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)
192 comments:
As always, there is nothing perverse, wrong, bad, sinful or otherwise off-putting in my dear, loving, giving, beautiful, spiritual and godly LGBTQ friends.
They are grannies, teaching Sunday School;
they are social workers, providing care and support for the poor and marginalized;
they are naturalists taking care of God's good earth;
they are poets, artists, authors, speaking truth to power;
they are carpenters and plumbers, providing quality services and products to consumers...
In every way and in every day, they are genuinely good, decent people, living quiet lives of grace and dignity.
We speak of the PRIDE of the LGBTQ community because of vile, angry haters like you who will despise, abuse and belittle them - in SPITE of their decent qualities, their innate goodness and Godliness... people like you who demonize them and give the more extreme outliers and excuse to actually abuse, harass and kill them... There is, of course, nothing "dirty" or shameful or perverse in these people's lives and they have nothing to be ashamed of.
Indeed, the loving, gracious, forgiving and welcoming LGBTQ community is not unlike the beloved community of God and you should be so fortunate as to learn of grace, love and forgiveness from my LGBTQ friends and family.
Disagree with the "lifestyle" (one of decency, kindness and giving) if you must, but stop with the attacks.
And to do ALL of that hateful, oppressive actions towards innocent, deeply good people WHILE supporting at least one of the single most overtly perverted, indecent, hedonistic, vile and, frankly, stupidly evil president in our nation's history, well, it doesn't speak well of your reasoning, your consistency or your grace.
Be a better man, Marshal. Learn from oppressed people.
"There's nothing noble about giving in to carnal desires"
I agree with the above, and with your premise that LGBTQWXYZPDQ pride month is a ridiculous concept that's been turned into something akin to a religious festival.
Yet, I'd suggest that the casual sexualization of the young be it OF, Tik Tok, Instagram, You Tube,, or whatever medium is probably a greater problem for society. Likewise the commodification of dating/hook ups on various "dating" apps. The recent spate of women trying to set records for sleeping with higher and higher numbers of people, and the entire conversation around body count also doesn't bode well for society.
That young people, primarily women, have the means to exploit their sexuality and commodify themselves, and monetize their bodies and sexuality is less than healthy. Especially when these women essentially remove themselves from the marriage pool because the guys who are good husband material have higher standards.
To clarify, homosexuality is merely one expression of our society's corruption of sex.
It seems obvious to me that the "T" folx are significantly different for the purposes of the sexuality angle of the conversation. Given that the experimental medical procedures and body mutilations replace healthy functioning sexual organs with bad facsimiles that do not function and that the massive amount of hormones negatively effect the sex drive, "transing" is clearly not about sex.
Yet, somehow, the "T" folx are quickly taking over the whole discussion and essentially kicking the LGB folx out of the movement.
Strangely enough, the LGBTQWXYZPDQ folx are really only "oppressed" in one culture, and it's not the US. Yet, Dan largely remains silent on this and frequently expresses sympathy for the one demographic that actually does "oppress" the alphabet folx.
Veterans, who defended our country and sacrificed much, get a day. Those who died in service to our country, get a day. The presidents who've led our country, get a day. The founding of our country, gets a day.
Yet somehow, a tiny minority of the US population, gets an entire month to celebrate their sex lives. Seems like something is out of balance in terms of what we celebrate. Especially since so much of this "celebration" is large corporations using one month to pander to this small percentage of the population and virtue signal who woke they are.
"As always, there is nothing perverse, wrong, bad, sinful or otherwise off-putting in my dear, loving, giving, beautiful, spiritual and godly LGBTQ friends."
As always, being any of those identified as LGBTQ is perverse, wrong, bad and sinful, and every true Christian devoted to the Will of God knows it. That you're not put off by their clearly rebellious against God character indicts you as being in rebellion as well.
"They are grannies, teaching Sunday School;"
And are lesbians and thus heretics leading the young toward sin by promoting their detestable behavior as acceptable to God.
"they are social workers, providing care and support for the poor and marginalized;"
...who are in rebellion against God if they indulge their detestable urges as LGBTQ people.
"they are naturalists taking care of God's good earth;"
And like the Canaanites, stained that part of God's earth they tread by their abominations.
"they are poets, artists, authors, speaking truth to power;"
They speak lies if they dare suggest their sexual urges and behaviors are morally benign or acceptable. Indeed, they speak those lies to the only Power Who matters when they do so.
"they are carpenters and plumbers, providing quality services and products to consumers..."
Yet they will not inherit the Kingdom of God because of their unquestionably unrighteous sexual behaviors, should they indulge in them, and by promoting it as morally acceptable to God.
"In every way and in every day, they are genuinely good, decent people, living quiet lives of grace and dignity."
Not by God's standards. Indulging in abomination is not "genuinely good or decent". That's just the fact and truth of it.
"We speak of the PRIDE of the LGBTQ community because of vile, angry haters like you who will despise, abuse and belittle them..."
You speak of enabling, promoting and legitimizing perverse behaviors and beliefs which are in direct and unequivocal conflict with the clearly revealed Will of God...not to mention harmful to them and those who buy in, especially the young. If they feel despised, abused or belittled when truth confronts their sinfulness, that's a good thing if it compels them to repent for His sake. While to you continue with this foul ploy, listing their good deeds doesn't mitigate the truth and spiritual depravity of their willful rejection of God's Will.
"...people like you who demonize them and give the more extreme outliers and excuse to actually abuse, harass and kill them..."
Rank bullshit...a lie told in the hopes of stifling the truth by suggesting doing so will inhibit the equally sinful responses to LGBTQ sinners. The reality is that in our society, the greatest threat to these sinners...despite the spiritually suicidal effect of their indulgences...is that people avoid them whenever possible.
Well I did give a nod to "the casual sexualization of the young", while referring to porn and Hollywood, but it certainly bears repeating. However, this post is specifically about this month...one of three, actually, with some call to honor or remember the same group of sexual deviants. And it should be understood that despite fornication and adultery aren't given their own months to honor the fornicators and adulterers who have contributed to our society, there most definitely is the attitude manifested often enough.
I insist on regarding them all the same, because they are. They each put sexual gratification above all else and it's simply a matter of categorical difference if one chooses to isolate and focus on any one of them. Yet I regard the entire group as a sub-category of the larger problem of sexual immorality and then each as sub-categories of that. Thus, one could put Trump in the more general category as an adulterer and/or fornicator, which is bad enough, but then all those of the sub-category are even more depraved and distinctly perverse.
Put another way, Trump had sex outside of marriage, but at least he did so with women. The LGBTQ people have sex outside of marriage (which includes "SSM" which isn't marriage by definition), but do so with members of the same sex. That's like a hate crime enhancement on an arrest charge of assault. It's far worse.
Indeed. What's more, they're more "oppressed" by their own.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/NNGiRc1YDx8
Robert Gagnon (I get his posts on FB) mentioned three months set aside for the LGBTQ++++ faction of the population.
God calls homosexual behavior an abomination. When people use their bodies against biology and the purpose of sexual relations, it is perverse and decadent. When people mutilate their bodies to pretend to be the opposite sex, it is against biology and against God's creative purpose. When teaching children that these perverse abominations are legitimate expressions of human biology and sexual relations, one is doing the work of Satan and grooming this children to reject what God created.
One of the most absurd aspects of "Pride Month" is it's very stated purpose: it's "a month-long observance dedicated to the celebration of LGBTQ pride, commemorating the contributions of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer culture and community."
This is the official version of Dan's lie...that whatever contributions are meant, that it legitimizes perversion because perverts were the contributors, almost as if without the contributors being perverts, the contributions would have been contributed.
Timed for maximum effect was Defense Secretary Hegseth's wonderful announcement:
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2025/06/pete_hegseth_orders_the_navy_s_harvey_milk_to_be_renamed.html
The Bible is abundantly clear in multiple places - and common sense supports this - that people can be known as Good or Bad by their actions. The LGBTQ people I'm speaking of are clearly good people:
People who've raised lovely children;
people who've adopted children - even at some great cost to themselves and their lives;
People who pour out their lives in service
through teaching children,
through housing the unhoused,
through finding employment for the poor and marginalized,
through taking care of those with physical and mental health needs,
through just serving as a beneficial, good citizen and neighbor...
These are observably good people who the actual oppressors (and that's people in the extremist Muslim world, in the extremist Christian world and in multiple ultra-conservative extremist religious groups) continue to attack and demonize as Marshal and Craig are doing here.
These are observably, obviously good people. AND they happen to choose a gender that extremists think they can disagree with (and of course, there is NO so-called "sexual immorality" in deciding that one is a male or female or gender fluid... THAT is a diabolical lie from the depths of a very real and evil hell) as if these religious extremists (whether conservative Muslim or conservative Christian) and their opinions matter one single bit over and against the reality of their obvious, observable good lives.
Or that they choose to love and support someone that extremist conservatives disapprove of does NOT mean that they are in any way "Bad" or immoral.
Observably so.
The problem y'all have is that you defend the overt perversion and hedonism and over-the-top indecency of the very worst moral ass wipe of a president while choosing to attack and demonize obviously good people. Your moral compass is warped and sickly, deviant and destructive.
And that's an observable bit of evil and depravity in YOUR lives, over and against the very good LGBTQ people I call friends.
Be like those LGBTQ people and like Christ... be better humans. Or, at the very least, stop oppressing others.
You're on the wrong side of decency, of history, of morality and of adult-level moral reasoning. Grow up or shut up.
Marshal falsely, stupidly claimed:
because they're in direct rebellion by their promoting, indulging and pride in their sinfulness.
Being in "direct rebellion" implies a choice... that they are CHOOSING to deliberately rebel against God. This is of course, not the case. They truly believe that God is a loving and accepting God who doesn't give one single damn about them being LGBTQ... that this is a HUMAN tradition of oppression, not something of God. That is, they want to do right and be Godly (my acquaintances - even the ones who don't claim Christianity) and there is no decision to be rebellious. At the very worst, they are mistaken in good faith.
And for those of us who live lives of grace and love, being merely mistaken is not "rebellion," just a mistake. Just like you are clearly mistaken, given obvious moral reasoning and basic decency.
Be a good person like my LGBTQ friends, Marshal. They'd gladly welcome you to join them. They have grace and forgiveness, that way.
You know, like Jesus.
You are absolutely correct.
"The Bible is abundantly clear in multiple places - and common sense supports this - that people can be known as Good or Bad by their actions."
The only action on this table for discussion is their willful indulgence in abomination, in direct conflict with God's expressed and unequivocal prohibition. Thus, they are in rebellion against God.
"The LGBTQ people I'm speaking of are clearly good people"
They can't be "LGBTQ people" (herein labeled "pervs") and "good" at the same time, unless by labeling them as you have, you merely mean they have the compulsions and desires, but never ever indulge in LGBTQ behavior...which of course you don't.
You go on to do your usual listing of all the wonderful things they do while being ungodly perverts expecting that God will forget their willful intentional indulgence in perversion because they also do wonderful things. Where in Scripture do we see this type of argument as anything but rejection of God? At the same time, by your logic, the man you hate most is more an angel than any of your perv friend given all the good he's done that you just ignore out of your hatred which belies your laughable claim of Christian faith and belief.
"These are observably good people who the actual oppressors continue to attack and demonize as Marshal and Craig are doing here."
These are, like you, observably proud and willful reprobates, unrepentant in their indulgence of obvious and unquestionably sinful behavior. In your case it's worsened by attacking as "actual oppressors" and "demonizing" those like Craig, Glenn and myself for speaking the proven Truth of God's Will on this behavior. To equate preachers, teachers and defenders of God's Will on this subject to islamic radicals or any other group who levels actual physical harm on anyone else is an intentional conscious lie. But then, lying is your thing, especially in defense of the worst kinds of sinning.
"These are observably, obviously good people."
What's obviously observable about these people is dependent upon two possibilities. They either truly believe about themselves what they believe, in which case they are observably and obviously disordered and dysfunctional mentally, or they are simply consciously rejecting God's Will on what immoral sexual behavior is and thus are liars. Which of the two you are is still being debated among honest, intelligent Christians. The safe money is you're both. As to those you defend, honest physical and mental examination can confirm the obvious.
"AND they happen to choose a gender that extremists think they can disagree with..."
One needn't be "extreme" in any way to know they are either lying or disordered, unless you mean "extremely honest", which those like Craig and I are much closer to being than you even have a desire to be. Those you defend "choose" what they can't, and what they "choose" is what their own biology refutes unequivocally. "Good" people, Christian or not, don't enable disorder. And they certainly don't lie about as you do.
In any case, Scripture clearly opposes cross-dressing/transvestism, and there is nothing more extreme than one such person having their genitalia mutilated, fake and non-functional body parts attached and drugs and hormones added to make one appear to be the opposite sex. To say Scripture does not oppose this type of thing is...how can I put this?...oh yeah, "a diabolical lie from the depths of a very real and evil hell" from those who are in obvious and observable rebellion against God. Indeed, such "transitioning" is clearly mocking God. But that's how you roll.
"Or that they choose to love and support someone that extremist conservatives disapprove of does NOT mean that they are in any way "Bad" or immoral."
Honest Christians extreme in their devotion to the clearly revealed Word of God as presented in Scripture, don't concern themselves with how one might love and support another, but are just and righteous in speaking against the vile sin of homosexual behavior. I love and support my siblings and friends. I don't have sex with them. And I certainly don't "love and support" them by enabling sinful behaviors in which they choose to indulge. That would not be either loving or supportive to any sane, honest Christian. Find one and ask him. He'll tell you the same thing. Thus, those who choose, for example, to indulge in sexual behavior with one of the same sex, one of the opposite sex with whom one is not married, one's mother/father/sibling, one's goat...they are all observably and obviously mired and wallowing in sin. Your lying doesn't change that. Your false Christian "support" for them doesn't change that.
"The problem y'all have is that you defend (Trump...Dan said something false, but he just meant Trump) while choosing to attack and demonize obviously good people. Your moral compass is warped and sickly, deviant and destructive."
Once again you are obviously and observably hypocritical and lying. Trump has a long, long list of good deeds you ignore because of your vile hatred which belies you laughable claim of being a Christian and focus on his faults. But in contrast, you focus only on the good deeds of observably obvious perverts and pretend their perversions, which are clearly, obviously more perverted than Trump's, don't matter at all, and worse, don't matter to God. God won't forgive your perverts if they insist on indulging their perversions. There's absolutely no Scripture which suggests that as in any way possible, otherwise repentance is unnecessary and I can slap you silly as often as I like and I'll still be good with God. Think that's how it works?
"And that's an observable bit of evil and depravity in YOUR lives, over and against the very good LGBTQ people I call friends."
Another intentional perversion of reality by Dan Trabue. We don't defend Trump's character flaws, or his adulterous history. We support his incredibly beneficial effectiveness as president which has improved the lives of all Americans, unlike the policies of your Biden and Obama. YOU defend the perversions of your pervert friends. Thus, to be consistent and honest, one must focus on one thing only. The character flaws in question. You and I both denounce Trump's sexual sins while only I denounce the sexual sins of your pervert friends. Worse, you effectively spit in God's face by presuming your perverts aren't sinning at all if they indulge in prohibited sexual behavior, just because they're "nice" and "married" to each other, as if the opinions and laws of man are superior to the Will of God.
"Be like those LGBTQ people and like Christ..."
I try to be like Christ. I will never seek to be like perverts. Christ didn't indulge in perversion like your pervert friends and as such they are NOTHING like Christ. Christ spoke of obeying God and His Commandments. God did not lift the indulgence of sexually immoral behavior, the only moral sexual behavior being that which takes place between a man and a woman married to each other. There is no other context in which sexual behavior is moral. You advocate for those who indulge in perverse prohibited abomination. Christ does not.
Christ also does not lie. YOU lie when you dare suggest that speaking the truth about God's Will regarding this behavior is "oppression".
"You're on the wrong side of decency, of history, of morality and of adult-level moral reasoning. Grow up or shut up."
I'm on God's side. You're on the side of abomination and selfish petulant child-level immoral reasoning. Between us, I'm the adult here. Unjustified arrogant and condescending liars like you don't get to give orders here. This isn't your Blog of Lies and Perversions. There's a special place in hell for blasphemers like you.
"Being in "direct rebellion" implies a choice... that they are CHOOSING to deliberately rebel against God. This is of course, not the case."
Only a stupid person, a liar or a person totally ignorant in Scripture would say such a thing. You claim years of "serious and prayerful study" of Scripture, so if you're not stupid or ignorant, you're lying. They are deliberately choosing to satisfy their carnal desires...desires which are in observably obvious and direct conflict with the clearly revealed Will of God as presented to us in Scripture in easy to read words.
"They truly believe that God is a loving and accepting God who doesn't give one single damn about them being LGBTQ..."
Then they're mentally/emotionally disordered and dysfunctional for there is no basis in Scripture for such a belief. I think they don't give a flying rat's ass about what God thinks if it means they can't sexually gratify themselves in a manner most pleasing to them, and too fucking bad if it's displeasing to Almighty God. And you enable that shit.
"that this is a HUMAN tradition of oppression, not something of God."
This is something you say anytime you find the Truth of Scripture (i.e. God's Will) inconvenient.
"That is, they want to do right and be Godly (my acquaintances - even the ones who don't claim Christianity) and there is no decision to be rebellious."
Bullshit. God is crystal clear on these matters. They have no excuse, especially if they claim to study Scripture, and you have even less given your laughable claims of "serious and prayerful study" of Scripture. They choose to do that which is abomination. Anyone who willingly and consciously does that which they know is displeasing to God, be it this or murdering their unborn child, etc., has chosen to rebel against and reject God. And if they have any question in their mind about the moral status of a desired behavior, Scripture is not unclear. Thus, you're a liar or they are. (You all lie).
"At the very worst, they are mistaken in good faith."
On this issue, that's impossible. I'm not at all mistaken on this issue. Not even a little. My position is entirely and accurately consistent with the Will of God. This fact is supported by your incredibly obvious and observable inability to cite Scripture in a way which rebukes my position and supports yours.
"Be a good person like my LGBTQ friends, Marshal. They'd gladly welcome you to join them."
Your perv friends are not "good", but are rather are perversely unGodly.. I don't seek the company of those who so willfully and consciously rebel against the Will of God for the sake of their own carnal pleasure. That would be aiding and abetting evil. I try not to do that. You jump right in and champion evil.
Jesus does not forgive the unrepentant. To them He says, "I never knew you." The safe money is you'll hear Him speak those words to you. Enjoy the heat!
This notion that if people act in certain ways (beyond their sin), have certain jobs, or do certain things, that their sin is magically removed is bizarre.
I was agreeing with, and expanding on your point. That OF (and the like) doesn't have it's own month of pandering, doesn't render it any less damaging.
At this point pride has devolved into two streams.
1. The corporate pandering stream. Companies take out ads, and post crap of their social media to prove how woke they are in the hopes that the ABC folx will buy more of their products.
2. The demonstration stream. This is the folx who'll parade around in their bondage crap and simulate sex in public.
The first is merely a cynical cash grab, the second is merely a cry for attention.
One one level you are correct, all of us who sin are the same on one level.
Yet the "T" folx are clearly not seeking sexual gratification primarily. Yeah, they're pissed that they can't get dates. But it's not because of the sex thing as much as it is because of the fact that the LGB folx won't enable them in their fantasies about being able to change sexes.
I'll post a piece that captures this difference pretty well. But in short, the LGB folx don't need anything to live their lives. They don't need surgery, hormones, or anything else to do their thing.
I understand your distinction, and there's a sense in which it might contain some truth, but sex outside of a M/F (one of each) marriage is all inherently outside of YHWH's intent for sex and marriage. To somehow draw a line because one is "more wrong" seems like trying to mitigate or justify one sin over another. This is, essentially, Dan's "minor sin" argument. That there are some sins that are "minor" enough that they don't bear being concerned about. It's like saying "Oh, I know he gets stoned every day, but at least he uses a clean needle and isn't using Meth.".
It's an artificial imposition of degrees which doesn't seem to agree with scripture.
Well, the "T" folx are more oppressed by the LGB folx withing that broader "culture", that's for sure. At least the "T"s believe that LGBs not wanting to date them equals "oppression".
"that people can be known as Good or Bad by their actions."
1. Being known as subjectively "good" by other sinful humans is a low bar.
2. YHWH doesn't call His people to merely be "good" but to be holy.
3. This is merely a version of works righteousness.
"extremist Muslim world"
You must have meant virtually the entire Muslim world. '=
As "decency, history. morality" and the like are all subjective hunches, it's impossible to support Dan's bullshit claim.
I'm more concerned about being on the side of YHWH, if I'm right with Him then none of the rest of that matters.
FYI, the "T" folx are on the wrong side of biology.
Being fallen, sinful, humans is not a choice. It is the condition we live in. engaging in a particular action (sticking one's male appendage into another males anus, for example) is a choice. To suggest otherwise is to be making the claim that the ABC folx have no agency or responsibility for their actions.
When the two dudes chose to adopt male children, and chose to sexually abuse them, they don't get a pass because they don't have agency.
Temptation, not a sin. Choosing to act on temptation is to choose to sin. To claim otherwise seems to deny the "free will" that progressives seem so enamored with.
I have to note the hubris Dan exhibits in making such broad sweeping claims about the innermost thoughts, and motivations about others. It must be amazing to be able to read minds at that level.
"As "decency, history. morality" and the like are all subjective hunches, it's impossible to support Dan's bullshit claim."
This is just Dan consciously perverting those words in order to disparage those who are not in conflict with any of it, but are righteously opposed to his perverted perception of them.
And if one is Dan's version of "progressive", it is oppression. When it comes to LGBTQ++++ doctrine, any opposition or rejection is overt oppression. The truth opposes the LGBTQ++++ agenda. That's oppression to the progressive.
Indeed, Craig. That arrogance goes further in his ironic notion of knowing people by their actions. We know the LGBTQ++++ people are reprobate sinners because they not only choose to indulge those sinful compulsions, but they rebel against God by presuming they can call their evil "good".
Craig:
I have to note the hubris Dan exhibits in making such broad sweeping claims about the innermost thoughts, and motivations about others. It must be amazing to be able to read minds at that level.
So, I see actual people I know and love and live close lives with in a beloved community setting, and I'm ENTIRELY unable to have a sense of their thoughts and motivations... BUT, Marshal and you, presumably, who have NEVER MET GOD and only read what others have said about God, YOU BOYS understand the innermost thoughts and motivations of God?
You think THAT's not a crazy level of arrogance and presumption?
And once again, Marshal, that YOU and some other men hold personal little opinions that, in your mind makes you think personally that you feel like God has told everyone to not be LGBTQ and that to be LGBTQ is to be "evil" and "perverse..." that YOU hold those opinions does not mean that everyone agrees with your irrational, hateful, and petty/arrogant opinions.
You, son, do not get to speak for God. And you don't get to speak for others and tell them their motivations.
Damn, the arrogance and irony is just shocking. And you fellas don't even see that you're doing precisely what you're falsely accusing me of doing.
In my case, I KNOW these people and I KNOW they are good. It's not that hard to see it. For the Bible tells me so AND so does plain common sense and moral reasoning, no matter what crazy human theories and traditions you may personally believe in. But you don't even know them a little and yet, YOU presume to say you can determine their motives?
To hell with that arrogance.
Open your eyes, fellas. YOU are that man. (in the words of Nathan, in case you miss the allusion).
The whole oppressor/oppressed paradigm is an adaptation of the Marxist paradigm and can be twisted to turn any legitimate disagreement into someone being "oppressed". Strangely enough, those who cling to it, tend to stay silent on many examples of actual "oppression" when the perpetrators are those classified as "oppressed".
As with many terms, Dan likes to use these subjective terms as if they are objective in order to attack those he disagrees with. It's simply an attempt at manipulation.
There is a "category" of sin which is marked by it's brazenness. It's where someone proudly announces that they know that X behavior is sinful but that they are going to engage in it anyway. I'd agree that calling sinful behavior "good" would constitute "rebellion" against YHWH.
So, you see a small sample size of people which you can't won't provide any details about (except that you know and like them, which exhibits bias), and from that claim that you both know every innermost thought and motivation they have but also that you can extrapolate your hunches to some exponentially larger sample size. Gotcha.
Of course, I didn't say "entirely unable" you made that shit up. Of course, the simple reality is that it is impossible for you to know anything about anyone beyond what they reveal to the public. You can't know their thoughts (Even if they share some of their thoughts with you, you cannot know with 100% certainty that they have been 100% honest.) with certainty.
Yes, I do think that attempting to speak for a small group of unidentified people and claim that you have some 100% accurate knowledge of their innermost thoughts and motivations is the height of hubris and arrogance. Since I didn't use the word "crazy", why would you pretend that I did. As if it's "crazy" to acknowledge the reality that it is impossible to know with 100% certainty what another is thinking or motivated by.
Art's "personal little opinions" are somehow objectively wrong, while your "personal little opinions" are somehow objectively right. How convenient.
You also don't get to "speak for God", even though you try to, nor do you get to tell others what their motivations are, yet you do that as well. It's OK, we expect this double standard from you.
I get it you "KNOW" (because ALL CAPS means that your claim must be True) to a 100% certainty every thought and motivation this small sample size of these mystery people. That's quite a claim.
Strangely enough, someone that I thought I knew pretty well was just credibly accused of all sorts of things that came as a shock to those who knew them. I know people who have lived a "double life" for years, showing one version of themselves to their family and friends and another in private. One thing I've learned (listen to the families of some criminals who insist that their child who just murdered someone was a wonderful human being) is that people can be really good at hiding all sorts of surprising things. That you're small sample size is 100% exempt from this phenomenon or that you have some magical ability to see into people's souls both seem unlikely.
Craig offered an opinion (although he stated it as a fact):
Being fallen, sinful, humans is not a choice. It is the condition we live in.
"Fallen" and "sinful" are subjective religious terms with no objective proof to them.
Noting that we are imperfect humans IS an objectively observable fact, but the term that Craig and others of his human tradition use has a lot of baggage with it. IF they merely meant that we are imperfect, then that's just another way of saying what is observable. But they mean something else by it.
Which is fine. They are welcome to that subjective opinion, one that they can't prove, even if it has been used, abused and misused to great evil over the centuries by imperfect and sometimes arrogant humans.
In the context of THIS conversation, if Craig merely wants to note that LGBTQ folk are imperfect humans, as we all are, no harm no foul.
IF, however, Craig is trying to establish that there are "sins" inherent to being LGBT and/or Q, well, that is where he has an epic fail. His human traditions may well believe this, but they do not objectively or authoritatively speak for God. To the degree that they believe that they (imperfect, "fallen" humans that they are) think they CAN and ARE speaking for God, without error, when they terrorize, demonize and abuse LGBTQ folks with their opinions, that is the sin and harm done that is observable in this conversation.
That Craig and Marshal may believe it's only Muslim extremists who oppress LGBTQ folks just shows the degree of disconnect they have with observable reality.
Talk to LGBTQ folks, they will all, almost to a person, be able to tell you the many stories of abuse, mistreatment and oppression they and their friends have suffered at the hands of conservative (and sometimes even liberal) Christians.
Reality matters. Being humble enough to admit you do not have the authority to speak for God matters.
Marshal:
We know the LGBTQ++++ people are reprobate sinners because they not only choose to indulge those sinful compulsions, but they rebel against God by presuming they can call their evil "good".
Fact check
1. As a point of fact in the real world, you don't know shit about what these folks are doing in their lives. Maybe some of them are deeply perverse and engaging in harmful behavior, like they lying cheater deviant you support. I'm sure some may be (although you haven't pointed to a single one).
2. As a point of fact, in the real world, MY friends and allies in the LGBTQ world are deeply good people. They are caring, compassionate, helpful, giving people. Some of them, EVEN KNOWING of the abuse that people like you would pour on them, would be willing to talk with you and help you understand their lives and their innate, natural, God-given orientations. Some of them speak with such compassion and grace about people like you that it's just God-like in the extreme. "Dan, forgive them, they don't know what they're doing," they tell me. This, in spite of knowing the very harmful things and actions people like you are throwing their way. That Grace truly is amazing. Christ-like, even.
Marshal:
they not only choose to indulge those sinful compulsions
3. There's a difference in being sincerely mistaken and choosing to indulge in sinful compulsions.
For instance, YOU, Marshal, are choosing to indulge in graceless, harmful, oppressive compulsions to attack and demonize LGBTQ folks (and their allies). Now, IF you are right on LGBTQ topics, well, you're right and STILL being abusive and harmful. BUT, if you are mistaken (and clearly, observably, you are), then that means (by your measure) that YOU are a reprobate sinner, CHOOSING to rebel against God.
Do you understand that? Just answer that question, directly:
IF you are mistaken and of course, LGBTQ folks should be free to live their lives and make their choices about their marriage partners, having children and their gender, AND you've been this level of abusive and oppressive to innocent people who are just living their lives and daring to disagree with your mistaken opinions (IF you are wrong), then doesn't that mean by YOUR measure, that YOU are a reprobate sinner, rebelling against God almighty, as well as being a pompous jackass and oppressor of innocent people?
Dan stupidly said:
""Fallen" and "sinful" are subjective religious terms with no objective proof to them."
Those are particularly appropriate terms in discussions in which self-identifying "Christian's" are participating. But while you only so self-identify while speaking as one who only postures as such, we accept the laughable claim and proceed in discourse. In addition, this is just one more example of how you respond when the Truth of Scripture is inconvenient for your personal agenda. At the same time, "fallen" and "sinful" people are not just easy to identify by their deeds, but by their confessing and admitting to their behaviors. More on this later.
"Noting that we are imperfect humans IS an objectively observable fact, but the term that Craig and others of his human tradition use has a lot of baggage with it."
Not at all. For you to "note" that you're imperfect is to pervert the term so as to excuse the willful and conscious choice to indulge that which is clearly and unmistakably sinful according to the God you pretend to worship and exploit for the purpose. By your perverse logic, any person indulging in sinful acts can write it off as merely being "imperfect" and no one should think any worse than that about the person and the sins they willfully and consciously commit.
"They are welcome to that subjective opinion, one that they can't prove, even if it has been used, abused and misused to great evil over the centuries by imperfect and sometimes arrogant humans."
This is your typical school girl crap. You consciously and willfully choose to make a connection to our speaking truth to other evil people who attack the evil people you love. And again, joining you in pretending you're actually a Christian, the only proof needed about the fact of fallen and sinful mankind requires no more than a cursory reading of Scripture, and an actual life of "serious and prayerful study" cements that truth for all honest people seeking God's Truth.
"In the context of THIS conversation, if Craig merely wants to note that LGBTQ folk are imperfect humans, as we all are, no harm no foul."
Craig and I are not outside the context of THIS conversation by stating the reality of the sinfulness...the abomination...of homosexual behavior. Also within the context is the enabling and lying on behalf of those people...a conscious choice of yours, rather than "mistake" or mere imperfection. And as if that wasn't bad enough, you willfully and consciously reject this lame-ass argument when you willfully and consciously choose to attack Donald Trump as a "pervert prince" rather than extending the same grace you shower on actual perverts. You completely dismiss, as if not even existing, his considerable list and record of "good deeds" and focus solely on what you willfully and consciously inflate into some great evil. Then you dare whine about gossip and slander.
"IF, however, Craig is trying to establish that there are "sins" inherent to being LGBT and/or Q, well, that is where he has an epic fail."
No. That's an abject truth, unless you're going to insist that all your perv friends simply identify as representative of their specific perversion without every indulging in any of the behavior so common to such people. Take your lesbian grannies, for instance. If they sleep in the same bed and cuddle and spoon, and do so in anything resembling in the slightest a spirit of lust, they are in conflict of the most literal reading of Lev 18:22 and thus engaging in abomination.
"His human traditions may well believe this, but they do not objectively or authoritatively speak for God."
And again, anytime you reference "human traditions" when someone speaks accurately about God's Will as clearly revealed to us in Scripture, you once again confirm you're an inveterate liar. There's no mystery in God's expectations for human sexual behavior. Your perverts fall outside what is permissible every bit as much as Trump has, though far more often.
"To the degree that they believe that they (imperfect, "fallen" humans that they are) think they CAN and ARE speaking for God, without error, when they terrorize, demonize and abuse LGBTQ folks with their opinions, that is the sin and harm done that is observable in this conversation."
This is rank bullshit and also a manifestation of your inveterate dishonesty. You willfully and consciously choose to question Craig's understanding of what is crystal clear in Scripture and then portray his speaking the truth as "terrorizing, demonizing and abusing" your cherished perverts. You regard speaking the obvious truth as "sin and harm". Your enabling perversion is the true sin and harm. Pointing out the sin of anyone is not abuse simply by pointing it out.
"Talk to LGBTQ folks, they will all, almost to a person, be able to tell you the many stories of abuse, mistreatment and oppression they and their friends have suffered at the hands of conservative (and sometimes even liberal) Christians."
Of course they will. They're defending their choice to rebel against God in choosing to indulge their perversion. Anyone trying to guide them from it will be falsely described by them as abusive and oppressive.
Anyone dedicated to living according to God's Will has the authority to evangelize and preach about God's Will to the fallen and sinful, whether they've chosen the wide gate or unknowingly passed through it. That's reality and good men don't sit back and do nothing about the promotion of perversion in the culture.
Don't be a perversion loving reprobate.
Looky, Dan's playing semantic games. While he pretends that "good" and the rest of the adjectives he uses to describe his mystery friends are not subjective. His response to my pointing out this pretty commonly held, observable, reality is to simply repeat my criticism of him back to me.
That Dan cannot point to one singe human (other then Jesus) who lived a sinless life, seems to support the common Christian view of humanity as fallen and sinful.
I am pointing out that the ABC folx sinners just like everyone else. That their sins might be different than mine, doesn't really factor in. The problem you have, again, is that your assertion would seem to be (that homosexual practice is not inherently sinful) is merely your unproven opinion. Yet you'll likely pretend as if your unproven hunch is objective fact as you so often do.
When Dan has to resort to made up lies, it seems to indicate that he is simply desperate and has nothing left but lies.
I thought Dan objected to lying about others.
Coming from someone who often claims to speak for YHWH, directed to people who've never claimed to speak for YHWH, all I can do is conclude that you are either incoherent or lying again.
Dan's choice of the term "imperfect" is interesting. It's clearly an attempt to pretend as if people who commit sin have no agency in their sin, and it assumes that everyone is specifically trying to the fullest extent possible to live a sin free life. Again, two unproven hunches thrown out as if they should be blindly accepted as fact.
The problem with Dan's screed, it it ignores the fact that I would and do refer to MYSELF as sinful and fallen. I'm not trying to whitewash my sins or pretend as if I don't make choices to sin. When scripture says "All have sinned" I acknowledge that I am part of "All".
I'm a fallen sinner, saved by the grace of YWHW, through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Unlike Dan and his holier than thou friends, I'm not trying to make myself out to be any better than anyone else. That some people might have offended some ABC folx, doesn't mean that homosexual sex is magically not sinful. That doesn't sanctify having anal sex with multiple partners in a bathhouse, or engaging in a "marriage" devoid of fidelity.
Dan is on quite a tear today. His complete and total lack of grace, repeated lies, and ad hom attacks would seem to be the antithesis of the behavior of someone who proudly claims to be "good".
His childlike assumption that "good" Christian people don't live "double lives" and that he can magically know everyone's thoughts and motivations. is simply his hubris covering for his fear.
I could be wrong, but wouldn't repeating and embellishing something which has been demonstrated to be false not only be committing the sin of lying/bearing false witness, but also to be choosing to committ this sin willfully and knowingly?
"So, I see actual people I know and love and live close lives with in a beloved community setting, and I'm ENTIRELY unable to have a sense of their thoughts and motivations... BUT, Marshal and you, presumably, who have NEVER MET GOD and only read what others have said about God, YOU BOYS understand the innermost thoughts and motivations of God?"
Yes, Dan. It's called, "knowing and understanding Scripture". It's not a mystery as to God's expectations of how we're to behave sexually in order to remain pleasing children of Him. There's absolutely no way to be mistaken about it, and there's nothing at all presumptuous about abiding it and reminding liars like you what Scripture actually says.
"You think THAT's not a crazy level of arrogance and presumption?"
No. And you clearly prove you don't know the meaning of those words and still apply them here as you do. Rather, you're arrogantly presuming speaking the truth about God's Will is arrogant and presumptuous. Ironic.
"And once again, Marshal, that YOU and some other men hold personal little opinions that, in your mind makes you think personally that you feel like God has told everyone to not be LGBTQ and that to be LGBTQ is to be "evil" and "perverse..." that YOU hold those opinions does not mean that everyone agrees with your irrational, hateful, and petty/arrogant opinions."
And once again, Danny-girl, you pervert reality. I never say "God has told everyone not to be LGBTQ and that to be LGBTQ is to be "evil" and "perverse..."", but you need to slander and lie about those who speak the truth. While the compulsions of the LGBTQ++++ people are indeed evil and perverse, as Craig rightly noted, one can't help one's compulsions and desires. But indulge those compulsions and desires is indeed evil and perverse, especially for those who do so while insisting they're "Christian". It's not an "opinion" that God regards such as abomination. It's God's assertion that it is, whether you find that assertion and the presentation of it here to be "irrational, hateful, and petty/arrogant", despite your insistence that it is in order to prevent having to face that truth and adjust your life and beliefs to conform with His Will. So, what I say is that God has prohibited the indulgence of homosexual behavior and any other sexual behavior not that of a man and a woman married to each other. Those who willfully and consciously choose to ignore that restriction are in rebellion and your beloved are willfully and consciously in rebellion because there is no way to be "mistaken" about God's Will on this matter. None.
"You, son, do not get to speak for God. And you don't get to speak for others and tell them their motivations."
I'm not your son, pervert, and I most certainly do get to "speak for God". That's what preaching, evangelizing, prophesying is. I'm amazed you don't know this...when it serves you to forget.
I don't need to "tell them their motivations". They proclaim them by their outwardly living the life. They certainly proclaim "pride" in it, don't they? What need have I to presume that which isn't made known to us? You're really bad at this.
"Damn, the arrogance and irony is just shocking."
"And you fellas don't even see that you're doing precisely what you're falsely accusing me of doing."
We "fellas" know exactly what we're doing, as what we do is simply speaking the truth about this issue. And that includes speaking truthfully about your defense and promotion of abominations. What we do is nothing at all the same as what YOU do.
"In my case, I KNOW these people and I KNOW they are good. It's not that hard to see it."
You see what you want to see and what you want to see is only that which is not their sexual perversions God regards as abomination. You see people who identify as LGBTQ++++, but you pretend not a one of them willfully and consciously indulge in sexual perversions their identities don't suggest....and likely confirm. Only a pervert would see things that way.
Yes, but you persist nonetheless.
"For the Bible tells me so AND so does plain common sense and moral reasoning, no matter what crazy human theories and traditions you may personally believe in."
Moral reasoning requires a moral absolute. That would be Scripture and the Word and Will of God. Common sense would dictate that anyone presuming to speak of moral reasoning would accept the connection between "moral" and "the Will of God". The Will of God is explicit in that God regards homosexual behavior as "abomination" and "detestable" and as such, it is. It is not in any way "crazy human theories and traditions" to affirm what God has so clearly said as revealed so clearly in Scripture. To deride or disparage any "human theory or tradition" based directly and accurately on the clearly revealed Word of God is heresy.
"But you don't even know them a little and yet, YOU presume to say you can determine their motives?"
What we know is based on what you've said. While I really don't trust a fucking thing you say, I don't think I'm sticking my neck out by trusting your description of your pervert friends as "LGBTQ++++". It's difficult to believe than any who do would live a life not consistent with the perverse and prohibited behaviors associated with such a self-identity. Or are you just presuming that those you defend are actually LGBTQ++++, when they really aren't? Which is it, pervert? Are they truly LGBTQ++++, or are you just saying they are, which is lying and slander against those you call friends? If they are indeed LGBTQ++++, how do you know that they are not indulging in the behaviors associated with LGBTQ++++ people? If they aren't, how can you confirm that? If they are, then how can you defend it? Scripture is crystal clear on the sinfulness of such sexual behavior. There is no "mistaken" possibilities that isn't factually perversions of Scripture. Your past attempts to rationalize defense of such people based on their behavior are freaking jokes and not at all supported by Scripture in any way. Thus, if you're defending friends who are LGBTQ++++, you are just as much in rebellion against God as they are...and you most certainly are, you fake "Christian".
"To hell with that arrogance."<
The only arrogance here is yours toward God and those like us to accurately present His Will as so clearly revealed in Scripture on this issue. Our eyes are wide open. We see the vile nature of your position and thus of your character. If you are truly a Christian who loves your LGBTQ++++ friends, you'd not enable them, but preach to them God's clearly revealed Will against their lifestyle choices. But you don't have the moral character to do the hard things.
"Fact check
1. As a point of fact in the real world, you don't know shit about what these folks are doing in their lives."
All one needs to know is that they identify as being among the LGBTQ++++ community. Even if they indulged in absolutely no perversion being a part of that community suggests, they are nonetheless promoting that agenda as if it is morally benign or acceptable. Thus, they might as well just indulge away, for they are perverse in their intentional identification.
"2. As a point of fact, in the real world, MY friends and allies in the LGBTQ world are deeply good people."
As a point of fact, YOUR friends and allies are perverts who perhaps do some good things. Those good things don't mitigate the fact that they are perverts who are in rebellion against God. Their good deeds don't make their perversions permissible or forgivable if intentionally, consciously and willfully indulged.
"Some of them, EVEN KNOWING of the abuse that people like you would pour on them, would be willing to talk with you and help you understand their lives and their innate, natural, God-given orientations."
If one is oriented toward beating the fuck out of homosexual enablers like Dan Trabue, why would you not respect their "innate, natural, God-given orientation"? Like LGBTQ++++ behavior, beating your ass is contrary to God's Will. But you only reject your ass being beaten and not the behaviors of the LGBTQ++++ perverts you defend. I reject both as contrary to God's Will and despite the enjoyment I might derive from seeing your ass kicked by someone so oriented, I would never pretend there's some Scriptural justification nor some way to read Scripture and pretend you ass kicking was aligned with God' Will.
"Some of them, EVEN KNOWING of the abuse that people like you would pour on them, would be willing to talk with you and help you understand their lives and their innate, natural, God-given orientations. Some of them speak with such compassion and grace about people like you that it's just God-like in the extreme. "Dan, forgive them, they don't know what they're doing," they tell me. This, in spite of knowing the very harmful things and actions people like you are throwing their way. That Grace truly is amazing. Christ-like, even."
My first impression about the above was to note the gall you have in pretending that overt, consciously willful sinners are somehow Godly in presuming to regard those like me of being in conflict with God's Will by preaching His truth, and that by doing so, we are somehow in need of their pleas for God's forgiveness. You see, you lying presumptuous sack of shit, we know exactly what we're doing and there is nothing untoward about preaching truth you perverts reject in order to defend your liberty of indulging your abominable compulsions. You stupidly and laughably believe your fantasies about your homo friends will somehow shame those like me? That's truly perverse. Talk about being given over by God to your corruption!! You could not confirm that reality more completely! Christ does not condemn those who warn the abominable about indulging their abominable behavior! What an incredibly desperate attempt to demean actual Christians! I'm embarrassed for you knowing you're not at all embarrassed of yourself for such a brazen attempt to make evil good and good evil.
"3. There's a difference in being sincerely mistaken and choosing to indulge in sinful compulsions."
Sure there is, if your pervert friends never took the time to open up and read a Bible! There's no mistaking their lifestyle choice is abomination. None whatsoever. And even lying enablers like you don't have anything better than laughable attempts to rationalize the lie of being "mistaken".
"For instance, YOU, Marshal, are choosing to indulge in graceless, harmful, oppressive compulsions to attack and demonize LGBTQ folks (and their allies)."
If not for your parenthetical, this would be a complete and intentional, conscious and willful lie. Again....preaching the truth isn't graceless, harmful or oppressive. Giving an asshole like you shit for being an overt liar and promoter of heresy might not be Christian, but at least my doing so is not lying. I've little patience for fake Christians like you and this world, particularly the American culture, is corrupted by the likes of your sorry ass.
"BUT, if you are mistaken (and clearly, observably, you are), then that means (by your measure) that YOU are a reprobate sinner, CHOOSING to rebel against God."
I'm not at all mistaken about the fact that your pervert friends are denied the Kingdom of God, and enablers like you ensure they will fail to inherit any piece of it.
"Do you understand that? Just answer that question, directly"
I just did by my immediately previous comment, but just to make sure there's no misunderstanding, I'm not in the least bit mistaken on the destination of your pervert friends if they don't repent of their pervert lifestyles, lean on God and live according to His Will with regard to with whom and when they indulge themselves sexually. YOU, on the other hand, are greasing the skids of their damnation by enabling them in their moral corruption.
"then doesn't that mean by YOUR measure, that YOU are a reprobate sinner, rebelling against God almighty, as well as being a pompous jackass and oppressor of innocent people?"
No. Not in the slightest. Rather, I've proven myself more concerned with the salvation of these egregious sinners than are you. There's nothing "pompous" or "oppressive" about preaching the truth to those who live their lives in rejection of it. Not a freakin' thing. Instead, for you to dare suggest I am is an indictment of your own moral corrupt character. You're a lost cause. I'm betting those you defend have a better chance of heaven than you do, because you're the lying asshole who pretends to be a Christian who "seriously and prayerfully" studies Scripture but insists their behavior is just dandy in the eyes of the One True God who regards that behavior as abomination. With friends like you, who needs Satan?
The LGBTQ++++ people are in no way "innocent", and you less so for pretending they are when they're in direct and obvious rebellion against God. And the only jackass here is you.
Craig said all manner of crazily false claims, like this one...
"His childlike assumption that "good" Christian people don't live "double lives" and that he can magically know everyone's thoughts and motivations."
I have not said (you can tell by reading my words and recognizing that I NEVER SAID IT) that I know everyone's thoughts and motivations.
What I HAVE said is that one can SEE when people are good (just like Jesus Christ MY Lord had said and as reason suggests) by their lives. By their fruit we can know them. Period. THAT is what Jesus said, but spit on Jesus if you want, and spit on reason if you want. I'm just noting what is reasonable.
But no, I've never said that it's not possible that some people are living false lives, only APPEARING to be good by their actions and lives (like your acquaintance).
What I've said is that WHEN people are obviously, overtly good people, I have no reason to assume that they are secretly evil. And certainly not the whole batch of my friends are secretly evil. Is it possible that one or two of them (or you and Marshal) are secretly raping puppies, mashing them up and eating them? It's possible for them or for you. BUT, I have no reason to make that guess and certainly no reason to assume that.
Are you not able to understand the key distinction?
Are you willing to gracelessly assume that people you don't know one single bit and who are overtly living compassionate, kind, giving, loving, grace-full lives are all secretly eating puppies and urinating on babies?
Because, if so, what in the name of all that is holy and gracious is wrong with you? WHY would you make such a graceless and irrational suggestion about people YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW?
Do you see how Christ-less that is? How very much like the Accuser and NOT God, that is? Do you see how graceless and irrational that is?
Lord, have mercy on your sad, petty, arrogant souls.
It's not a case of Dan's beloved living double lives. They're all out and proud, and therein lies the truth of their corruption. They're unashamed of their moral corruption and perversion and rather than being discreet about it, they demand the rest of us accept them as no less moral than the rest of us, and indeed, that their sick obsession with indulging their unequivocal perverse abomination isn't immoral at all or in any way! Dan abides and enables it, as a getaway drive aids and abets the bank robbers.
What a sick, vile, reprobate liar and enabler of evil Dan is. All one needs to know is that one is out and proud regarding one's homosexual character and lifestyle to know that such a person is outside God's Kingdom and has no claim to a piece of it. This pervert continues to reject the truth of his pervert friends' spiritual sickness and continues with the lie that any regard for such people must require that any regard ignore their out and proud perversions to focus only on some quantity of "good deeds" as if those good deeds overshadows their perversions which are beyond any doubt anathema to Christian teaching and God's Will for human sexuality.
Dan thinks I must know these perverts personally, as if knowing they're perverts isn't enough to know that they are not at all "good people" just because they perform some "good deeds" while living a life of abomination.
If I was to judge someone as being a homo without that someone never giving any indication of being one, clearly I would be in the wrong for daring to presume about that someone something for which there is no evidence. That is not in any way the case regarding those who AD-FUCKING-MIT to being homosexual or some other manifestation of LGBTQ+++. By their own words they admit they are evil. I'm only commenting on what they say of themselves, what Dan the pervert defends and what God has taught us is prohibited behavior worthy of death.
Warning out and proud sinners of the fact that they've rejected their chance at salvation is an act of love and concern. If I see someone driving headlong toward a bridge which is out, and I say nothing, I'm guilty of letting them needlessly die...that's as much as murdering them if a warning would save them. But Dan not only doesn't warn them about the only possibly outcome of their driving habits, but instead encourages them in their reckless ways, ensuring they'll drive off that bridge into the abyss below. Dan is indeed pushing them toward facing God's wrath and final judgement against them. What a sick fuck Dan is!
This non-Christian dares pretend we are akin to Satan and contrary to God's teachings to warn his beloved perverts they are headed toward spiritual and eternal disaster if they don't repent of their pervert ways. What kind of sick fuck says such things? Dan Trabue. THAT'S what kind.
Dan's been given over by God to his corruption. I can't see how that's not the case. But those he defends might still be saved if they reject the words of the pervert Dan and instead give themselves to the Lord.
Dan is so sick and twisted, he wants to pretend that those who might choose to assault or otherwise abuse the perverts Dan loves are encouraged by those like us who speak the truth of God's Will regarding human sexuality. That somehow, warning against the truth of what living a life contrary to God's clear and unmistakable teachings regarding human sexuality makes one like Satan, and unGodly, and "graceless and irrational". This is how perverted Dan is. He's more perverted than the perverts he defends and without question more perverted than the great president he has falsely labeled the "pervert prince". Dan is the Pervert Queen and there are few worse than he. If feel sorry for the perverts in Dan's orbit for by Dan's own words, one would be justified in believing all of Jeff St. enables those perverts as well.
Should God have mercy on Dan's pathetic, perv loving soul is up to God. For the rest of us, the safe money is on Dan being on the outside looking in.
Dan, it's always pleasant when you make my points. That you believe that what you can "see" is all that matters when applying your subjective hunches about who is "good" does a great job of making my point. As I mentioned, I've seen enough people that I know well who you'd classify as "good" who've fallen into significant sin.
For example, a well respected pastor I knew, who was very influential on the spiritual growth of lots of people, ended up having an extended sexual affair with his secretary after his wife developed a fatal illness. Another pastor I knew well was arrested for soliciting sex in public, despite being married with young children at home. Both would have been classified as "good" by folx like you based on what you can "see". Unfortunately for you, people are so much deeper and more complex that what you can "see" on the surface.
For someone who bases so much of his philosophy on a quote from "the Accuser" ("Did God really say..."), it's hilarious to hear you complaining that my pointing out the reality that people are deeper and more complex that your surface level, shallow, observation of what you can "see" is somehow from "the Accuser".
Again, when all you have to to complain of lies (that aren't lies) and support your claims with actual lies, you've completely surrendered any credibility.
Let's put it one more way:
There's two people, one is straight and one is a lesbian.
The lesbian is a loving grandmother, a Sunday School teacher, a retired librarian who volunteers with students with disabilities.
The straight guy is the president of the US.
The lesbian has poured out her life in love to her dear partner and her children (who they adopted). She has been faithful to her wife and to her family, scraping by and making ends meet to make sure the kids had the things they needed.
The president was born into a wealthy family and inherited his wealth. He has gladly, loudly cheated on the many women he's dated and the many women he's married. He's used his wealth to get more wealth. He DID create a charity, but it was mainly for his benefit as a tax write off and to cheat off. He DID create a "university," but it wasn't a real university and it cheated the students at that school. He's also used his wealth to sue people over and over and over, to use the court system to avoid being held accountable for crimes and misdemeanors. He's refused to pay at least some of his workers what he owed them.
The lesbian has used her free time at her church, and in creating art and doing church and art projects with friends and strangers alike, doing her part to build and strengthen a beloved community, a people who are kind and welcoming to all, who are generally gracious and forgiving.
The president has few real friends. He's almost certainly a malignant narcissist or has sociopathic or other maladaptive tendencies. But he hasn't used his great wealth to get better and learn to be better. Instead, he burns through "friends," who have almost all been sycophantic clingers on who hope to benefit from proximity to hedonistic power and wealth. He hasn't developed any real friend community, but he's paid people (most of the time) to build palaces for him and dedicate those palaces to his name. He lines these palaces with gaudy, golden toilets and cancerously hyper-consumptive opulence. He places his own face and his own name on coins, on walls, on buildings and then he profiteers off of people buying into these self-promoting cons.
The lesbian has opened her home to immigrants needing a safe place while they get settled and to former inmates who've gotten out of prison and are seeking to start over. She, of course, has never been convicted of any crimes because she's too busy just living a basically good life, along with her wife and her family and beloved community.
The president was convicted of many crimes including cheating and paying off a porn star to keep her silent as he ran for the presidency (not that his followers cared about that). He was found guilty of cheating students and workers. He was found liable for sexual assault (and accused over 20 times of sexual assault of one sort or the other). In fact, he boasted about sexual assault and how he can get away with it because he's rich and powerful, laughing about it! Same for his sexually predatory behavior towards teenaged girls.
And of course, I could go on and on about the overt decency of the lesbian and the overt hedonism, greed and corruption of the actual pervert. The president has been accused of many more crimes and corruption while there is no hint of impropriety on the grandmother's part.
Now, I GET that you'll defend the Felon until ... well, we don't know when. But forget your own partisan allegiances that blind you.
What I'm asking is, GIVEN these two people, do you think that most of them would consider the lesbian the clearly good human being and the greedy, powerful, abusive president the clearly bad human being?
If you don't, you might want to ask what's wrong with you that you can't distinguish between obviously good and obviously depraved people?
...and, before you say... "but, but, but... you're only noting the many numerous and consistent good things about your lesbian example and only the bad things about the president!"
...that's the point. An objective honest look at the life and actions of my example grandmother is that precisely there ARE no obviously "bad things at any great scale to note about her life. Yes, she DID marry a woman and presumably, they engaged in faithful, loving home life and all that might entail, and, Yes, there are some extremist conservative religionists who personally object to that because their human traditions don't personally consider that "good" behavior.
But that's the point... that SOME human religious traditions object to same sex marriages, or object to women having jobs outside the home, or object to black and white people marrying... that is ONLY true for those who hold to those human traditions. There is NOTHING innately or obviously observably immoral in marriage arrangements, EVEN IF your personal traditions say they think it's wrong in their small minds.
But in the greedy, hedonistic, perverse, lying abusive president's case, he has a whole lifetime of overtly bad behavior... evil behavior that harms others and is visible to all but the delusionally partisan "true believers."
An objective rationally moral look at the lives of the these two examples WILL find the kindly gracious grandmother to be saintly and the overtly hedonistic president to be a literal asswipe of a human being.
In these two examples, WHO would you want your child to emulate? For morally rational people, there is only one answer.
Dan
We have no idea if your dyke even exists, much less any way to affirm anything you say about her. Indeed, there's absolutely no doubt in my mind, nor any logical reason to believe (based on your history of lying like a muslim to advance your agenda) that you've provided an accurate accounting of this alleged person's life. Only YOUR version of it.
Conversely, we know much about Trump and you only present that which is mostly a version fancied by Trump haters. You misrepresent most of it because you're a hateful pervert who needs Trump to be evil incarnate so as to deflect from the evil YOU and your kind represent.
Yet, Trump's done much to improve the lives of far more people than all you Jeff St fakes have done. And without again correcting your perversions of his public record, what's most accurate is there is no behavior which is not regarded good or evil by the positions of "human tradition". That phrase you like to use, as if it has any tangible value of any kind..."human tradition"...will cover evil of all kinds, including what evil Trump has or might have committed in his life. But YOU insist we must regard Trump with the degree of hatred YOU demand, while deflecting from all the legitimate evil you perpetrate by your voting choices and your opinions expressed in these here blogs.
But let's get back to the point: nothing your granny does covers for her willful rebellion against God. It's not a "human tradition" that homosexuality is abomination. It's the Word of God upon which any "human tradition" of devoted actual Christians is based. It's not how many denominations or congregations live by God's Word regarding the reality of homosexuality's detestable quality. It remains detestable even if every religious institution becomes as morally bankrupt as Jeff St and you.
Indeed, while you describe the lesbo as a "kindly gracious grandmother" and "saintly", she remains a lesbian who will not inherit the Kingdom of God. You're clearly good with that, making you an asshole who rejects God as well.
You're not at all "morally rational". You're morally bankrupt who only pretends to be a Christian. I would not want my child to indulge in any sinful behavior, and I certainly wouldn't teach any child that a lesbian is a good person because she also does good deeds. I taught my kids what are good behaviors and which are not. Your pervert old lady is in direct rebellion against the clearly revealed Will of God, and unlike Trump and his own unChristian behaviors, she...with the help of lying enablers like you...promote her sin as morally benign, if not morally acceptable.
And one more thing: you dare attack the character of those in Trump's orbit simply for being there. Yet your clearly of low character defending this woman instead of showing true love and concern by encouraging her to repent of her lesbian ways. I'll take Trump and his friends and acquaintances to the likes of you any day.
Once again, Craig...I would insist that the "double life" angle isn't a necessary concern given the LGBTQ++++ people are out and proud. They're not living double lives like your fallen pastors. They all but boast of their perversions. Thus, it's crystal clear that Dan's beloved will not inherit the Kingdom of God due to their embrace of that which God has said is detestable.
Marshal...
I'll take Trump and his friends and acquaintances to the likes of you any day.
Those who lay with the pigs will get shit on them.
Marshal:
Yet your clearly of low character defending this woman instead of showing true love and concern by encouraging her to repent of her lesbian ways.
You still just don't get it. You and the other religionist extremists who follow graceless, deadly rule-following ways (you, extremists Muslims, extremist Mormons, etc) are arbitrarily selecting a rule that YOU ALL think according to what YOUR human traditions (again, whether it's extremist Muslim, Mormon or "christian") that, IN YOUR HUMAN OPINIONS, these sets of behaviors/ways are wrong: You think being gay is morally wrong, being lesbian is morally wrong (at least when it comes to marrying and living a married lifestyle) and that being transgender is morally wrong. You all think, in YOUR human tradition, that "god" as YOU understand "god," is opposed to these realities. But it's an arbitrary ruling. There are, of course, some other religious extremists who would say playing electric guitar or rock music is likewise, morally wrong, and "of the devil," or "contrary to 'god,' 'allah' or zeus. By THEIR arbitrary rule, Marshal, YOU are sinning and evil because YOU play the rock n' roll.
But it's an arbitrary human rule from an arbitrary human tradition. There is no morally rational basis to make that claim, it's just something that the believers in THOSE human traditions believe in their human heads. Likely, you would shrug them off and say, "who cares what your religious tradition think? There's nothing innately wrong with playing the rock 'n roll."
Am I right?
Likewise for your arbitrary rule from your human tradition, WHO SAYS it's a rule? Just because YOUR human tradition doesn't care for it doesn't make it so. There is nothing inherently wrong with two grandmothers living in a married household together. They're being faithful, true to each other, caring, compassionate, loving... There is NOTHING in the behavior itself that is morally wrong. It doesn't matter HOW many humans from HOW MANY different human religious traditions disagree with it, we are not obliged to bow to your human traditions.
Don't you see the problem you have? We do not AGREE with your little petty, graceless human opinion, nor the opinions of other religionists who agree with you. We are bound to live good, decent, reasonable Godly lives as WE understand it, EVEN IF some humans disagree because their tradition is different than ours.
To hell with your human religious tradition. It is meaningless to me and those like me.
Don't you see?
Craig irrationally said:
For someone who bases so much of his philosophy on a quote from "the Accuser" ("Did God really say..."), it's hilarious to hear you complaining that my pointing out the reality that people are deeper and more complex that your surface level, shallow, observation of what you can "see" is somehow from "the Accuser".
Let's just close the door on this inane, banal "Did God realllllllllly say" BS. That is a reasonable question that we morally rational adults SHOULD be asking. We SHOULD be teaching our children to ask that question.
If someone says, "Black and white people shouldn't marry! God is opposed to it!" The extremely morally rational question to ask is, "Did God REALLY say that or is that your bigoted, graceless bullshit?"
Hell, y'all do it all the time with me. When I say that OF COURSE, a loving, gracious God is going to celebrate gay folks getting married into a healthy loving marriage arrangement, YOU do not take me at my word. You ask "But does GOD say that?!!" and then go even further and say, "God does NOT say that!!"
But that's the question, isn't it? IF you are a morally reasoning adult dealing with people who are promoting ideas that seem, on the face of it, godless, graceless and even EVIL and they're blaming "god" for that position, we MUST ask that question.
So, just stop with that. Admit that it's a reasonable and necessary question and move on. Don't be obtuse.
As to the rest of your comment:
t's hilarious to hear you complaining that my pointing out the reality that people are deeper and more complex that your surface level, shallow, observation of what you can "see" is somehow from "the Accuser".
You continue to miss the point. I don't know how to help you. IS IT POSSIBLE that any one apparently pious person is living a secret life of abusing puppies and eating children's brains? Yes, of course, it's possible. Conservative christians in authority prove that point all the time.
That is NOT the question. Be an adult.
The question is: GIVEN a person - and indeed, a whole group of people - whose lives, ON THE FACE OF IT appear to be lives of love, kindness and service, do we have any reason to suspect any one of them - much less the WHOLE group - of actually leading secret puppy-eating lives?
No. Only a graceless and diabolical follower of the Accuser would go down that legalistic, graceless, loveless path.
Again, let's deal with real world examples: I know dozens if not hundreds of LGBTQ folks who are on the face of it living giving, loving lives. They are helpers and gracious community builders. No doubt (hopefully) YOU can say the same.
Given those dozens of people you know who, on the face of it, are living decent, good, giving lives, do you have ANY rational reason to say, "But.... PROBABLY, they are eating puppies and beating babies when they're home alone!!" Do you not see how innately crazy that is? How very graceless and unloving?
You see, I think this is ONE of the many problems of the human theory of the "total depravity of humans..." It leads to legalistic, graceless lives devoted more to the Accuser than the Defender. Hell, maybe you truly DO suspect most of your friends of being secretly as deviant as the actually depraved president you keep voting for.
But what a sad life that would be.
Do I believe in Hell? I believe that those who embrace that level of gracelessness ARE living in and creating their own paranoid spiteful arrogant hells.
Marshal gracelessly, godlessly said...
We have no idea if your dyke even exists, much less any way to affirm anything you say about her. Indeed, there's absolutely no doubt in my mind, nor any logical reason to believe (based on your history of lying like a muslim to advance your agenda) that you've provided an accurate accounting of this alleged person's life.
See there's another thing. IF you actually knew LGBTQ folks, you would know that, of course, there are all kinds of deeply good, kind, caring, helpful, gracious LGBTQ folk in the world. People who pour their lives out in service to others, following in the steps and teachings of Jesus. Because OF COURSE, there are.
As with Craig, your personal human belief in your personal set of human traditions of graceless, loveless religionists has produced in your heart a paranoid hellscape vision of a world populated by the worst possible people. We are all totally corrupt and evil, entirely devoid of God, the humans in your religionist tradition have told you, and you believe them, in spite of the evidence all around you.
Embrace grace, sad man. For your sake if for nothing else.
"Those who lay with the pigs will get shit on them."
Upon reading this example of Jeff St grace embracing, the first thing which leapt to mind was, "Wow! Dan's wife must be constantly caked with shit!"
"You still just don't get it."
Sure I do. Perverts like you will concoct any dumbass argument you think will pervert me to your perverted way of thinking about your favored perversions.
"You and the other religionist extremists who follow graceless, deadly rule-following ways..."
It's really strange to hear you prattle on about "religious extremists" as if being as extreme a Christian devoted to Christ is somehow..."unChristian". But Christ encourages us to obey His/God's commandments. Nowhere does are we allowed to pick and choose which we like and follow only those.
"... are arbitrarily selecting a rule that YOU ALL think according to what YOUR human traditions..."
I strive to be extreme in my obedience to all of God's commandments...not to whatever the hell you wish to regard as "human traditions". Put another way, my "human traditions" are God's Will as so clearly and unambiguously revealed to us in the Scripture you pretend to revere.
"...that, IN YOUR HUMAN OPINIONS, these sets of behaviors/ways are wrong..."
Not an opinion. A statement of fact supported by an honest reading of Scripture. Again, there's no ambiguity about it. Homosexuality is abomination. There's nothing in Scripture which provides so much as a hint regarding any scenario or context in which one could indulge in homosexual behavior and not have indulged in abomination.
"You think being gay is morally wrong, being lesbian is morally wrong and that being transgender is morally wrong."
I think no such thing. I think being "gay" or lesbian or "transgender" (there is no such thing) is just another evil compulsion one isn't unable to overcome or with which one is unable to learn how to cope if one cares about living a life pleasing to God. To indulge in the behaviors common to homosexuals or cross dressers is beyond any doubt immoral. There's no question about it. One can tell by the "Thou shalt not..." which precedes the commandment of God on the issue. It's a total give-away.
"You all think, in YOUR human tradition, that "god" as YOU understand "god," is opposed to these realities. But it's an arbitrary ruling."
I don't waste time trying to understand "god". I fully understand God on this issue. What's more, I fully understand your position on the issue is an intentional middle finger to God. I'm sure He's got a great response to your rebellion coming your way.
"There are, of course, some other religious extremists who would say playing electric guitar or rock music is likewise, morally wrong, and "of the devil," or "contrary to 'god,' 'allah' or zeus."
You mean, there are others like you who believe that for which they have no Scriptural support whatsoever. I don't care about such people and can defend myself just as well as I do against your heresies.
"Am I right?"
Not at all. First, because you once again stupidly tried to compose an analogy which isn't stupid and a failure in its purpose, and secondly, because what I've been saying is totally aligned with Christian teaching. There's nothing "arbitrary" about it, there's no mystery about it, there's no loophole which allows anyone to indulge in the prohibited abominations. Nothing. At all. Anywhere in Scripture.
"Likewise for your arbitrary rule from your human tradition, WHO SAYS it's a rule?"
It's not an "arbitrary rule" but a commandment of God from His own Will. HE says it's a rule. A firm, unequivocal prohibition against indulging in an abomination. Even the kindest, sweetest, most giving grannies on earth are prohibited from indulging in homosexual behavior.
"There is nothing inherently wrong with two grandmothers living in a married household together."
There absolutely is.
"They're being faithful, true to each other, caring, compassionate, loving... "
That doesn't make abomination less detestable.
"There is NOTHING in the behavior itself that is morally wrong."
There absolutely is. It's totally immoral. NO question about it.
" It doesn't matter HOW many humans from HOW MANY different human religious traditions disagree with it, we are not obliged to bow to your human traditions."
There could be no one who disagrees with it. But it's not a "human tradition" with which you must contend. It's the Will of God that no one should indulge in homosexual behavior. And you're most certainly obliged to obey His commandments.
"Don't you see the problem you have?"
Yes, I do. I have a dumbass named "Dan Trabue" submitting comments trying to make his shit smell sweet.
"We do not AGREE with your little petty, graceless human opinion..."
I haven't offered any opinion. I've stated the clear and unmistakable Will of God.
"We are bound to live good, decent, reasonable Godly lives as WE understand it..."
And there's the lie again. It's not a matter of understanding. It's a matter of you rejecting those commandments of God you don't wish to obey...that you find inconvenient or personally displeasing, once again subordinating God's Will to your petty perverted desires.
"To hell with your human religious tradition. It is meaningless to me and those like me."
Which is Dan's way of saying, "God can go scratch! I'm doing things MY way!".
I see that very clearly. Good luck with that. You're gonna need it!
"Let's just close the door on this inane, banal "Did God realllllllllly say" BS. That is a reasonable question that we morally rational adults SHOULD be asking."
But you're not morally rational or reasonable. You're a defender of blatant perversion. That is, you're immoral as hell.
"When I say that OF COURSE, a loving, gracious God is going to celebrate gay folks getting married into a healthy loving marriage arrangement, YOU do not take me at my word. You ask "But does GOD say that?!!" and then go even further and say, "God does NOT say that!!""
We go much further than merely saying that. We supply chapter and verse where God commands "Thou shalt not lie with a man as one lies with a woman. That is detestable." and insists you explain how He would celebrate two who indulge in that detestable behavior "marrying", when no where in Scripture is there any hint of marriage being defined as anything other than a man/woman proposition and instituted by Him in that way. Only those who willingly pervert Scripture suggest God would bless such unions based on behaviors He called detestable.
There's nothing godless, graceless or evil presenting God's Will as revealed to us so clearly in Scripture. That's what preaching the Word looks like. That's what evangelizing looks like. It's not lying to allow one to do what is unequivocally prohibited and pretending those who call you out are like muslims. No. Only a graceless, God-hating pervert would say preaching God's Will is graceless.
"I know dozens if not hundreds of LGBTQ folks who are on the face of it living giving, loving lives."
But they're out and proud homosexuals, and that's a serious problem for them. There's a special place in hell for those like you who enable others in their sin.
There's nothing more or less "graceless" or "godless" in my references to your people who are perverts by definition than there is in your constant hateful attacks on Donald Trump, which are far more graceless, godless hateful. I don't hate perverts. I simply don't lie about the eternal problems they face for their subordinating Gods Will to their abominable compulsions and preferences.
And this willful attempt to enhance the immorality of Trump's past sexual behavior, while at the same time redefining sexual morality for the benefit of your perverts was well addressed in a recent episode of the Liz Wheeler show, wherein she clarifies the difference well, by distinguishing between his behaviors and that of Glenn Greenwald. This is in reference to a sex tape of Greenwald indulging depraved sex:
"Now, when it comes to comparing himself to Donald Trump, I want to say one thing: a lot of Christians, especially back in 2016 before Trump was elected president for the first time, did spend a lot of time in prayer discerning whether Donald Trump's past personal life, his past promiscuity was disqualifying. Why wasn't it? How was it different than the gay Glenn Greenwald sex tape? Well, for a couple of reasons: Donald Trump's sexual immorality was in his past. He seems to have stabilized his behavior now. Contrast that with Glenn Greenwald's sexual deviance seems to be current, if that video's recent and we've been given no other indication that it's anything other than recent. Donald Trump's promiscuity, additionally, was wrong because of the context. Sex outside the context of marriage is immoral, but the sex act itself is not disordered. In fact, it's good and holy when it's in the proper context. Again, contrast that with the content of this video tape from Glenn Greenwald. There is no context in which homosexual crossdressing, humiliating fetishes...dressed as a maid with a prostitute is morally licit. It's the act itself Glenn Greenwald is engaging in that's disordered fundamentally. So no, Glenn Greenwald sex videos are not comparable to Donald Trump past promiscuity."
She goes on to speak of not having personal animosity toward Greenwald, and that she speaks in love in reminding him (and all homosexuals) about God creating them with a purpose which is not at all the indulgence of homosexual compulsion.
I've said similar many times in response to your perverse attacks on Donald Trump while you indulge in perverse hyperbole about the exaggerated sainthood of those who by definition are sexual deviants. Wheeler also mirrors the fact that God has provided absolutely no moral context or scenario in which homosexuals can indulge their lusts. God provides no indication of any kind in which any mention of marriage in Scripture suggests any other arrangement than the proper one man/one woman arrangement, and thus, there is no moral expression of homosexual lusts and compulsions possible.
And here's another thing: I DO know and HAVE known "LGBTQ++++ folks" and as with your lesbo grannies, no good deeds they do lessen the sinfulness and rebellious status of their sex lives...assuming you're referring to LGBTQ++++ folks who partner with others like themselves. A homosexual married to a woman is fine. A lesbian married to a woman is fine. A man compelled to wear women's clothing or to be a woman but lives a man's life is fine.
"As with Craig, your personal human belief in your personal set of human traditions..."
Here you consciously lie yet again. We do not have a "personal belief" that isn't a belief in the One True God as revealed to us in Scripture. We acknowledge and seek to abide His clear and unambiguous Will as clearly revealed to us in Scripture. Thus none of it is opinion, nor can it be "graceless" or "loveless" to preach His Holy Word as accurately as we have on this subject. It hasn't produced anything which doesn't align with Scripture, and you pervert Scripture to serve your perversions to the greatest extent possible, while pretending to revere and worship that One True God.
You've been given over by God to your corruption. It's impossible to conclude otherwise as you crap on His Will in order to assert those in rebellion are Godly people. They are not. You enable them. That makes you worse, especially given your constant insistence you have seriously and prayerfully studied Scripture.
Take your condescension to your Blog of Lies and Perversions and leave it there. It has no effect here except to provoke laughter.
Art, my double life thing isn't necessarily about the ABC folx specifically. It's more a commentary on Dan's insistence that he has this magical ability to mmake 100% accurate judgements on people being "good" based solely on what he can "see" of their outward behavior. He's with someone for 10% of their life, and he's prepared to make definitive claims about 100% of their lives. How many times do we see people talk about vile humans and tell us how "good" they were (George Floyd anyone).
Dan is predisposed to make assumptions about his small sample size of his pet ABC folx. He really doesn't know that much about them, as he's admitted it's just what he can "see", but he's determined to define people as 100% "good" based on his limited observation of a small portion of their lives. The reality is that he needs them to be "good" because if they're otherwise, his entire paradigm crumbles.
Statistically, it's likely that one of his ABC folx is engaging in some level of abusive or promiscuous behavior, although I suspect that Dan wouldn't notice it if it existed.
That's a separate but not unrelated point.
Dan focuses solely on that which he is able to "see", and ignores the possibility that anything else could possibly be a factor in one being "good". As long as they behave in a way that Dan defines as "good" they must be "good".
Let's put in this way.
What if there is more to both of these people than the simple surface level things that you can observe?
What if the lesbian abuses or mistreats her partner behind closed doors or what if she regularly cheats on her partner? What is she cheats on her taxes, or any one of the myriad of things that people don't tend to do where others can see?
What if the rich guy gives away millions regularly to the poor and needy, but does so in the manner suggested in the Bible and doesn't make a public spectacle about their generosity?
This is the problem with your hypotheticals, they''re constructed in such a way as to attempt to force the conclusion that you want drawn.
"..that's the point. An objective honest look"
An "objective honest look" at someone's life doesn't cherry pick only those behaviors that you subjectively label as "good", nor does it ignore that there is much more there than the little bit that you can "see".
"at the life and actions of my example grandmother is that precisely there ARE no obviously "bad things at any great scale to note about her life."
It's fascinating that you put such absurd qualifiers on things like this. Because as long as there aren't any "obviously bad things" then she's obviously "good". How freaking ridiculous is that. That you simply assume things with no evidence, is the flaw in your hunch.
" Yes, she DID marry a woman and presumably, they engaged in faithful, loving home life and all that might entail,"
You acknowledge that you are making a presumption (based on your subjective criteria of "good" and you biases) about her behavior with absolutely no actual evidence and then simply act as if your presumption must be accepted as fact instead of the fiction that it is.
The problem with your comparison is that you've set up a false equivalence and act as if it's perfectly acceptable to do so. You act as if those who've "supported" Trump in his political endeavors have done so without criticizing his failings and that support of one flawed, imperfect politician over another is somehow an endorsement of everything that politician has ever done. I get that you want to define "reality" while not actually acknowledging reality, but you simply don't have that power.
Wow, Dan's enthusiastic embrace of Satan's question is impressive.
"Hell, y'all do it all the time with me. When I say that OF COURSE, a loving, gracious God is going to celebrate gay folks getting married into a healthy loving marriage arrangement, YOU do not take me at my word. You ask "But does GOD say that?!!" "
No, that's not what we ask. We ask, where does YHWH say that. I've asked for ONE citation from ANY source (scripture, Jewish scripture/written teachings/early Church writings) that backs up your claim. ONE! Yet you haven't provided even one. You've acknowledged, in fact, that your hunch is not found anywhere in scripture (or any of the rest). Yet you continue to insist that you speak for YHWH on this matter. IF you could provide anything at all to support your hunch, I'd consider it. But you can't/won't.
"and then go even further and say, "God does NOT say that!!""
Well, given your inability to prove your claim with even the tiniest bit of direct, specific, evidence, I see no reason (given your track record) to simply accept your made up hunches.
Of course YHWH did talk about lying being bad, but that doesn't stop you from doing that.
It's absolutely hilarious that in one comment Dan insists that multiple questions are "THE" (singular) question with absolutely no idea of how stupid he sounds.
Dan calling anyone "graceless" is (on it's face the height of hypocrisy), for him to do so while spewing lies actually makes it worse.
Because Dan claims to "know" "dozens if not hundreds" of ABC folx, based on his limited, surface level, observations he's prepared to make broad sweeping claims about all sorts of things as if his small sample size (and selection bias) is some sort of definitive proof.
The notion that what Dan "think"s about something carries any weight or has any value reinforces my conclusions about his arrogance, pride, and hubris.
I know it's hard for you to understand, but my acknowledgement that "all have sinned" actually means "all" includes myself. Unlike you, I'm not obsessed with defining myself and those I agree with as 100% "good", and with smearing those I don't agree with as "evil" or "graceless" or whatever.
We get it, you don't believe in Hell in the sense of any after death consequences for anything.
"gracelessly, godlessly"
This refrain, is simply an excellent exmple of someone who claims to be "good" actually exhibiting the behavior that he bitches about in others. The inability to acknowledge that the fact that he can type words on a blog doesn't automatically mean that those words are an accurate representation of Truth or reality, is simply his hubris/pride/arrogance shining through. The notion that his words must be blindly accepted, while he demands unrealistic levels of "proof" from others is the behavior of one who lacks even a basic level of grace and humility.
"your personal human belief in your personal set of human traditions"
Yet Dan's "personal human beliefs" in his (subjective, made up, fanciful) "set of human traditions" must be accepted as "reality" without being proven or even questioned.
The continued lies and misrepresentations are in and of themselves "graceless and godless", although expected.
Further, if there is more to people than can simply be observed on the surface, then isn't it foolish to make judgements about them based on superficial and incomplete information?
Dan's likely response...as he's offered it often in response to comments like yours...would something along the lines of: "But that's just it! I admit that my "personal human belief/human tradition/whatever"! I just don't demand others must agree and I don't impose it on anyone!"
But that's crap, because, at least in my case, I'm not speaking of opinions or beliefs or traditions. I'm speaking of abject fact, which is that there is no Scriptural support for a pro-homosexual position or a pro-SSM position. The behavior is prohibited and all references to "marriage" in Scripture are one man/one woman unions. Period. End of story. Thus, Dan and those he defends are in direct rebellion against God...at least where this issue is concerned. (I won't waste time on all the variations on the theme and will simply refer to it all as "homosexual", "homo" or any other word or slur I choose to use which means the same thing...the actual word being just as much a slur to honest, God-fearing people.)
And lies are all such people have to defend the indefensible. Dan's more than good with lying for that purpose.
Dan will always seek to contrast his defense of lesbo perverts with my defense of Trump as president. See the problem there? It's a categorical error. I don't speak of the lesbos' shortcomings in whatever non-lesbo related activity in which they might indulge themselves...such as whatever their jobs were in their lives. I speak of their sexual deviancy and immorality, much the same way I reject any past episodes of sexual immorality by Trump. Thus, as I had said, I've been no more or less graceless and godless than Dan (actually...I'm always less godless than Dan, for he is in rebellion against God).
"The lesbian is a loving grandmother, a Sunday School teacher, a retired librarian who volunteers with students with disabilities."
But she's a lesbian and as such is in rebellion against God.
"The lesbian has poured out her life in love to her dear partner and her children (who they adopted). She has been faithful to her wife and to her family, scraping by and making ends meet to make sure the kids had the things they needed."
And she's a lesbian, who embraces a deviant lifestyle with another lesbian.
"The lesbian has used her free time at her church, and in creating art and doing church and art projects with friends and strangers alike, doing her part to build and strengthen a beloved community, a people who are kind and welcoming to all, who are generally gracious and forgiving."
And ostensibly promotes the heresy that her lesbianism is morally acceptable behavior, thereby corrupting those in her community who might buy into that lie.
"The lesbian has opened her home to immigrants needing a safe place while they get settled and to former inmates who've gotten out of prison and are seeking to start over. She, of course, has never been convicted of any crimes because she's too busy just living a basically good life, along with her wife and her family and beloved community."
She lives a life of debauchery and abomination by being out and proud about her lesbianism. Her "good works" don't mitigate that fact, and they certainly don't make her lesbianism acceptable in the eyes of God or any actual Christian.
"The president has been accused of many more crimes and corruption while there is no hint of impropriety on the grandmother's part."
Except that they're lesbians and as such are in rebellion against God, promoting their lifestyle as a moral "good", when in fact it is abomination.
"What I'm asking is, GIVEN these two people, do you think that most of them would consider the lesbian the clearly good human being and the greedy, powerful, abusive president the clearly bad human being?"
Only if we're forced to accept your description of these people as absolute and perfectly accurate realities, which no one who knows your sorry ass would ever do...unless they're reprobates like you are.
The lie here is that the quantities of one's good works mitigates the reality of a direct and obvious disregard for God's Will on a given behavior. Such a person is still in rebellion against God, unrepentant and not worthy of God's Kingdom and thus unlikely to inherit any piece of it. A true Christian would seek to persuade his beloved dykes to forsake their lifestyles and live according to the Will of God, instead of subordinating His Will to their willful and consciously indulgence of their sinful desires and compulsions. Unfortunately for those lesbo grannies, they have you and Jeff St ignoring the danger in which they've put themselves and instead enabling them to their own eternal demise.
Yeah, his default is to hide behind "It's my opinion.", while demanding that his hunch be treated as objective fact. He's good at that. He insists that "God blesses gay marriage.", while acknowledging that he has zero scriptural support for that hunch, and that it's his "opinion", yet simultaneously acting as if it's absolutely True.
The problem with his response is that he's conflating the quoting of scripture, with speaking for YHWH. I'd say that we're allowing YHWH to speak for Himself and that we're simply reading the text, looking at the context, and applying the most common sense interpretation of the plain meaning of the text.
First, the problem is that he's (at least partially) invented the backstory of these saintly lesbians. They may or may not exist, and it's likely that there is much about them that Dan is unaware of as he's intent on beatifying them.
In both cases, Trump and the lesbians (sounds like a porn movie), Dan cherry picks parts of their lives to craft a narrative that buttresses his preconceived notions, prejudices, and biases. To take that further, he's pretending like supporting either parties good aspects, is to support everything they've ever done. It's possible, and normal, to be able to support the good things someone does while not supporting the less good things.
Dan needs to create a fantasy world where political support of Trump is automatically support for everything Thrum has ever done throughout his life, while simultaneously holding himself to a completely different standard when it comes to his political candidates.
As far as your addendum goes, I think it comes down to some degree of common sense on the LGB issue.
It seems ridiculous to deny that LGB folx were discriminated against in areas like housing, and that it's wrong to discriminate in those areas.
It seems ridiculous to criminalize certain sexual behaviors for the LGB only. Especially in the culture we live in.
It seems ridiculous not to have a legal mechanism that would allow a "partner" to make legal/medical decisions for their partner. While I would agree that "marriage" isn't the appropriate mechanism, I would also agree that non heterosexual unmarried people should have the ability to have those legal powers in certain situations.
The question becomes, how far is too far. Clearly the "T" craziness is too far, but where is the line between denying people fundamental rights based on who they have sex with, and going all in on the "gay agenda"?
It's curious that Trump is pretty Teflon on this issue. He's incredibly LGB friendly and supportive for a "conservative", yet he doesn't take nearly the flak for it that you'd think he would.
That's a great way to put it..."allowing YHWH to speak for Himself". That's pretty much my mindset when quoting Scripture or paraphrasing Scripture. As to the latter, it's up to Dan to provide an intelligent argument my paraphrasing is in error somehow, or out of context. On this issue, there's really only one common sense interpretation, and it ain't what Dan tries to insist. There's no common sense involved in that.
You'd think that would be the case, but somehow he never seems to actually do that. He's quick to demand that we accept what he says scripture absolutely does not mean, even when it contradicts the plan text, but I can't recall him even making a positive case for what anything actually does mean.
Dan uses the alleged good deeds of the lesbians in order to downplay the factual evil of their lifestyles. He then, without legitimate basis or support, suggests that their fake marriage...their alleged lifelong commitment to each other...also mitigates their abomination. He's clearly asserting that lesbian behavior isn't immoral at all, which is clearly a rejection of God's Will on the issue.
In the meantime, he overstates the sinfulness of Trump's past indiscretions in order to demonize him as much as possible. However, Trump's sins have nothing to do with a post about a specific sin: homosexual behavior. I don't need to discuss Trump's adultery in a post about homosexuality. It's irrelevant.
"Coming to a theater near you: TRUMP AND THE LESBIANS!" Starring Alec Baldwin as Donald Trump (no lesbians were shot in the making of this film).
Yes indeed, the lesbians do good deeds so how can lesbianism be bad? That makes no sense. It's also one of Dan's one-way street, double standard inconsistencies.
"It seems ridiculous to deny that LGB folx were discriminated against in areas like housing, and that it's wrong to discriminate in those areas."
I disagree, but I've disagreed with the general concept of discrimination and how it's been weaponized. In this case, discriminating against bad behavior is is good discrimination. As a landlord, I can at least insist that two of the same gender are denied the rental of a one-bedroom unit.
I don't think it's at all ridiculous to outlaw homosexual behavior, though I don't think that's necessary since the culture has decayed to the extent it has, due to having legally normalized this immoral behavior. But this issue argues for more involvement in the culture and politics by people of moral character. What makes outlawing the behavior ridiculous is the fact that we've allowed it to be normalized and legitimized. We see the same thing with illegal immigration, as granting amnesty in the past has compelled many to believe that the longer an illegal is here, the more right the illegal has to remain.
Yes. To have the ability to obtain some of the considerations granted to married couples would have eliminated arguments the homosexuals falsely used to push for legal recognition of their perverse unions. Marriage, assuming it's true definition, is a proper mechanism as it flows from the principle that a man and woman joined in matrimony...particularly after consummation...are "one flesh".
"Too far", I would argue, is anything outside of the true definition of marriage. But most whining about "fundamental rights" are impositions on the fundamental rights to run one's own business by one's own criteria, to associate only with those with whom one chooses and the right to live by the tenets of one's religion. Arguing fundamental rights based on the sexual behavior of perverts is going "too far".
Trump is indeed "gay friendly" in some aspects, but opposes men in women's sports and deferring to Pete Hegseth with regard to recruitment in our armed forces. I haven't heard Hegseth speak specifically about homosexuals/lesbians in the military, but to pretend it has no negative effect on unit cohesion is just turning a blind eye. I support anything which turns the culture back toward a proper regard and reverence for morality in all things. That's one huge ass battleship to turn around, but it can be done in time if the will exists. It does in me. Dan can't wait for those like me to die so that perversion can run rampant...just so long as the "pervert" isn't Trump.
As to Trump, he did rescind official recognition by the White House for "Pride Month", so I give him props for that. But I think he's not personally concerned with pervs in general.
Craig (and Marshal, in so many words)...
his default is to hide behind "It's my opinion.", while demanding that his hunch be treated as objective fact. He's good at that. He insists that "God blesses gay marriage.", while acknowledging that he has zero scriptural support for that hunch,
1. It IS a simple and rational fact that MY opinions are precisely MY opinions about what God does and doesn't think about the very lovely reality of gay folk marrying and having loving, fulfilling lives with their chosen partners.
2. Likewise, it IS a simple and rational fact that YOUR opinions are precisely YOUR opinions about what God does and doesn't think about the very lovely reality of gay folk marrying and having loving, fulfilling lives with their chosen partners.
3. The key difference is that I acknowledge my opinion is my opinion whereas you all like to pretend that you can speak for God on this matter. Your hubris, arrogance and irrational and graceless insistence on doing so is one blow against you and your personal human opinions, as it exposes you as delusional.
4. I do NOT acknowledge that I have "zero Scriptural support" for my personal opinion. Of course, I do.
Cont'd...
4a. That support BEGINS with respecting and loving the Bible and its human authors enough that I do not make false claims about it or proclaim that I am the one who can say what the authors' intents were.
4b. That support goes on by acknowledging that, of course, the Bible is not some magic rulings book where we can go to find moral answers to questions, AS IF by finding a line in the OT that was written in a specific time and setting to specific people... "men shall not lie with me, if they do, kill them," that I can then extrapolate, "AHA! That MUST mean and ONLY mean that God is opposed to gay guys marrying!! AND that anyone who disagrees with my human extrapolation is also disagreeing with God, because I speak for God on this point!!"
That is an extrabiblical abuse of the Bible and not in any way respectful of the various biblical authors. And it has the additional "benefit" of being crazily delusional and grandiose.
4c. Given those caveats about respecting the biblical authors and not abusing/misusing "the Bible," my positive biblical case for supporting gay folk marrying is something like
i. God loves humanity and wants the best for humanity (that, being a biblical teaching from various authors);
ii. God is opposed to oppression and specifically and directly the oppression of poor and otherwise marginalized groups (again, abundantly biblical, Genesis to Revelation);
iii. We are created in the image of God, but God has never said that those who were created LGBTQ were somehow "wrong" "less than" or "broken" for having those orientations (again, that suggestion is ENTIRELY absent from the biblical witness - MAYBE we could guess that perhaps possibly God thinks that, but it's not a biblical human guess);
iv. We are created in the image of God to do good works, with God-given moral reasoning. We are, therefore, competent to follow God as best we can using the Spirit of God as a guide and our innate God-given moral reasoning, God's law writ upon our hearts;
v. Therefore, given God loving God's created beloved community and God wanting the best for us, then IF we are created left-handed, it would be wrong to compel a left-handed person to ONLY use their right hand and IF we are created heterosexual, it would be wrong to compel that person to marry the same gender and IF we are created homosexual, then it would be wrong to compel that person to marry a person of the opposite gender, etc.
Here's the caveat: SO LONG AS our innate orientations/intuitions/mindset are NOT harming someone, then of course, the lefty should be free to use their left hand, the lesbian should be free to marry a woman, the transgender woman should be free to be a woman. There is nothing innately OR BIBLICALLY wrong with any of that. The innate behavior that might come from a damaged psyche that causes harm - the sexual predator, the compulsive liar, the abusive narcissist... we have biblical reasons to NOT enable those behaviors as they cause harm. But there simply is an absence of any biblical witness saying we should condemn innate characteristics of people that cause no harm.
The biblical case, in short, is that God is a loving God that wants the best for us. AND there is ZERO rational or biblical reason to guess that gay folk marrying is not going to be the best for them.
No matter how many times you falsely claim that I haven't explained biblically why I hold my position, it will remain false.
Craig:
The problem with his response is that he's conflating the quoting of scripture, with speaking for YHWH.
Still dealing with the biblically and rationally problematic manner/method you all have with biblical "interpretation" (using that term lightly)... what I refer to as the "Bible as a magic rulings book" approach to reading the Bible.
That is, of course, a purposefully mocking title (intentionally playful, but I also recognize it causes umbrage to many like y'all - and me, once upon a time) to your collective approach. But I do the slight mocking precisely because I find your (and again, once upon a time, MY) approach to biblical understanding to be so patently offensive to and disrespectful of the Bible and presumptuous towards God almighty. (Who, for the record, NOT ONE TIME has ever clarified for your personally some biblical text, just to be clear and factual. Feel free to cite the time God DID clarify for your personally in a way that you can prove it was "God").
Where Craig says, "Let God speak for God's self," what he inevitably means (and here, you fellas can feel free to clarify if I'm mistaken) is that in the passages where there is a direct quote from God or Jesus or a human biblical author which they personally approve of in their human tradition - for instance, "there is NO ONE good, no not one..." or "Man shall not lie with man, if they do, kill them..." - then in THOSE cases, you think quoting the verses are just letting God speak for God's self (or Moses speak for God's self, in the Leviticus case).
BUT, in cases where the direct quote conflicts with your human traditions and opinions - for instance, "I have come to preach good news to the poor..." or "Blessed are you who are poor... Woe to you who are rich..." - In THOSE cases, you think some interpretation, reinterpretation and clarifying of "God's Words" is needed. You can't just interpret those words at face value. You can't let "God speak for God."
Even in the Leviticus example I cited, you'll suggest (this requires some interpretation and extrapolation on your part) that God (Moses) truly meant that "men should not lie with men" SHOULD be taken as God being opposed to any and all "gay behavior," including gay guys marrying, but in the latter half of the verse (if they do, kill them!), you DON'T think God is issuing a universal rule.
The problems are many.
1. That text and others like it never say that ALL homosexual acts are opposed by God... including loving marriage arrangements, in all times and places
2. Indeed, that passage in context is speaking rules specifically to Israeli people in that time and place.
3. You choose with no biblical support, to set aside the latter half of the rule ("kill them!") as time and people-specific, but insist the first half of the rule ("men shall not lie with men") is a universal condemnation of all gay behavior. Other than, as noted, the text pointing out specifically that it's a rule for Israel, the text has NO caveats where it clarifies "but any punishments uttered here are only for the time period 3,000-2,000 BC and only in the Kingdom of Israel... the NORTHERN Kingdom of Israel..." That distinction is NOT "God speaking for God," it's YOU making a human decision.
AS YOU SHOULD. As we all should. And why is that? Because, the bible is NOT a rulings book. Nowhere does the Bible say, "If you can just find the right rules of this magic book, and if you can just interpret them correctly, and if you understand that interpretation correctly, THEN you have 'factually' uncovered the rules that 'god' 'objectively' is advocating for."
The Bible as a rulings book is a fundamentally disrespectful and unbiblical (and anti-biblical - missing much of the point of much of biblical text entirely!) approach to understanding the Bible and to understanding morality.
Marshal...
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?
Listening to the actually oppressed is, of course, a good thing. What's wrong with that?
Listening to "Only" the oppressed...?? As opposed to what? Listening to the oppressors' sides of the stories?
"He was being all 'swishy' and girlish, so I beat him up to beat some manhood into the *****!!" ??
I've heard those sides of the stories, too. They don't help your case.
The "side" that says, "He wouldn't agree to not be gay or to go to 'conversion' 'therapy' [ie, torture/brainwashing] and so, out of tough love, we had to kick him out of the house..."?
I've heard those stories, too. They don't help your case. What "sides" of the story am I missing? And how would you know? You don't, of course. You want to take a wild guess that I (raised in ultra-conservative Southern Baptist Land) somehow am not familiar with the "side" of the loved ones and families who didn't/wouldn't accept or love their child. But of course, that would be ridiculously stupid and lacking in reason.
And, oh joy, you'd "wager" that such abuses DO happen "sometimes..." Well, thank the Big Gay God in Rainbow Pride Heaven that you're so progressive and open-minded as to "allow" that it may happen sometimes.
Lord have mercy.
Craig:
The problem with his response is that he's conflating the quoting of scripture, with speaking for YHWH.
To be even clearer: What I'm talking about IS when people conflate a scriptural passage that they select and say, "THUS, we know that this is the will of God!" wherein they literally conflate THEIR opinion of how that Scripture is interpreted WITH God's Word.
And that's the point: Your opinions and interpretations of these passages are, by definition, YOUR opinions, not God's. Marshal literally can not allow that there is any room between Marshal's opinion ("God really hates gay behaviors and God is really opposed to gay marriages") with God's Word. That literally IS conflating his opinion with God's word.
Where am I mistaken?
The "lesbians do good deeds..." should apply to everyone, should it not? Why isn't "Trump does good deeds..." a thing.
Where I think the disconnect is that I wouldn't say that their sin somehow diminishes everything in their lives or lifestyle. In the same way that I wouldn't say that the sin of heavy porn use somehow diminishes or taints everything in the user's marriage. We all sin, and yet our sin doesn't prevent us from doing things that are "good". I don't necessarily disagree with your premise, but I don't think you expressed it well.
You can make value judgements all you want, but from a secular/legal standpoint, there is no justification to discriminate on the basis of who one sleeps with. The question I'd ask the hypothetical landlord would be whether or not they'd rent the one bedroom apartment to an unmarried M/F couple? As sex outside of marriage is a sin, it seems hypocritical to accept one sin while discriminating against another. Especially as the sin has no bearing on the commercial transaction.
Nice goal post move there. I tried to be specific when referring to the "sex acts" engaged in by homosexuals. Unfortunately for this example, those acts aren't limited to homosexuals. Again, if you want to ban the acts, you'd have to ban the acts for everyone.
Again, I tried to be specific in not using the term marriage. It is ridiculous to prevent a couple (regardless of their sex or sexual relationship) from entering into a legal arrangement that allows for the "legal benefits" of marriage (inheritance, medical decisions, joint tenancy, etc). Why should any couple (even platonic/abstinent) be denied those things?
Of course I'm not talking about "special rights", nor am I limiting the conversation to homosexual couples. The problem with your "fundamental rights" limitation is that, the very concept is an oxymoron.
While I agree with your take on the scriptural prohibition of homosexual sex, and of sex outside of marriage, we don't live in a Christian or Judeo-Christian theocracy and we don't make laws based on scripture.
For example, under an Islamic regime homosexuals would simply be killed for their sin. One could argue, if one were arguing that the OT view of homosexual sex should be the basis for US law, that a similar punishment could be justified. But we aren't arguing that and we aren't making law based on OT sins. Again, I'm talking about the simple notion of equal treatment under the law and not discriminating against people based on how "sinful" they are.
I'm sympathetic to the notion that there should be some protection for spaces/business that cater to a specific clientele, and strongly oppose forcing one's way into those spaces. But, that's a far cry from (for example) legally preventing gay people from buying or renting a house.
Your commitment to allowing those who wish to "live by the tenets of their religion" would be more credible if it weren't for your stance on Islam.
Hell yeah Trump is "gay friendly", his objection to the "T" bullshit in the military, sports, and locker rooms, has little or nothing to do with the LGB agenda. Increasing numbers of the LGB agree with those positions. Anyway, it's amusing to see you defend Trump on stuff like this. You're literally prepared to outlaw homosexual sex, but you're onboard (or at least willing to excuse it) with Trump and "gay friendly" agenda.
1. Thanks for proving my point. It's refreshing when you do so. It's stragne when you so vehemently say "God blesses gay marriage.", then hide behind "it's only my opinion" and undercut your vehement claim.
2. Given your disdain for what you call our "opinions", even though it's simply quoting scripture, and your insistence on phrasing your opinions as if they are facts, this is a strange position for you to take. But strange positions are kind of what you do, so it's not surprising.
3. Given the fact that you cannot prove either part of this claim, your accusations of hubris seem misplaced at best.
4. As you've previously acknowledged that you cannot point to one specific scripture (or Jewish canon, or early Church writings) that refer to "gay marriage", "homosexual sex", in either a neutral or positive way, it seems safe to conclude that you have no specific, direct, scriptural support. Now, you can take proof texts out of context and cherry pick verses to string together and try to invent some "support". Yet everything I've seen you do involves creative interpretation, huge leaps in logic, and throwing shit up against the wall.
4 a-c are simply you imposing a bunch of your made up limits on scripture and provide absolutely nothing of value or any "support" for your hunches.
i-v, again nothing specific or direct, just a bunch of vague general paraphrases filtered through your prejudices, preconceptions, biases, and arrogance.
Your final paragraph is, as usual, completely devoid of specific scriptural support for your claims. Not only that, but your claims about the innateness of both homosexuality and "trans", lack specific, direct, scientific proof.
The very fact that your "Biblical proof" never once specifically mentions "gay marriage", and is based on a "guess" tells me all I need to know. But again, your "Biblical case" without any actual, specific, direct references to anything positive about homosexual sex, let alone "gay marriage", is just you trying to put the lipstick of scriptural authority (which you aren't really a big fan of) on the pig of your hunches.
Oh look, Dan decides to speak for YHWH.
You're mistaken, You're making shit up and attributing it to us, even after you've been told that your claims are false. Multiple times. What kind of person repeatedly and intentionally lies about others, while simultaneously bitching about others "telling lies".
You are a sad, pathetic, little man with delusions of grandeur, excessive pride, and massive hubris.
1. Really, prove your claim.
2. Really, prove your claim.
3. You choose to make up lies about me and act as if they are True. Oh, and prove your claim.
Again, you continue to make these unproven claims without even he barest attempt to prove them, basing those unproven claims in bullshit you've made up and pretend as if it represents anything anyone except you has said.
It's fascinating that so much of your "Biblical case" is devoted to making up lies about us, placing limits on scripture, staking out your personal rules about what is allowed and what is excluded, and not actually making a positive/direct/specific scriptural case for your premise.
In short, you've failed to prove that the straw men you erect actually represent reality. You've actually failed to provide a definitive argument against your straw men. You've failed to accurately represent the positions you pretend to argue against. You've failed to provide definitive, specific, scriptural proof that your hunch is objectively True, or even more likely than any other. Of course, since it's all just your hunches, we can dismiss your hunches as bullshit. Just like you do.
Aside from being woefully mistaken in your enabling of sexual perversion, you're also mistaken...I believe intentionally and consciously lying...about how we go about presenting our positions versus your charge of conflating personal opinion with the Will of God. In those cases where an explicit verse or passage isn't enough for the likes of you, we have enough fact which can only result in one conclusion which aligns with Scripture, such as:
1. 100% of the verses addressing homosexual behavior denounce it as sin in the strongest possible terms.
2. 100% of the verses referencing God’s ideal for marriage involve one man and one woman.
3. 100% of the verses referencing parenting involve moms and dads with unique roles (or at least a set of male and female parents guiding the children).
4. 0% of 31,173 Bible verses refer to homosexual behavior in a positive or even benign way or even hint at the acceptability of homosexual unions.
The above are incontrovertible, unassailable facts. Go ahead and try (for once) to refute any one of them. Given these facts, one can easily conclude that the idea that God would bless homosexual unions, or find them acceptable contexts in which abomination can be perpetrated, is absolutely laughable. So, given that homosexual behavior is expressly prohibited as the abomination God insists it is, and given there is no case in Scripture wherein that prohibition has been rescinded in any way, and given there is no context or scenario in which homosexual behavior can be perpetrated without being an abomination in the eyes of God (at least divorce and theft have some Scripture to tolerate it in certain cases, but not homosexuality), and given that all references to marriage and family refer to man/woman relationships as spouses and parents...given all that, it is not only not the least bit a stretch to assert, believe and affirm that God would NOT bless an SSM, but it requires a total suspension of the facts and reality to pretend that He might. What all this means is that we aren't conflating anything, but concluding based on all the available facts that you have nothing to support the notion that God regards same-sex unions the way you, without the least bit of honest Scriptural understanding or interpretation, do. The truth is you enable those in clear and obvious rebellion against God, making you in rebellion, too.
So, not only is there lots of room for me to presume that God is opposed to your ludicrous perversion of Scripture, but my position is in total alignment with all we know from Scripture with regard to the total and unequivocal sinfulness of any indulgence of homosexual behavior regardless of context.
"Listening to the actually oppressed is, of course, a good thing. What's wrong with that?"
Nothing, so long as we can confirm that those who claim to be oppressed actually are, instead of just some sexually disordered individual whining that normal people won't accept his disorder in the manner the disordered person insists. Once again, thieves feel oppressed when held accountable for their behavior. Boo-hoo.
"Listening to "Only" the oppressed...?? As opposed to what? Listening to the oppressors' sides of the stories?"
No, dickhead. Listening to those your perverts accuse of being oppressive.
"I've heard those sides of the stories, too."
So you say, but your history on these blogs renders YOUR testimony...even testimonies about the testimonies of others...completely untrustworthy.
"The "side" that says, "He wouldn't agree to not be gay or to go to 'conversion' 'therapy' [ie, torture/brainwashing] and so, out of tough love, we had to kick him out of the house..."?"
No. I'm talking about the family and friends who would speak of their efforts help your pervert cope with their disordered and absolutely immoral compulsions in order that they might live a more Christian life, but were rejected by your pervert as "oppressors" because indulging the perverse desires is more important to your perverts than the Word of God and the wishes of those in whose house they may have lived.
Could you be any more false? (A rhetorical question...don't bother trying to lie) What you're trying to do here is a variation on your "my side's holy and your side is not" crap. You expect us to believe that all tales of woe by your perverts are honest and that you've listened to the other side to get their version of events between them and your perverts. I've little doubt you've given much serious and honest hearing to any of those who won't abide the agenda of abomination, and instead present a perverted rendering of the facts. That's how you roll.
"What "sides" of the story am I missing? "
The honest sides. You lie about Scripture. I'm not about to trust your revisionist histories about your cherished perverts.
"And how would you know? You don't, of course."
Of course I don't, but I only have the word of an proven inveterate liar, named Dan Trabue. What I do have is my own experiences with homosexuals and lesbians and I've never heard from them such stories and the whoppers you tell. Perhaps I just run with a better class of perverts than you.
" You want to take a wild guess that I (raised in ultra-conservative Southern Baptist Land) somehow am not familiar with the "side" of the loved ones and families who didn't/wouldn't accept or love their child."
Well, that is the safe money wager. What's more, I have no doubt you have no idea regarding how the disappointed and sadden parents of your perverts feel about their perverted offspring. It's just convenient for you to portray them as hateful bastards in order to provoke sympathy for the real source of familial estrangement. Because you embrace and enable perversion.
"And, oh joy, you'd "wager" that such abuses DO happen "sometimes..." Well, thank the Big Gay God in Rainbow Pride Heaven that you're so progressive and open-minded as to "allow" that it may happen sometimes."
Oh look! Pervert Dan again dares to condescend AND to insult God at the same time. Then he dares to ask for God's mercy. Incredible.
Marshal...
"Go ahead and try (for once) to refute any one of them."
1. IF the Bible were a rulings book or decider of morality that MIGHT mean something. (But not really, and it makes no such claim of itself. )
2. In 1,000 percent of the literal handful of texts that speak perhaps of some homosexual behavior, exactly NONE of them are speaking of loving, committed marriage relationships. Fact.
3. In 10,000% of biblical texts that speak of the Bible as a rulebook, NONE of them make that claim.
4. In a million% of biblical texts about slavery, none of them condemn slavery and a billion percent say it's okay. But that doesn't mean that slavery is moral or acceptable. That's because the Bible is not a moral rulings book.
Your biblical reasoning is lacking son, as are your math skills. As is your reading comprehension.
I think you just aren't understanding how unbiblical/antibiblical and irrational your reasoning is here.
The problem is that anyone who's one of the "oppressed" that doesn't toe the party line and spew the approved narrative, gets trashed.
As we watch the riots in LA it's interesting to see how many protesters are simping for the oppressors. Of course they're simping for the Spanish oppressors, but still simping for the oppressors.
So, when you claim that "God blesses gay marriage." in a definitive way, you are not saying (in effect) "THUS we know that this is the will of God." when it's really just your made up hunch unsupported by scripture.
Because what I'm talking about (something that you in your hubris seem unconcerned about, because what Dan is "talking about" is the only thing that matters) is quoting scripture and acknowledging that it means what it says.
Yet "Your opinions" are somehow exempt from this bullshit you impose on others.
Well, you're mistaken when you make shit up and pretend that your made up shit represents what others have actually said or believe. You're mistaken when you somehow think that you can spew these made up lies over and over again with no regard for the Truth. You're mistaken when you repeat your lies, despite being repeatedly corrected. You're mistaken when you announce that "God blesses gay marriage." based on zero direct, unequivocal, scriptural basis. You're mistaken when you demand that others meet a standard that you don't hold yourself to.
In short, you're mistaken so frequently that one must consider that it's not a mistake when you choose to perpetrate these lies and bullshit. One must consider the possibility that you choose to spread lies and engage in this particular sin.
Craig...
when you claim that "God blesses gay marriage." in a definitive way, you are not saying (in effect) "THUS we know that this is the will of God." when it's really just your made up hunch unsupported by scripture.
NO. That is NOT what I'm saying. I'm noting the reality that neither one of us can definitively authoritatively prove God's will as it relates to God's will.
Do you think YOU are the One who can definitively prove objectively God's will as it relates to marriage? By all means, do so.
IF NOT, admit that.
HOWEVER, I'm additionally saying,
GIVEN the notion of a perfectly loving, perfectly just God,
THEN that sort of God would of course approve of people finding comfort and delight in a marriage relationship, gay or straight.
Do you disagree with what I'm actually saying? It's a conclusion based on common sense and reason, GIVEN the presumption of a perfectly loving God who wants the best for people.
I'm further saying that
IN the Bible, one of the repeated, common themes is that God IS a Perfect, perfectly loving, perfectly just God who wants the best for God's children. I can cite the passages if you're truly ignorant of them but I don't believe you ARE ignorant.
Do you agree with the notion that within the pages of the Bible, it is a consistent theme that God loves humanity and wants the best for humanity?
NOW, I GET that you, personally, and those in your human traditions, have formed the opinions that what God THINKS is best for humanity does not include gay folks marrying.
IS that correct?
But, IF it's correct, do you acknowledge that it's just your theory, nothing you can prove?
"1. IF the Bible were a rulings book or decider of morality that MIGHT mean something."
That's exactly what Scripture is (among other things) despite the fact it doesn't satisfy your petulant demand it must state that it is. How false you are to suggest that the Bible, with commandments and teachings of God throughout both Testaments regarding how He expects us to behave needs to refer to itself as a "rulings book"..."magical" or otherwise. This is just your weak response when faced with commandments and teachings and truths you find personally inconvenient.
"2. In 1,000 percent of the literal handful of texts that speak perhaps of some homosexual behavior, exactly NONE of them are speaking of loving, committed marriage relationships. Fact."
It doesn't speak of "some" homosexual behavior. It speaks of homosexual behavior. ACTUAL FACT!
"3. In 10,000% of biblical texts that speak of the Bible as a rulebook," NONE of them make that claim."
Nor are any required to do so simply because Dan Trabue demands it must in order to compel his obedience. This is just your weak response when faced with commandments and teachings and truths you find personally inconvenient.
"4. In a million% of biblical texts about slavery, none of them condemn slavery and a billion percent say it's okay. But that doesn't mean that slavery is moral or acceptable. That's because the Bible is not a moral rulings book."
Aside from the clear irrelevance of this desperate attempt to defend the indefensible, it's not even accurate.
"Your biblical reasoning is lacking son, as are your math skills." As is your reading comprehension.
I'm not your "son", girl. My Biblical reasoning is sound and fact-based. My math skills affirm that "100%" constitutes the whole, the totality, the absolute entirety of any given thing. "1000%" "1 million %" is absurdity, just as is your defense of the indefensible and your impotent attempt to refute the facts I listed (with a belated Hat Tip to Eternity Matters).
"I think you just aren't understanding how unbiblical/antibiblical and irrational your reasoning is here."
I know you're just unable to prove that desperate claim. Indeed, this is just your weak response when faced with commandments and teachings and truths you find personally inconvenient.
1. Dan finds this "rulings book" canard to be very effective in his own mind. The problem with this false premise is that scripture contains law, commandments, rules, and similar things. It's imbecilic to try to use the fact that the Bible is more than a book that contains "rules", to deny the existence of "rules".
FYI, Dan uses the term "rules" while what scripture actually contains are laws and commandments. I suspect that using the term "rules" is intended to minimize or diminish the aspects of YHWH's Kingliness or Sovereignty, and to diminish the added weight of the terms law or commandments.
2. It doesn't have to. It speaks of the act of homosexual sex as being the problem, not some made up concept from the 20th century. Calling a relationship "gay marriage" doesn't magically make the homosexual sex act holy. There's nothing in scripture that supports that hunch. Further, every reference to homosexual sex in the entirety of scripture (plus the non canonical Christian and Jewish texts as well as any early Church writings) is negative. 0% of references to homosexual sex are positive or even neutral, 0%. Zip, zero, nada.
3. This is just Dan restating his false premise from #1 and pretending as if it is an entirely different bullet point. It also ignores the reality that sections of scripture, including Jesus own words, are clearly labeled as laws or commandments.
4. Irrelevant, and false. This slavery canard has been dealt with so often that it's a miracle that idiots keep bringing it up.
Coming from someone who cannot produce one single Biblical reference that specifically and directly supports his hunches, it reeks of desperation for him to claim that we're the ones who are "un/antibiblical". That simply quoting scripture is magically un/antibiblical demonstrates the complete lack of substance being spewed.
Craig...
"you're mistaken when you make shit up and pretend that your made up shit represents what others have actually said or believe. You're mistaken when you somehow think that you can spew these made up lies over and over again with no regard for the Truth. You're mistaken when you repeat your lies, despite being repeatedly corrected..."
He said, without pointing to ANYTHIN specific.
Making a claim that I'm lying without pointing to ANY lies is, itself, at kind of lie, isn't it?
You've made this sort of vague, unsupported claim repeatedly. If I have made a mistaken claim, that is precisely what it is. You can address it directly so we all can grow or you can continue to make vague, unsupported allegations.
For myself, I don't have time or use for deliberately false claims. I'm an adult.
"...I find your (and again, once upon a time, MY) approach to biblical understanding to be so patently offensive to and disrespectful of the Bible and presumptuous towards God almighty."
Nonsense. This is just your weak response when faced with commandments and teachings and truths you find personally inconvenient. Your self-serving opinion of our understanding has no value, particularly when it's never accompanied by Scripture-based counters to our understanding.
"(Who, for the record, NOT ONE TIME has ever clarified for your personally some biblical text, just to be clear and factual. Feel free to cite the time God DID clarify for your personally in a way that you can prove it was "God")"
I see nowhere in Scripture where God stutters or mumbles. His Word is quite clear to honest people who kneel to His Will at the expense of their own. As you don't question meaning or intention of God, but instead seek to find loopholes or invent laughable loopholes of your own, it is YOU who fails to bring any receipts. Moreover, His Word in Scripture is so clear on this subject that no clarifying followup by Him is required for honest Christians seeking to live by His Will. Find such a person in your area and ask them. (You won't find them in Jeff St.)
"Where Craig says, "Let God speak for God's self," what he inevitably means..."
...exactly what he said, not what your perverted misrepresentation falsely insists he means. This is just another weak response when faced with commandments and teachings and truths you find personally inconvenient.
You try to put doubt in our minds by asking "Did God really say...?" as if there is any doubt as to what He meant when He said that homosexuality is an abomination and did so without any caveats that you can't prove exist, or even suggests possibly exist, by any honest citation of Scripture.
"BUT, in cases where the direct quote conflicts with your human traditions and opinions - for instance..."
Here's where you go so very wrong once again: You presume that we must use some other method for interpreting and understanding one passage, verse or word in one case than in any other. The same method which provides more truth and facts about these "for instances" you offered, which belies your personally preferred understanding, is the same method which confirms the truth we (or at least I) express regarding your cherished sexual perversion. As Craig has often suggested, you play fast and loose with when or if you choose to interpret a verse or passage in a woodenly literal manner. We (or at last I) don't do that.
"Even in the Leviticus example I cited, you'll suggest (this requires some interpretation and extrapolation on your part) that God (Moses) truly meant that "men should not lie with men" SHOULD be taken as God being opposed to any and all "gay behavior," including gay guys marrying, but in the latter half of the verse (if they do, kill them!), you DON'T think God is issuing a universal rule."
And once again, this is just another weak response when faced with commandments and teachings and truths you find personally inconvenient. GOD, not Moses, said that homosexual behavior is an abomination...that it is detestable. There's no reason to suppose that in a committed, monogamous union it wouldn't still be, since nowhere can you provide any suggestion that such a caveat exists. It's because there's no such caveat that honest people would presume there is no context or scenario in which you and your boyfriend could get jiggy without it still being detestable.
As to the punishment for this particularly detestable sin, it was universal at that time and up to the point at which Jesus died for all sins of those who believe in Him. What makes this sin, as well as the other sins in Lev 18 universal is those verses 3-5, and 24-29. This behavior was detestable when the Egyptians and Canaanites indulged it. That He made it a capital crime clearly indicates just how opposed to the behavior He is. But you know better than God, don't you, girl?
"The problems are many."
No there are not...except for those in rebellion against God like you and your beloved perverts.
"1. That text and others like it never say that ALL homosexual acts are opposed by God... including loving marriage arrangements, in all times and places"
Yes. It absolutely does, given there are no caveats given in that passage or anywhere else in all of Scripture, or you would have presented them by now.
" 2. Indeed, that passage in context is speaking rules specifically to Israeli people in that time and place."
That's not at all true, as I explain later and as I've explained countless times in the past without you ever having provided more than a "Nyuh uh" counter argument. Leviticus contains many laws which are universal. You yourself constantly speak against slander (when no slander has occurred). Leviticus prohibits stealing, lying, endangering the lives of others. Can we ignore them because they appeared in Leviticus on the same basis as you ignore laws prohibiting sexual immorality? How dare you accuse Donald Trump since his immoral behavior is listed in Leviticus, too?
"3. You choose with no biblical support, to set aside the latter half of the rule"
Not true. What's more is that this lame attempt deflects from the point, which is that the behavior is forbidden. We haven't spoken to punishing it, but only not enabling it or pretending it's not still detestable even within the fake "marriage" of two lesbians. But hey, if you're arguing that we must also move to make homosexual behavior a capital crime, I'm willing to hear how all other capital offenses have been eliminated from that outcome with the notable exception of murder. All other such offenses are still offenses and the fact that we're no longer required to execute the guilty doesn't change that, as much as you stupidly and falsely try to pretend not doing so in an inconsistent interpretation of Scripture. Try that crap at your Blog of Lies and Perversions. It's just crap here.
"The Bible as a rulings book is a fundamentally disrespectful and unbiblical (and anti-biblical - missing much of the point of much of biblical text entirely!) approach to understanding the Bible and to understanding morality."
Nonsense and self-serving bullshit. This is just another weak response when faced with commandments and teachings and truths you find personally inconvenient. Indeed, you pervert understanding by dismissing those laws and commandments you find inconvenient and you do so without Scriptural basis. You just don't like them because of what it means for the eternity of your beloved perverts and enablers like you.
Craig:
what I'm talking about... is quoting scripture and acknowledging that it means what it says.
BUT, that's the question that you're begging.
The biblical text LITERALLY refers to the four corners of the earth. But does that mean the earth is square?
The biblical text LITERALLY says (in a passage and set of rules given literally - in the text - specifically to the people of Israel) "men should not lie with men, if they do, kill them." But does that literally mean there are NO instances where men could lay with men? Does it mean we must kill all homosexual men (lesbians are safe!) who engage in sex?
The biblical text LITERALLY says that Jesus came to preach good news to the poor and marginalized... and quotes Jesus saying that "you who are poor are blessed... but WOE to you who are rich!"
Do those mean that Jesus' good news was literally specifically for the poor and marginalized? That the poor are literally blessed? That the rich are cursed?
The text in ALL these and other incidences says exactly what it says. That's not in dispute. The questions are:
Should we take it all literally?
Should we take some portions literally and consider other portions more figurative?
Should we treat all rules in the Bible as universally applicable?
IS the Bible in any sense a universal sort of rule book?
IF we are to take some portions literally, some portions as literal rules, HOW do we know which ones?
Etc.
I'm not disputing that there is a line that says "men don't lie with men. Kill them if they do." The question is, WHAT does it mean? Should it be taken literally? Which part? Why? On whose authority?
Presumably you all should agree that I should not just say, "Well, Craig and a bunch of traditionalists think that the first half of "men shall not lie with men" should be taken as a universal prohibition against any and all "gay behavior," everywhere for all time... BUT that the second half speaking of punishment was only time and place specific... THESE humans say that, so I should agree with them?"
Is that correct? Or do you think I should bow to the demand of the majority opinions of many traditionalist humans?
(Lest you get confused, those are QUESTIONS seeking clarity, not false accusations. You're welcome.)
In short: WHO SAYS we should "acknowledge that it means what it says..." Based upon what?
Because your opinion is not enough for me. That the text is in the Bible is not enough for me to take your opinion and interpretation seriously. The bible says all manner of things.
Craig:
The problem with this false premise is that scripture contains law, commandments, rules, and similar things. It's imbecilic to try to use the fact that the Bible is more than a book that contains "rules", to deny the existence of "rules".
No one is disputing the observable reality that there ARE rules found in the Bible, both old and new. BUT the question is/questions are (and this appears to be what you're missing - YOU TELL ME):
Does the existence of rules in biblical texts indicate that those rules are some kind of universal rules?
(Especially when the rules themselves say they are written specifically to/for ancient Hebrew people with the text itself NOT claiming that these are universal rules... Especially when you all do not believe all the rules are universal moral rules... if it's only SOME of the rules that are universal, which ones? Says who? Based upon what? These are reasonable questions that I don't think you all ever deal with.)
If so, based upon what? Where is the objective proven rubric or criteria for settling out the "universal" rules from the temporal rules or rules that aren't even moral (like selling your children).
Craig:
2. It speaks of the act of homosexual sex as being the problem, not some made up concept from the 20th century.
You're question begging, dear friend. If we look at Lev 20 and say, "There is a text that says men should not lie with men," does that mean that all instances of homosexual behavior are immoral?"
To answer the question with a flat statement like that is missing the question entirely. IS it universally immoral? Says who? Merely declaring that this is the meaning of the text is not an adult level of reasoning.
I mean, we could just as easily ask the question: "Should there be capital punishment for homosexual acts?" and someone could respond with "It speaks of the act of homosexual sex as being a required death penalty. Period." But THAT would be question begging.
You can't presume your answer is correct and then offer your answer as proof. You have to first prove it.
Craig:
Further, every reference to homosexual sex in the entirety of scripture...
That's true for homosexuality being called evil in the Quran, as well (presumably, I don't really know). Does that text in the Quran condemning some form of homosexuality and calling for the death penalty MEAN that homosexuality is wrong and homosexuals should be killed? OR is that a human opinion from some extremist Muslims?
And again, every instance of slavery being mentioned in the biblical text allows for it as a moral option. That doesn't mean that it's a moral option.
Again, THE PRESENCE OF WORDS IN THE BIBLE THAT SOME HUMANS TAKE TO MEAN THAT THEY THINK IT INDICATES TO THEM THAT GOD IS OPPOSED TO GAY GUYS MARRYING EACH OTHER IS INSUFFICIENT PROOF OF THAT POSITION. It is literally a subjective human opinion, one with very problematic moral and rational consequences.
Do you recognize the simple reality that the existence of words in the Bible saying ANYTHING are not proof that God approves of whatever opinions people draw from those words? The existence of words allowing for slavery does not mean that slavery isn't evil. The existence of words allowing for selling your daughter into marriage doesn't mean that child sex slavery isn't evil. The existence of a command to kill disrespectful children and gay men (but not lesbian women! Phew!!) doesn't mean that it's not a great evil to kill children for the crime of being disrespectful or men for having gay sex.
You almost certainly don't think that the existence of words indicating rules being found in the Quran or Bible are sufficient to prove the morality of any given action. And EVEN IF you personally held that personal human opinion in the comradeship of your fellow humans in that human tradition, you still are faced with the problem of WHICH rules are universal? And you have no proven authoritative rubric to settle that question.
This is very literally a matter of your personal human opinion.
Where am I wrong?
Dan is being intentionally stupid and ignorant -- a fool not worth wasting time with because he is unteachable, a full-fledged reprobate who is a puppet of Satan.
Glenn...
Dan is a fool..."
Jesus:
whoever says, “You fool!” will be liable to the hell of fire.
Also, the holy geniuses at Answers in Genesis:
When studying Scripture, one of the first principles to keep in mind is the context. Therefore, let us consider the entire context of what Jesus said while considering this alleged contradiction.
...Jesus referred to the generally understood fact that murderers will be judged; however, He revealed the deeper issue by saying that not just murderers but anyone “"who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment."” Furthermore, Christ continued by mentioning that those who insult their brother or call their brother a fool would be held liable for those words.
Jesus did not focus just on an individual’s actions such as murder but also on the heart and attitude behind those actions.
A heart full of anger toward someone can lead to
insults, name calling, and even murder.
In other words, murder is not the only symptom of a corrupted heart, which is the main point Jesus made.
https://answersingenesis.org/jesus/did-jesus-contradict-himself-by-calling-people-fools/
"You can make value judgements all you want, but from a secular/legal standpoint, there is no justification to discriminate on the basis of who one sleeps with. The question I'd ask the hypothetical landlord would be whether or not they'd rent the one bedroom apartment to an unmarried M/F couple? As sex outside of marriage is a sin, it seems hypocritical to accept one sin while discriminating against another. Especially as the sin has no bearing on the commercial transaction."
Actually, by law one is not allowed to make value judgements where homosexuals are concerned. Rather, one is forced to abide the unConstitutional mandate that I must do business with them without the least consideration of whether or not I want to do so. That's the problem and it's frankly the problem with public accommodation law as it now exists (and why some opposed such law prior to it being enacted). Where do you or any government get off saying I must treat equally a pair of pervs and an unmarried man and woman? While in reality I'm as opposed to letting a room to the latter, another might simply not want to do business with a pair of dykes. After all, who owns the property? It isn't public property, even if it's a freaking hotel.
So my issue here is one of liberty and the fact that my liberty to run my business is taken from me and worse, on behalf of homosexuals with whom I'd rather not associate socially OR in business. Particularly not in a manner which is against my personal beliefs about morality.
"Nice goal post move there."
I moved absolutely nothing.
"Again, if you want to ban the acts, you'd have to ban the acts for everyone."
By law, perhaps. But that's the problem, that I'm forced to ban according to some other person(s) mandates for what is acceptable and not my own. You seem to agree with Dan that it's the act rather than who indulges in it. My position is based on Lev 18:22, not "anal is bad". (I believe it is, but for the purposes of this tangent, the point is important. Moreover, what a man and his wife consent to do is within their rights and as the morality of specific sex acts within a marital relationship aren't addressed in Scripture, I'm not going to get into that which has no Scriptural point of reference to debate)
"It is ridiculous to prevent a couple (regardless of their sex or sexual relationship) from entering into a legal arrangement that allows for the "legal benefits" of marriage (inheritance, medical decisions, joint tenancy, etc). Why should any couple (even platonic/abstinent) be denied those things?"
Some, if not most, considerations are granted married couples because of the understanding that they are as one flesh, and thus, some things are automatic as if one person is at the same time the other. But that doesn't argue for disallowing considerations to non-married people of any number (if I wish to give allow visitation while in the hospital, there's no legit reason to deny me several who can visit). That it's not automatically granted as it to either of a married couple is not something about which to pervert the meaning of marriage and there's no legit reason to provide for such non-marriage-based variations. But this post ain't about such crap, so I'm done with it.
"The problem with your "fundamental rights" limitation is that, the very concept is an oxymoron."
How so? Do you not believe the right to life is fundamental? Or the right to defend it? How exactly is the concept oxymoronic?
"While I agree with your take on the scriptural prohibition of homosexual sex, and of sex outside of marriage, we don't live in a Christian or Judeo-Christian theocracy and we don't make laws based on scripture."
But we live in under a Constitution in which I have the fundamental right to live by my religious beliefs. See the problem here? Either such a right is respected or it's crapped upon. These days its clearly the latter, particularly when it comes to dealing with homosexuals. The worst part is I and many others, predicted this very conundrum would come into play, including one lesbian whose name I don't recall who insisted that it was people of faith who must subordinate their rights to the fictional rights of the homosexuals.
"For example, under an Islamic regime homosexuals would simply be killed for their sin."
Dan makes this kinda comment all the time.
" One could argue, if one were arguing that the OT view of homosexual sex should be the basis for US law, that a similar punishment could be justified."
They'd lose that argument unless they argued for all other OT laws which imposed that punishment on other sins. What's more, this also sounds like a Dan argument.
"Again, I'm talking about the simple notion of equal treatment under the law and not discriminating against people based on how "sinful" they are."
I'm talking about the simple notion that I should be free to refuse service to, or to be associated with whom I choose. They're free to find accommodation from any number of options where their perversion isn't a concern.
"I'm sympathetic to the notion that there should be some protection for spaces/business that cater to a specific clientele, and strongly oppose forcing one's way into those spaces. But, that's a far cry from (for example) legally preventing gay people from buying or renting a house."
Actually, it's the exact same thing.
" Your commitment to allowing those who wish to "live by the tenets of their religion" would be more credible if it weren't for your stance on Islam."
I don't care about islam. Dan does. Talk to him.
"You're literally prepared to outlaw homosexual sex, but you're onboard (or at least willing to excuse it) with Trump and "gay friendly" agenda."
No great president is perfect, Craig. Or haven't you heard? I defend Trump for ending the "T" bullshit in the military. I defend Trump for ceasing to honor "Pride Month". I don't defend Trump for any pro-homosexual stance he might take. So I don't get your point.
"Does the existence of rules in biblical texts indicate that those rules are some kind of universal rules?"
Not their mere existence, no. But you're hanging your pointy hat on the fact that universal rules appear in a place where time/people specific rules exist and pretend that means they're all time/people specific, because it serves you to do so. Is the prohibition against stealing universal? How about lying? Those are in Leviticus, too.
But you lie in saying we've never dealt with the difference between universal rules and time/people specific rules, and more exactly, moral rules versus ritual/purity rules and punishments for breaking them. You just pretend it never happened. It happened exhaustively in my very first blog post. It's happened again many times since, with references to the work of Robert Gagnon and others who deal specifically with the question of homosexuality. You just don't care, because you don't care about pleasing God, but about pleasing other "progressives" like yourself.
"If we look at Lev 20 and say, "There is a text that says men should not lie with men," does that mean that all instances of homosexual behavior are immoral?""
If you can't produce a caveat provided by God, then on what basis do you dare presume there are any scenarios or contexts in which one can acceptably indulge in abomination without it being an abomination? You don't produce because there's nothing you can produce. You simply assert without basis that because two perverts love and commit each other that it's a beautiful thing God would bless as if their "feelings" for each other make their behavior with each other less abominable. How do you make that logical? In the case of normal people, their sinful fornication is not sinful fornication in the context of marriage because it's the context in which it is permissible because it's necessary to produce the next generation. There's simply no parallel for homosexuals because marriage is a one man/one woman proposition everywhere it is referenced in Scripture. You're not arguing from silence. You're just making shit up and pretending you've got backing from Scripture. Actual Christians call that "lying", because you are.
"IS it universally immoral? Says who? Merely declaring that this is the meaning of the text is not an adult level of reasoning."
Here you are asserting again to deflect from truth which is inconvenient. Of COURSE it's universally immoral because God gave no caveat to the prohibition and no caveat is so much as hinted at throughout either Testament. Indeed, the prohibition is affirmed in the NT. While you pretend the truth doesn't reflect "an adult level of reasoning," the fact is you argue with childish petulance a defense for the indefensible. The adult says, "Well, the boss said 'don't'. He didn't mention if when we might be able to. Until he does, we mustn't." Thus, our "reasoning" is absolutely the mature example of what reasoning on this issue looks like. It's childish presumptuousness to suppose you can dictate when and how you can indulge that which is forbidden with no caveats.
"I mean, we could just as easily ask the question: "Should there be capital punishment for homosexual acts?" and someone could respond with "It speaks of the act of homosexual sex as being a required death penalty. Period." But THAT would be question begging."
Of course you have to ignore that whole New Testament thing. The New Testament didn't provide any caveats to the prohibition you pretend isn't universal. It only provides a different way to be forgiven for indulging and presuming you can say this evil is good...so long as you repent. It seems you're not called to repentance. It seems God's given you over to your sin.
"You can't presume your answer is correct and then offer your answer as proof. You have to first prove it."
You've provided nothing Scriptural which supports your "opinion" which is really rebellion. You reject all arguments and evidence which supports what we affirm is true. Go scratch.
"That's true for homosexuality being called evil in the Quran, as well (presumably, I don't really know)."
We're not muslim. Stop bring them up as if their beliefs matter or that similar objections make ours less valid. They don't. It's a cheap ploy only a moron and liar would continue to employ.
"And again, every instance of slavery being mentioned in the biblical text allows for it as a moral option. That doesn't mean that it's a moral option."
Another dishonest ploy, as this issue has been covered exhaustively. But you need to lie about something, so you bring it up. This post is about homosexuality, not slavery. Your attempts to mention slavery do not mitigate the truths we affirm about the universal abomination of homosexual behaviors. Indeed, every time you bring this up, you're lying again.
"Again, THE PRESENCE OF WORDS IN THE BIBLE THAT SOME HUMANS TAKE TO MEAN THAT THEY THINK IT INDICATES TO THEM THAT GOD IS OPPOSED TO GAY GUYS MARRYING EACH OTHER IS INSUFFICIENT PROOF OF THAT POSITION. It is literally a subjective human opinion, one with very problematic moral and rational consequences."
No. It's a conclusion which is not only most likely, but so incredibly probable that you're forced to continue making non-Biblical arguments to avoid the fact of it. If we're to believe that God is pleased with the union of a man and woman committing their lives to each other, serving each other in love, etc., etc., etc. and all the other superlatives you like to use in reference to your cherished and beloved perverts, on what basis can you presume He'd feel the same about two people of the same sex doing the same when he regards all sexual behavior between the two of them to be abomination? Do you think God was not aware that two such people might seek to live together in a similar manner when He identified homosexual behavior as detestable? Are you freakin' serious? You don't think He's omniscient enough to consider that possibility and wouldn't have provided a loophole because two dudes really digging each other gives Him the warm and fuzzies? Where does your "adult reasoning" come into play here?
"The existence of a command to kill...gay men (but not lesbian women! Phew!!)..."
This is especially stupid given your many references to the OT writers being patriarchal. You actually think that the punishment for two indulgent homos would not be same for dykes? On what basis? You're so absurd in your dishonesty.
"You almost certainly don't think that the existence of words indicating rules being found in the Quran or Bible are sufficient to prove the morality of any given action."
Why do you think bringing up the muslim crap serves your purpose? It has absolutely no relevance or bearing on anything we're discussing here. When you bring it up, you're consciously indulging in lying again. But Scripture itself is sufficient, just as Paul said it is.
The abomination of homosexual behavior is not a human tradition. The rejection of God's Will on the subject is a demonic tradition you embrace.
Is the prohibition against murder universal? How so? Where does it say it is? How about lying? How about stealing? How about slavery!!!? As I've said, I dealt with how to determine the universal from the time specific in my very first blog post and you've never addressed any of it.
The four points I borrowed from Neil Simpson is "rubric" enough, because you haven't come up with an intelligent response to refute any of it.
Let me educate you Dan:
Raca! Lit. "Empty-headed!” Jesus suggests that verbal abuse stems from the same sinful motives (anger and hatred) that ultimately lead to murder. The internal attitude is what the law actually prohibits and, therefore, an abusive insult carries the same kind of moral guilt as an act of murder. (John MacArthur)
English word fool defined by Webster’s Dictionary:
1. One who is destitute of reason, or the common powers of understanding; an idiot.
2.In common language, a person who is somewhat deficient in intellect, but not an idiot; or a person who does not exercise his reason; one who pursues a course contrary to the dictates of wisdom.
3. In scripture, fool is often used for a wicked or depraved person; one who acts contrary to sound wisdom in his moral deportment; one who prefers trifling and temporary pleasures to the service of God and eternal happiness.
I’m not using “fool” as the Greek word which we translate as “fool.” I don’t have an attitude of anger or hate towards YOU, rather it is towards your beliefs and teachings. Webster’s gives three definitions of the word, the third being how it is used in Scripture when translated from Greek or Hebrew. But note the very FIRST definition and especially the second one where it states as defined by common language (i.e. English). Those two definitions are 100% accurate when describing your and your foolish ideology/beliefs.
Dan, you being intentionally obtuse with your idiotic "4 corners" foolishness is a waste of time.
It's hilarious that you (in another comment) harp on context, yet string together a bunch of out of context proof texts as your big gotcha moment.
I don't see a single question that I haven't answered at some point, therefore I see no reason to waste additional time indulging you again. That you're basing your entire hunch on "Presumably" I see no reason to dignify your fantasy straw men with an additional response.
"No one is disputing the observable reality that there ARE rules found in the Bible, both old and new."
No, you're just using the nonsensical "rulings book" idiocy as a way to diminish the fact that there ARE laws and commandments in scripture and that we are accountable to those laws and commandments.
"Does the existence of rules in biblical texts indicate that those rules are some kind of universal rules?"
Even a cursory reading of scripture seems clear that there are universal laws and commandments (Don't murder, Don't lie, Love YHWH with all your heart..., Love your neighbor as yourself, Go into all the world...), there are other laws and commandments (regarding the specifics of the construction of the tabernacle and temple, or the sacrificial system) that are clearly time and place specific. While there might be a few that could raise questions, the context of the entirety of scripture resolves most if not all of those.
You seem obsessed with the "put homosexuals to death" part of the Levitical law. Yet the notion that an action can violate the law, but that the punishment might change seems to have escaped you. That we don't live under the Israelite theocracy, doesn't somehow mean that those things YHWH called abomination somehow magically become "good".
"Especially when you all do not believe all the rules are universal moral rules... if it's only SOME of the rules that are universal, which ones? Says who? Based upon what? These are reasonable questions that I don't think you all ever deal with."
Given that you don't appear to believe that any of the laws or commandments are universal without any proof, it seems like you should explain and prove that your hunch is accurate for starters. As for the rest, sure you believe that those are reasonable questions, great. You've subjectively decided that and I don't find them as compelling as you do. So go, find your answers. Or don't, I don't care that much about whether or not you find answers based on your subjective criteria. I'm certainly not going to answer them for you. FYI, IF YHWH is who He is portrayed as then is He not enough authority for you? Or are you just predisposed to question the validity of everything attributed to Him?
"If so, based upon what? Where is the objective proven rubric or criteria for settling out the "universal" rules from the temporal rules or rules that aren't even moral (like selling your children)."
Again, the context of scripture is pretty clear, but if you want to complicate things go ahead. If you want to demand something that no one has said exists, go ahead.
"You're question begging, dear friend. If we look at Lev 20 and say, "There is a text that says men should not lie with men," does that mean that all instances of homosexual behavior are immoral?""
No I'm not. But thanks for making my point. The notion that homosexual behavior is problematic predates the 20th century by thousands of years. 100% of the scriptural references to homosexual behavior are negative, 0% are positive or neutral. So yeah, taking the context of scripture into account, it seems safe to conclude that homosexual sex is bad per YHWH.
Gosh! What do we do with Psalm 14:1???
Indeed! Dan dares scold you as if he never demonizes, and hatefully labels Trump and other conservatives!
Dan does, however, match the third definition you've provided as well as the first two.
Indeed. Dan's ploy of bringing up things like "4 corners of the earth" suggests his "serious and prayerful" study of Scripture all these years has not brought him the least bit of wisdom. And while such an argument is incredibly obtuse as well as consciously dishonest, he has yet to provide intelligent, compelling answers or alternatives to what he writes off as "human traditions".
Marshal:
Is the prohibition against murder universal? How so? Where does it say it is? How about lying? How about stealing? How about slavery!!!?
Murder is not wrong because there is a line in the Bible that says it's wrong to kill.
Slavery is not wrong because there are multiple lines in the Bible saying it's groovy, even commanded sometimes.
Rape is not wrong because there is a line in the bible condemning.
Kidnapping enemy women and "forcibly wedding" (ie, rape) them is not okay because there is a line in the bible that says it's okay.
etc, etc.
The bible is NOT a rulings book where we go to find rules (if we can just rightly guess as to which ones are universal or not... or if we don't have that legendary Holy Rubric).
Murder, rape, slavery, etc are wrong and evil because they cause great harm to innocent people... Because they are an abuse of human rights.
We don't find rules by looking to human opinions about what ancient texts may or many not say. YOU do not think that rules can be magically divined by reading the Quran. YOU do not think that men should be killed if they lay with other men just by reading the literal biblical text.
The Bible is not a rulings book and YOU don't think so, at least in the cases where you don't personally think it's a universal rule.
I don't know how to help you, son: The Bible is not a rulings book. We don't find rules for modern situations based upon rules that ancient Israel held for themselves.
You're just being a bit silly and obtuse and irrational.
Marshal falsely said:
But you lie in saying we've never dealt with the difference between universal rules and time/people specific rules, and more exactly, moral rules versus ritual/purity rules and punishments for breaking them.
I don't say you haven't dealt with them. I point out the reality that you have not successfully dealt with them. You offered a bunch of unsupported opinions about why you personally might think THIS rule is universal and THAT rule is not. But none of it is biblical and none of it is proven. It's just you hurling a big old log o' shit at the screen and acting as if it solves your problem.
Those are fine unproven theories, son. But that's all they are. Hunches. Guesses. UNPROVEN.
You STILL have no Holy Rubric and until you do, you don't have a single thing to support your hunches objectively.
Now, if you want to admit "YES, these are just my subjective opinions, nothing that's been proven," well that's a starting point. From there you can continue, "but they REALLLY make a lot of sense to me," if you want, but that's still not proof.
Marshal:
If you can't produce a caveat provided by God, then on what basis do you dare presume there are any scenarios or contexts
I DON'T NEED A CAVEAT IN THE BIBLE to prove or disprove something that you have not proven to be the case in any objective or rational manner. Why?
Because the Bible is NOT A RULINGS BOOK. You certainly haven't/can't prove that it is. You're treating/mistreating the bible as if it were some kind of special little toy to do magic tricks for conservatives but it's just not your toy, son.
On what basis do I say of course, LGBTQ people should be free to live their lives as they wish so long as they're not causing harm to others?
Human rights?
Basic decency?
Basic kindness?
Rational notions of justice?
Common sense?
Moral reasoning?
Because I don't want to be an oppressive pompous jackass??!
How many reasons do I need?
What are y'all talking about? What is wrong with citing the Four corners as an example of imagery to decide upon?? HOW does citing that as an obvious example of imagery suggest I'm not a serious biblical reader??
I have no idea of what you're chasing there, but that dog don't hunt.
A. Marshal (et al), you DO acknowledge that there is imagery in the Bible and more literal text, do you not?
B. You DO agree, don't you, that deciding which genre is being used, which imagery is being used and when... that these are vital to rightly understanding biblical texts, right?
C. You DO agree that you personally (and no human) is at all likely to perfectly understand each and every text, what is and isn't figurative, what is and isn't literal history, and understand perfectly what is and isn't moral? Objectively so..?
D. Assuming you agree with all that, do you agree, then, that we have no golden rubric, no authoritative source to clearly and Objectively tell us how to interpret each passage and line, each potential metaphor, image and/or allegory?
E. If you agree to all that, then HOW do you objectively know any one item on the potential list of biblical things to know?
Or can you admit you can't objectively demonstrate that?
F. And yet, I'm pretty sure you've said there are SOME morals, some texts, some ideas which you DO objectively know. Is that correct?
If so, please give us a list of say, ten ideas you know and can demonstrate objectively as facts? Or even five??
Can you see that this is an extremely reasonable, extremely apt, extremely important questions to be asked respectfully? And do you understand the depth of importance of these questions?
If you imagine that you've done this in the past and don't want to do it again, why not?
For my part, I'm relatively sure you haven't. But you tell me.
June 12, 2025 at 4:18 PM
"Murder is not wrong because there is a line in the Bible that says it's wrong to kill."
Uh...yes it is. Just because you personally think it's wrong, that is far less of a reason to regard it as such than because God prohibits it. Without God, harm to others has no intrinsic compulsion toward how I choose to act. I act on what's best for me and mine and regard all things to the contrary "wrong" or "evil" or "immoral". That's pretty much the alpha and omega of your philosophy of morality. YOUR opinion. I don't go by my opinion, but by the clearly revealed Word of God to decide what is or isn't moral, right, just and proper for one who strives to please Him.
"Slavery is not wrong because there are multiple lines in the Bible saying it's groovy, even commanded sometimes."
You ignore all scholarly explanations for what's referred to in English translations as "slave", thus, your decades of "serious and prayerful" study has failed you in understanding God's Will on the subject. We will not pursue this tangent here. The rest of your "examples" are all willfully and consciously rendered for the purpose of deflecting from your obligation to defend your rebellion with regard to abomination. I won't respond to them all, but will simply say again that what is moral or not is what is rendered one or the other in Scripture. What you're doing is inventing loopholes to protect your love of perversion.
"The bible is NOT a rulings book where we go to find rules (if we can just rightly guess as to which ones are universal or not... or if we don't have that legendary Holy Rubric)."
Yes it is, and just because you're incapable of determining what is universal and what isn't, that means nothing to those of us for whom it is so crystal clear. How can anyone who claims to have spent his entire adult life "seriously and prayerfully" studying Scripture not only not be able to make that determination, but will willfully engage in obvious dishonesty by pretending some issue unrelated to that which is on the table affects the obvious moral status of that under discussion? Those cheap tactics work better at your Blog of Lies and Perversions.
"Murder, rape, slavery, etc are wrong and evil because they cause great harm to innocent people..."
That doesn't make them wrong. It makes the behaviors many find objectionable for those reasons. See the difference? You may choose to call a behavior wrong because you don't like seeing people suffer. But that doesn't make them wrong. God simply says, "Thou shalt not..." and His reasons might not be explicit. For the true Christian, "Thou shalt not..." is enough.
"Because they are an abuse of human rights."
What constitutes a human right is arbitrarily decided by human tradition.
"We don't find rules by looking to human opinions about what ancient texts may or many not say."
We don't look to contemporary human tradition to determine morality. Actual Christians look to God.
"YOU do not think that rules can be magically divined by reading the Quran."
Irrelevant what a false religious text says. Stop citing it as if doing so serves your defense of perversion.
"YOU do not think that men should be killed if they lay with other men just by reading the literal biblical text."
I think, because God says so, that they're deserving of death. We're not compelled by God to kill them for indulging perversion. See the difference?
"The Bible is not a rulings book and YOU don't think so, at least in the cases where you don't personally think it's a universal rule."
The Bible is a book filled with commandments and laws, and thus a "rulings book" (a sort of "multi-task" book, with "rulings" being an important aspect of it). That some of those commandments and rules aren't universal doesn't change that.
"I don't know how to help you, son"
I don't know why you think you can, little girl. I don't look to reprobates to help me understand what I already understand: The Bible isa rulings book. You reject that truth because it denies your liberty to indulge perversions. You prefer to make your own rules instead of abiding God's.
"We don't find rules for modern situations based upon rules that ancient Israel held for themselves."
Ancient Israel didn't institute those rules. God did. And included among them are rules which are universal. You reject the concept because one of them prohibits your favored perversion.
But I would add that an actual and sincere "serious and prayerful" study of Scripture by all people would be most beneficial in dealing with modern situations were all such people to abide what they learn by their study. YOU choose to think that somehow, homosexuality is a modern issue which Scripture doesn't cover to your perverse satisfaction.
"You're just being a bit silly and obtuse and irrational."
You're just being a lying pervert who puts sexual immorality above the Will of God. Good luck with that.
"4 corners" is "imagery", Dan? By what rubric do you insist such a thing? If YOU don't take it literally, where the fuck do you get off presenting it as something which anyone...especially anyone here...would suppose should be taken literally? It's not what we're chasing, Fido. It's what YOU'RE chasing, which is the means to legitimize abomination. You're failing miserably.
June 12, 2025 at 4:33 PM
"I don't say you haven't dealt with them. I point out the reality that you have not successfully dealt with them."
Not based on any actual alternative possibility of what a better explanation might look like. You just offer "Nyuh uh". Thus, you pointed out no reality other than you didn't like what I presented. Another way to say it is that I presented truth about God's Truth and you reject God anyway.
"You offered a bunch of unsupported opinions about why you personally might think THIS rule is universal and THAT rule is not."
Well, that's an intentional misrepresentation of what I present, but then, as a liar, that's what you do.
"But none of it is biblical and none of it is proven."
Actually, all of what I present is totally Biblical and proven by Scripture itself when considering it in whole, as well as with citations from scholars who understand the original languages of Scripture. You'll need something more substantive than "Nyuh uh" every time the facts expose your perversion.
"It's just you hurling a big old log o' shit at the screen and acting as if it solves your problem."
So you like to falsely assert.
"Those are fine unproven theories, son. But that's all they are. Hunches. Guesses. UNPROVEN."j
So you like to falsely assert when the truth goes against you. But on this issue, even pro-homo scholars disagree with you that there exists a pro-homo argument from Scripture.
"You STILL have no Holy Rubric and until you do, you don't have a single thing to support your hunches objectively."
My "Holy Rubric" is Scripture itself and all which gives credence to its reliability. You ask for that which doesn't need to exist, and worse, whatever you might try to describe as such a thing wouldn't alter your love of homosexual behavior. What YOU'Re doing, and it's plain as day to everyone who reads your bile, is trying to erect an insurmountable wall deflecting the slightest penetration of truth from interfering with your promotion, enabling and indulgence in homosexuality.
"Now, if you want to admit "YES, these are just my subjective opinions, nothing that's been proven," well that's a starting point. From there you can continue, "but they REALLLY make a lot of sense to me," if you want, but that's still not proof."
I can only admit the truth, which is that there is no way to pretend homosexual in any context is not abomination prohibited by God. I certainly won't admit to that which serves your pro-homo agenda. That would make me as rebellious as you. I prefer to bow to God's Will to the best of my imperfect ability.
"I DON'T NEED A CAVEAT IN THE BIBLE to prove or disprove something that you have not proven to be the case in any objective or rational manner."
Yes you do because the prohibition demands you provide such if you're intent on ignoring it. You like to say that Lev 18:22 refers to "some form" of homosexual behavior. On what basis other than your desire that it does? You can't cite anything other than your perverse desire that it does nor have you ever tried.
Consider: Where in Scripture does God say, "Men must not lay with a woman, for that is abomination"? He doesn't. But in Lev 18, He provides contexts in which it is forbidden. That is, "some forms" of normal sex is prohibited. But you expect to be taken seriously in suggesting that God is only prohibiting "some forms" of homosexual behavior? That's beyond stupid. God is explicit about what forms of human sexuality is forbidden us. Homosexuality is one of them. Not homo incest, homo rape, homo group sex, homo pedophilia or pederasty, homo sex in temple services...but simply homosexual sex. Period. End of story. Your laugh and vomit provoking "reasoning" in defense of SSM is absurd and childish, but worse, it's intentionally lying and flipping God the bird.
How many reasons do I need?
"Because the Bible is NOT A RULINGS BOOK."
Yes it is, among other things. This is just your childish attempt to deny that it "rules" against your favored perversion.
"You certainly haven't/can't prove that it is."
The many commandments, rules, laws and teachings about what is or isn't pleasing to God belies that idiotic, childishly petulant claim. Moreover, by suggesting it isn't, there is nothing you can do to convince anyone slapping the crap out of you is actually wrong, or more to the point, contrary to God's Will. Because despite the fact Scripture teaches us to love each other, including our enemies, it's not wrong because of that teaching, but because you don't want people slapping the crap out of you, so you insist it's wrong because it hurts. How convenient for you.
"You're treating/mistreating the bible as if it were some kind of special little toy to do magic tricks for conservatives but it's just not your toy, son."
Wrong. Unlike you, I treat Scripture as if it's the Word of God, because it is.
And I've asked you repeatedly to stop condescendingly calling me "son". I'm not your son, bitch. I'd kick your ass if you were my father, because I'd be embarrassed and ashamed of you. You make all manner of demands to control what I say at your Blog of Lies and Perversions, threatening deletion for the slightest infraction. Abide my will here as you demand I abide yours there.
"On what basis do I say of course, LGBTQ people should be free to live their lives as they wish so long as they're not causing harm to others?
Human rights?
Basic decency?
Basic kindness?
Rational notions of justice?
Common sense?
Moral reasoning?
Because I don't want to be an oppressive pompous jackass??!"
No. On the basis of your selfish arrogance. You subordinate the clearly revealed Will of God to assuage your love of perversion and homosexual behaviors. But then, the issue here isn't a matter of whether or not homos are free to live as homos. It's about the morality of homosexuality on the one hand, and the harm caused by taking pride in it.
And being free to perv as hard as one chooses is not the same as demanding that others regard that perving as normal and morally akin to the sexual behavior which takes place within a normal marriage comprised of one man and one woman, which is the only contest in which sexual gratification isn't immoral. The worst part of "Pride" is that very imposition and how appeasing the demand of it has degraded our culture and continues to do so. You're just one more proponent of cultural decay and debasement.
Marshal chose to speak for me (with a stupidly false claim):
On the basis of your selfish arrogance.
What is selfish on my part of wanting to see human rights and liberties enjoyed by LGBTQ folks? I'm neither L, nor G, nor BTQ. What do I gain out of merely not being an oppressor and wanting instead for people to enjoy liberty and human rights?
You might call it many things, but selfish? That doesn't even make sense.
And likewise, what's arrogant about it? That I dare to disagree with Marshal? Because Marshal is certain that HE speaks for God - and that he, Marshal, can't be mistaken on the topic!! - on the issues around LGBTQ? Are you sure you don't mean YOU are being arrogant?
I mean, that IS precisely not only arrogant, but symptomatic of delusions of grandeur. How am I mistaken?
Along those lines, Marshal falsely opined...
You subordinate the clearly revealed Will of God to assuage your love of perversion and homosexual behaviors
That I disagree with Marshal and hold my opinion as more valid than Marshal's is literally NOT "subordinating" the "clearly revealed will of God..." because God has not revealed an opposition to gay folk being married.
Disagreeing with Marshal, et al, and those human opinions on LGBTQ issues is NOT the same as disagreeing with God.
Consider: WHEN you learn that you have been, of course, mistaken and God IS fine with LGBTQ folks and that, indeed, She invites LGBTQ folks to the big drag shows in heaven and they all have a fabulous time... when you find that out and learn that YOU were mistaken, does that mean that you rejected God and God's ways because you were genuinely mistaken? Does that mean you were and are lost, if it turns out you were wrongly speaking your opinion and claiming it was God's opinion?
Likewise, I have no love for perversion. That would be and your pervert prince you keep defending and voting for. An ACTUAL deviant causing widespread evil and harm. For my part, I am opposed to perversion - perverting the good for the bad, perverting the pure for the depraved. I am always opposed to that. I just disagree with your human grade school understanding of "perversion." ("Ooh! HE likes HIM! Gross. Doody!!" - seriously, grow the hell up).
You're just factually mistaken, dear one.
Marshal:
I've asked you repeatedly to stop condescendingly calling me "son". I'm not your son, bitch. I'd kick your ass if you were my father
Isn't it interesting and just a bit sad? I often refer to Marshal as Brother, Son, friend, dear one, etc and Marshal takes offense at THAT and thinks THAT is condescending. But Marshal (and Glenn, to a lesser degree) regularly attacks me with all manner of vile, perverse, hateful names and threats of violence and thinks that is acceptable (presumably). That name-calling including grade school misogynistic and homophobic slurs and indecencies. You oft-times seem like a very troubled man, barely able to contain. your rage.
Let it go, friend. Embrace some grace, release the hate and vile anger and interior violence. That mostly hurts you.
And you know who would tell you the same? Many of my LGBTQ friends. They would feel so sorry for all that anger and bile and hatred burning in you like acid.
Let it go. Breathe. Release. Repent.
June 12, 2025 at 10:59 PM
"What is selfish on my part of wanting to see human rights and liberties enjoyed by LGBTQ folks?"
As you quoted me, I said "selfish arrogance" in reference to the dearth of Scriptural support for your position on this issue. This isn't a discussion about "human rights" (even the perversion of the concept by those like you) or "liberty" (another concept twisted by your kind to protect your choice to indulge in abomination). It's a discussion about the absolute and unquestionable immorality of homosexual behavior.
"I'm neither L, nor G, nor BTQ."
So you say.
"What do I gain out of merely not being an oppressor and wanting instead for people to enjoy liberty and human rights?"
The favor of those who put their desire to indulge abomination over the clearly revealed Will of God. You certainly don't gain salvation by doing so or by falsely labeling opposition to homosexuality and the agenda of its practitioners as "oppression".
"You might call it many things, but selfish? That doesn't even make sense."
The entirety of the LGBTQ++++ agenda is based on selfishness and lies. You, at the very least, enable if not partake in it yourself. Thus, you're a selfish liar, too.
"And likewise, what's arrogant about it? That I dare to disagree with Marshal?"
No. Because you dare subordinate the Will of God to that of your own and that of your beloved perverts.
"Because Marshal is certain that HE speaks for God - and that he, Marshal, can't be mistaken on the topic!! - on the issues around LGBTQ? Are you sure you don't mean YOU are being arrogant?"
I'm NOT mistaken about God's total prohibition of homosexual practice in any context or scenario. If you want to pretend that stating fact with the full confidence that obvious facts are indeed obvious facts is arrogance, that's your dysfunction. There's absolutely no room for disagreement on this issue except for your selfish arrogance insisting without basis or evidence from Scripture that I'm wrong.
"I mean, that IS precisely not only arrogant, but symptomatic of delusions of grandeur. How am I mistaken?"
By falsely suggesting that stating the truth is arrogance. You've provided absolutely no evidence to the contrary in the 20 years we've been doing this dance. You've provided nothing more than 20 years of "Nyuh uh", and the weakest of weak arguments akin to a joke which is not funny anymore.
"You subordinate the clearly revealed Will of God to assuage your love of perversion and homosexual behaviors"
"That I disagree with Marshal and hold my opinion as more valid than Marshal's is literally NOT "subordinating" the "clearly revealed will of God..." because God has not revealed an opposition to gay folk being married."
You're not disagreeing with me. You're disagreeing with God. Your weak argument that He hasn't specifically mentioned anything resembling SSM is simply because the fact of the underlying behavior being abomination eliminates the need to satisfy your selfishly arrogant demand that He must. Again. Why is it necessary that He do so except to satisfy the likes of you? His prohibition is comprehensive because no caveats are given, as they are in the same chapter referencing normal sexual behavior. Normal sexual behavior is not abomination, yet he does speak to "forms" of it. If He prohibited normal sexual behavior altogether, He would have prohibited it in the same manner as He prohibits ALL homosexual behavior. No, Dan. You have no basis for presuming God might be cool with SSM. Arrogantly demanding that two people lovingly indulging abomination makes it less abominable is childish nonsense proving as well that you have no understanding of "adult reasoning" looks like.
You're just factually mistaken, dear one.
"Disagreeing with Marshal, et al, and those human opinions on LGBTQ issues is NOT the same as disagreeing with God."
As Craig so often notes, repeating your lies won't make the truths. You're not disagreeing with me. You're disagreeing with the opinion of God Himself, so clearly revealed to us in Scripture, which stands in stark opposition to any indulgence in homosexual behavior. Your perversion of His Will is akin to you saying, "Yeah...I know He doesn't want me to have sexual relations with my goat, but I love my goat and won't cheat on her with another goat, so it's OK." You're arrogantly making up your own rules and exceptions to get around God's clear and unequivocal prohibition.
"Consider: WHEN you learn that you have been, of course, mistaken"
I'm in truth in no way at all mistaken on this issue based on anything and everything in Scripture.
"... and God IS fine with LGBTQ folks..."
God is in no way "fine" with unrepentant LGBTQ++++ folks or any other folks who willfully indulge in clearly sinful behaviors, and even less so with those who, like you, arrogantly assert your favorite sins are no longer sinful simply because they please you personally.
"... and that, indeed, She invites LGBTQ folks to the big drag shows in heaven..."
Who is this woman of whom you speak and on what authority can she invited unrepentant perverts to perform filth in God's Heaven?
"...when you find that out and learn that YOU were mistaken, does that mean that you rejected God and God's ways because you were genuinely mistaken?"
What a stupid question based on perverse fantasy! Again. I'm not mistaken on this issue. It's not even possible. God was perfectly clear in stating His objection to what He calls detestable.
"Does that mean you were and are lost, if it turns out you were wrongly speaking your opinion and claiming it was God's opinion?"
Your fervent fantasies will not come to fruition, pervert, but thanks for the laugh.
"Likewise, I have no love for perversion."
Clearly and unequivocally, you do. An incredibly sick love of perversion. So much so that you'll project the quality of your perversion on a great president who simply indulged in normal sexual behavior in immoral contexts. Said another way, both Trump and your beloved perverts indulged in sexually immoral behavior, but unlike Trump, your perverts indulged in perverse sexually immoral behavior. The thought of it excites you.
I won't respond further to your perverse lies about Donald Trump's presidency.
"For my part, I am opposed to perversion - perverting the good for the bad, perverting the pure for the depraved."
That's exactly what you are given your defense of homosexuality.
"I just disagree with your human grade school understanding of "perversion." ("Ooh! HE likes HIM! Gross. Doody!!" - seriously, grow the hell up)."
You disagree with truth, and are woefully incapable of providing any evidence to support your lies. And here's your arrogance again in your insistence that you can pervert what perversion is to protect perverts from being accurately regarded as perverts. You have no such authority, even if you don't personally...as a pervert yourself...regard homosexual behavior as perversion. It is by definition. So are you. You're the Queen of Perverts.
June 12, 2025 at 11:04 PM
"Isn't it interesting and just a bit sad? I often refer to Marshal as Brother, Son, friend, dear one, etc and Marshal takes offense at THAT and thinks THAT is condescending."
Because it is, not just in the expression of it, but on the basis of your attempting to posture as "the better man" by doing so. It's a lie. You're a pervert and an insulting one by daring to play "Christian" with me. You're not a Christian. You're a fraud posing as one. I don't want pervert frauds like you daring to regard me as a brother or friend, for you are neither.
What's most important is the arrogance of you ignoring my clear request, though unlike you, I haven't deleted your comments when you fail to respect it. You demand adherence to your requests at your Blog of Lies and Perversions. Abide mine as you would have me do unto you, you fraud.
"But Marshal (and Glenn, to a lesser degree) regularly attacks me with all manner of vile, perverse, hateful names and threats of violence and thinks that is acceptable (presumably)."
No threats of violence have ever come from me. Simply because I suggested you wouldn't say to my face many of the things you say on line is a statement of fact. Simply because I would love to slap the crap out of you doesn't mean I would. Unlike you perverts, I strive to control my orientation so as to please God.
As to name calling, they all accurately describe you and your character and behavior.
"That name-calling including grade school misogynistic and homophobic slurs and indecencies."
You don't understand the word "misogynistic" or you're intentionally lying about it's meaning in order to falsely label me in that manner. There's no such thing as "homophobia", except for your fear of preaching God's truth to them. There's no term which references them which is NOT derogatory. They are what they are regardless of the word I choose to refer to them. "Homo"? "Gay"? "Faggot"? Absolutely no difference. They all refer to the same group of perverts. Oh! I forgot...."Pervert"? There. Fixed it.
"You oft-times seem like a very troubled man, barely able to contain. your rage."
You, and your troll, have a perversely desperate need to believe that simply because I speak the truth. Sure, your constant lying and perversions of truth can be frustrating. But all in all I remain quite mellow. Then again, righteous indignation is not "rage", as if it is unjustified or impermissible or psychotic or Trabue...I mean...perverse. The bottom line is defending truth is threatening to those like you for whom the truth is inconvenient, so it might seem like "rage" to you. I'm sure you can find counseling to help you with that, but you won't like it because good counseling will speak the same truths I speak and point out the same evil in your I continue to point out.
"Let it go, friend. Embrace some grace, release the hate and vile anger and interior violence. That mostly hurts you."
That's funny coming from the guy who hates conservatives, Trump and the Will of God! Thanks for the laugh.
"And you know who would tell you the same? Many of my LGBTQ friends. They would feel so sorry for all that anger and bile and hatred burning in you like acid."
So you're saying your homosexual friends are liars like you? I already knew that.
"Let it go. Breathe. Release. Repent."
So you want me to let truth go...to repent of my dedication to truth. Got it. Not gonna happen, Princess.
This is the continuation of the comment from 2:18 PM.
On another level, one of the commands in early Genesis (and elsewhere) is to "be fruitful and multiply". I guess you could come up with some bizarre eisegesis to deny that this doesn't command men and women having children to populate the world, but it'd be stupid. The reality, the hard scientific, biological reality) is that homosexual sex cannot fulfill the mandate to "be fruitful and multiply". Further, Jesus had an excellent opportunity to clarify things about marriage and the design and intent of marriage and He chose to quote Genesis and clarify the M/F nature of marriage. He could have expanded to include LGBs, but He didn't. Again, it's not a matter of taking one verse out of context, it's a matter of looking at ALL of the context.
"To answer the question with a flat statement like that is missing the question entirely."
Well, if you say so as the arbiter of what "the question" is under all circumstances. What a ridiculous, arbitrary limit you've arbitrarily imposed. I choose not to play by your arbitrary rules. Of course, you ignore the reality that your eisegesis could be wrong and the there is a simple, direct, universal answer.
"IS it universally immoral?"
Seems to be. Actually it's more abomination than immoral, but that's nitpicking innit?
" Says who?"
Unless proven otherwise, the answer seems to be YWHH.
"Merely declaring that this is the meaning of the text is not an adult level of reasoning."
Interesting. You merely declare all sorts of things, so are you admitting to a childlike level of reasoning? If YHWH is doing the declaring, is He guilty of a childlike level of reasoning" What specifically is the objective dividing line between adult and child level reasoning?
Of course, no one is "merely declaring" anything. (except you, you do it all the time)
"I mean, we could just as easily ask the question: "Should there be capital punishment for homosexual acts?" and someone could respond with "It speaks of the act of homosexual sex as being a required death penalty. Period." But THAT would be question begging."
Again, no it wouldn't. Because context. In a 21st century, representative republic, with a secular government that would not be a justification. In a BC theocracy where YHWH is involved in the governance, whole different context. Of course, no one except the Islamic nations you've lauded in the last actually have a death penalty for homosexuals, so your whole line of reasoning is child level argument and arguing against a straw man.
"You can't presume your answer is correct and then offer your answer as proof. You have to first prove it."
Yet you do so regularly, while I've never done so. Strange.
"Actually, by law one is not allowed to make value judgements where homosexuals are concerned."
Given the reality that we live in a country which has laws in place, that goes without saying. The laws is, currently, what it is. You can choose not to obey the law and assume the risk of the consequences. Personally, if a gay person wants to pay me US legal tender for my services, I'll take the money and do my job the way I would for anyone. I like getting paid for what I do, and I see no reason to exclude potential clients.
"Rather, one is forced to abide the unConstitutional mandate"
Again, we live in a country that has laws and we are "forced" to abide by those laws or risk consequences. As you are not a noted legal authority, nor a sitting member of any court, your hunch about the constitutionality really carries no weight. Feel free to kick against those particular goads if that makes you happy.
As I see no possibility of these laws changing, I see little value in playing what if. What I would say is that if you are going to treat a pair of unmarried gay men in a certain way based on their sexual activities, then why would you apply a different standard to an unmarried M/F couple doing the same things sexually?
"So my issue here is one of liberty..."
Well, unfortunately we live in a country in which we do not have 100% unfettered liberty to do as we like.
"By law, perhaps."
Yes, "By law" that's exactly what is being discussed. Because we live in a country where equal treatment under the law is a founding principle, and if you're going to ban anal sex for gays, then there's no justification for not banning it across the broad. That you personally would like to live in a country shaped by your person opinions and religious beliefs doesn't mean that the other 330,000,000 of us want to live in your utopia.
"You seem to agree with Dan that it's the act rather than who indulges in it."
1. From a legal perspective, and an equal treatment under the law perspective I fail to see another option given our current law.
2. What is "sinful" and what is "legal" are often not the same.
"My position is based on Lev 18:22, not "anal is bad"."
Unfortunately, the US legal code does not follow Leviticus. You seem to be conflating what is legal with what is sinful. Yet, as Christians, our response to sin should not be the same as our response to breaking US law. The Levitical law (and the rest of the OT law) was intended to point toward repentance and forgiveness, while criminal law is not.
To your parenthetical comment where you got into what you said you weren't going to get into. It's two different spheres. National law as opposed to YHWH's law.
"Some, if not most, considerations are granted married couples because of the understanding that they are as one flesh, and thus, some things are automatic as if one person is at the same time the other."
I'm unaware of the US code section where it codifies "one flesh", but I could be wrong.
In a sense you are correct in regards to how the principle was applied in the pre industrial revolution time frame, but I'll not digress as we don't live in that world anymore.
"But that doesn't argue for disallowing considerations to non-married people of any number (if I wish to give allow visitation while in the hospital, there's no legit reason to deny me several who can visit). "
Except this isn't about mere visitation in a hospital. It's about medical decisions, it's about inheritance and joint ownership issues, or who's the beneficiary of things. Mostly it's about applying a secular legal system in an evenhanded way across the board.
"The problem with your "fundamental rights" limitation is that, the very concept is an oxymoron."
How so? Do you not believe the right to life is fundamental? Or the right to defend it? How exactly is the concept oxymoronic?
"But we live in under a Constitution in which I have the fundamental right to live by my religious beliefs. See the problem here?"
No, I don't. There is nothing preventing you as an individual from living by your religious beliefs (although one could apply this same logic to other religions as well). If you choose to engage in certain activities, then you are required to follow applicable US law. It's 100% your choice. You do you. I, personally, am pretty good at what I do and would prefer that more people engaged my services rather than less. But I enjoy helping people, I enjoy getting paid, and (oh yeah) I'm legally required to follow US law or lose my ability to do my job.
In general, I see in scripture a connection between relationship and "condemning" people for their sin. It is completely normal for me to point out sin to someone I know reasonably well, it's ridiculous for me to point out the sin of the "T" employee at Micro Center who was very helpful as I looked for a new laptop.
"They'd lose that argument unless they argued for all other OT laws which imposed that punishment on other sins. What's more, this also sounds like a Dan argument."
OK, whatever. I know it's a crazy notion to think that something can remain a sin, yet that the temporal punishment might be different outside of the Israelite theocracy.
"I'm talking about the simple notion that I should be free to refuse service to, or to be associated with whom I choose. They're free to find accommodation from any number of options where their perversion isn't a concern."
Whatever, if you want to bitch about current US law, go ahead. Your time would be better spent getting yourself caught breaking the law, and taking your case to SCOTUS to get the law changed if you don't like it. I'm strange, I'm a capitalist, I'll take money (legally) from anyone who'll hire me. But you do you.
"Actually, it's the exact same thing."
It could be, but it's not automatically. If someone chooses to exclude a significant percentage of their potential customers because they want to discriminate (it's not a bad word), then more power to them as they go out of business. I'm a little libertarian about letting people make stupid choices and suffer the consequences. I absolutely could limit my business to those without sin, or even those without specific sins, but that'd be a poor choice. As someone who is a sinner, and who deals with the same sin over and over, I would prefer that I not be discriminated against for my sins. Maybe you'd have no problem with it. Hell Dan probably thinks he doesn't sin enough to be discriminated against.
"I don't care about islam. Dan does. Talk to him."
You literally want to prevent US citizens who are Muslim from practicing their religion, or to prevent them from entering the US because of their religion. But if this cuts a little closer to home, I'm sure you're all in to support those who practice Voudu or Santeria to practice every aspect of their religions, right?
"No great president is perfect, Craig. Or haven't you heard?"
That's not, and has never been the issue. The issue here is that you're willing to wholeheartedly support one of the most "gay friendly" presidents in recent history, while also being prepared to restrict the rights of gays. It's an indication that you're not perfect either, but it's a strange thing for you to compromise your principles on.
"I defend Trump for ending the "T" bullshit in the military. I defend Trump for ceasing to honor "Pride Month". I don't defend Trump for any pro-homosexual stance he might take. So I don't get your point."
I know you don't, and that's too bad.
It's stupid because it's incredibly obvious that it is figurative language and figurative language that crosses languages. It's further obvious that the figurative language has a literal meaning.
You have a tendency to simply throw out "figurative language" as an excuse to avoid the plain meaning of texts. You announce that something is "figurative language" and move on as if identifying it as such is all that is necessary.
Figurative language exists for a purpose. The purpose is to communicate something literal.
It's less about that specific example as about how you hide behind claims of "figurative language" without an explanation as to what the alleged "figurative language" means.
"NO. That is NOT what I'm saying."
Except those are your literal words saying exactly that. That you've modified your original claim and made excuses for what you say you "really meant" is irrelevant. You made the claim.
By all means repeat your made up, rubric intended to prove your point as if repetition will magically make it True. You've made objective claims about marriage (or at least hunches phrased as objective claims), with absolutely no definitive, specific, proof.
"Do you agree with the notion that within the pages of the Bible, it is a consistent theme that God loves humanity and wants the best for humanity?"
Based on how you appear to define love, and best, I'd have to say that I do not agree with your unproven hunch. YHWH seems more interested in what brings glory to Himself, than with indulging the desires of humans. But whatever.
"NOW, I GET that you, personally, and those in your human traditions, have formed the opinions that what God THINKS is best for humanity does not include gay folks marrying."
If that's what you "GET" then you're wrong.
"IS that correct?"
See above.
"But, IF it's correct, do you acknowledge that it's just your theory, nothing you can prove?"
See above. The problem is not that it objectively can't be proven, it's that you've imposed an arbitrary and personal level of "proof" that no one can decipher and the seems to change regularly.
Now Dan decides to interpret one scripture literally.
Yes you refer to us in all sorts of condescending terms, yet you treat us in ways that belie your use of those terms. Given the vitriol, vulgarity and ad hom attacks you've aimed at me, I's say that you've got a problem selling this "son" bullshit.
Art's asked you nicely, and with increasing vigor not to call him "son" yet you choose to continue to do what he's asked you not to, and then make bullshit excuses to cover your graceless actions.
The fact that you show so little grace, yet demand other do what you do not, disgusts me. That you cloak it in this hypocritical, holier than thou, condescending bullshit, is even worse.
Maybe you should try to repent, and embrace grace once and a while.
Craig:
The fact that you show so little grace, yet demand other do what you do not, disgusts me.
So, me calling Marshal or you, "brother" or "dear one" disgusts you, but you're fine with Marshal using all sorts of misogynistic, homophobic vulgarities, you're cool with that? Even though I've made clear to Marshal that, of course, I find vulgar terms demeaning to women and others to be not something rational, good people should do?
The things you all take offense at (and what you give a pass to) and find disgusting is, to be quite honest, disgusting... and hypocritical and not very adult.
Peace to you all, who are my brothers and fellow humans in this life and on this earth and, if you are Christians, in the family of God. I may often avoid it because you are so sensitive to even the most polite of endearing terms (used as a reminder that we ARE actually brothers, like it or not... and as a reminder to embrace more reasonable and respectful language), but I still use it as exactly that reminder.
Find something more substantive to be "disgusted" at, friend.
I mean, seriously, can you imagine y'all praying to God and you running to Jesus and saying, "Jesus! Dan has been calling me Brother and Friend and Son! It's because he believes we're all family and Marshall and I REALLLY hate it when he does that! Marshal calls him a b**** and a f***** and other things to let Dan know how much we loathe his opinions and how much we know he's not a follower of You! Help us, Jebus, from that wicked oppressor, Dan!!"
Wouldn't you be just a bit embarrassed about all of that? I mean, come on.
Don't you think Jesus would just shake his head sadly and ask, "But Dan WAS trying to welcome the stranger and free the oppressed and feed the hungry and otherwise acting as I taught... you know, the things I taught as important and why I came to the earth... and Dan (who believes in grace, after all) really DOES consider you all brothers and family and friends, at least in some sense, do you really think I should reprimand Dan for calling you, "dear one..."?
??
I mean... just saying that part out loud, doesn't it strike you as a bit... janky?
Craig:
Given the vitriol, vulgarity and ad hom attacks you've aimed at me, I's say that you've got a problem selling this "son" bullshit.
I've never intentionally engaged in an ad hom attack, of course. And my vitriol and vulgarities, when I've used them in our conversations, have always been directed at ACTIONS and ATTITUDES... those God damned purveyors of slavery... Those who ignore racism and give a pass to sexual predators (and even vote for them!) are f'd up!
Have I ever called anyone here a "b****" or even a "bastard..."? Have I ever actually name-called with vulgarities? I don't think so.
But those who ignore actual perversions like grabbing women by the ***** - and boasting and laughing about it and how they can get away with it because they are privileged, wealthy and powerful... they really are F'd up. Do you disagree?
Marshal:
I said "selfish arrogance" in reference to the dearth of Scriptural support for your position on this issue.
1. I have given my biblical and rational reasons for why I disagree with your personal human opinion. You don't have to like them, but I HAVE given them.
2. Because I don't use (misuse/abuse) the Bible the way y'all do: As some kind of magic proof text book to randomly select rules that you deem universal (and I say Randomly because of the lack of any rational, consistent, authoritative rubric for WHY you say rule 1 is universal and rule 2 is not), of course, I'm not going to lean into citing biblical passages to "prove" something that can't be proven. I don't accept your Bible-as-rulings book approach to the Bible, any more than I accept the Kama Sutra as a rulings book for determining how to love. WHY would I cite the Kama Sutra to prove something about love if I don't accept it as a rulings book? WHY would I cite the Bible to prove something about morality if I don't accept your opinion that it's a rulings book? You're asking me to accept your premise and I do not share that human theory you have.
3. IF I have rational and biblical reasons why I hold my positions (and I do as endlessly demonstrated) and I hold to those views in an effort to be moral and true to my God, WHAT is "arrogant" or "selfish" in that? You still haven't answered the basic question about your silly little false charge. Same for all the rest of your answers. You merely claiming it's arrogant and selfish means nothing.
Marshal:
By falsely suggesting that stating the truth is arrogance.
But I have NOT said that stating the truth is arrogant. I said insisting that YOUR personal unproven human opinions is objectively right (even though you can't prove it) and that YOU can not be mistaken on the matter... that IS literally arrogant.
How is it not?
June 13, 2025 at 1:14 PM
"Given the reality that we live in a country which has laws in place, that goes without saying. The laws is, currently, what it is. You can choose not to obey the law and assume the risk of the consequences."
Totally not my point. Thanks for mentioning this misunderstanding so I can clarify. It's not about what the law is, but that the law is not consistent with the intent of the founders. It's not about choosing whether or not to obey the law as it exists, but that the law should not exist because it conflicts with the principles of liberty for which the founders sought to provide.
"Personally, if a gay person wants to pay me US legal tender for my services, I'll take the money and do my job the way I would for anyone. I like getting paid for what I do, and I see no reason to exclude potential clients."
But that's a choice you make to put money over principle and I do not oppose you having that option. That's what was intended by the founders. That's liberty, and that's my point.
"Personally, if a gay person wants to pay me US legal tender for my services, I'll take the money and do my job the way I would for anyone. I like getting paid for what I do, and I see no reason to exclude potential clients."
I'm not opposed to providing certain common services for homos. I'm not about to ask one's orientation for everything before choosing whether or not to do business. But like certain photographers, bakers, florists and landlords, providing some services is not negotiable, as it might require that which suggests, implies or in fact shows I'm promoting/enabling abomination. No amount of money can compel me to comply with such and no law will, either.
However, while I might sell a box of tissue to a dyke, or a carton of eggs to a mo, doing so in and of itself doesn't put me in that situation. Yet, another merchant might not want to do business in any way with a homosexual, and any law that forces him to do so is unConstitutional. I don't have to be a legal expert to understand that clear and obvious fact and I don't have to worry about whether or not I will or can get my government to correct its error in forcing anyone to pretend one is obliged to associate with and/or do business with anyone for any reason in order to assert that reality. And that's really all I'm doing here. Asserting the truth that the law is fucked up and in need of revision.
"Again, we live in a country that has laws and we are "forced" to abide by those laws or risk consequences."
Really Craig??? Gosh! I never fucking knew that! Thanks for enlightening me, Captain Obvious! But that's wholly irrelevant to the valid and factual point that the law is crap and unjustly imposed.
" As you are not a noted legal authority, nor a sitting member of any court, your hunch about the constitutionality really carries no weight."
Uh...actually, in our system of government, my accurate understanding of the constitutionality lacking in these pro-homo laws carries the weight of all who agree with me, and that's not just me and the frog in my pocket. Many understand this perversion of liberty and desire that it be rescinded. But if I was the only person who thought so, that would in no way diminish the truth of it, just as numbers do not diminish God's Truth. Truth does not depend on how many abide it. It remains regardless. I prefer to promote it, even in the face of overwhelming disagreement and apathy like yours.
"As I see no possibility of these laws changing, I see little value in playing what if."
Good for you. Quitting isn't a good look, however. It increases the probability that sin will remain dominant. That gives Dan a tingle in his lady bits. In the meantime, I'm not "playing". I'm promoting reason and morality in civil law. I add my voice to others of like mind and seek to persuade those who believe as I do but have quit as well that they must not. What's that expression regarding when good men do nothing?
" What I would say is that if you are going to treat a pair of unmarried gay men in a certain way based on their sexual activities, then why would you apply a different standard to an unmarried M/F couple doing the same things sexually?"
That's not the question. The question is, on what basis can the government demand I treat anyone as the government demands I must in private dealings? "Equal rights" is a government obligation. That is, the government must guarantee its own dealings are not discriminatory. Not mine. Not yours. Not the other guy who never wants the least contact with a fag or dyke or "drag queen". It's not the government's business. Too many confuse liberty with depraved indifference. I'm not promoting the denial of any service which has the clear potential of leading to someone's death. That would be no different than murdering someone if the threat of death was obvious. Allowing that some person might not want to do business with you because he doesn't like your tie is not in conflict with any understanding of the Constitution, but does conform with the principle of individual liberty. You wanna buy my saltines? Take off that disgusting necktie! My store, my rules and I'm willing to suffer the hit to my bottom line rather than have anyone suffer the sight of that adornment.
If I fancy wearing offensive neckties, but really love that guy's saltines. I must decide if I love my tie more than I want those saltines, or if I'm good with the almost as good crackers the guy down the block sells from a merchant who doesn't care about my tie. I'm unconcerned about the the bottom line of either guy and just want the best munchies I can get. THAT is capitalism and the free market at its best and it doesn't require anyone in government telling anyone what to do for it to rise or fall of its own accord. Thus we return to the fact that "equal rights" is a governmental concern, not the concern of the private sector.
"Well, unfortunately we live in a country in which we do not have 100% unfettered liberty to do as we like."
Because good men did nothing, and government then overstepped the bounds of what liberties can be mitigated.
"Yes, "By law" that's exactly what is being discussed."
Actually, it's not. I'm focused on the immorality of homosexuality and how laws were unjustly and unconstitutionally imposed on the nation which favors the homosexual over everyone else. While I must submit to even such unjust laws, I'm not obliged to do so without criticism and attempts to see them overturned.
"Because we live in a country where equal treatment under the law is a founding principle, and if you're going to ban anal sex for gays, then there's no justification for not banning it across the broad."
Except that it's not anal sex which denotes homosexuality. It's anal sex between men, which is disorder. Again, while I might personally regard anal sex in any context to be less than glorifying to God, I can think of no Scripture which denies a married couple to engage in such specifically. Homosexuality is defined as sex between two of the same sex and it is that which is abomination. Not necessarily the specifics how they achieve sexual self-gratification. Of course if you can think of a passage which clarifies such, I'd be grateful should you point it out.
"That you personally would like to live in a country shaped by your person opinions and religious beliefs doesn't mean that the other 330,000,000 of us want to live in your utopia."
How nice of you to go out of your way to portray me as some kind of moronic progressive. I do not seek to force anyone to do anything, except that no one should force me to regard the union of two homos or lesbos as a married couple. I prefer persuasion that the persuaded recognize their error and repent of it. But as regards law, they've imposed perversion upon us all and I'm not keen on letting it stand.
"1. From a legal perspective, and an equal treatment under the law perspective I fail to see another option given our current law."
We still have laws pertaining to sexual behaviors which are illegal. While I'm not personally calling for outlawing buggering between two dudes, it's a different story altogether to rescind the highly flawed and baseless Obergefell ruling which imposed SSM on a non-consenting public.
"2. What is "sinful" and what is "legal" are often not the same."
Unfortunately, what is made legal more often than not bestows upon the minds of most a sense that what is now legal is now moral. Abortion, for example, became rampant after the equally unconstitutional Roe v Wade ruling. What's allowed increases and that includes an increase in acceptability and thus the perception that a vile act is moral. It's really quite obvious that this is so.
"Unfortunately, the US legal code does not follow Leviticus. You seem to be conflating what is legal with what is sinful."
It is very much unfortunate as regards homosexuality. But I conflate nothing here. I'm saying that legalizing this vile behavior has resulted in many finding no fault with it. That's a natural outcome, but also was predicted when legalizing perversion was being discussed. One had no need of being Nostradamus to know it would be so.
"Yet, as Christians, our response to sin should not be the same as our response to breaking US law."
I don't know what you mean by this.
" The Levitical law (and the rest of the OT law) was intended to point toward repentance and forgiveness, while criminal law is not."
Both are intended to guide behavior. Both encourage acceptable behaviors.
"I'm unaware of the US code section where it codifies "one flesh", but I could be wrong."
Prior to that period when perverts stepped up their push to have their immoral unions made legal, the criterion of one man/one woman wasn't codified, either. It was assumed by almost everyone, including most pervs. Such is true of the notion of a consummated marriage having enjoined the husband and wife as one flesh.
"In a sense you are correct in regards to how the principle was applied in the pre industrial revolution time frame, but I'll not digress as we don't live in that world anymore."
These principles were applied far more recently than the pre-industrial age, Craig. They didn't start codifying the definition in laws until the latter half of the 1900s, indeed sometime between 1970-1990 when pervs started their marriage related activism.
"Except this isn't about mere visitation in a hospital."
Of course not, Craig. It's a single fucking example of the arguments used by the activists to pretend they're denied because the state wouldn't license and their unholy unions and recognize them a legitimate marriages. The point is that the excuses they used to rationalize their demand for recognition were such situations which didn't require licensing their unions to get around. The point wasn't to get hospital visitation rights or the ability to make medical decisions for an incapacitated same-sex lover, or inheritance or any of that crap. All that was a ruse, the point of which was to legitimize their perversion.
June 13, 2025 at 8:10 PM
"So, me calling Marshal or you, "brother" or "dear one" disgusts you, but you're fine with Marshal using all sorts of misogynistic, homophobic vulgarities, you're cool with that?"
What's disgusting is your use of those words for the purpose of posturing as a Christian.
Words aren't "misogynistic", "homophobic" (there is no such thing except your fear of speaking truthfully to homos about their behavior being abomination which denies them the Kingdom of God), even when words used might be commonly considered vulgar. If I call you "a little bitch", that's not all a slight on womanhood, and no woman I've ever met would regard it as so. We've discussed this many times regarding words like "cunt", as no woman I've polled feels personally insulted or threatened when hearing the word uttered by men who aren't directing it to them. You might feel threatened or insulted, but that's because you're a little bitch.
But given you're not a Christian, nor an honest human being, you ignore the message being sent by the use of any word directed at or to you and focus on the word in order to demonize. In the meantime, you use the terms about which we find the usage disgusting to insult by supposing the transparently dishonest posturing in your use of the terms is not accurately inferred. And that you think you're fooling anyone is just heaping more insult by its condescension.
"Even though I've made clear to Marshal that, of course, I find vulgar terms demeaning to women and others to be not something rational, good people should do?"
You only speak for women who are of your perverse tribe of fakes and frauds, and likely not them, either. As my polling of women fails to find any who feel demeaned when anyone...even other women...use the words which provokes a wetting of your panties, I doubt you could fine such a sensitive broad among your suspect circle of associates. This is not to say they approve of the word, but to suggest anyone feels demeaned by its expression requires something more than the word of the likes of you, who's word is worthless.
"The things you all take offense at (and what you give a pass to) and find disgusting is, to be quite honest, disgusting... and hypocritical and not very adult."
I've no doubt you want anyone to believe this crap. It's just you choosing to criticize others as if you're of good stock, when in fact you're and out and proud defender of evil and perversion. That's not to say even one as low character as you can't reprimand one for truly bad behavior, but you are complicit in the purveyance of so much blatantly evil shit and do so while posturing as a Christian. That's some truly disgusting shit, girl.
"Peace to you all, who are my brothers and fellow humans in this life and on this earth and, if you are Christians, in the family of God."
Here it is again. We're not brothers in any way. We're not "fellow" humans as if in the same club and you're no Christian. You're of the goats. You're chaff, and it's you doing the separating by virtue of your proud defense of so much evil.
"I may often avoid it because you are so sensitive to even the most polite of endearing terms (used as a reminder that we ARE actually brothers, like it or not... and as a reminder to embrace more reasonable and respectful language), but I still use it as exactly that reminder."
Not at all sensitive to most any term, especially terms of politeness and endearment. I'm opposed to your exploitation of those terms to paint yourself as something you're not...a Christian. We are not brothers. I not only will not be equally yoked with the likes of you, Christian teaching encourages that I not be.
"Find something more substantive to be "disgusted" at, friend."
Not your friend. Find some way to be less disgusting, girl.
June 13, 2025 at 8:28 PM
"I mean, seriously, can you imagine y'all praying to God and you running to Jesus and saying, "Jesus! Dan has been calling me Brother and Friend and Son! It's because he believes we're all family and Marshall and I REALLLY hate it when he does that! Marshal calls him a b**** and a f***** and other things to let Dan know how much we loathe his opinions and how much we know he's not a follower of You! Help us, Jebus, from that wicked oppressor, Dan!!""
This is funny. You seem to think that Jesus is unaware of your duplicitous posturing and that we think He is, too.
"Wouldn't you be just a bit embarrassed about all of that? I mean, come on."
I used to be embarrassed for you anytime you play this game. Now I'm just not surprised.
"Don't you think Jesus would just shake his head sadly and ask, "But Dan WAS trying to welcome the stranger and free the oppressed and feed the hungry and otherwise acting as I taught... you know, the things I taught as important and why I came to the earth... and Dan (who believes in grace, after all) really DOES consider you all brothers and family and friends, at least in some sense, do you really think I should reprimand Dan for calling you, "dear one..."?"
No. I'd expect Him to say..."Don't worry about that. It's not as offensive to me as his support for infanticide, abomination and the perversion of My teachings."
Had a really nice Dad's Day today. Hope all Dad's who visit here had a nice day, too.
It's really sad Mothers and Fathers only get one day each to honor them. One day each. Dan's beloved perverts get three months and 28 individual days:
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/white-house-celebrates-trans-holiday-easter-us-extensive-list-days-devoted-lgbt-causes
So basically, 4 months to celebrate and honor perversion, dysfunction, immorality and rebellion against the Will of God and Moms and Dads get one day each. Abe Lincoln used to have a day. He saved the union and freed the slaves and now his day is rolled into "Presidents' Day" and who in their right mind wants to honor all presidents? Abe...fine. George...find. Reagan...fine. But freakin marxist Obama and village idiot Joe Biden?
Military veterans get two days: One for living vets and one for dead vets. Deviants get four months. Talk about cultural decay! If this doesn't put a fine point on it, few things will...unless some future Democrat asshole proclaims a month celebrating infanticide, which isn't out of the question given how much the love them some dead unborn!
It's just too bad that they gave the entire of month of June...the month in which a day is set aside to honor fathers...to perverts that will never be fathers. But hey!...there's nothing like a month to celebrate abomination and spitting in God's face, right "progressives"?
What annoyns me is twofold. One is your condescension, two is that you refuse to accommodate Art's request, especially as Art grants you the privilege of commenting on his blog.
Art's blog, Art's rules. Just like you allow all sorts of vile shit and lies at your blog and I rarely address it, because it's your blog.
Coming from someone who's raised being hypocritical to an art form, that's something. FYI, when you make shit up, it makes you look stupid. I've not used "disgust" to describe your behavior, yet you'll just pretend that I did.
It's amazing that you show so little grace to those you condescendingly call "brothers" and make no attempt to live in "peace" with those you revile. Your hypocrisy and superior/holier than thou attitude IS disgusting.
Again, you pretend that I used "disgusted" to describe your behavior, even though it is fairly disgusting now that you mention it.
No, because I wouldn't waste my time praying about that. If I was to mention you in my prayers (and I should do so more often), it would be to pray that YHWH would open your eyes, soften your heart, and that you would be overcome with His Truth. That you would put aside your vitriol and lies, and truly show the grace you demand that others embrace.
I think that Jesus would be disgusted by the way you treat those you claim as "brothers", while relying on your good works for His approval.
Yeah, every time you put fingers to keyboard and make shit like this up, it sounds "janky". Of course, so much of what you say sounds "janky" that it's not surprising.
3 comments and not even a hint of an apology. That tells me everything I need to know about you and grace.
That you hide behind excuses is par for the course. That I've done entire posts quoting your vitriolic attacks, should put this to rest, but you're intent on justifying your vitriol and attacks as somehow "righteous" while bitching about some minor "vulgarities"
The hypocrisy is off the charts.
Yeah, what in the world do Fathers/Mothers/presidents/the military/the founders/those who've died defending our country think they deserve. It's the ABC folx who deserve almost 20% of the calendar to celebrate them.
Viva le ABC folx.
It really is incredible how ludicrous the vast majority of Dan's arguments and positions are.
1. You've given your "biblical and rational" reasons (heavier on rational than biblical), which is not providing specific and direct scriptural support for your hunch.
2. Well, when Dan starts making shit up, you know he's got nothing of substance and just wants to drown you in (the electronic version of ) verbal vomit.
3. Because the only rational reason that I see to explain your tepid "biblical and rational" support is to prevent yourself from having to admit that you are wrong. That, IMO, is the essence of selfish.
It appears that Dan is claiming to have been "stating the Truth", but I could be wrong.
Well, so few of them are actually credible that you might be on to something. His way forward is so incredibly simple, yet he does everything he can to avoid the obvious. All he has to do is to provide one example from scripture that directly, clearly and specifically, backs up his "God blesses gay marriage." claim. Just one. I'll even give him the non canonical scriptures (not the Gnostic), the early Church writings and the non scriptural Jewish writings if that would help. But he can produce nothing, because there is nothing. So he uses his Reason to string together some vague "scriptural principles" and pronounces that he's produced the Holy Grail of Biblical support for gay sex.
Ironically, his "string" requires perverting those vague "Scriptural principles" to make his argument work. Actual students of Scripture won't buy it.
June 13, 2025 at 10:54 PM
"1. I have given my biblical and rational reasons for why I disagree with your personal human opinion. You don't have to like them, but I HAVE given them."
No you haven't. You've given purposely invented fictions which you present as "biblical and rational reasons". They are neither and amount to no more than you famous "Nyuh uh" arguments.
"2. Because I don't use (misuse/abuse) the Bible the way y'all do:"
That's funny. Misusing/abusing/perverting Scripture is YOUR thing and no one does it better. You've NEVER proven or so much as presented an intelligent example of my(our) ever having done that.
"As some kind of magic proof text book to randomly select rules that you deem universal"
Nothing at all magical about understanding what is or isn't universal. That, and your demand for a "rubric" you'll never accept when it fails to support your position on this issue...and there's no rubric which wouldn't...is just your false shield you believe gives you liberty to stick with your lie.
"...of course, I'm not going to lean into citing biblical passages to "prove" something that can't be proven."
Not especially compelling when there's no possibility of citing Scripture to defend your embrace of abomination.
"I don't accept your Bible-as-rulings book approach to the Bible, any more than I accept the Kama Sutra as a rulings book for determining how to love."
First of all, you don't accept our citation of God's Will as so clearly revealed in Scripture because you don't accept God's Will on the total prohibition of homosexual behavior...pretending without basis that it suggests only "some form" of it, and that this total prohibition is understood by the absolute lack of any suggestion of a caveat which would permit the practice without it being abomination, such as the taking of marriage-like vows by the participants.
Secondly, I'm pretty sure the Kama Sutra is just a catalogue of sexual techniques, not a "rule book for how to love". Of course, you've never "seriously and prayerfully" studied Scripture, so I'm not surprised you'd not know this basic fact about the Kama Sutra.
"WHY would I cite the Kama Sutra to prove something about love if I don't accept it as a rulings book?"
Who cares? The Kama Sutra is no more binding on a true Christian than your Quran is.
" WHY would I cite the Bible to prove something about morality if I don't accept your opinion that it's a rulings book?"
It's not my opinion that Scripture is a "rulings book". It's the reality that it is a book with rules for living according to God's Will, as well as for not indulging behaviors He cites as sinful...like homosexual behavior. Between citing Scripture and citing one's own opinion, one's own opinion is worthless for determining morality, while Scripture is made for the job.
"You're asking me to accept your premise and I do not share that human theory you have."
I'm not asking you to do anything. I'm demanding you cease with this "human theory/tradition/opinion" bullshit whenever I present Biblical truth. Though ever time you say it, you're as much admitting you're rejecting truth as if you had the Christian honesty and character to do so.
"3. IF I have rational and biblical reasons why I hold my positions..."
...and you don't as you've endlessly failed to demonstrate....
"...and I hold to those views in an effort to be moral and true to my God,..."
...and you don't. You just say that as if we're stupid enough to believe you. You hold those views to gain the favor of your progressive circle of fake Christians.
"WHAT is "arrogant" or "selfish" in that? You still haven't answered the basic question about your silly little false charge. Same for all the rest of your answers. You merely claiming it's arrogant and selfish means nothing."
If it was a false claim that might be true, but it isn't. It's arrogant that in the face of the clear and unequivocal prohibition against homosexual behavior, which carries with it no caveat of any kind and by any stretch of the imagination from the mind of a pervert like yourself, you insist there's some context or scenario in which your kind can indulge the prohibited behavior and no forfeit the Kingdom of God...because after all...what does God know. He's only the Supreme Being.
"But I have NOT said that stating the truth is arrogant. I said insisting that YOUR personal unproven human opinions is objectively right (even though you can't prove it) and that YOU can not be mistaken on the matter... that IS literally arrogant."
Again, you say this kind of crap when the truth conflicting with your embrace of abomination is presented. I don't present opinion. I present the clearly revealed Word of God. You want to pretend the Word of God means something the words on the page don't at all convey, but I'M the one pushing an unproven opinion! That's insisting stating the truth is arrogance. You've wildly unable to even suggest I'm mistaken, but you think it's arrogance that I won't suppose I could be on something so obviously and unquestionable clear. You're a joke.
His string is grounded more in his Reason, than is scripture or scriptural interpretation.
Given Dan's demand for a "rubric", it's strange that he has no rubric.
Here's something for Dan to watch, though he won't have a single coherent, intelligent or fact-based criticism in response...should he risk responding at all:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bK_25h_sPLc
He likely will not watch it, and almost certainly not the entirety of it.
FWIW, there is a point in a thread like this where the conversation becomes almost impossible to follow.
Art, that last video is outstanding for killing all the lies from the LGB perverts and the perverts who support them.
I think the current Blogger format makes following the conversation more difficult. I try to remember to present in bold the date and time of the comment to which I'm responding, which at least gives any reader...especially the person to whom I'm responding...the ability to tie my comment to something more easily determined, along with copy/pasting specific sentences. I'm going to try to do it for every comment after this, and begin each comment with the name of the person to whom I'm responding, unless my comment is of a more general nature.
But I certainly feel your pain! If I'm busier than normal in my personal life, so much gets submitted that it's hard to keep up. At least with my own blog, I can see every comment before I publish them in the thread.
Certainly kills a big chunk of them, that's for sure! Gagnon's really good with addressing the twisting of Scripture so common of the activists and enablers, and as one can see in this video, he cites pro-homosexual scholars who can't escape the truth about what Scripture truly says on the subject. I once posted a list of them provided by Gagnon in an exchange on SSM some time ago. There's simply no way to presume God would bless a same-sex union regardless if the couple calls their union a marriage because they said, "I do" and vowed lifelong fidelity to each other, which is like saying, "I promise to sin with you for the rest of my life!"
I like that there are sub threads, but my annoyance with long threads predates the newer format. It's just a lot to keep track of for me, tracking date/time stamps doesn't make it any easier IMO.
Gagnon has been good for years. He was a big part of the resistance in the PCUSA before the takeover.
As the sin in homosexuality is the act of homosexual sex, it's ridiculous to conclude that a "marriage" somehow magically sanctifies the sin. That "gay marriage" is marked by a lack of things like fidelity and the like, just makes it more foolish.
Indeed, and as you more than suggest, even if fidelity exists, it's still a sinful arrangement. Marriage as truly defined legitimizes sex between a man and a woman, legitimizing that which is otherwise sinful.
I get that. Length does indeed devolve into a degree of confusion and frustration, but I'd say the same is true of long conversations. This one, for example, might only take up half an hour from start to finish, with additional time added for interruptions, like slapping Dan or something. :D
IF one accepts, uncritically, the preconceptions and interpretations and personal opinions and premises of people like Gagnon, I'm sure he sounds like a genius.
"By golly, he's defending what I already believe in my personal opinions and human traditions! He must be a genius!"
If one doesn't begin with your human religious traditions, though, he comes across as something of a simpleton.
A genius thinker and philosopher can make a case that sounds rational even to people who don't share his pre-held presumptions.
If I find time, I'll try to point out to you where he fails to make his case for his pre-held presumptions. Failing that, his case falls apart.
I wonder if y'all can agree that if someone is making a case dependent upon some set of presumptions, that they first have to make their case for their presumptions?
June 19, 2025 at 7:04 PM
Dan,
The projection of falsehoods upon your betters never stops with you, does it, girl?
On what basis can you suggest Gagnon has acted on "pre-hold presumptions"? That's just what you want to be true because of your embrace of abomination. But Gagnon's position is the result of years of what is truly "serious and prayerful" study of Scripture and Its teachings on the subject of human sexuality. There's nothing about his case which in any way falls apart, and he has addressed every pro-abomination argument ever invented to attempt to legitimize what the perversion you love so much.
Again we see you indulging in unjustified arrogance in daring to suggest this learned man is a "simpleton". The very notion is laughable to the point of provoking a loosening of the bladder! Don't forget, girl...we've got almost two decades of reading your comments. You have absolutely no standing to regard anyone as a "simpleton"! I've read your defense of SSM and to label it as "weak" doesn't do it's lameness justice.
In the meantime, you presume that Gagnon has spent his career defending presumption. Talk about hypocritical irony! And again, given he cites pro-homo scholars, such as William Loader, in the video I posted and you didn't watch, as well as others in his books, such as a lesbian scholar of ancient sexual practices whose name escapes me but whom I've mentioned in past discussions, who also support the fact that nowhere in Scripture is there any hint of anything which suggests tolerance by God for ANY indulgence in homosexual sexual behavior, including within a committed relationship.
But go ahead and try to show where his case "falls apart". I'm always up for comedy.
Okay, I've wasted 10 minutes of my life listening (again, I've read and listened to Gagnon before) and it validates what I've seen in his past bits of ill- and unsupported eisegesis. Namely, he (like y'all) is operating upon presumptions that he never proves, and doesn't even TRY to support. That is, he's operating from the unproven human opinion that the Bible is somehow a moral rulings book.
HOW do we know what marriage should be? By reading where God "created" marriage (an unproven human theory) and what God said about marriage in the pages of the Bible. (An unproven theory).
Who says "the Bible " provides THE authoritative source for approved guidelines? Gagnon and those humans in his tradition.
Who says they are the deciders of that question?
No one. It's entirely unsupported by proof. It's relying ENTIRELY upon the premise of the Bible as the authoritative source for some (not all??) rules about marriage, but he hasn't proven the premise. He doesn't even try in the first 10 minutes of this or in anything else I've seen from Gagnon.
Tell me true: He doesn't even try in the rest of that video, does he?
More...
So, THAT is the very first place he fails: in even trying to support his premise, much less prove it.
Secondly, he has the problem of not having a Holy Rubric... SOME "decider," Rubric or guideline that tells him (or anyone) WHICH of the rules found in the Bible are universal rules intended by God to be for all people, everywhere in all times?
Gagnon gladly admits there were rules in both testament that allow for polygamy, divorce and even rape/forced marriages. So, WHY are those rules NOT universal but some interpretations of Jesus' words about alleged rules ARE universal?
Where is the Holy Rubric to decipher rules from the Magic Rulebook?
A third problem he has is simple arrogant presumptuous). Put simply, he just says things like, "and Jesus' intent is..." as if the claim is sufficient. It's not.
For example:
" McClellan simply doesn't understand Jesus' moral logic in citing.... Genesis... what Jesus DID have in mind is a God-ordained sexual binary as a basis for restricting the number of partners in a sexual union to two..."
"It's obvious," he arrogantly declares, as if it being obvious to him is some kind of proof. It's not.
I'm sure you still don't see, but can you begin to understand the obvious problems I'm pointing to?
If one doesn't share your collective human premise that the Bible is a universal rulings book... IF one doesn't have a Rubric for sorting out the temporal from universal rulings (IF the person proves the first premise), then those who don't share your human premises have no reason to take your opinions about rulings seriously, especially when they're so rationally and morally problematic.
Marshal...
"Again we see you indulging in unjustified arrogance in daring to suggest this learned man is a "simpleton"."
To be fair, what I wrote is he COMES ACROSS as a simpleton...
"If one doesn't begin with your human religious traditions, though, he comes across as something of a simpleton."
And for the reasons I just gave. He is repeatedly begging the question on multiple claims. He states things as if they're a given and proceeds from there without supporting the premises first. Without even trying.
He's clearly an educated man, and he can cite Hebrew and Greek words, but if one doesn't prove premises or even acknowledge He's not even TRYING to support premises, he's arguing like a grade schoolers.
He's educated. His debate skills are not.
But if it makes y'all feel any better, this highly educated man isn't arguing any better than y'all.
"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.
Y'all DO understand what I'm saying about not even trying to prove his premises, right?
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.
Yes, as noted, simply slapping a secular "marriage license" on something doesn't eliminate any sinful aspect of the relationship.
That "gay marriages" are well documented as not valuing things like fidelity or monogamy is one more problematic aspect.
As marriage would seem to imply things like fidelity and monogamy, it seems to follow that any relationship without those characteristics is not really a marriage.
Not only length, but the fact that it's not linear. For me, I tend to tune out once a thread gets significantly over 100 comments. Or at least not try to follow everything.
Given your track record of not actually pointing out the specific flaws in other people's arguments, I seriously doubt you'll do so here either. If you even bother to try, it'll be more of the comment above, "It's just human tradition", with maybe you trying to pretend as if you aren't arguing that your "human tradition" is somehow superior.
Yes, we regularly see you make all sorts of cases (the one in the 7:04 comment for example) based solely on your set of presumptions. Starting with your presumption that the case for homosexual sex being a sin is based 100% on "human tradition". A presumption you've failed to prove.
I eagerly await seeing you don something that I can't recall you ever doing before.
Dan's big take down of Gagnon will look something like this.
G: Scripture says X,Y, and Z about homosexuality.
D. Well that's your human tradition. I look to my Reason and eisegetical skills and have come up with my own personal, subjective, human tradition that is obviously better than yours because I ground my human tradition in my subjective, Reason.
G: Well, thousands of years for scholars and experts have studied this topic and concluded X,Y, and Z.
D: Well, in my vast experience of reading everything I could ever need to know about "conservative" thought several decades ago, I can simply ignore all of that because I've investigated it and found it wanting. Clearly me, basing my human tradition" on my personal, subjective, Reason is much more credible than in following the work of scholars, and experts compiled over thousands of years.
Und so weiter.
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. 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.
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.
Dan just continues to prove that he thinks HIS understanding of Scripture is much better than so very many solid theologians. He continues to prove that he is an unteachable fool.
The less talent they have, the more pride, vanity and arrogance they have. All these fools, however, find other fools who applaud them.
Erasmus, 1509
Dan is the fool other fools have found to applaud them.
Imagine how foolish one would have to be to see in Dan a reason to applaud him!
I think it's his hobby.
June 19, 2025 at 9:04 PM
"Okay, I've wasted 10 minutes of my life listening..."
It's a 35 minute video. You've wasted far more than ten minutes with your constant "Nyuh uh" rebuttals. Worse, you've wasted our time with comments of no substantive arguments of any kind.
"...(again, I've read and listened to Gagnon before)..."
Yeah...and if this "wasted ten minutes" is how you read and listen, you've not truly read or listened for understanding, but only to say you did while responding in your typical "Nyuh uh" manner, sometimes accompanied with wildly goofy perverted interpretations of the Scripture you claim you've "seriously and prayerfully" studied.
"...and it validates what I've seen in his past bits of ill- and unsupported eisegesis."
Bullshit. Gagnon has presented some of the most comprehensive and fact-based arguments on the issue one could hope to find. You aren't intelligent or honest enough to judge him as you do. It's just more of your petulant tantrum throwing in the face of truth inconvenient to your promotion, defending and enabling of that which is detestable in any context or scenario in which it might take place.
"Namely, he (like y'all) is operating upon presumptions that he never proves, and doesn't even TRY to support."
This is just a straight up lie, and/or evidence that you've lied about having read or listened to his presentations on the subject. He provides all kinds of evidence and support for his position. To suggest otherwise is completely nonsensical, but oh so typical of your well known and notorious dishonesty.
"That is, he's operating from the unproven human opinion that the Bible is somehow a moral rulings book."
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. What's more, it's just an incredibly stupid thing to say, as in the textbook definition of what constitutes stupidity.
"HOW do we know what marriage should be? By reading where God "created" marriage (an unproven human theory) and what God said about marriage in the pages of the Bible. (An unproven theory)."
By reading where God says why He created us male and female. The only "unproven theory" is yours regarding the laughable notion that God would bless a SSM because the two perverts say "I love you".
"Who says "the Bible " provides THE authoritative source for approved guidelines?"
True Christians. Fake Christians from a storefront "church" on Jeff St in Louisville, KY reject Scripture has any authority at all.
"Who says they are the deciders of that question?"
Honest people. Fake Christians from a storefront "church" on Jeff St in Louisville, KY insist they have the authority to reject God's Will.
"It's entirely unsupported by proof. It's relying ENTIRELY upon the premise of the Bible as the authoritative source for some (not all??) rules about marriage, but he hasn't proven the premise."
He doesn't seek to prove what's widely understood by actual Christians. He proves an accurate interpretation allows for nothing YOU assert is true without any actual Scriptural backing. He totally succeeds in doing so.
"He doesn't even try in the first 10 minutes of this or in anything else I've seen from Gagnon."
So he's required to correct the unsupported claims of the guy you prefer according to Dan Trabue's demands how he must? That's funny.
"Tell me true: He doesn't even try in the rest of that video, does he?"
He does far better in arguing his case than McClellan, but because he argues for the truth of Scripture as God's Will regarding human sexuality, you reject him out of hand. Where's McClellan's evidence to support what is the less likely position? You've never provided any such evidence or any pro-homosexual "expert" which does. And as I've said, he cited just such a person in the video who says what he says, and has cited more in his books and articles. To pretend he doesn't support his case is just you being a petulant asshole.
June 19, 2025 at 9:25 PM
"So, THAT is the very first place he fails: in even trying to support his premise, much less prove it."
Again, your empty assertion that he failed is far less authoritative, true or intelligent than his vast body of work comprehensively supporting the truthful, factual premise he presents. Your assertion is that which is truly based on personal presumption based on personal preference over fact and evidence.
"Secondly, he has the problem of not having a Holy Rubric... SOME "decider," Rubric or guideline that tells him (or anyone) WHICH of the rules found in the Bible are universal rules intended by God to be for all people, everywhere in all times?"
You have less on which to dare disagree with those of us who are bright enough to know which commandment is or isn't universal. It's no less obvious than if each commandment carried a disclaimer stating if its universal or not. Your objection and demand for a "rubric" to tell what your vaunted reasoning surely already has is simply because the truth denies you your perversions.
"Gagnon gladly admits there were rules in both testament that allow for polygamy, divorce and even rape/forced marriages."
"Gladly"??? Because he's smiling while he's speaking? And where did he mention "rape/forced marriages"? He didn't. You can't even be truthful about a ten minute snippet! But if you want to pretend his referencing to polygamy and divorce alters anything about the fact nothing allows for homosexual behavior in any context, you will fail yet again. It does not. They're separate issues and as is you wont, you constantly bring up the irrelevant to argue for the indefensible, because what else can you do with no true Scriptural support for your cherished perversions?
"So, WHY are those rules NOT universal but some interpretations of Jesus' words about alleged rules ARE universal?"
What relevance does it have to the premise he presents? None. Nonetheless, he provides an explanation based on logic in understanding Jesus' words...which you pretend is total presumption based on preconceived notions. He charts a clear path from A to Z and you ignore it all and worse, haven't a damned thing which compares to the logic of his argument. Your argument requires a total invention of eisegesis to suppose there's something somewhere not sinful about homosexual practice due to that which has no bearing on whether or not it is still the detestable practice God says it is. Gagnon is simply explaining why it was and remains totally prohibited by God and in your corruption, you assert his logical explanation is "presumption based on preconceived notions". You intentionally lie to defend your lie.
"Where is the Holy Rubric to decipher rules from the Magic Rulebook?"
What you mean here is clearly, "HI!. I'm Dan! I'm an asshole!"
"A third problem he has is simple arrogant presumptuous). Put simply, he just says things like, "and Jesus' intent is..." as if the claim is sufficient. It's not."
That's not a "third" problem. It's your whole argument and it's false. He does far more than simply assert, but explains in a quite detailed way (given the time restraint of this video) why his explanation of Jesus' intention is truly stated. What have YOU got beyond "Nyuh uh"? Nothing. You never have more than that, unless it's laughable invention!
"For example:
" McClellan simply doesn't understand Jesus' moral logic in citing.... Genesis... what Jesus DID have in mind is a God-ordained sexual binary as a basis for restricting the number of partners in a sexual union to two..."
"It's obvious," he arrogantly declares, as if it being obvious to him is some kind of proof. It's not."
But he's explaining why it's obvious. You're just fishing for crap you can spin into your bad criticisms. Indeed, you're doing what you're accusing him of doing, though its true of you while not true of him: making assertions meant to be taken as fact. (Why does this sound so familiar????)
"I'm sure you still don't see, but can you begin to understand the obvious problems I'm pointing to?"
Well, certainly I can't see what doesn't exist, but as the previous response indicated, you're just asserting that which you insist must be taken as fact. What I do see, is you pretending there are real problems in his dissertation aside from affirming the detestable sinfulness of all homosexual behavior regardless of the context or scenario in which it might take place.
"If one doesn't share your collective human premise that the Bible is a universal rulings book..."
...then like you, they're morally bankrupt, unrepentant reprobates who subordinates God's Will to their perversions.
"IF one doesn't have a Rubric for sorting out the temporal from universal rulings (IF the person proves the first premise), then those who don't share your human premises have no reason to take your opinions about rulings seriously, especially when they're so rationally and morally problematic."
No doubt you'll cop to having rubric to determine your opposing opinions on God's clearly revealed Will for our sexual behavior, but unfortunately for you that does nothing to provide you the liberty to reject His Will. While you pretend that you just can't determine what is or isn't universal, it's no less than you simply choosing as acceptable that which you want to be accepted as moral to God. How freaking convenient! The true Christian denies himself any behavior he can't confirm as acceptable...or at least doesn't presume that he can redefine it as OK. But not being a true Christian, I guess you have more liberty to sin.
June 19, 2025 at 9:50 PM
"Again we see you indulging in unjustified arrogance in daring to suggest this learned man is a "simpleton"."
"To be fair, what I wrote is he COMES ACROSS as a simpleton..."
A cheap distinction without a hint of difference. You're not talking to progressives here. Don't try that cheap shit expecting you won't get called on it.
""If one doesn't begin with your human religious traditions, though, he comes across as something of a simpleton.""
Thanks for providing the full false context of your cheap attack on someone about whom you haven't the standing or background to attack as a "simpleton". Your self-indictment as a dickhead is appreciated.
"And for the reasons I just gave. He is repeatedly begging the question on multiple claims. He states things as if they're a given and proceeds from there without supporting the premises first. Without even trying."
You clearly weren't watching the same first ten minutes I just watched yet again. He's providing quite a few reasons and Scriptural citations to support what he says. You just don't like the ramifications of the truth for you and your pervert friends. A true friend would let a pervert perv.
"He's clearly an educated man, and he can cite Hebrew and Greek words, but if one doesn't prove premises or even acknowledge He's not even TRYING to support premises, he's arguing like a grade schoolers."
Once more, you demonstrate your own incredibly lack of comprehension skill or you're lying again. The one thing which can truly be said...though I doubt it would make much difference in perfectly refuting this McClellan dude, is how little of McClellan's presentation is provided for comparison against Gagnon's criticism of it. However, I think later or in his intro which I skipped on this latest viewing, he mentioned where this came from or how one could find the whole thing.
"He's educated. His debate skills are not."
You're no debate champion yourself. Your arguments are always devoid of everything you demand of everyone else, and Gagnon has provided tons of what you demand of others over the course of his career. You're just to committed to the detestable and those who indulge detestable behavior to show true grace in accepting what he has to say, and lack the honor and Christian character to do so. Then again, it's more likely your lack of intelligence makes seeing truth easy for you when the lure of sin is so much more enticing to you.
I don't know why everything is being italicized. It's not my intention.
Post a Comment