is a moral rule for everyone for all time? Stalin killed millions of people, so did Mao Zedong and Pol Pot, but who can say that is wrong? Why is it wrong?
Danny boy's rules have no "magic rule book," just one person's opinion against another.
While we're at it, why is rape wrong? Why in incest wrong? Why is beastiality wrong?
June 22, 2025 at 2:58 PM
""moral reasoning" is subjective.:"
"YOUR PERSONAL HUMAN OPINIONS ABOUT WHAT YOU PERSONALLY (AND THOSE IN YOUR PERSONAL HUMAN TRADITIONS) THINK IN YOUR PERSONAL HEADS WHAT VARIOUS BIBLICAL VERSES MAY HAVE TO SAY ABOUT MORAL QUESTIONS ARE SUBJECTIVE, TOO."
No they're not. They're direct quotes from Scripture, though putting your unproven assertion in caps makes you really, really compelling!
"I've been abundantly clear:"
...and abundantly wrong and evasive.
"We can't - not me, not you (certainly not you!) - can objectively prove our opinions about moral questions (unless you're willing to concede self-evident notions such as human rights and doing no harm). YOU DO NOT HAVE objective opinions about morality."
This is crap. The reality is that I don't have "opinions" about morality. I have the truth of Scripture which is the source of morality. You arguments to the contrary are weak opinions based on nothing but other people agreeing with your opinions. I agree with God, while you agree with those who don't.
Indeed, Scripture is so clear on moral/immoral behaviors that there is no "question" regarding moral behavior. What's even more clear is the absolute absence of supporting evidence in Scripture for your wild notion that God would bless SSM. All this other crap you've been saying over the last 250 or so comments is just you evading that issue and refusing to admit you're lying about it.
"Now, you can be adult and recognize and admit that or you can be irrational and arrogant as the "father of lies""
...Dan said not at all recognizing of irony of him doing so.
" and insist YOU are the one human who has objective moral rules you've definitively and authoritatively received from God..."
I'm one of many millions of Christians who have definitively and authoritatively received from God easy to understand moral rules which have all been conveniently recorded for us in Scripture.
"...but don't be surprised if someone thinks you need to be locked up with the guy who think's he's Napoleon."
I would indeed be surprised if someone was so mentally addled himself to suggest that someone speaking God's Truth needs to be institutionalized. I mean, it's not like one speaking God's Truth is like a homosexual or something!
"Reality is reality."
You say that like it's reality. But here's some more reality for you: You're notorious for being woefully unable to recognize reality.
"And, before you go there, what I'm clearly STILL saying is: YOU HAVE NO DATA AND NO PROOF THAT YOU have objective moral answers to questions about morality in general or marriage specifically."
But I do. We call it, "the Word of God clearly revealed to us in Scripture". It's horribly inconvenient for purveyors of homosexual behaviors like yourself. That's why you pretend its not THE source of morality.
But here's something which is just as true: You have no way to support your position on SSM by citing Scripture, as God has prohibited homosexual behavior without caveat or exception.
"You can't point to objectively provable data to support your weird, oppressive, invasive and abusive hunches."
I don't know what you mean by this. I have no "oppressive, invasive and abusive hunches". Especially "invasive" hunches. What the hell is an "invasive" hunch?
"Could I be wrong?"
There's absolutely no doubt about it, and there's absolutely no way to prove you're right...about much of anything.
"Sure. There COULD be a herd of unicorns living on the moon and maybe you have some super secret message from God or Satan, but you have not PROVE it objectively."
Only Satan would inspire you to compare the Word of God with fantasies about unicorns. (I'll bet they're lesbian unicorns, too!)
For my part, the message I relay is not at all secret. It's clearly the Word of God as proven by Scripture having recorded it for us all to easily read.
"Rational adults are not required to take seriously the religious ramblings of oppressors who can't prove their harmful opinions."
How would you know? Do you know any rational adults? I'm not an oppressor, you lying, petulant little girl, and I offer no opinions, harmful or otherwise. I offer what is clearly revealed in Scripture and what's harmful is rejecting the Will of God to appease your unlawful sexual behaviors.
Kinda makes you a scumbag.
June 22, 2025 at 2:59 PM
"As to the rest, I give up. You're daft and don't understand rational moral respectful adult conversations and notions of logical arguments.
Grow up."
...says the whiny, petulant little girl for whom "Nyuh uh" is "rational moral respectful adult conversation and notions of logical argument." You haven't made a single rational moral respectful adult logical argument anywhere in this entire thread.
If you've made the "fact claim" wouldn't the onus be on you to prove it?
"YES. There is NO DATA to support the human theory that the Bible contains rules that are intended to be taken as universal rules."
Except there is "DATA", Dan just chooses to exclude that "DATA"
"Moral reasoning."
Dan continues to place his subjective, imperfect, flawed, human "Moral reasoning" as the arbiter of all things biblical. Yet he's not proven the accuracy of his "Moral reasoning".
"Why not? BECAUSE THE BIBLE IS NOT A MAGIC RULE BOOK."
I'm not sure whether this is a "facts claim" or a foundational "premise", but it's both unproven and assumed without support.
It may be "strange" to have the Truth about yourself pointed out so bluntly, yet that's just because you place your Reason above all else, and can't imagine anyone pointing out the obvious. Of course this response, is also tiresome, childish, condescending, and fails to address specifics, so there's that.
"Craig, tell me you at least understand the rational failure here and that, based at least upon Gagnon's little opinion, he hasn't even tried to support the premise."
It's "deeply weird" that you rant at Art, then ask me this idiotic question.
It's "deeply weird" that you acknowledge that you only watched "ten minutes" of the video, yet continue to make these unsupported claims.
It's "deeply weird" that you harp on others "unproven premise"s, while ignoring the fact that you have the same problem.
It's "deeply weird" that you expect others to hold to a standard you refuse to hold yourself to.
It's "deeply weird" that you demand that Gagnon cover every possible objection that you can come up with in a short video, while ignoring the rest of his work.
It's "deeply weird" that you refer to someone with a much more impressive CV than yours as a "simpleton".
"deeply weird" summarizes so much of your interaction with anything that doesn't agree with your unproven premises.
"Y'all DO understand what a premise is, don't you??"
Yes, we do. We also understand that you have unproven premises that you simply assume to be True. Maybe you should pull the log out...
"My proof is that we have NO REASON to assume the Bible is a universal moral rulings book.""
1. That is absolutely not "proof", it's one of your unproven claims/unsupported premises.
2. The notion that anyone actually claims that the Bible is a " universal moral rulings book."" is (itself) a false/unproven claim.
3. Your premise (That the Bible is a " universal moral rulings book."") is false/unproven, therefore any conclusions or questions that come from the false/unproven claim/premise are irrelevant.
4. The you offer yourself (your imperfect, flawed, human hunches) grounded solely in your (imperfect, subjective, flawed, human) Reason as "proof" is the height of arrogance, narcissim, and hubris.
"A claim isn't proof."
Yet Dan regularly offers his unsupported claims as "proof". They're proof of his double standard.
Glenn, this is a point I've made repeatedly to Dan for which he has no rational answer. The reality, as you note, is that in the absence of a knowable, universal, objective, moral code there is no way to declare the actions of any person or group as objectively immoral. Morality is reduced to a subjective, consensus based on opinion and is fluid according the the customs, and mores of each individual group, society, culture, tribe, clan, nation, or religion.
"As to the rest, I give up. You're daft and don't understand rational moral respectful adult conversations and notions of logical arguments."
There we have it. Dan's dismount. It's not his usual one where he works himself up into a lather and storms off, but rather he's chosen condescension instead.
From what I've read the problem is that Dan seems to expect "respect" for his unproven claims and premises based on assumptions in that they cannot be challenged. That he shows little respect for anyone who dares suggest that his hunches are wrong or who has more expertise than he, goes without saying. Of course his notion of a "logical argument" is subjective and biased towards his unproven hunches and based entirely in his Reason and Rationality. Heaven forbid he offer something other than some version of "because my subjective Reason tells me so.".
We can distill it down to its most basic component. It's all about the dykes. Dan rejects Scripture as the ultimate source of objective morality because it denies his beloved LGBTQ++++ people their liberty to live according to what pleases themselves rather than what pleases God and still expect to be welcomed into the Kingdom when they die. That's it in a nutshell and so any and every argument which supports the supremacy and inerrant truth of Scripture is asserted as falling short so Dan can continue the charade. Now, I can understand atheists doing it, but not anyone who calls himself a Christian. Those like Dan have no Scriptural basis for supporting their defense of the detestable, so he does everything he can to force the notion that we don't either or that we can't be certain that our "interpretation" of that which doesn't need any special divination to understand is somehow flawed.
Glenn...
"Using Danny boy's "moral reasoning" being just opinions, how could he say that Hitler's destruction of 6,000,000 Jews was immoral?"
The problem y'all have is the same, only worse! The magic rulings book fans can no more prove your personal opinions on the topic. WORSE! In the Bible-as-rulebook world, your Rulebook DOES NOT PRECLUDE GENOCIDE! Indeed, sometimes it's commanded by god in your history Rulebook.
On my side, though, the side that says we can reasonably recognize morality based upon human rights and the universal golden rule, we can fairly easily recognize genocide as ALWAYS wrong, and indeed, always a great moral evil and atrocity.
So, I don't see what y'all think y'all gain by pointing out no one can objectively prove genocide is evil, but thanks for strengthening my argument.
Craig jumped in, pointing out his own misunderstanding, saying...
"this is a point I've made repeatedly to Dan for which he has no rational answer."
...except that I DO have a rational answer. Indeed, it's almost certainly one even y'all can agree with.
Human Rights matter, and it's self-evident that we shouldn't slaughter innocent people. You don't have to believe in a magic Rulebook, or magic sacred writing, or magic Quran to recognize that.
Do you seriously disagree?
Glenn, missing the point, said/asked...
"Danny boy's rules have no "magic rule book," just one person's opinion against another.
That is LITERALLY all you all have. Do you understand?
"...While we're at it, why is rape wrong? Why in incest wrong? Why is beastiality wrong?"
Because they are a violation of human rights which is fairly universally recognized.
But those agreeing with your particular set of Bible rules based upon your human opinions is NOT nearly universal.
A swing and a miss. You're literally undermining your case.
Craig...
"Except there is "DATA", Dan just chooses to exclude that "DATA""
Great. Present it. Point to it.
This should be an easy question to settle.
Present the data.
"The problem y'all have is the same, only worse!"
But we aren't those who have a problem at all. How can we have a problem relying on the Word of God so clearly revealed in Scripture?
"The magic rulings book fans can no more prove your personal opinions on the topic."
Scripture fans aren't proving personal opinions. They're adhering to God's Word, which is the authority as to what is or isn't moral behavior. The personal opinion appears where arrogant self-worshipers like you presume Scripture isn't authoritative on morality, and do so without factual basis, but instead rely on your subjective personal opinion.
"In the Bible-as-rulebook world, your Rulebook DOES NOT PRECLUDE GENOCIDE! Indeed, sometimes it's commanded by god in your history Rulebook."
In Scripture, God prohibits murder, so genocide would be prohibited as well. God never commanded genocide. He commanded Israel to exact His punishment on reprobate populations. He didn't need to do it that way, but clearly you believe God committed genocide when He brought down the Great Flood, or rained down fire and brimstone on Sodom (your favorite ancient town). So clearly, you regard God as a genocidal maniac and and then you laud your "moral reasoning". That's funny.
"On my side, though, the side that says we can reasonably recognize morality based upon human rights and the universal golden rule, we can fairly easily recognize genocide as ALWAYS wrong, and indeed, always a great moral evil and atrocity."
But you're not "recognizing immorality". You're subjectively asserting that genocide is immoral based on how it strikes you personally. It's amazing that you'd have to consider the question at all, when actual Christians already know it's immoral because God prohibits murder. Now, clearly, you don't truly consider genocide a great immoral evil or atrocious, because you support infanticide. So again, your "moral reasoning" is hardly an effective tool for determining much of anything, especially genocide. Though you are a tool.
"So, I don't see what y'all think y'all gain by pointing out no one can objectively prove genocide is evil, but thanks for strengthening my argument."
This is absolutely the reverse of reality, because we can prove genocide is evil because God prohibited murder. And you dare suggest Gagnon comes off as a simpleton!
"Human Rights matter, and it's self-evident that we shouldn't slaughter innocent people."
I highlighted this because Dan proclaiming "it's self-evident". He's said this many times in hundreds of comments over the years. He's also proclaimed "because of course it is" and other expressions to that effect suggesting, "...as if it being obvious to him is some kind of proof."
And this much is true: I don't need Scripture to regard the slaughter of innocents, be they adults or the conceived yet to be born, objectionable. But because I personally regard it as such, worthy of severe retribution in fact, that isn't why it's immoral or that it's immoral at all. We have commandeered the concept of "morality" to apply it as we see fit based on that which we find objectionable. Many times what we regard as objectionable or atrocious happens to be in fact immoral as well because God forbade us from indulging in it.
But according to Dan the simpleton, what God has forbidden doesn't mean squat unless we find it objectionable ourselves. And it's this false, dishonest perversion of reality which allows Dan to dictate that his dykes are good to go.
So yeah, Dan. I totally disagree with most anything which drips from your virtual mouth like slime. And I totally disagree with you posting comments which don't include an accounting for your wild-ass claim that God would ever bless committed same-sex unions simply because they're ostensibly committed. Unlike Gagnon...or any of us...you have no basis for that position other than your personal subjective opinion that two homosexuals committed in abomination is a beautiful thing. You reject God's clear prohibition because you find it personally pleasing, which is the opposite of your declaring some forms of genocide atrocious because you find it personal objectionable.
No, Dan. Craig isn't obliged to present anything he doesn't himself feel obliged to provide. If he continued to dance around his obligations to hold up his end, I would be demanding he prove his as yet unproven claims/opinions as I insist you must. At the same time, the data of which Craig speaks has indeed been presented, and just as he factually said, you choose to exclude it, deny it, reject it.
In the meantime, while you continue to make demands you have no authority, right or standing to make, you continue refusing to provide Scriptural support for your wild opinion/claim that God would bless a same-sex union. Prove you base that detestable opinion on more than you personally finding it a pleasing thought. If you want to insist that God would indeed find abomination acceptable due vows taken between the two homosexuals, it should be an easy question to settle. Present your Scriptural data. Point to it.
"That is LITERALLY all you all have. Do you understand?"
I understand this is what you demand be accepted as fact. But it requires your rejection of Scripture as authoritative on the subject of morality. You have personal opinion regarding the morality or immorality of a behavior. We have Scripture which informs us of what is or isn't moral.
You look at a violent behavior and say, "I don't like it because someone is being harmed, therefore it's an immoral behavior." We look at that same behavior and find it objectionable, but it's immoral because (or if) God has prohibited it. Harm is not the sole criteria for determining what's immoral. God's prohibition is.
When you see a constantly attacked people return fire, you dare call it immoral if collateral damage occurs, while normal people regard the defense of one's people against a savage aggressor as completely moral even if the civilian population of the aggressor nation suffers injuries and death in the response. For you to suppose your personal opinion is a more reliable source for determining morality...even for your own simpleton self...over the clearly revealed Will of God is absurd.
Were the entire world to agree that a given behavior is immoral, it wouldn't be if God didn't prohibit it. That He's prohibited much of what those like you regard as immoral is, on those behaviors, coincidental. But they're immoral because He prohibits it, not because you, or the whole world, finds it objectionable.
So, your constant reference to human rights is not an argument for your false position regarding the universal nature of God's moral law, particularly the prohibition against same-sex behavior with any caveat of any kind regardless of what context or scenario in which it might occur. It's not the same that the whole world regards a given behavior as objectionable, an atrocity or just icky. That doesn't make it universally immoral, but just universally opposed. But when God says, "Thou shalt not..." and you can't find anywhere in Scripture evidence which mitigates that command in any way, that's a universal prohibition. Without any Scriptural basis for supposing or proving a moral law is no longer in force, an actual Christian regards it as still prohibited, because an actual Christian puts the desire to please and obey God above his own personal desires.
"Because they are a violation of human rights which is fairly universally recognized.
But those agreeing with your particular set of Bible rules based upon your human opinions is NOT nearly universal.
A swing and a miss. You're literally undermining your case."
The only one swinging and missing and thus totally undermining one's case is you. But first, a correction of a lie you continue to spew:
Biblical rules are not a matter of personal opinion, unlike what laughably for you passes as a "moral code". Biblical rules are based on the Word/Will of God. Moral laws which have not been rescinded by God are universal regardless of anyone's choosing to disregard them because they don't like them, as is the case with your cherished lesbians.
That which is considered by many as "human rights" are a matter of subjective opinion to which many agree. Acting contrary to human rights is not "immoral" because human law establishes a list of rights which must be respected for whatever reason, even if some actions are also in breach of the Will of God. It's a distinction you pretend you don't see, or you're the simpleton I've long taken you to be.
But as the simpleton I take you to be, you totally support the position that your "moral code" is based on subjective personal opinions, and the numbers of people you believe agree with that opinion. Numbers don't change the fact that it's totally subjective. Our positions aren't subjective because we accept the God's moral authority and seek to abide His Moral Laws. We didn't make them up. We didn't "reason" that they're immoral or moral. They're all quite plainly stated in Scripture.
The issue here is not one of personal opinion about what is moral, but about what the basis of morality is. It's God, not your personal objection to any given behavior. I might think you lesbian grannies are freaks regardless of God's prohibition against it because it's an abomination to Him unless they're really hot babes, then I might not mind it. Actually, now that I think about it, the thought of two hot babes getting naked together doesn't particularly displease me. It's kind of arousing, not unlike how the thought of Trump grabbing women by the crotch gives you a tingle in your lady parts.
But morality isn't based on my opinion, regardless of how much you want to pretend it is in your never ending quest to legitimize the detestable (and you never fail to fail---it's the easiest thing for you to do). I'm sorry. That was wrong. You can't fail what you don't even try to achieve.
Back to the point, Scripture is the source of morality. I don't have to prove that Scripture should be so respected given all the evidence from various fields of study which supports its validity. You don't engage in "moral reasoning". You engage in self-serving scheming you pretend is "moral reasoning", and your references to genocide and such is just your typical bullshit tactic to stifle the truth about your beloved homosexual behavior.
"Oh, I don't need Scripture to tell me genocide is wrong, and thus I don't need Scripture to tell me what pleases me isn't sin because it pleases me."
Christians don't need to consider whether a behavior is harmful if it's already forbidden by God. They'll never get to the part where harm is inflicted by abiding His Will. Thus, if asked "would you engage in genocide", my answer would be "No. God forbids murder." Thus, if asked, "would you as a man have sex with a man"? I wouldn't have to speak of how disgusting the very thought is, my answer would be "No. God forbids and calls it abomination." And only those who want to make it OK would wonder about whether a simply "Thou shalt not..." is comprehensive and universal.
"We can distill it down to its most basic component. It's all about the dykes."
Pardon me for disagreeing, but I believe that there is a more basic component than Dan's obsession with gay sex.
I believe that sin, at it's most basic level, is rooted in pride. Dan's issue is not gay sex, it's placing his hunches (his Reason) as the final arbiter of what he considers sin. It's obvious that he considers himself, his Reason, his Rationality, his credentials, his study, to be the final deciding factor. It's what "sounds right" to him. That he's managed to cherry pick a few proof texts to give his hunches a veneer of biblical sounding "legitimacy" doesn't hide the fact that he's clear that scripture only validates his Reason, not the other way around.
Obviously this pride manifests in his defense of homosexual sex, and other things as well as his vitriolic attacks on other things. Yet none of it is based in scripture, it's based in his hunches with a layer of proof texts to make the hunches seem legitimate.
That he constantly returns virtually every conversation to homosexual sex, could lead you to your conclusion. But I think it goes deeper than that, the obsession with linking everything to homosexual sex is a symptom, not the disease.
https://winteryknight.com/2025/06/18/frank-turek-lectures-on-the-case-against-same-sex-marriage-10/
Additional resources for Dan to ignore.
Danny boy cracks me up. No, I didn't swing and miss--I hit the nail on the head. YOUR morals are just your opinions, period.
Danny hates the Bible and makes fun of it as a "magic rule book." Nothing magic about the Bible and the rules in there are specifically noted as to who they are for and when they are for. BUT he and his pervert friends twist the Scripture because they don't like it when God specifically says homosexual behavior is an abomination. Leave God out of it you still have to deal with biology--with homosexual behavior the parts don't fit. And don't bring animals into it because we are human and not animals, although queers behave as rutting animals.
I just noticed my wife was signed on to blogger so that wasn't her. I'm signed on now.
One other thing Danny boy always raises --"Human rights." Well without God's Word the rights are all subjective opinions and not every one in the world agrees with what YOU see as human rights. Tell that to the Muslims--that they are violating human rights! Just as an example. Not everyone recognizes as human rights what Danny boy recognizes.
Christians have God's Word to tell us what human rights are and you can't disagree with GOD!
The "We don't need scripture to tell us X is wrong" argument is interesting.
1. On one level it is completely correct. Any society/culture/nation/tribe/group can use any standard they choose to determine what is right and wrong for that group. They can also impose their subjective moral code on others through the use of force. This arrangement is essentially what we'd call law.
2. In general one does not need anything to tell them what is wrong as long as there is no universal/objective way of determining right and wrong.
3. If, however, one wants to make judgements about whether the behavior of others is right or wrong then some sort of universal/objective rule boo is needed.
4. There are really 2 contenders for the role of the universal/objective rule book. The Bible (and the Jewish Scriptures) or the Quran. The Mormon scriptures might make a claim, but I don't think so.
5. That there is some sort of universal/objective rule book seems hard wired into humanity. We all have an innate sense of right and wrong and are not shy about applying that to others. One wonders where that came from and why it is a thing.
6. The reality is that absent a knowable/universal/objective standard of right/wrong, the there is no standing to judge the rightness or wrongness of another's actions on a meta scale. We can judge whether of not laws were broken, but laws are subjective and vary from culture to culture.
Dan's formulation above is simply one more attempt at using a vague, subjective appeal to consensus to declare that "we" have determined that X is wrong and you must accept our determination.
Homosexuality fails biologically. It's literally a biological, societal, dead end. There is no evolutionary benefit to the existence of homosexuality (if that's how you roll) nor does homosexuality pass the "be fruitful and multiply" test.
Having children benefits society. Engaging in a sexual relationship in which it is impossible to ever have children seems the height of selfish gratification.
Yes, there are people who cannot have children for one reason or another because something is not functioning as intended. But that's a different situation from two people who cannot even theoretically have a child.
As for the animal argument, then why not use that to justify promiscuity and rape?
Dan has argued that there is some mystical consensus among some unmeasured majority of people that agree with Dan's hunches about human rights.
I'd argue that every single human right, subjective or not, flows out of one inalienable right. Without the right to life, there are no other human rights, yet Dan proudly advocates for denying children the right to life based on the whims and convenience of only one parent.
But other than that one little glitch, he's a big fan of human rights, as long as he gets to define them.
Craig...
"The reality is that absent a knowable/universal/objective standard of right/wrong, the there is no standing to judge the rightness or wrongness of another's actions on a meta scale. "
Sigh.
And do YOU think in your heads that you personally have found some objectively proven for rulings?
Then prove the premise.
This is NOT about "Dan's arrogance/pride" or a belief that I trust my logic more than God or any other such nonsense.
This is about how humans - ALL of us reason and prove things objectively, or not.
That would be an amazing, world-shattering discovery IF someone had such a thing as an objective source for morality.
Please clarify: DO YOU have it?
Then prove it. Objectively.
Glenn...
"Not everyone recognizes as human rights what Danny boy recognizes."
Of course, not. I never said everyone does.
AND, at the same time, not everyone recognizes morality or human rights as YOU personally do.
Neither of us have an objectively proven source of morality.
The difference is, in spite of y'alls false claims, I'm humble and rational enough to admit it.
Are you?
If y'all are the ones claiming you personally think you personally have an objective source of morality, how are YOU not the arrogant ones?
Glenn...
"Christians have God's Word to tell us what human rights are and you can't disagree with GOD!"
And which humans get to decide who is and isn't right on moral questions?
Just Christians?
Just the subset of Christians who agree with you?
Based upon what rubric? Your personal say-so??
Glenn falsely stated..
"Danny hates the Bible and makes fun of it as a "magic rule book."
Of course, the reality is that I love the Bible, which is why I've read and studied it so much over the decades.
The Magic rulings book to which I refer are the opinions you all collectively hold and raise up as an, I think, false Bible, a mockery of God's Holy Word.
I don't conflate your Allison opinions with God's Word. Y'all shouldn't either.
Glenn, being a true scotsman, said...
"Christians have God's Word to tell us what human rights are and you can't disagree with GOD!"
"Christian's have God's Word to tell us what human rights are..."
1. Prove it. That is an amazing and astounding claim and, SWEET Lord Jesus in heaven, I'd love for it to be so. I'd LOVE for you to be correct, Glenn. So, do me a favor. PROVE IT. A claim is just an empty claim. Provide the objective data to objectively prove this claim. Please.
"Christian's have God's Word to tell us what human rights are..."
2. What are they, then? Provide the objectively proven list of human rights that "God's Word" has "told you...", Please.
2a. Is it ONLY "Christians" who have access to this objectively and divinely devined list of human rights or is it for all people everywhere?
2b. Is it ONLY for some subset of Christians and if so, which ones? Do the Catholics have access to this objective list of human rights? The conservative Catholics only? Baptists? Which baptists? WHERE is the list of people who have access to this "proven" (remains to be seen) objective list of human rights?
2c. I'm a Christian, a believer in God, the Holy Spirit and the risen son of God. I've repented for and confessed my sin (the ones I know of, anyway, you all appear to have a LONG list of sins that you think I've committed of which I'm entirely unaware or otherwise disagreeing with your personal opinions on those "sins") and confessed Jesus as Lord of my life. Do I have access to this seeming magic special list of perhaps objectively proven human rights? If not, why not?
Does one have to be a Christian in a manner that meets your personal human standards?
3. What is the rubric for seemingly magically deciphering presumably from the Bible the objective list of human rights?
4. Do you objectively know ALL the rights that God considers human rights or only some of them?
4a. If you know all of them objectively, perfectly, MAN! You must be some kind of magic godling, right? Will you teach me your list of human rights?
5. If only SOME Christians (the true scotsmen, perhaps) objectively have this list of perfectly know human rights, can you all tell them to us? Can you objectively PROVE them to the rest of us mere mortals who would benefit from such divine perfection as you apparently have?
Serious questions and also silly questions, designed to point to some of your holes in your personal opinion on this matter. OR, conversely, you could prove these opinions in some objective manner.
Final question: IF you can ONLY prove them to the "true scotsmen" but not to others... doesn't that point to the reality that you can't objectively prove them?
Craig claimed, with ZERO support (and falsely, stupidly, and a bigoted, hateful manner):
"Homosexuality fails biologically. It's literally a biological, societal, dead end. There is no evolutionary benefit to the existence of homosexuality"
Prove it. Just prove it.
That you don't like it is not proof.
That two guys can't have a baby is not proof.
There is NO biological proof for such a bigoted, hateful claim. What there IS proof for is this: That people are harmed by your bigotry expressed in this manner. Can you imagine hearing - from your preachers and loved ones, no less - YOU ARE A BIOLOGICAL DEAD END. YOU ARE A SOCIETAL DEAD END - over and over throughout your life, until your parents kick you out of your home and disown you. 'Til your church bans you from being a part, denies you fellowship, denies you communion. It has happened regularly for centuries, this oppression you all so glibly express on a regular basis. Not to mention Marshal's ongoing vulgar verbal assaults.
I'm telling you because I hear it regularly: LGBTQ are hearing you all clear: you do NOT care for their souls, they are loathed by you, not loved. Your oppressive vulgar words cause harm and as such, by rational measurements, are evil/bad/oppressive.
Good God have mercy on you all for the hateful bigotry you engage in.
When y'all say things like this...
"Danny hates the Bible and makes fun of it as a "magic rule book."
It makes it seem as if you all are entirely unable to understand the reality that people can and do disagree with you and your personal human traditions and do so in good faith.
WHY would someone like me study the Bible for nearly 60 years if they hate it?
WHY would someone quote the Bible - and even lovingly, admiringly, joyfully quote the Bible - as often as I (and those like me) do if we hated the Bible?
Look, disagree with my interpretations if you want, but it's just irrational to suggest that me disagreeing with your opinions equates to hating the Bible.
Humble yourselves, friends. People WILL sometimes disagree with your opinions AND still love God and the Bible.
Dan,
Why are you submitting comments which don't contain the explanation...the Scripture-based support for your wild claim that God would bless SSMs? Coward much?
Note that I haven't threatened you with deletion until you meet your obligation. That happens to me constantly at your Blog of Lies and Perversions, but here and at Craig's, there's something more akin to "grace" than there is there. But still you continue to engage in the same cowardly, dishonest crap for which you are notorious.
As I'm short on time at the moment (I may re-engage in an hour or so---maybe not), I will address your posturing in your last comment of June 24, 2025 at 7:50 PM:
"It makes it seem as if you all are entirely unable to understand the reality that people can and do disagree with you and your personal human traditions and do so in good faith."
What it "seems" to you is just what you need to project onto us in order to continue in your dishonest bullshit.
"WHY would someone like me study the Bible for nearly 60 years if they hate it?"
A question we ask ourselves about you all the time. My position is so you can find loopholes to rationalize your embrace of that which is in stark contrast to God's Will.
"WHY would someone quote the Bible --- as often as I (and those like me) do if we hated the Bible?"
To posture as a Christian in order to legitimize behaviors you embrace which are in conflict with Christian teaching.
"...it's just irrational to suggest that me disagreeing with your opinions equates to hating the Bible."
It's not your disagreeing with us, as if we're making shit up like you do. It's your crapping on that of Scripture which is not ambiguous and pretending that it is so you pretend that at worse you're "mistaken".
"People WILL sometimes disagree with your opinions AND still love God and the Bible."
You're not disagreeing with us. You're disagreeing with God and for the purposes of this post, on this particular issue of homosexuality. If you had any humility instead of just presuming it's lacking in us, you'd acknowledge your error, which you've proved is error by your abject refusal to comply with my demand of you.
Anonymous is either Feodore of Dan acting the ass.
I never claimed to be a true Scotsman nor even hinted at such. So when you call me that you are mocking me and lying your asses off.
The twins Feo and Dan keep asking for proof for what the Scripture plainly says. They are unteachable when they deny the plain teachings of the Bible and claim that's really not what the Bible says. Why Craig and Art continue bothering with them is beyond my comprehension. They are a waste of time.
Marshal...
"You're not disagreeing with us. You're disagreeing with God and for the purposes of this post, on this particular issue of homosexuality."
As always, prove it.
Marshal...
"Why are you submitting comments which don't contain the explanation...the Scripture-based support for your wild claim that God would bless SSMs?"
As always, two answers, which I've repeated endlessly...
1. I don't use/abuse/confuse the Bible as a Rulebook. That's YOUR unsupported premise.
It's like someone handing me a copy of The Lord of the Rings and demanding, "Show me in here how to repair a 63 Corvette!" The only rational response is to say... "But, This is not an auto repair manual..."
2. But if you want passages that point to God's grace and love as it relates to humanity, there's, "for God so loved the world..." and, "whatsoever things are pure, loving, compassionate..." etc.
In the stories found in the Bible, we find God portrayed as a God primarily of love, not rules. Of grace, not commands. God is portrayed as loving all of humanity and wanting the best for us, those things that promote love, grace, joy, wholesome-Ness, beauty, forgiveness, community. And hopefully you are biblically literate enough to know those passages well enough that I don't need to cite them, but I can, if you need them.
Marriage, gay or straight, does that. Denting basic human rights does NOT do that. Are the passages I cite specifically speaking in the context of gay folk marrying? No, but neither are yours. AND, on top of that, the Bible is not a rulings book.
You know who DID treat the Bible as a rulings book? The pharisees (well, scripture and their human traditions). That is the central play of the Gospel story, repeatedly... Jesus and his way of grace and welcome and beloved community vs the pharisees and their graceless, death- dealing legalism.
Feel free to disagree with my conclusions, but you can't say I haven't made my case.
Marshal arrogantly proclaimed...
"You're not disagreeing with us. You're disagreeing with God and for the purposes of this post, on this particular issue of homosexuality. If you had any humility..."
The irony. As a point of clear, observable, unambiguous fact, in THIS discussion right here, right now, I'm literally disagreeing with the three of y'all. God has not offered one single comment on this post. I'm literally disagreeing with you humans.
Right?
Now, you three are sure that your personal human opinion on the questions at play are correct, as am I. I think I'm being faithful to God and you do, too, presumably.
Right?
The difference then, is that I'm glad to admit my opinion IS a human opinion. I think it's rational, moral, biblical and Godly. In my opinion. I'mglad to acknowledgethat Ican'tproveit, but I'mconfidentin it, nonetheless.
You all, on the other hand, arrogantly presume that you don't need to prove it, that your opinions on these topics are just facts, and thus you can't be mistaken. But you can't support your personal human premises and you dismiss the need to.
And that is where your opinions come undone.
June 25, 2025 at 8:02 AM
""You're not disagreeing with us. You're disagreeing with God and for the purposes of this post, on this particular issue of homosexuality."
As always, prove it."
As always, it has been proven. But I'm not obliged to prove it over and over again with the same unequivocal commandment you pretend comes with caveats you can't provide. YOU, you lying fake, are obliged to prove your position. Not throw out any text you think covers you because you make it mean something it doesn't at all suggest with regard to SSM. You don't love Scripture when you pervert it so easily to defend evil as you do.
" I don't use/abuse/confuse the Bible as a Rulebook."
You TOTALLY abuse Scripture and ignore the clearly stated rules to defend abomination. I'll get to that in a moment.
"It's like someone handing me a copy of The Lord of the Rings and demanding, "Show me in here how to repair a 63 Corvette!" The only rational response is to say... "But, This is not an auto repair manual...""
Another stupidly inane attempt at an analogy which doesn't make your point. I don't look to Scripture to find something totally unrelated and irrelevant to moral behaviors. You again prove appealing to YOUR reasoning is a fool's errand and you're just the fool to go on it. I can't say I can't believe how insipidly stupid this attempted analogy is. It's the only kind you compose.
"But if you want passages that point to God's grace and love as it relates to humanity, there's, "for God so loved the world..." and, "whatsoever things are pure, loving, compassionate..." etc."
And here's where you get into your abuse of Scripture to pretend you have support for defending evil. Just these two snippets of passages (YOU'RE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE CHAPTER AND VERSE FOR EVERY CITATION YOU WANT ME TO CONSIDER DUE TO YOUR NOTORIOUS HISTORY OF PERVERTING THE TEXT---ADD THE BIBLE VERSION YOU'RE CITING) do not rationalize your enabling of perversion. God didn't "so love the world" that He tolerates abject and unmistakable disobedience from the likes of you. Abomination is not "pure, loving or compassionate". It's evil. You're thinking on evil and calling it good because two perpetrators of evil "love" each other. That's abusing Scripture.
"In the stories found in the Bible, we find God portrayed as a God primarily of love, not rules."
Nonsense. You're perverting Scripture again. Go ahead and cite (with chapter and verse and the Bible version you're using) where it says anything like that, and I'll know you're perverting Scripture again. You're just imposing on Scripture YOUR rules to which all must subordinate God's actual teachings. You say all this insipid crap in order to assert that it absolves you from abiding His prohibitions of certain behaviors in which you want to indulge. No way can you make them stand as a reversal of His moral law.
"And hopefully you are biblically literate enough to know those passages well enough that I don't need to cite them, but I can, if you need them."
I demand it. I've been demanding it. I've been demanding specifically that you cite Scripture which rationalizes your enabling of evil behavior. You won't provide. But should you make the attempt, do not inundate me with dozens of passages, but only the two best which supports your position, I'll then expose your dishonesty, and you can then supply the next best verse or passage. If I see a submission which attempts to list more than two, I'll not publish it. My blog, my rules. Does that sound at all familiar to you, hypocrite?
"Marriage, gay or straight, does that."
Bullshit. A life long commitment between two lesbians promising to indulge in abomination only with each other is still indulging in abomination. Marriage does not make evil good or acceptable. The very notion is absurd.
Glenn...
"I never claimed to be a true Scotsman nor even hinted at such."
Lest you misunderstand, that's a reference to the No TRUE Scotsman fallacy...
https://quillbot.com/blog/reasoning/no-true-scotsman-fallacy/.
Sorry again for the over use of italics. It was again unintended. Not sure why it's happening, or what I didn't do properly.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Are the passages I cite specifically speaking in the context of gay folk marrying? No, but neither are yours."
It's absurd to insist it must when the underlying behavior is already clearly prohibited without caveat...such as "SSM".
"AND, on top of that, the Bible is not a rulings book."
As proven repeatedly, it most certainly is. Even your self-serving alternative interpretation results in it still being a "rulings book".
"You know who DID treat the Bible as a rulings book? The pharisees..."
This is a purposely inaccurate interpretation of the conflict between Christ and the pharisees for the vile purpose of disparaging those who abide the Will of God and acknowledge the Truth regarding the specific behavior at the heart of this discussion. And you pervert this story without shame because you're morally bankrupt.
"Feel free to disagree with my conclusions, but you can't say I haven't made my case."
No you haven't. You've again presented the cheapest and sloppiest and laziest excuse of a case anyone's ever presented, and the very same level of argument by us in support of our position would not be accepted by you at your Blog of Lies and Perversions. It does, however, prove how relying on YOUR "moral reasoning" it abject fails. You're a liar and a purveyor of evil and rebellion against God. Submit your two best passages in the manner demanded of you, or admit you're just ignoring Scripture altogether.
Marshal...
"It's absurd to insist it must when the underlying behavior is already clearly prohibited without caveat...such as "SSM"."
Prove it.
Marshal...
"As proven repeatedly, it most certainly is. Even your self-serving alternative interpretation results in it still being a "rulings book"."
Prove it.
Marshal...
"This is a purposely inaccurate interpretation of the conflict between Christ and the pharisees for the vile purpose of disparaging those who abide the Will of God and acknowledge the Truth regarding the specific behavior at the heart of this discussion."
Prove it.
SAYING you've proven it is not proof.
Citing your personal opinions and interpretations is not proof.
Dan,
Your ignorance of both biology and Evolution is shocking, so let's try biology and Evolution 101.
Homosexuals cannot reproduce, they cannot further their species, they cannot have children, they cannot carry their genes forward. There is literally no possible biological or genetic chance for offspring to occur by "doin' what comes naturally". As most experts in Evolution would agree, the goal of evolution is to reproduce, with homosexual sex, reproduction is impossible.
You say there's no "biological proof", yet you acknowledge the biological reality that "2 guys can't have a baby". Nor can two gals. Reproduction in mammals requires both male and female to reproduce naturally. This is simply reality from both a biological and Evolutionary perspective. That some people might be offended by that reality is immaterial, reality simply is.
"I'm telling you because I hear it regularly: LGBTQ are hearing you all clear: you do NOT care for their souls, they are loathed by you, not loved. Your oppressive vulgar words cause harm and as such, by rational measurements, are evil/bad/oppressive."
It is so refreshing when you simply lie about things, it must make you feel so good inside.
"Good God have mercy on you all for the hateful bigotry you engage in."
Pointing out reality, is not bigotry. Unless one realizes that reality is bigoted against that which denies reality.
FYI, before you start with your bullshit. I am speaking of having a child "naturally", the old fashioned way so to speak. Obviously homosexuals can buy children, or they can pass on the genetics of one of the couple, but it is physically and biologically impossible for two men or two women to conceive a child which genetically combines both of them.
Marshal...
"You've again presented the cheapest and sloppiest and laziest excuse of a case anyone's ever presented..."
A more detailed explanation of my position and a rational defense, thereof...
Premises:
A. There exists a perfectly loving God who loves all of humanity and wants the best for all humanity.
B. This ame perfectly loving God, because they're a God of love who wants the best, is opposed to oppressive, harmful behaviors of one human by another/other human(s).
C. For many people, finding a loving, mutually supportive relationship in a marriage relationship is a very fulfilling and life-affirming reality.
D. God wants the best for humanity (see A).
Therefore, a perfectly loving God would support mutually supportive, loving marriage arrangements.
That is a deliberate, rational thesis. Whether you agree with all the premises does not negate that it's a rational thesis.
IF you could prove any of the premises is objectively wrong, you could possibly make a case against it.
IF.
"And do YOU think in your heads that you personally have found some objectively proven for rulings?"
Really well done. Excellent job of not responding to what I said. For your information, what I said is a general statement that does not require that I personally be able to provide you with what you demand.
The premise is that if there is no universal/objective "moral code", then it is impossible to label anything as universally or objectively moral or immoral. It's kind of inarguable. Without a universal/objective standard, there's no way to make universal/objective claims.
The problem is that your subjective, imperfect, human Reason cannot get you to anything objective. For example, you have no grounds to tell anyone that it is objectively wrong (as opposed to illegal or frowned upon) to own slaves.
That you can't do what you demand of others is simply a way to hide the fact that your subjective moral code can't support the claims you regularly make.
The existence of something is not dependent on whether or not I, individually, can prove it's existence to you. Of course, I'm simply stating a general principle, not making a specific claim.
You cannot magically get anything objective from the subjective.
If you would simply stop pretending like you have the ability to make objective claims about morality, stop wording your expressions of opinion as if they were objective fact, or simply acknowledge that you are advocating a subjective moral code we wouldn't keep having this conversation.
June 25, 2025 at 8:45 AM
"Marshal arrogantly proclaimed..."
There's nothing "arrogant" about proclaiming truth. By this cheap lie, Jesus was gravely arrogant. Paul, Peter, James....all arrogant. The Prophets, arrogant bastards. I'm not claiming to be Jesus, but I am repeating His Truth.
"You're not disagreeing with us. You're disagreeing with God and for the purposes of this post, on this particular issue of homosexuality. If you had any humility..."
"The irony. As a point of clear, observable, unambiguous fact, in THIS discussion right here, right now, I'm literally disagreeing with the three of y'all. God has not offered one single comment on this post. I'm literally disagreeing with you humans."
We, the three of us all, are repeating God's Word and Will as it is clearly revealed in Scripture, without any alteration, or any injection of personal opinion. Thus, you're disagreeing with God.
"Right?"
Absolutely not. Obviously.
"Now, you three are sure that your personal human opinion on the questions at play are correct, as am I."
Wrong again. An "opinion" would mean supposing something not plainly stated is true. God's prohibition against homosexual behavior could not be more plainly stated. As there exists nowhere in Scripture any caveats to this prohibition, we're not indulging in opinion to repeat and fall back on that which is expressly and unmistakably prohibited without caveat.
YOU on the other hand, aren't even truly dealing in opinion. You're dealing in invention, fantasy, weak conjecture in injecting your personal preferences into God's Word.
"I think I'm being faithful to God and you do, too, presumably."
It's easy for you to be faithful to God's word when you presume you have authority to dictate what that is. And even if you can prove or support the notion that our position is untrue or in error, which you haven't done and refuse to try to do, we don't operate as you do but instead cite specific verses and passages which directly address the topic at hand.
"Right?"
Wrong again.
"The difference then, is that I'm glad to admit my opinion IS a human opinion."
Not worthy of patting yourself on the back over it. It's meaningless as "I admit it's my opinion" when your opinion has no basis in fact. This means it's not opinion, but rank, detestable fantasy.
"I think it's rational, moral, biblical and Godly."
More proof your "moral reasoning" is woefully unreliable...and that's being kind.
And that is where your opinions come undone.
"In my opinion. I'mglad to acknowledgethat Ican'tproveit, but I'mconfidentin it, nonetheless."
To be confident in the fantasy you've created makes you delusional.
"You all, on the other hand, arrogantly presume that you don't need to prove it, that your opinions on these topics are just facts, and thus you can't be mistaken. But you can't support your personal human premises and you dismiss the need to."
And now you get right back to lying, because it's clear you have a twisted compulsion to make sure you lie in every comment a minimal number of times. This one must satisfy that minimum because...
1. we're not arrogant simply because you don't like the facts we present,
2. we don't presume we don't have to prove what's been proven many times,
3. we've not offered opinions, but rather actual facts, which have been proven to be so many times,
4. we can't be mistaken when we present actual, factual words of God as presented so clearly in Scripture, and finally
5. we are free to dismiss repeated demands for proof for the fact we present after repeatedly having supplied proofs so very many times in the past.
" And that is where your opinions come undone."
More delusional fantasy. You've not "undone" the facts we've presented. Not even close.
Here's something else you've not done: supported your position with actual facts. I'll get to your lie that you have soon. I'm sure you'll inundate me with more comments filled with bullshit before I get to it.
"In my opinion. I'mglad to acknowledgethat Ican'tproveit, but I'mconfidentin it, nonetheless."
The problem with this statement is that it gets made after the fact. "God blesses gay marriage." is a simple, straightforward, statement of fact. Dan continually makes statements like this, while simultaneously insisting that he doesn't mean what he wrote (as it takes slightly more intent to write that yo speak), but instead means that it's an unproven hunch that he can't prove and won't even try to prove.
He wants the certainty of making objective claims ("God blesses gay marriage", "slavery is always evil", "Trump is immoral.") while hiding behind "It's just my opinion" of "I acknowledge that I can't prove it..." when pushed.
A. Prove this, so far unproven, premise to be objectively True.
B. Prove this, so far unproven, premise to be objectively True.
Specifically, prove that "the best" that "god wants" is the same "the best" that Dan wants.
C. Prove this, so far unproven, premise to be objectively True.
So what? Prove that "God" wants those people (or all/most) people to have a "very fulfilling and life affirming reality". Prove that you know that "God" and "many people" define those terms the same way.
D. Prove this, so far unproven, premise to be objectively True.
This is a circular argument, using one unproven premise based on your assumptions to "prove" another unproven premise.
Your original claim was "God blesses gay marriage.". Are you now saying that your original claim was in error? That "God only blesses gay marriage when that marriage is 'mutually supportive' and 'loving'". If a "gay marriage" is "mutually supporting" of one or the other partner having promiscuous sex outside of the "gay marriage" is that "blessed" or not?
Within the context of your personal, subjective, individual, value system where you hold your imperfect, subjective Reason to be the final arbiter of things of course it's a "rational thesis". It's a "rational thesis" to you. That others find it less than rational (making objective claims based on unproven, subjective premises seems to be the opposite of rational), clearly doesn't make you rethink your hunch. Let alone offer proof.
That you can't prove your premises are objectively right means that we don't have to waste time proving them wrong. As you've noted they're unproven "I'mglad to acknowledgethat Ican'tproveit, but I'mconfidentin it, nonetheless." so why would we bother with the waste of time to prove your hunches are wrong. That you are so supremely confident in hunches that you can't prove indicates that you're either a narcissist, arrogant, or demonstrating hubris.
The problem seems to be that Dan thinks so highly of his "I think"s that he cannot imagine a scenario where those "I think"s are not True. Yet, as it's all grounded in him and what he "thinks" as opposed to objective reality, it's all bullshit anyway.
Craig...
"The problem with this statement is that it gets made after the fact."
It's made within a framework of reality and someone who is clear and operating within the framework of known reality.
I'm operating within the clearly acknowledging that you and I can’t objectively prove our moral opinions.
The real problem is with those who state, without proof, that they DO have objectively proven fact claims that they don't objectively prove.
One wonders why Craig imagines there's a problem with my position but says nothing to those who assume some level of perfect moral knowledge?
Will you be asking Glenn and Marshall to prove their fact claims?
We know the answer to that.
The problem Craig still has is that, in the complete absence of an ability to objectively prove his moral opinions objectively, he acts as if REASONABLE support based on human rights means, somehow, moral chaos.
Notice how Dan and Feo always tell us to prove our case while they have NEVER proven their cases outside of their subjective imaginations.
I do want to make this clear. I am saying "IF X EXISTS, THEN Y MUST BE TRUE". Dan is demanding that I absolutely "prove" every detail of X, which is irrelevant to my point.
At the risk of being redundant, if there is no universal/objective standard then it is impossible to make universal/objective claims about things in relation to that standard.
I never used a "no true Scotsman" fallacy and I am familiar with it because I long ago took a course in logic. I don't think Feo was using it in that way, rather he was attacking me because I dress up as a Scotsman when I play my bagpipes.
Craig...
"A. Prove this, so far unproven, premise to be objectively True."
Etc.
I can't. You can't. WE can't objectively prove in any authoritative sense that our opinions about God or morality are objectively factual.
Do you agree? Do you condemn Marshal and Glenn for arrogantly stating that their opinions about God and morality are objectively factual? Will you join me in asking for them to prove their fact claims?
Beyond that, I assume you all have had logic classes or otherwise are studied in logic?
If so, do you recall how one can make a rational, orderly argument based upon SHARED premises?
If Mr X says, I believe in a perfectly good God and Ms Y says, I share that belief, that even if neither of them can objectively prove it, that particular argument can proceed based upon shared premises. Right?
That's what I'm doing here.
I think we all think there is a perfectly good and loving God. AND, I'm asking you if you'd concede the point or if you'd like to dispute it. You tell me.
But that is how rational arguments go. Two sides can operate upon shared premises until they find that point where their opinions/theories divergent. At which point, the claimant is required to prove their disputed premise.
June 25, 2025 at 9:50 AM
"It's absurd to insist it must when the underlying behavior is already clearly prohibited without caveat...such as "SSM"."
The above statement is in response to Dan saying the following:
""Are the passages I cite specifically speaking in the context of gay folk marrying? No, but neither are yours.""
So Dan's response...of course...is to tell me to...
"Prove it."
But aside from the fact I've already done so many times, and aside from the fact that Dan has no right or liberty to demand that I, or anyone else, must prove anything until he's provided an example of his vaunted "moral reasoning" buttressed by relevant Scriptural verses or passages, he blatantly chooses to ignore the point, that it is absurd to expect that a behavior prohibited so explicitly and without the least caveat by which it can ever be perpetrated without remaining detestable to God. What am I supposed to prove? That it's absurd? That the underlying behavior is prohibited without caveat? Again, that's been done. So, Dan is required to return volley, if he can, by "PROVING" my position is flawed in any way by providing relevant Scripture related to the subject. If that can't be done...and in no way can it be done...then Dan is simply choosing to ignore God's Will in supposing that God would bless a union within which detestable behavior will most certainly be perpetrated in some form.
"As proven repeatedly, it most certainly is. Even your self-serving alternative interpretation results in it still being a "rulings book"."
<>"Prove it."
Again Dan, who has no right or liberty to demand a damned thing of anybody here, insists I prove what has already been proven several times in this thread alone. Or perhaps he's referring to the second sentence in the quote of my words above. But by Dan's "moral reasoning", he's implying that all teachings or words of God (Father OR Son) encouraging us to treat others with kindness do not constitutes rules for living as a Christ follower. I guess they're just suggestions and if someone chooses to piss on Dan's family at any and every opportunity, despite the fact that such an act is clearly in breach of any encouragements of kindness, the constant urination on Dan's family won't be held against the person and there's nothing for which the person must seek forgiveness. It's all good! Scripture isn't a magic rulings book! One can do what pleases one to do! After all, God...loving and compassionate...wants us to be happy and if something like this makes a person happy...if something like this is viewed by a person as just, pure, lovely, praiseworthy, it's all good. Dan's logic and "moral reasoning" supports this vile act, as it does the detestable.
But Dan wasn't done making demands he has no right or liberty to make here:
"This is a purposely inaccurate interpretation of the conflict between Christ and the pharisees for the vile purpose of disparaging those who abide the Will of God and acknowledge the Truth regarding the specific behavior at the heart of this discussion."
"Prove it."
This, too, has been proven in the past. In short, Jesus denounced the Pharisees on the basis of their adding to the Law, not because they encouraged abiding it. We know this more specifically by how often Jesus would respond to them "You've heard it said", followed by "It is written".
But as we insist the law is in effect to this day, we are not, like the Pharisees ignoring grace and mercy. We're simply not ignoring the law. And "legalism" is not reminding your lesbians they are in breach of God's Will. Here's an explanation which, despite your unworthiness because you lack the right and liberty to ask, shows you're far worse than the Pharisees by eliminating this and other laws of God:
https://www.twopathways.org/p/beware-the-leaven-of-the-pharisees
"SAYING you've proven it is not proof."
No. The proof I said I've provided many times already is the proof you falsely say (as in "lie") has not been given you. I'm not obliged to give it over and over and over again, especially since you'll only pretend it doesn't exist because it exposes your moral corruption so clearly.
Worse, often we hear from you words to the effect that "just because you don't like what I've said doesn't mean I haven't provided what you requested". So you're here doing your notorious hypocrite thing, too.
"Citing your personal opinions and interpretations is not proof."
But citing verses upon which our positions are based is. Unlike your citations, which require injecting your personal opinion to make it work for you, our citations are issue specific and beyond honest criticism. But then, honesty is no longer expected from you. That ship sailed 17 years ago.
As you note the Pharisees problem wasn't in following the law, as much as adding to the law. Jesus did not come to get rid of the law, nor did He come so that we wouldn't have to follow the law.
"SAYING you've proven it is not proof."
Dan does this, often. He ignores the fact that things have been "proven" elsewhere and uses the fact that they aren't "proven" again every time he asks as one more excuse. This is one of his bitches about the Gagnon piece, which ignores the fact that Gagnon has a lengthy history of scholarship and that his "proof" can likely be found elsewhere. Dan has a very selective memory, especially when it comes to things he doesn't like.
"Citing your personal opinions and interpretations is not proof."
Dan is correct here. Unfortunately for him, it's one more instance where he refuses to live up to the demands he places on others. His "proof", which he's now downgraded to a "thesis", and should downgrade to a hunch, is literally him referencing what "seems good" to him or defaulting to his Reason.
Craig,
I think I unintentionally deleted one of your submissions. It's possible I accidentally published, it, but I'm not seeing some I didn't read before hitting the publish button. At least I don't think so. If you notice something missing from the thread, I apologize.
"I can't."
I know. It's obvious. Especially since you've never tried. It's just your hunches, based on your biases, prejudices, and Reason. You criticize others for unproven premises, while that's all you have to offer.
"Do you agree?"
I agree that you can't and won't do so. Yet you demand that others do what you won't.
"Do you condemn Marshal and Glenn for arrogantly stating that their opinions about God and morality are objectively factual?"
If I ever see them doing that I would certainly consider taking issue with it.
"Will you join me in asking for them to prove their fact claims?"
No. Instead I'll say that the best way for you to get people to prove their fact claims is to stop holding yourself to a standard that you don't hold yourself to.
"I think we all think there is a perfectly good and loving God."
Well, if you THINK so, then it must be True.
Since you'll never require yourself to prove your disputed premise, why would you demand that others do so? That you think you get to define "how rational arguments go" is cute in a narcissistic sort of way.
That you've constructed an arbitrary, magical framework to allow yourself to redefine or re cast statements you make after the fact, is just you refusing to acknowledge that you misspoke. Whether it's because you assumed that others would assume your real meaning, or because you're too lazy to be precise the first time, who knows. That you backpedal from your claims because you can't prove them is really not at issue.
The rest of the drivel in this comment is not worth the time and effort to respond to again.
I'd say that the problem is that you keep making shit up and pretending like I said or believed your made up shit.
I'll note that Dan has completely ignore the single most important point I've made and leave it there.
Bingo.
No problem, it happens. If I see something, I'll say something.
Glenn falsely said...
"while they have NEVER proven their cases outside of their subjective imaginations."
My case is that logic teaches us if someone makes an unproven premise on which they hope to build an argument, then the ones is on them to either prove their premise or admit they can't.
That claim has nothing to do with me, it's just an innate part of logical reasoning.
Unless you all are suggesting I need to prove the claim that logical premises must be proven if one is making a fact claim. Y'all aren't questioning the claim that premises need to be proven before they're taken as an objective fact, are you?
I can cite some beginner logic classes if you want.
Marshal...
"But citing verses upon which our positions are based is. "
No. It literally is not. And here's the kicker: When I cited verses to support what I believe (ie, when I But "cite verses upon which my positions are based", YOU don't think it proves my position is right! And why not? Because the mere presentation and citation of biblical verses is NOT objective proof of correct understanding.
Right?
More...
Continuing then...
The recitation of words from a text and someone espousing a conclusion is insufficient to prove the reader has rightly understood the text.
It's not enough for a flat earther to say, "four corners of the earth! Therefore, the earth is a flat square."
They must be rightly understanding the text. You agree with this when you disagree with my conclusions, right?
And in the case of the flat earthers, it's easy. Almost no one takes them seriously, not even the literalists.
But what of other cases where there is NOT unamity of agreement? What of the Young Earthers (who read texts and conclude the earth is about 6000 years old) vs the rest of us who recognize the Earth is billions of years old? We're all reading texts and reaching multiple differing opinions. Merely citing text is NOT proof of being correct.
What of those who think Jesus was literally speaking of the literal poor and rich when he cites them, vs those who don't take Jesus literally, there. WHOSE citation of Jesus' words and intent is objectively correct?
And based upon what?
We're ALL citing the Bible to support our opinions (even those of us who don't accept the magic rulebook theorem).
WHO or WHAT is the Decider? Where lies your Holy Rubric, my son?
Beyond y'all not proving your MRB premise, you still have the missing Rubric dilemma.
And that's not me calling myself the Decider or the smartest one... it's just a reasonable question.
"Well, SOME questions we know the answer to objectively and SOME we don't..." y'all say sometimes. Okay, WHERE is the list of Objective Facts you know and which things aren't on the list? These are reasonable questions given that none of us think the mere citation of verses is proof of perfect knowledge.
More questions to ignore.
Craig...
"The Pharisees problem wasn't in following the law, as much as adding to the law. "
Yes! Exactly.
And so, given that the Bible nowhere calls "the Bible" a rulings book, you all are literally adding to the law with your human traditions.
Given that the Bible nowhere says gay folk shouldn't marry as a universal rule, you all are literally adding to the law with your human traditions.
Even if you ultimately disagree, can you see how someone like me is rising in DEFENSE of Scripture against those who would, like the Pharisees, add lawsto laws and burden down the people's shoulders with their human traditions which they arrogantly treat as laws?
Craig, STILL missing the points, said:
He ignores the fact that things have been "proven" elsewhere and uses the fact that they aren't "proven" again every time he asks as one more excuse. This is one of his bitches about the Gagnon piece
I THINK you are speaking of his human theories about he interprets various biblical passages that he thinks personally have something to do with marriage. That is, after all, all he spoke about in at least the ten minutes I watched and all I've read from him thus far.
You tell me but that SEEMS to be what you're protesting that I'm not answering.
What I'm telling you all is that he has missed an obvious first step: He has failed to prove the premise that we can know that his various human biblical interpretations are correct because they are based upon the bible and the Bible, after all (he theorizes) is God's holy rule book so we can KNOW God's eternal rules for marriage.
BUT, what IF the Bible isn't a holy rulings book? IF that is the case, then it doesn't MATTER how accurately or not Gagnon (or y'all) interpret the passages, because the Bible is not a holy rulings book for knowing God's "rules" for marrying people in all times and places.
So, BEFORE we can assess the validity of any of Gagnon's various human interpretations, we FIRST must test the premise of a holy rulings book.
Don't you see?
Now, given ALL that, are you suggesting that Gagnon or ANY of y'all have presented objective proof a Magic Rulings Book Bible? Because I'm pretty sure you never have and I KNOW that Gagnon did not in at least the first ten minutes of his dribble.
I don't think you all are saying that you've proven it. What Marshal has been primarily saying is that he/you all don't HAVE to prove it because any "true Christian" knows that is what it is. Falling into Glenn's little No True Scotsman fallacy.
We're not dealing with failures of his personal human interpretations, yet. We're dealing with logically flawed premises to even BEGIN to get to his personal opinions.
But that's been said before.
Dan
"His "proof", which he's now downgraded to a "thesis", and should downgrade to a hunch..."
No, Craig...it should be downgraded to what it is: abject fantasy. It has no relation to reality and truth.
June 25, 2025 at 7:52 PM
"Craig, STILL missing the points, said:"
"He ignores the fact that things have been "proven" elsewhere and uses the fact that they aren't "proven" again every time he asks as one more excuse. This is one of his bitches about the Gagnon piece"
"I THINK you are speaking of his human theories about he interprets various biblical passages that he thinks personally have something to do with marriage. -----snip---- What I'm telling you all is that he has missed an obvious first step: He has failed to prove the premise that we can know that his various human biblical interpretations are correct because they are based upon the bible and the Bible, after all (he theorizes) is God's holy rule book so we can KNOW God's eternal rules for marriage."
You missed the boat.
First of all, this "prove it's a rule book" crap is over, right now. That's in now way required of anyone, as you're the only moron who thinks this is legit concern. The Bible is loaded with rules. It's therefore, among other things, a "Holy Rule Book". It needn't be proven because no one who reads it can honestly pretend that's not true given the many commandments, laws and teachings regarding how God wants us to live. It's stupid...insipid...ludicrous and childish...idiotic to keep yammering on about whether or not it's a rule book when your obligation is to support your position on SSM (NO---You absolutely HAVEN'T come close to rationalizing that absurd position based on no more than your wish that it be so because of your embrace of perversion). Indeed, this is no more than one more ploy to discredit the opposite position by trying cast doubt on the validity of what are far more intelligent, logical and beyond all else, Scripture-based arguments than anything you're even capable of mustering.
Everything begins with Scripture because as Christians, how can it not if one is attempting to put forth a position on the moral quality of any behavior? You can't defend your position, so instead you "reason" ways to distract from the point, from your obligation to argue for or against a position directly. Either get to it, or get lost.
"BUT, what IF the Bible isn't a holy rulings book?"
Stupid question submitted by an incredibly stupid and dishonest person. The question is irrelevant as well as absurdly stupid. If you have no way to debate without this idiotic fixation on "rulings book", then you're wrong about your defense of SSM.
"IF that is the case, then it doesn't MATTER how accurately or not Gagnon (or y'all) interpret the passages, because the Bible is not a holy rulings book for knowing God's "rules" for marrying people in all times and places."
More idiocy which belies your claim of understanding logic because this is an insipidly illogical thing to say. Accurate interpretation is ALL which matters. You pervert Scripture. Gagnon tells us what it says with a level of scholarly expertise you haven't the Biblical understanding to question. In just the first ten minutes you barely watched and clearly failed to understand in any way, Gagnon delivered a mini-master class in "If/Then" logic. It's clear. You're only goal is to maintain your vile embrace of sexual perversion. You KNOW he was owning you, which is why you didn't watch the whole thing.
"So, BEFORE we can assess the validity of any of Gagnon's various human interpretations, we FIRST must test the premise of a holy rulings book.
Don't you see?"
I see you want it to be his premise. I don't believe I've ever seen or read his works where he's offered that as a premise for anything. You're such an intellectual lightweight that you can't even craft compelling lies to defend your embrace of abomination. What a clown you are!
"Now, given ALL that, are you suggesting that Gagnon or ANY of y'all have presented objective proof a Magic Rulings Book Bible?"
I don't know about Gagnon, because I doubt any Biblical scholar speaks of Scripture as you do, but I'm certain they're all fully aware of the many commandments, laws and teachings about how God expects us to live. This is the proof that it is, in part, a Book of Rules.
"Because I'm pretty sure you never have..."
And thus you confirm your terminal lack of intelligence and honesty, because it's been proven.
"...and I KNOW that Gagnon did not in at least the first ten minutes of his dribble."
Nor is he required to just because Dan the Reprobate demands he must, while Dan the Reprobate refuses to defend his own embrace of deviancy.
"I don't think you all are saying that you've proven it. What Marshal has been primarily saying is that he/you all don't HAVE to prove it because any "true Christian" knows that is what it is. Falling into Glenn's little No True Scotsman fallacy."
Again you lie. It HAS been proven by pointing to all the commandments, laws and teachings about how God expects us to live. The reason every real Christ knows is because it's obvious that Scripture is filled with commandments, laws and teachings about how God expects us to live making it a Book of Rules and THE source of morality. At least for the true Christian.
"We're not dealing with failures of his personal human interpretations, yet."
You couldn't if I helped you compose better, more compelling lies than the slop you're pouring out.
"We're dealing with logically flawed premises to even BEGIN to get to his personal opinions."
No "we're" not, unless by "we" you're referring to you and your head lice. No. What you're doing is "dealing with" a premise you've projected upon him to avoid dealing with the truths he presents in destroying McClellan's bad understanding of Scripture in defense of perversion.
"But that's been said before."
And it's been abjectly stupid every time you've said it. You have no leg on which to stand. You're wrong...we're right and you've come nowhere near defending your position (shit..you ain't never started) or defeating ours.
Hundreds of scholars and theologians (maybe even thousands) for the past 2000 years (with the O.T. for the Jews) have understood what the Bible says about homosexuality and they have all come to the same conclusion. But Dan and his cronies are smarter than all of them and have better understanding than all of them, so by gum gadfly you need to listen to what DAN says. Personally, when I see how much Dan blasphemes God and discredits what God has said in his Word, it says to me that he has proven to not be a Christian and is a pawn of Satan.
Glenn...
"Hundreds of scholars and theologians (maybe even thousands) for the past 2000 years (with the O.T. for the Jews) have understood what the Bible says about homosexuality and they have all come to the same conclusion."
1. Logical fallacy (appeal to numbers)
2. Millions of scolars and regular folk throughout the centuries have concluded that slavery was a moral option, that black people were inferior, that selling your daughter into a "marriage" was acceptable.
I really don't care too much what ancient people thought when it comes to morality. They were often just stupidly mistaken, a product of less enlightened times. This does not help your "case."
3. Also, it is still ignoring the rational holes in your human theories and traditions.
A. WHERE is any proof that the Bible is a rulings book for finding universal morals? (Hint: it's not from God or the Bible)
B. WHAT is your rubric for authoritatively deciding who is and isn't understanding biblical teachings correctly? To whom do you appeal in the case of disagreeing biblical interpretations?
Until you've addressed these two very large holes in your argument, any human theories about marriage, orientation or morality based upon biblical readings are moot.
You're jumping the logical gun, son.
Appeals to numbers and True Scotsman fallacies only further undermine your credibility.
This. The simple reality is that Dan expects us to ignore thousands of years of agreement on this point because he and a few other 20th century liberals have conjured up a novel hunch that affirms their worldview and/or lifestyle.
It's almost as if I were a kleptomaniac and come up with a way to interpret scripture that voided the "Thou shall not steal" commandment. It's convenient that so many of those who advocate this newfangled hunch, also stand to benefit from ot.
Glenn then engaged in an ad hom fallacy...
"Personally, when I see how much Dan blasphemes God and discredits what God has said in his Word, it says to me that he has proven to not be a Christian and is a pawn of Satan."
1. Disagreeing with Glenn in good faith is, in no way, blaspheming God. Unlike Glenn, I don't conflate Glenn's human theories with God's.
2. The reality is, you can't point to a place where I have, in any way, blasphemed God. Because it hasn't happened. Making up fun, helpful names for your human theories is not blaspheming God.
3. Likewise, I have not discredited anything in the Bible. I've disagreed with your human opinions and done so in good faith. And generally without resorting to ridiculous name-calling.
Fyi.
It's so refreshing when you provide both sides to an argument. You make up one side, then argue against the crap you've made up and congratulate yourself on your victory.
1. You've made up this "rulings book" nonsense and continue to demand that we accept your characterization regardless of how false and inaccurate it is.
2. What the Bible DOES contain is commands, laws, and the like. That you choose not to understand that the Bible is a work that contains "rules", yet is not exclusively a "rule book" or a "rulings book", is your problem.
3. If one was looking for guidance on a moral problem, or to determine of something was right or wrong, what resource is better than scripture?
4. Given that the Bible says nowhere that gays should marry, or that "God blesses gay marriage", or anything that is either positive or neutral about gay sex, you are literally adding to scripture as you accuse us of doing.
5. If you were rising in "DEFENSE" of scripture to defend your additions to scripture, why would you not actually use scripture to prove your points? Why would your go to response in "DEFENSE" of scripture always be your Reason?
Marshal...
"It HAS been proven by pointing to all the commandments, laws and teachings about how God expects us to live."
Sorry. I must have missed that.
WHICH verses say, "And here is a ruling for all people in all times?"
WHICH verses say, "And we know objectively what is and isn't moral because there are lines in the Bible and they say it's intended for all people in all times...?"
Or words to that effect.
I'll wait while you don't answer this question.
"You tell me but that SEEMS to be what you're protesting that I'm not answering."
What I'm "protesting" is your demand that Gagnon answer every question or prove everything he's ever said to YOU in 10 minutes of a 35 minute video. It's the fact that YOU have concluded that because Gagnon did not give YOU what YOU wanted in the 10 minutes you deigned to watch, that he has NEVER dealt with your issues. It's that YOU jump to conclusions based on 10 minutes of Gagnon's decades long career of writing and teaching on this topic. YOU choose ignorance, yet blame others because YOU don't get what you demand when YOU demand it.
"What I'm telling you all"
Who the hell cares "What you are telling..."? What is it about you that you think that simply "telling" us what you've been "telling" us has some magical power? It's stupid example of rhetorical bullshit intended to assert control.
"...is that he has missed an obvious first step: He has failed to prove the premise that we can know that his various human biblical interpretations are correct because they are based upon the bible and the Bible, after all (he theorizes) is God's holy rule book so we can KNOW God's eternal rules for marriage."
Except that you've jumped to the conclusion that he "missed" something based on watching 10 minutes of a 35 minute video. You've jumped to a conclusion based on your choice to be ignorant. You arrogantly presume that him not giving you what you demand in 10 minutes means that what you demand doesn't exist.
"Don't you see?"
No. Why should someone who's CV is orders of magnitude more impressive than yours, with a decades long track record of writing and teaching on a subject, accede to your demand that he prove something he has not claimed? Where has he, or anyone, made this "magic rulings book" claim you repeat?
As usual it's you with the problem. You've made a claim you can't prove, based on a premise that you can't prove, based on something you've made up.
"I KNOW that Gagnon did not in at least the first ten minutes of his dribble."
The hubris and arrogance in this one short sentence is astounding. That Gagnon didn't "prove" Dan's made up theory in 10 whole minutes, automatically can be extrapolated out beyond those 10 minutes is simply the height of arrogance.
Dan condescended to watch 10 minutes of a 35 minute video out of decades of Gangon's teaching and writing, and Dan is prepared to dismiss every bit of that as "dribble" after 10 minutes.
Dan's "case" is that his subjective hunches about "logic" are all anyone needs to make broad, sweeping judgements about others.
The problem, however, isn't Dan's premise (that someone making a claim must prove that claim), the problem is that Dan chooses not to live up to the standard he demands of others.
When historical evidence for 2000+ years is put against an ideology less 75 years old, that isn't a number fallacy, it's a fact of evidence. Using information which establishes an identity and demonstrating how that information isn't found in someone claiming an identity is not a "true Scotsman Fallacy." If a man claims to be a women, and the evidence shows he was born a man and has all the biology of a man, saying that proves he's a man and not a woman is not a "true Scotsman fallacy." Your logic is illogical as your so-called "Christian" faith is really Christian. You are a pawn of satanic by all your professed ideology.
Danny boy,
It is not an ad hominem fallacy to identify you as a pawn of satan. Ad hominem is name-calling. If I call a Christian a Christian, that is not an ad hominem. I someone loots a store and I call him a thief, that is not an ad hominem fallacy. If I call anyone by an identity that they demonstrate from their behavior and ideology, that isn't an ad hominem. YOUR behavior and ideology are right out of Satan's playbook and you anti-Bible is right out of Satan's playbook. Ergo, to call you a pawn of satan is no more name-calling than to call someone who loots a store a thief. You like to spew logic terms but you really have no idea as to their meaning.
Danny boy,
You blaspheme God when you say HE is okay with homosexuality and transgenderism. You blaspheme God when you deny the reality of what is in Scripture. You blaspheme God you make fun of Scripture. You basically blasphemy God with your life when you call yourself a Christian and yet your ideology is anti-Christian and anti-God.
June 26, 2025 at 9:12 AM
"It HAS been proven by pointing to all the commandments, laws and teachings about how God expects us to live."
"Sorry. I must have missed that."
You're not sorry. You're unrepentant. I missed nothing. You choose to dismiss and reject what interferes with your love of homosexual sex. Then you falsely respond to a quote of mine as if the context in which it came was not clearly in direct response to a routine bullshit position of yours. In this case, it was a response to you again insisting Scripture isn't a "rulings book", which suggests it is not loaded with commandments, laws and teachings about how God expects us to live. In short, you lied yet again as is so routine with you.
"WHICH verses say, "And here is a ruling for all people in all times?""
All verses which speak to behavior as prohibited without caveat and without any later verses which mitigate or reverse it or even so much as hints at either. Lev 18:22 is just one of them. The total lack of mitigating verses "says" that the prohibitions on immoral sexual behavior remain in effect. Honest, mature adults don't seek to craft lame rationalizations as you do to deny it.
"WHICH verses say, "And we know objectively what is and isn't moral because there are lines in the Bible and they say it's intended for all people in all times...?""
Which verses provide a legitimate argument for presuming SSM makes the underlying sexual abominations acceptable to God and not worthy of His condemnation? There are none.
Clearly and unequivocally, there are NO words to that effect.
I'll wait while you don't answer this question.
"The recitation of words from a text and someone espousing a conclusion is insufficient to prove the reader has rightly understood the text."
1. Yet you, again, do this regularly. You announce that text X means Y and expect everyone to blindly accept your hunch, even when it contradicts the plain meaning of the text.
2. If you have a alternative explanation for the meaning of a text, beyond the plain and obvious, it's on you to offer and support it. If the text says that "It's an abomination..." and you conclude that the text really means that "God blesses...", the onus is on you. If you have a text that counters of reverses the "abomination...", that's on you to provide. The hunch that wrapping an "abomination" in a civil "marriage" somehow magically makes everything OK, is a bigger stretch that anyone else here is making.
Craig, missing the points entirely and completely misrepresenting what I said...
"What I'm "protesting" is your demand that Gagnon answer every question or prove everything he's ever said to YOU in 10 minutes of a 35 minute video. "
1. As a point of fact, I made no demands. Period. A stupidly false claim.
2. Rather, I rationally noted the reality that, I the ten minutes I watched, AND in the many articles from Gagnon that I've read and several videos I've watched, he's never supported his underlying premises or dealt with the rational holes in his arguments. That's just a fact.
3. Beyond noting that simple fact, I noted that MAYBE he HAS dealt with it and invited you all, by all means to present where he HAS dealt with these logical holes in any and all of his writings.
4. Y'all declined. And I'd be willing to bet that you did so because he has never dealt with the holes. But the offer stands.
That's the simple observable reality of it all.
Craig...
"Why should someone who's CV is orders of magnitude more impressive than yours, with a decades long track record of writing and teaching on a subject, accede to your demand that he prove something he has not claimed?"
Because even highly educated people and authors are obliged to abide by logical supports for their claims... especially if they're presuming to speak for God or suggest that their opinion represents objective morality.
Don't you agreed?
Craig...
"Where has he, or anyone, made this "magic rulings book" claim you repeat?"
His arguments are based on a presumption that we can know gay guys marrying is morally wrong BECAUSE there are lines in the Bible and based on HIS UNDERSTANDING of those lines, it's contrary to God's will and morally wrong.
Do you agree?
Craig...
"What the Bible DOES contain is commands, laws, and the like. That you choose not to understand that the Bible is a work that contains "rules", yet is not exclusively a "rule book" or a "rulings book", is your problem."
I think it might be helpful for y'all if you all would complete this sentence:
Dan's two logical concerns he's expressed here are...
Because I don't think you understand what my points are.
A. I'm NOT saying that there are not rules in the Bible. The texts are there and say what they say. You understand that, don't you?
B. The questions to be answered are, ARE any of these rules intended to be universal?
Are behaviors "bad" because "God tells us so in the bible" or is that a grace-full, rational, Godly way to think about morality?
Where is the objective proof for this?
June 25, 2025 at 6:31 PM
Dan had said,
"Citing your personal opinions and interpretations is not proof."
I then replied,
"But citing verses upon which our positions are based is. "
And then Dan responded:
"No. It literally is not."
Yes. It literally is, especially when citing a verse is to prove that the teaching is Biblical or from God...the questioning of which is where such a citation qualifies as proof. Thus, it's not a matter of defending an opinion, but of defending the claim that the Bible says what I say it says, and against what you say it doesn't in order to defend your embrace of abomination.
Now this isn't to suggest that every citation is presented for that purpose. I also cite Scripture to support positions which are not as directly stated as is Lev 18:22, which you have no Scripture to justify rejecting it. Thus, the citation stands as a starting point for my arguments, which you are unable to overcome with your fictions and inventions.
"And here's the kicker: When I cited verses to support what I believe (ie, when I But "cite verses upon which my positions are based", YOU don't think it proves my position is right! And why not? Because the mere presentation and citation of biblical verses is NOT objective proof of correct understanding."
Wrong. It doesn't prove your positions because nothing about the verses or passages you cite can or does. This is most particularly true of your citations in support of SSM. Your citations have no relation to the subject in any way, and necessitates the intentional perversion of the word "marriage" and the injection of personal biases and preferences for understanding other verses you choose, rather than a consideration of what the author...and by extension...God meant when laying it down. I refer of course to you abuse of the "think on these things" passage, in defending "committed" same-sex unions. What is pure and lovely can't also be detestable abomination at the same time, so think on that.
Craig asked...
"If one was looking for guidance on a moral problem, or to determine of something was right or wrong, what resource is better than scripture?"
Well, there are many sources, each with their advantages and disadvantages.
The Bible IS a great source of knowledge and background, expecially for those of us who are followers of Jesus and his teachings. We have no other source for Jesus words beyond the Gospels, so that's great for us.
And Jesus is a great resource for understanding grace, love, welcome, justice and forgiveness, among other things.
And one big thing we learn from Jesus' life and teachings are the dangers of religionists who would abuse/ misuse holy Scripture and treat it (and their traditions those religionists derive from biblical teachings) as a rulings book. We learn from Jesus' teachings that following his way is about WAY more than following rules and being "moral."
All of that to say that, as we see in Jesus' story, Scriptures are a great resource for learning about walking in the ways of love, justice and grace, but to be wary about treating it as a rulebook.
So, we must, of course, also rely upon God within us, God's Word, writ upon our hearts, and moral reasoning. We learn to look to wise ones who live lives of grace and love. To consider ALL things which are good, loving, helpful, kind, etc. He reminds us yhat at the heart of it, morality is as easy to understand as, Love God, love people... that Golden rule which is common to all wisdom writings.
So, all these things are good paths for rightly understanding morality, and that none are perfect. I don't think the Bible or God have made the case that "Scripture is the best way for understanding morality," so I would not make that claim either.
What a bizarre notion. That quoting what someone said is somehow not authoritative. It's like saying that my quoting Dan when he says something outrageous has not authoritative or probative value when it comes to what Dan thinks. It's like quoting Dan saying "God blesses gay marriage.", then somehow asserting that that statement doesn't accurately represent his beliefs.
On the rare occasions Dan does pull out proof texts, he tends to demand that we accept his hunches about those proof texts, rather than what the text says in context. For example, Dan likes to insist that every use of the term "the poor" in his proof texts can automatically and exclusively only refer to the materially poor. Which, if one looks at the broader context, makes little to no sense.
June 25, 2025 at 6:51 PM
"The recitation of words from a text and someone espousing a conclusion is insufficient to prove the reader has rightly understood the text."
Yet you do it nonetheless and it's the alpha and omega of your pro-SSM position. And again, I don't care if you're labeling your position as a fact claim or an opinion. Each still demands facts as a basis and you have none. Instead, you have "the recitation of words", followed by what you pretend is a logical conclusion when the words don't in any compel such a conclusion. My recitation has direct bearing on my positions and compels my conclusions as a result. God forbids homosexual behavior. He...as God the Father or Son...explains why He created us male and female (Mark 10:6-9)...with no mention of any other arrangement. Paul affirms the sinfulness of homosexuality and that homosexuals will not inherit the Kingdom.
God prohibits a number of heterosexual behaviors, but not a man lying with a female. But He prohibits homosexual practice...the practice of lying with a man as one lies with a female. My citations of verses affirm these facts and truths and teachings, and do so directly. You offer no parallel in defense of SSM because there are none which can lead an honest person to suppose two lesbians vowing lifelong commitment forsaking all others makes their behavior acceptable and thus the union worthy of blessing.
"It's not enough for a flat earther to say, "four corners of the earth! Therefore, the earth is a flat square.""
It's not enough for you to constantly bring this stupid argument up and insist you've made a mature, reasoned, rational case in defense of perversion and in opposition to the truth I present. What's more, none of us on this side of the issue makes an argument which is this stupid, but your using this example is just another attack intended to belittle our defense rather than directly addressing our actual arguments.
"They must be rightly understanding the text. You agree with this when you disagree with my conclusions, right?"
No. You're clearly and intentionally perverting the text.
"And in the case of the flat earthers, it's easy. Almost no one takes them seriously, not even the literalists."
No honest person...Christian or not...can take your argument seriously, because it's a stupid as your example is. YOURS is the parallel to the flat earth argument, not ours.
"But what of other cases where there is NOT unamity of agreement?"
They're totally irrelevant if they aren't related to SSM, which is all that matters in this thread. But I'm going to address the your willfully fallacious arguing by bring it up. To wit:
" What of the Young Earthers (who read texts and conclude the earth is about 6000 years old) vs the rest of us who recognize the Earth is billions of years old?"
You're purposely suggesting a problem with the YE crowd because you "recognize" that which is not apparent without accepting as fact that which is not and never has been proven as such, not because the YE crowd are wrong or without a strong case of their own. You insist they only believe because of what Scripture says. But until your kind needed some way to make the Darwinian theories work, no one ever doubted creation was as Scripture said it was.
Don't take this as an invitation to discuss the age of the earth. I was pointing to your fallacy by indulging the issue at all.
"We're all reading texts and reaching multiple differing opinions. Merely citing text is NOT proof of being correct."
And unlike yourself, this is not happening on our side and certainly not with Robert Gagnon. All our conclusions flow directly from the text without injecting anything the text itself doesn't imply or state emphatically. Your position has only your injection of meaning which serves your premise. There's no verse or passage from which your position can be legitimately inferred. I've studied your posts explaining why you believe as you do, so I'm quite familiar with the stretching you make in order to pretend your position is Scripture based. It isn't. At all and you've not made that case at all.
"What of those who think Jesus was literally speaking of the literal poor..."
Irrelevant to the issue and has no bearing on whether or not you've provided an intelligent case with Scriptural support for SSM.
"We're ALL citing the Bible to support our opinions (even those of us who don't accept the magic rulebook theorem)."
Not you. You cite the Bible and then pervert what it says in order to pretend your position is sound.
"WHO or WHAT is the Decider?"
An irrelevant question intended to mitigate truth and incite doubt about the truth of our position. It's not question of who decides. It's a question of the strength of your case, and yours has no strength at all because it's based on lies.
"Beyond y'all not proving your MRB premise, you still have the missing Rubric dilemma."
Not our premise, but one you project upon us. Not our dilemma, but one you've invented to avoid facing and accepting the truth which condemns your embrace of sexual perversions.
"And that's not me calling myself the Decider or the smartest one... it's just a reasonable question."
No its not. Not in the slightest. It's you lying again and yes, you are condescending as if the smartest one here. You're most certainly not that.
""Well, SOME questions we know the answer to objectively and SOME we don't..." y'all say sometimes. Okay, WHERE is the list of Objective Facts you know and which things aren't on the list? These are reasonable questions given that none of us think the mere citation of verses is proof of perfect knowledge."
No, they're irrelevant questions posed in lieu of an actual defense of your embrace of perversion.
"More questions to ignore."
As I will all such irrelevant, dishonestly posed questions while I await your next failing attempt to prove you've a Scriptural basis for supporting SSM.
Craig...
"Given that the Bible says nowhere that gays should marry, or that "God blesses gay marriage", or anything that is either positive or neutral about gay sex, you are literally adding to scripture as you accuse us of doing."
Am I? How?
What I'm noting are the premises that God is love, that God loves humanity, that God wants the best for humanity. These are all premises people find in the Bible. Do you think these notions are not biblically sound?
IF one accepts these premises (because of biblical words or otherwise), then it seems a rational conclusion to think of course a loving God would celebrate healthy loving marriages, gay or straight.
Setting aside your religious biases for a minute, can you see how that's a reasonable conclusion to reach, given the premises?
On the other side, y'all note passages like "All scripture is useful for teaching..." etc, literally does NOT say sola scriptura, it's a verse people note that helps them reach that conclusion, right?
How is that different than what I'm doing?
Craig...
"5. If you were rising in "DEFENSE" of scripture to defend your additions to scripture, why would you not actually use scripture to prove your points? Why would your go to response in "DEFENSE" of scripture always be your Reason?"
I have. For instance, I note that no biblical authors make the case for the Bible being "the best" or primary source for understanding morality. Noting that a human theory is NOT in the Bible is just as much citing the Bible as noting what IS in it. I note biblical passages that note God as a loving just God. That is citing the Bible, too.
Part of the problem with Dan's continued use of the 4 corners example is that he chooses to misunderstand or misrepresent what Biblical literalists believe. If one takes scripture literally, one acknowledges that a metaphor is literally a metaphor. Further, one acknowledges that the metaphor is actually being used to make a literal point in the real world.
I seriously doubt that Dan can actually find anyone who seriously takes 4 corners to mean that the world is a flat rectangle. It's just one more shtick he uses to prop up his ego.
For someone who engages in logical fallacies (especially Ad Hom attacks, Straw Men, and appeals to authority/numbers) it is bizarre when he accuses others of doing the things he does so instinctively.
"Dan's two logical concerns he's expressed here are..."
Unknown because I haven't seen any logical concerns expressed.
A. No one has ever said that you do not acknowledge the presence of commandments in scripture. That you feel the need to make this up is strange. That you compound this error, by insisting that anyone believe that scripture is a "rulings book" is beyond comprehension. It's as if you think that misrepresenting others is just fine, but have to make shit up so you can complain that you've been misrepresented.
B. Well, the (singular) question you asked is one question that could be asked. That you cannot get tenses to agree in such a short sentence is concerning. That you are so deluded as to think that there is no possible way to discern which laws and commands were time/place specific and which are universal raises question about your abilities to research and your prejudice against certain sources.
https://www.evangelmagazine.com/2018/06/biblical-commands-and-cultural-context/
https://founders.org/articles/gods-law-absolute-universal-and-eternal/
https://cbtseminary.org/the-threefold-division-of-the-law-nick-mattei/
"Are behaviors "bad" because "God tells us so in the bible" or is that a grace-full, rational, Godly way to think about morality?"
That's like asking if speeding is bad because a lawful authority wrote down a law establishing speed limits. The issue here seems to be whether or not YHWH has the authority to issue commands, laws, and statutes that we are to obey. If the answer is "Yes He does.", then the rest is moot. If the answer is "No he doesn't." then there is a much bigger issue at hand. Personally, if the Creator of every single thing that exists, a being that is all knowing, and all powerful, tells me not to do something, that's good enough for me. Just like when I see a speed limit sign, I don't need more authority than that.
If you want to play around and make shit up, go right ahead, I don't care because I have no reason to accept stuff you make up.
"Where is the objective proof for this?"
Given that I have no idea what you would arbitrarily accept as "objective proof" and your complete unfamiliarity with providing "objective proof" of your own claims, I can't answer this without some more information.
"Well, there are many sources, each with their advantages and disadvantages."
An excellent, vague, non answer with zero value to anyone.
"The Bible IS a great source of knowledge and background, expecially for those of us who are followers of Jesus and his teachings. We have no other source for Jesus words beyond the Gospels, so that's great for us."
What an interesting notion. That the Bible only has value for those who are "followers of Jesus". The very notion that someone who's not a follower of Jesus could find value in scripture is absurd, as is the notion that scripture could lead someone to become a "follower of Jesus". Beyond "the gospels" Acts, Revelation, Paul's letters and the OT, there's nothing. So what? Is that not enough for you?
So you're not going to actually answer the question, but instead spew a bunch of unproven assumptions based on your subjective/unproven premises about what you personally think is are the only important things that scripture teaches.
1. Sure you didn't.
2. So, that Gagnon in the slightly larger sample size of things you've read/watched still hasn't met your arbitrary burden of proof, so you simply choose to decide that since he hasn't done so in the small number of things you've seen, that he hasn't done so at all.
3. It's not our job to "prove" arguments we are not making or find you answers that you should be able to find on your own. If it's that important to you, do your won research.
4. No, we didn't. Of course you've declined multiple times to provide one single bit of scripture (Jewish or Christian), one bit on non canonical material (Jewish or Christian), or one snippet from any of early Church writings that say anything positive or neutral about homosexuality. That we didn't rise to some made up "challenge" isn't the issue, it's that you haven't risen to the very real challenge.
"Because even highly educated people and authors are obliged to abide by logical supports for their claims... especially if they're presuming to speak for God or suggest that their opinion represents objective morality."
Sure, yet given your reverence for "experts" and your uncritical acceptance of anything said by anyone you deem "expert", would you not agree that it makes more sense to give someone with an extensive CV, and a decades long history of scholarship on a subject a little more leeway that someone who's comparatively uneducated (or self educated)? The question wasn't whether or not he or you should prove your claims. The question is why would I trust you more than him given the vast difference in your CVs?
"Don't you agreed?"
No, I don't agreed. I do agree that someone with an extensive CV and decades of study, scholarship, writing, and speaking on a topic gets more leeway than some random internet guy.
"His arguments are based on a presumption that we can know gay guys marrying is morally wrong BECAUSE there are lines in the Bible and based on HIS UNDERSTANDING of those lines, it's contrary to God's will and morally wrong."
So, he hasn't made the "magic rulings book" claim that you say he has. If you're going to lie about this, why would I trust anything you say? That you have constructed a fictional narrative to explain your unsupported hunch is hardly proof of anything. You want proof, then prove your own claims before you demand that of others. In your little fictional paragraph, you didn't once quote anything Gagnon actually said. Whether making claims about what scripture says or what people say, if you can't actually find quotes, don't bother making baseless accusations.
"Do you agree?"
That you refuse to answer simple questions, yes.
99.999% of Dan's comments are no better than attacks on whatever hints at opposition to his terminally unsupported claims regarding SSM. In other words, a serpent-like ploy to force a questioning of that which is as true as water being wet. And what's true is true due to the overwhelming quantity of evidence we've (including Robert Gagnon) presented, all of which has no contradicting evidence Dan has ever produced. So instead, he insists on each of us meeting criteria he demands we must, while of course never coming close to holding himself to those demands like an actual man (*never sure how Dan identifies on any give day*) of actual integrity would.
Generally speaking, and quite literally in the case of Gagnon, we begin with what we know, that being what's specific and beyond mistaking, and from there build our case with everything slightly less definite and eventually we confidently present our conclusions. We're confident because in doing this, we know there is no Scripture which presents the possibility of contradiction which hasn't been resolved or addressed as irrelevant or, especially in Dan's case, twisted and perverted. What's more, Dan hasn't come close to mitigating anything about our (including Gagnon's) arguments without imposing nonsensical and fictitious rules of engagement. I don't need to argue for Scripture being a rules book. Dan needs to provide Scriptural evidence to support his or oppose our positions. I don't need to prove that Lev 18:22 represents a universal rule for all time. Dan needs to provide some reason to suppose it isn't beyond just his insistence that he's no longer obliged.
Dan wants to compare us to the Pharisees, but we are neither adding a thing to God's law, nor are being lazy about it or ignoring concepts of mercy and kindness. That's and incredibly nonsensical position given that Dan's position is kicking them in the ass to Perdition. Given homosexual attraction is a disorder and absolutely contrary to God and nature's plan of why there are two (and ONLY two) sexes, as well as the fact that it is unequivocally forbidden that anyone indulge, how can a compassionate person stand by and enable the homosexual's headlong dive into eternal damnation? It's absurd. But then, so is Dan.
Y'all read, but fail to understand. Ask someone who's not as extremist in their religiosity and who understands logic to explain it to you.
You're talking past my actual points and failing to understand no matter how many ways I try to explain it.
Suffice for Y'all to understand, nearly every time you say, Dan is saying... I'm literally not saying that and in some circumstances, I'm saying the opposite of that.
Dan seems to believe that ABC stuff is wonderful no matter what. He's latched on to "gay marriage" as his go to term because he can pull some proof texts out of context to pretend like "marriage" makes everything perfect. The problem he has is that he cannot actually make a positive case for ABC stuff based on scripture, or any other source outside of his Reason and feelings. He can claim that scripture is wrong, but not demonstrate that his claims are True. He can claim that the plain meaning of the text is the opposite of what it really means, but can't demonstrate that his claims are True. Therefore he needs to base everything on various subjective/emotional foundations "Reason, thinks, seems, feelings" and all he can offer are unverifiable anecdotes based on a small sample size. To be fair, he does acknowledge that he's not making Truth claims but merely expressing his feelings and hunches. Yet he does so in ways that appear as if he's making Truth claims. It's all very slippery and slimy so as to not get pinned down to any Truth, but to remain shrouded in the mists of "opinion".
In the case of Gagnon, or anyone who could be considered an expert, Dan demands that they provide him information (in the first 10 minutes of a video) that is foundational. It's information that is very likely readily available, but also likely not to be in a form Dan will interact with. As we see, his attention span is about 10 minutes, so it has to be quick or he'll move on. Beyond that, he simply makes massive leaps of logic and jumps to conclusions based on limited information.
Comparing us to the Pharisees is simply one of Dan's stock labels he uses to try to win an argument by name calling. Racist, sexist, homophobe, Islamophobe, Pharisee, and the like are all just tools that allow him to feel superior and feel like he's won something without actually doing anything.
I'll simply note that Dan chose to move on from disputing the reality that two men cannot conceive a child together. That human sperm, deposited in a human colon, will never produce a human embryo, will never produce a human fetus, or a human child. He claims to be all about the science, until the science gets in the way of his narrative.
Dan has used this before. The notion that the mere existence of "multiple interpretations" automatically validates every alternate interpretation. Yet, on the face of it, it is absurd to interpret "abomination" as "God blesses gay marriage".
Some of Dan's greatest hits when it comes to making excuses. It's somehow always other people's fault for not understanding his brilliant intellect, never the fault of his inability to prove his premises or hunches to be True.
June 26, 2025 at 7:59 PM
"Y'all read, but fail to understand."
So says the guy who thinks Scripture provides evidence in support of his SSM position.
"Ask someone who's not as extremist in their religiosity and who understands logic to explain it to you."
So says the guy who thinks Scripture provides evidence in support of his SSM position. "Logic" does not get from Lev 18:22 to "God would bless a same-sex "marriage". Such is the opposite of "logic". And if we want to inquire of someone not extreme in devotion to God's Will, we have you. You're the opposite of "extreme" in that regard.
"You're talking past my actual points and failing to understand no matter how many ways I try to explain it."
As always, our conclusions are drawn directly from you own words. Each attempt at clarification fails to alter the only conclusions your words compel. This might not be the case if you weren't trying to legitimize a position enabling abomination.
"Suffice for Y'all to understand, nearly every time you say, Dan is saying... I'm literally not saying that and in some circumstances, I'm saying the opposite of that."
It's not enough for you to say that when when you post a comment and your words continue to compel our conclusions. You say, "you're not understanding", then you repeat...even if you use different words...the very thing which tells us we weren't misunderstanding in any way. This concern of yours is the result of you trying to legitimize abomination. You're incapable of making that shit smell good. No one isn't.
Strangely enough, he's made the "Dan never said that" claim when I've literally copy pasted his own words saying "that".
1. This isn't so much an appeal to numbers as if to say the numbers prove Glenn is right, but implies the question "if all these scholars and experts say one thing, on what basis can you dare suggest they are wrong without providing the quality and quantity of sound evidence and reasoning they've provided"? You dismiss them simply because the don't agree with you...not be cause they're actually wrong.
2. Where anyone has been wrong on one unrelated issue or another does not have any bearing on the validity of the issue you're dismissing as erroneous here. That's just a red herring.
What's more, Glenn wasn't citing just "ancient" people, but scholars over the last several thousand years. That would include modern scholars like Gagnon. And the ancients who matter to this thread aren't at all stupidly mistaken on the subject of moral depravity. You're a product of a perverse time and your perverse dismissal of scholars simply because they disagree with you does not help your case.
3. There are no holes at all in our Scriptural defense of marriage against your kind who embraces the detestable. Moreover, you've not found any that aren't merely fictions you've invented.
A. None is needed. What's needed is your Scriptural evidence we are wrong and you are right. (Hint: your hint is just a desperate wish)
B. None is necessary. What is is your Scriptural evidence we are wrong and you are right.
Your A & B are deflections and distractions which are quite pathetic. They are woefully unnecessary in this case especially as Scripture is unequivocal in Its prohibition on homosexuality. You've created a far bigger hole for yourself than you pretend exists in our fact-based, Scripture-supported positions, as your demand for proofs and rubrics means nothing is immoral if one can't present the kind of proof or the type of rubric you think we need to be absolutely correct in our positions.
You wouldn't know logic if it walked up to you and kicked you in your lady parts. Ours is a totally logical conclusion compelled by Scriptural teaching. Your position has no logic of any kind linking the verses/passages you cite and the conclusion your citations cannot compel.
Our credibility remains intact. Yours never existed. Bring your evidence or admit you just don't care what God says on the subject of homosexuality.
Did you close the comments on this thread?
Post a Comment