I've been pining to write this post since, well, at least around June 5, 2025 if not sooner. But unlike another blog post of the same title, written by a well known fake Christian hater and liar, I won't have to imagine that my ideological/political opponents are likely or willing to support their leaders regardless of what they do or are found to have done. No. The crazy of which I speak will be easy to see by anyone who pays attention honestly.
What first compelled me to write this was not necessarily the aforementioned buffoon, but a different buffoon who goes back to my high school days and is just as severely TDS afflicted as anyone, including but perhaps not quite as bad as the execrable Dan Trabue. I say that because this high school acquaintance, whose name is Wally, doesn't go on about how he's spent years in serious and prayerful study of Scripture, so I don't know the extent to which he believes at all. I've reason to believe he doesn't, and that actually works in his favor because no Christian should hate and lie about Trump as both these dudes do, and Dan likes to tell us he's a believer.
Anyway, Wally posts anti-Trump memes on FB constantly. Between Wally and Dan, one pretty much has all the stupid covered completely as regards the crazy hatred of the best prez we've had since Reagan. Throw in Dan's troll, and there's no doubt.
What really stands out is the fact that none of these jamokes have the honor or integrity to give Trump props of any of the many great things he's accomplished throughout his 4.5 years as president. That's astounding given how much of it there has been and continues to be. What follows is a general list of the first six months of this current term of his:
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2025/07/let_s_review_some_of_what_trump_has_done_in_six_short_months.html
And this from a guy from across the pond:
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2025/07/the_experts_scoffed_trump_delivered.html
These two are in no way comprehensive or complete. They scratch the surface, especially considering it doesn't take into account the many great things he did the first time around.
No. One never hears anything good about Trump from a lefty, save a very, very tiny precious few, and that only on specific issues, not his entire body of work. It's the opposite of Dan's wildly false and totally unsupported claim about Trump supporters unlikely to ever withhold their support no matter how evil a crime he might be proven to have committed. Dan might rely on the Donald's claim during his first term that he could shoot someone down in the street and his supporters could continue to support him. But that's hyperbole, Trump's stock-in-trade. He's neither so stupid as Dan needs to believe, nor arrogant, to actually believe that.
Yet we have constant proof of the reverse, that there is no good thing Trump can do, nor not quantity of good things he could do, which any lefty will acknowledge at any point. They're too busy scraping the sidewalk for anything they think they can use as evidence which validates their hatred. Too often they misrepresent actions he's taken or proposed, or parrot the misrepresentations of others. Chuck Schumer continues to embarrass himself, as do other Dems such as AOC, Crockett and other miscreants who I'm always shocked were actually elected to their positions. Leftist media also continue to lie and distort, as do multiple chuckleheads from the worlds of sports and entertainment.
The memes Wally posts are unusually absurd, with all manner of accusation being made against Trump by people who are unique in their condescension and belief they have it all figured out. Most of it is incredibly obvious in how wrong, misleading or misunderstanding they are about whatever the hell it is they think they're schooling the viewer.
Dan actually said it best when he was projecting on the wealthy (and Trump, of course) when at Craig's he said, "They make it abundantly clear who they are." How ironic that it is far more true of Dan, Wally and other TDS sufferers.
29 comments:
As Dan is demonstrating at my blog, he doesn't read anything that might contradict his biases and prejudices even when it's served up to him on a platter. The way he seems to deal with life is by staying away from anything that might contradict his fantasy world or any data that doesn't meet his flexible, arbitrary, definition of valid. That way he can "honestly" claim things like "I haven't read...". Of course he hasn't read stuff about the rape culture in Europe. If he did it would contradict so many deeply cherished beliefs he clings to. So instead, he ignores everything that might upset his little lemming utopia, and wallows in ignorance.
I can only speak for myself, but I seek out people who disagree with me. Hell, that's part of why I haven't just cut Dan off. But usually I seek out those with more intelligence and expertise than Dan. I do so on social media, in what I read, and who I spend time with. I honestly find it refreshing to have to think through challenges to things I believe or know. I could delete and block about half of the accounts I follow on social media and live in ignorant bliss just like Dan does. Unlike Dan, or your friend (I've got plenty of them as well), I don't automatically dismiss what they say and check their claims out.
Except the complete morons who crap on Israel for not providing supplies to their enemies (even as they provide more than any nation that's been the victim of aggression in history), while completely ignoring the fact that Egypt could easily bypass their massive border wall and solve the whole problem. Those morons, I laugh at and ignore.
Part of the problem with Dan's hatred of "the rich" is that it doesn't distinguish between someone like Trump or Musk who've added value to the economy and who provide not only services that people use but also direct and indirect jobs. Of course their actions produce tax revenue, which supports the country.
On the other hand you have the Bidens, Clintons, Pelosis, and the like who've leveraged their elected offices into vast fortunes and really added vary little value to society.
You'd think that Dan would applaud those who add value to the economy, provide thousands of jobs, and produce millions/billions in tax revenue, and show disdain for those who simply manipulate their political connections to grow their fortunes exponentially.
Personally, I prefer those who get rich by producing things people want or need, as opposed to those who are simply out for themselves.
I agree that confronting opposing points of view is more fun, fulfilling, enlightening and challenging. I prefer it as well. Sadly, there are far more like Dan, Wally and Dan's troll than there are actually challenging opponents. This is especially true on FB. Vinny...who only shows up, apparently, when he's nothing better to do and is incredibly bored...used to be one of those challenging opponents, but his comments over the last year or two have been exceedingly lame. It's a sad state of affairs and one must take what one can get.
And speaking of the troll, a comment submission appeared under yours which was brief and easy to read as I deleted it. It referenced Trump's conviction and such would've been a good example of the crazy about which this post highlights. Like Dan and others, he criticizes those of us who voted for a "convicted felon", despite the blatantly politicized court which "convicted" him. While again, many legal experts, including Turley and Dershowitz, roundly criticized the court for how it ran roughshod over both the rule of law and Trump's rights as the accused, the loony leftist lunkheads do what the purpose of the case was meant to procure, which was to allow asshats to refer to Trump as a "convicted felon". That's all which matters to the asshats, as justice clearly doesn't. They so desperately wanted that tag attached to him so they can believe their hatred is validated. It's crazy they believe it does.
There are really only two options. You can engage with those who disagree, at least until they prove themselves unable to behave in a civilized manner. Or you can hide behind inconsistent deletion policies, arbitrary rules that favor some over others, and simply choosing to dominate every conversation you enter.
Yeah, the troll has started showing up again, annoying as usual.
Craig irrationally and falsely stated...
As Dan is demonstrating at my blog, he doesn't read anything that might contradict his biases and prejudices even when it's served up to him on a platter. The way he seems to deal with life is by staying away from anything that might contradict his fantasy world or any data that doesn't meet his flexible, arbitrary, definition of valid.
Of course, the reality is quite different than this false claim.
1. For decades, I've been reading YOUR conservative writings (you and many others like you).
2. For the first three decades, I read/listened to EXCLUSIVELY ultra conservative writers.
3. Just because I was ultimately pushed away from conservative traditions BY THOSE ultra conservative writers/speakers does NOT mean that I have quit reading conservative writings. I read them all the time.
Read that again and recognize the reality:
I read conservative writers - often recommended by Y'ALL - ALL THE TIME, STILL.
4. Indeed, if Craig was paying attention AT HIS OWN BLOG, he'd have to admit that when he provided not one but THREE essays from conservative religionists who Craig offered in hopes of answering the rational questions I had asked him.
I read those writers and to a man, not ONE answered the questions I was asking NOR did they provide any objective proof for their opinions. Nor did they SAY they were trying to offer objective proof. They were making their rational case and ultimately, I disagreed with their unproven reasoning.
The point being, in CRAIG'S OWN recent posts, I took the time to carefully read - and RE-Read - three lengthy essays from three different conservative religionists. So, if you read your OWN POST, you know this to be a false claim.
I repeat:
I read conservative opinions ALL THE TIME from conservative religionists and other conservatives.
"All the time," as in, at least weekly, if not more often. This in spite of working 2-3 jobs and being a very busy and finite human being. That I didn't read Craig's recent links yet in a fast enough manner to suit his impatient, greedy little heart doesn't mean I'm not reading conservative writers.
This is simply a demonstrably, stupidly false statement that he should KNOW is a false statement because of what was noted at his own blog. As you both should know.
That I read and ultimately disagree with the little human opinions of many conservative religionists does not mean I don't read people who disagree with me... AS YOU WOULD KNOW AND HAVE TO ADMIT GIVEN THAT I'VE LITERALLY been reading YOUR conservative opinions for over two decades.
Lord have mercy. Now would be a good time to admit how just pure stupidly false and slanderous and cowardly this damnable lie is, little brothers.
Craig, irrationally and falsely claimed...
Part of the problem with Dan's hatred of "the rich" is that it doesn't distinguish between someone like Trump or Musk who've added value to the economy and who provide not only services that people use but also direct and indirect jobs.
?? I don't hate the rich. I AM the rich, globally speaking. I've never SAID I hate the rich and I simply DON'T hate the rich.
Do facts and reality never matter to you all, at all?
That's just bizarre.
I DO note that, for those of us who take the Bible seriously, there are all manner of warnings for the wealthy. For instance...
* I note that in the bible, it records that it was Sodom's wealth and apathy to the poor that led to their downfall;
* I note that Jesus BEGAN his ministry noting that he'd come to preach good news specifically and literally to the poor and marginalized;
* I note that Jesus had many warnings for the unconcerned wealthy and told his followers to sell their junk and follow him;
* I note that mother Mary had harsh words for the wealthy oppressors;
* I note that Jesus' brother, James, the apostle, had this to say about "the rich...":
Now listen, you rich people,
weep and wail because of the misery that is coming on you.
Your wealth has rotted, and moths have eaten your clothes.
Your gold and silver are corroded.
Their corrosion will testify against you and eat your flesh like fire.
You have hoarded wealth in the last days.
Look!
The wages
you failed to pay the workers
who mowed your fields are crying out against you.
The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord Almighty.
You have lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence.
You have fattened yourselves in the day of slaughter.
You have condemned and murdered the innocent one,
who was not opposing you."
Holy Jesus, brother and mother in heaven! THEM are some tough words against "the rich!"
But "hate them..."? No, I've never said that. Do you really think that noting the literal words and consistent teachings of Jesus, his followers and the prophets mean that you hate people??
How is that rational/not insane?
At the same time, just as Jesus noted that wealth tends to be a trap for the wealthy, I note the observable reality of that here and now: Trump and Epstein are sad, pathetic little men, literally sickened by sin and their great wealth. We should pity the wealthy (perhaps including ourselves), not hate them.
AND, we should hate the oppression often done by wealthy people seeking to consolidate their wealth at the expense of the poor and working class.
What have I EVER said that would make you think I "hate" wealthy people?
Do you think James, Mary and Jesus hated wealthy people, when they used much harsher words than I EVER have about "the wealthy..."?
It's false and irrational, dear men. Come, be better. Admit the error and move on.
Dan's hatred of the rich is reserved for rich Republicans/conservatives.
I agree with applauding those who wealth was created by being productive. Being productive means producing that which people want and/or need, usually doing it better than competitors for a better price. Doing it successfully is like turning on a money spigot. This tends far more often than not to result in peripheral businesses also becoming more wealthy, as the rich dude does business with other companies to supply his company with their goods and services, as well as supplying his goods and/or services to other companies or individuals. People who work for the rich guy shops more, dines out more and thereby enriches those they patronize. The economy in general expands and more people are hired or new businesses can open.
Even in the cases of those born into wealth, the parents of the wealthy engaged in that productive behavior, and often the offspring use that inherited wealth to grow their own wealth. This was the case with both Trump and Musk, and even if someone wants to disparage how their parents enriched themselves, what they both did with their inherited money far exceeded the efforts of the parents. They both were great success stories and heroes to the left until they turned from the political dark side Dan calls home. Now the progressives hate them because like La Cosa Nostra or islam, once you're in, you're in and there's no getting out without hateful retribution. We don't hate Republicans who turn to the dark side (most of such were RINOs, anyway). We just regard them as incredibly stupid. In Dan's case, he was stupid from the jump because intelligent people are conservative. They don't "change". Dan was never conservative and it shows in his continued inability to understand what conservatism is.
Now we just get the crazy from Dan.
Craig...
You'd think that Dan would applaud those who add value to the economy, provide thousands of jobs, and produce millions/billions in tax revenue,
I do, when it happens. But not for those who use their wealth to hire people at a promised price, RENEGE on giving them what they're owed and malign them when they were just doing a job... forcing them to either sue the rich oppressor (which they can't afford) or take a pittance of what was owed to them.
Do you think that the rich who "offer jobs" but then "fail to pay the workers their wage" should be praised simply because they offered a job (and then didn't fully pay)?
There's more to do with using money wisely and justly than merely "creating jobs..." We must not think at a shallow level. That's what rich oppressors rely upon.
As to genuinely good wealthy/ultra-wealthy people, I'm sure they exist. I certainly know some decent relatively rich folks who actually do good with their money - creating jobs that are good paying where the workers actually get paid.
As with most of us, it's probably complex, generally. Henry Ford doubled the normal wage for his employees and established shorter work hours/days and created a hospital that provided affordable health care. AND, he was allegedly anti-semitic and behaved in an authoritarian manner, many would say.
I'm sure the Pervert Felon y'all elected has created some jobs and actually paid many - maybe most? - of his workers a decent wage.
But Ford's progressive work structure and Trump's creating some jobs do not wipe out Ford's anti-semitism or Trump's corruption, perversions, misogyny and basic indecency.
Don't be deceived by shallow acts of charity or isolated incidents of decency. Look at the whole person.
Why, that's almost biblical, friends!
Craig opined...
Being productive means producing that which people want and/or need, usually doing it better than competitors for a better price.
Without some deeper context, I'd have to disagree with this rather shallow view of "being productive." Trump, the man, for instance, has never been productive himself. He inherited wealth and used that wealth and privilege to bully his way into more wealth. I'd be willing to bet that he never worked a hard day in his life.
Merely receiving (through legally sketchy means) millions of dollars from one's racist daddy and then paying people (sometimes) to install toilets and hammer nails does NOT make such a person productive themselves. Rather, they've paid their employees (hopefully) to be productive and create things that they did not and probably could not create.
Laborers are literally productive. Bosses? Business owners? That depends.
Also, people may want (or rich people might run ads and campaigns to induce people to "want") many things that are not productive. People may WANT an actually gold toilet with a butler that wipes their dirty asses, but is producing that actually meaningfully productive in a wholesome, helpful, sustainable manner? I don't think so.
People may want playboy magazines and some people can get rich making them and selling them. Is such an enterprise meaningfully productive? OR, is it net DESTRUCTIVE? I'd argue the latter.
Craig's "irrational"? Kind of a "takes one to know one kinda thing" with you, isn't it Dan?
I'm not at all persuaded by your claim of constantly reading conservative sources. And while I'm certain you don't care that I'm not, the point is that you do nothing to suggest it's true. That can be easily resolved by actually addressing in detail the points a given conservative is making, rather than blithely dismissing them out of hand. I get why that is, as it's impossible to speak on that which you don't understand. You default to the usual bullshit as presented in your evidence-free push back of Robert Gagnon's scholarship, as well as you routine defaulting to irrelevant crap such as "objectively prove, yada, yada, yada", rather than simply making a case like one who is sincere in insisting on adult conversation.
But no. You read Craig's links and claim that "to a man" they each failed to satisfy your goofy demands which are no more than diversionary crap. Worse, you didn't even seek Craig's explanation for how or if they did indeed provide what you demanded, though your demands are largely superfluous crap to allow you to avoid addressing the real issues on the table.
So talk about the crazy marching on, you're marching now with this bullshit response to Craig, when it doesn't address what he was seeking from you in any way. Just more diversion. So, you read conservative stuff? The next time you're provided what is intended to satisfy your demand, explain where it fails instead of just waving it off as insufficient, because doing so in no way inspires confidence that you actually read it, or having read it, that you actually understand what you're rejecting as unsatisfactory.
One would think that given your remarks here that you'd be an expert in conservatism. You show absolutely no hint that you understand it at all. You just bitch about conservatism and conservatives like a crazy person marching on.
Marshal:
I'm not at all persuaded by your claim of constantly reading conservative sources.
Indeed, I don't care. You see, reality is reality, whether you're persuaded by reality or not.
I have read, of course, dozens if not hundreds of conservative books and articles when in my first 35 years
(Tozer,
CS Lewis,
Torrey,
J Edwards,
Graham,
Chambers,
Ravenhill,
Dobson,
Ten Boom,
Swindoll,
Hurnard,
Spurgeon,
Bunyan,
Wilkerson,
Calvin,
Luther,
Saint Augustine,
Anselm,
à Kempis
Brother Lawrence,
Bonhoeffer (if you count him as conservative)
Chuck Smith,
Colson,
Geisler,
J McDowell,
Sproul,
Hannegraf
...and no doubt dozens of others I'm not recalling).
AND I've been reading YOUR collective conservative opinions
(Stan,
Marshal,
Craig,
"white knight,"
Neil,
Glenn,
etc, etc, etc) for 20+ years AND
The people at
Ligonier,
CARM,
Grudem,
SBTS and Al Mohler,
Russell Moore,
MacArthur,
Piper,
Mere Orthodoxy,
Jordan Peterson,
Christianity Today,
MANY of the people on the "classics" list above - still reading them,
"Rush Limbaugh" (if you want to count radio buffoons as "conservative thinkers")
and many others I'm not thinking of.
In fact, I would wager there's a good chance that I've read WAY more conservative/traditionalist writers in my life (including the last 25 years you and I have been talking and I've been reading your conservative words) than you have. Given my list, do you think you compare?
I truly don't know. Maybe you do.
Regardless, clearly, the reality is the reality. I read a LOT of conservative writers. You all KNOW this because I read your words and I cite the many other authors I've read. You might guess that MAYBE I don't understand them as well as you do, but it's just a silly little bit of buttwipe to say I haven't/don't read conservative writers.
Just admit this silly little obvious mistake and move on, brother.
Of course it is. It keeps him from confronting the hypocrisy of opposing all of the rich, or acknowledging that his side is just as "bad".
Being born into wealth doesn't mitigate being productive. The Walton family was born into wealth, yet they continue to operate their stores and provide benefits to communities, people, and the country. I'd even argue that people like T Swift are productive in some sense.
Strangely enough, the ASPL don't seem to complain when people like Pelosi grift the system and use their insider knowledge to line their pockets in ways that are unseemly, if not illegal. Although, they might say that they have a vague, general, distaste for that behavior they'd never speak positively of someone who killed one of those grifters.
1. You know what, I apologize. You do "read conservatives" like us. I should have been more precise. I should have clarified that I was referring to actual conservative scholars, theologians, economists, and the like. Not just a few dudes on the internet. I should have been more clear. When I say that I engage with people that I disagree with, I'm not talking about randos on the internet, but people with some level of credibility. By bad, I beg for your forgiveness for being less than clear.
2. Yeah, blah, blah, blah, blah. You read "all the conservative" stuff decades ago and have virtually total recall that virtually all of it was bunk and had no redeeming value whatsoever. You stopped in 1990 and are convinced that your pre 1990 reading is all you'll ever need.
3. You've literally acknowledged that you stopped in 1990. I can't recall you ever referring specifically to anything you've read. You've repeatedly made excuses for not reading books or people I've recommended, but whatever. Another claim you can't/won't prove. I'll echo Art in that your comprehension of these things you allegedly read is really bad, if you do.
4. That you either didn't read, or choose to ignore, how I framed the three pieces I graciously provided you isn't my fault. That you're somehow inordinately proud of yourself for reading THREE WHOLE PIECES is disturbing. That you offered nothing to counter what they DID say, is expected.
"That I didn't read Craig's recent links yet in a fast enough manner to suit his impatient, greedy little heart doesn't mean I'm not reading conservative writers."
You know when Dan starts to lie like this that he's circling the drain. That he's left to pretend that my pointing out HIS lie (that I hadn't spoon fed him any information beyond the screenshot in the original post) in comment after comment was impatience is simply bullshit. As I pointed out many times, had Dan stopped repeating his lie, and simply said that he was taking the time to read and process the information I gave him (none of which is "right wing"), I wouldn't have needed to remonstrate with him for lying. Of course, then he wouldn't have this little issue to harp on and continue to lie about. I guess proposing that he take all the time he needed to read the data, is just one more example of my impatience.
That Dan has to resort to this bullshit, claims he can't/won't prove and angrily lashing out in off topic screeching, seems to indicate that he's got little or nothing of value to say, and not enough self control to stay on topic.
Art,
You make an excellent point. Dan "asks a question" and demands a standard of proof that is impossible to meet because he hasn't defined what he'd accept as proof, then bitches when his "question" isn't answered and his standards aren't met.
In all honesty, my answer to his question is, "Who cares if Dan has perfect knowledge of right and wrong.". It seems to me that there are stories in scripture that talk about people or people groups who seek the kind of knowledge Dan claims to be seeking. Those stories are could be seen as cautionary tales.
Maybe I'm a simple, foolish, trusting person. I am content in knowing that YHWH as revealed in scripture (even though I'd prefer more details) is a good, loving, just, perfect, God who loves and cares for those who He's chosen to be His people. I don't need to know everything, I don't need to know who's right about some niggling tiny point, I don't demand that my every question be answered in exactly the way I want. Jesus, if nothing else, was a master at answering questions in ways that were not the type of answer Dan demands.
Finally, I could care less about Dan's "questions" any more. They're his questions, finding answers is his problem. If they're as vital and important as he claims, then it seems he'd be putting more effort into finding that answers. What I suspect he's really seeking is ammunition. He wants a cudgel to use against the rest of us to beat us into submission because he's got the one singular "right" answer which validates his biases, prejudices, and predilections.
Dan,
It is quite clear that you have an irrational hatred/envy/covetous attitude/whatever toward "the rich". It's irrational because, as you note, you are "the rich" yet you continue to spew this bullshit against "the rich" while seeming to exclude yourself.
That you are too stupid, vindictive, condescending, graceless, rude, or simply choosing to be an asshole is obvious.
While parsing this and responding to the individual foolishness is a waste of my time. I'll note that Dan's notion that the "good" that Ford or Trump have done (even though Dan has no possible way to measure it) cannot ever outweigh the "sins" Dan has credited them with.
A worldview that doesn't ever allow for redemption or salvation (as Dan seems to posit) is a bleak and graceless world.
Not at all difficult to compile a list of conservative authors, pundits, blogs and other sources. One doesn't have to have read or listened to any of it. Given you poor understanding of conservatism, your inability to address anything you allegedly read or heard by a conservative, I'm not impressed with any list you provide of that which you can't prove to me you've read. And that would be "objective" proof, "hard data" and the like. And here's the best proof, the only proof I'd need: you demonstrate an understanding of a conservative position by providing a compelling, fact-based, evidence-supported counter argument. Your default "Nyuh uh" won't cut it.
Oh!....and referring to Limbaugh as a "radio buffoon" tells me you never listened to him or having listened, you were incapable of understanding what he said or of finding an actual flaw in his reporting or reasoning.
Donald Trump (per Wiki) directly employs between 22 and 23,000 people.
It seems almost impossible to estimate those he indirectly employs, but a list of those types of businesses would include
Construction trades
Accounting
Legal
Taxi/Uber/Lyft drivers
Hospitality and Tourism
Ancillary Golf course industries
Supply chain
Banking and lending
and probably more.
It seems reasonable to conclude that Trump indirectly employs at least as many as he directly employs.
While Musk directly employs @155,000 people. With at least the same number of indirect.
That you've decided that a couple of contract disputes from decades ago somehow offset this decades long track record of investment and producing value for others is simply you establishing an arbitrary standard to regard Trump negatively. I'm not saying he's perfect, I am saying that he's a producer and has a net positive effect on the economy.
None of this really matters to your Trumpaphobia, it's more about pointing out the reality that "the rich" who you want the government to despoil because you naively think that taxing their wealth won't result in a negative impact to the businesses they run and the employees of those businesses, let alone those who depend on those businesses.
The only one being (self) deceived is you. With your absurd notion that Ford's alleged antisemitism somehow negates the good things he did.
Strangely enough, again, you get all worked up about alleged antisemitism decades ago yet stay pretty silent about antisemitism on the left over the last few years.
"Trump, the man, for instance, has never been productive himself"
That's because you want to narrowly define "productive" to suit your needs. Sure Trump was "born into wealth" yet he managed to take what he was "born with" and build on it rather than squander it. I know your narrow worldview might not understand this, but financing and building a hotel or resort (for example) IS producing something of value. That you personally might not value those things is immaterial. Others do value them. From the employees to the guests, to the vendors and suppliers, they all value those things.
That you arbitrarily choose to limit what "productive" means (I'll note you offer no actual definition) yet choose to impose your vague, undefined, biases on others is no surprise at all.
Anyone who produces anything that others value enough to pay for is productive. That you're stuck in the 1800's with your hunches is not my problem.
You keep on adding things to your "naughty list" based on YOUR biases and prejudices, not reality.
We live in a world where the majority of humanity isn't operating on a subsistence/need level. Do "the poor and marginalized" NEED things like cell phones(it could be argued that a basic cell phone could be a need), cars, air conditioning, multiple TVs, and junk food? No they don't, yet we live in a country where those things are available to virtually the entire population. The reality is that when there is a demand for a product, someone will meet that demand. That's not moral or immoral, it's just reality.
Who cares what you'd argue absent some objective measure of the correctness of your arguments.
I'd argue that a multi billion dollar abortion/trans medical complex that gets rich preying on the suffering and delusions of people as well as their avoidance of responsibility and inconvenience is a blight on society. A blight that shares some responsibility for the birth rate declining below replacement levels.
Strange, you don't have time to read the sources I spoon fed you over at my blog and demonstrate that the data is wrong, but you have time for this. I guess your perception of things like wants/needs/time management and the like might not be all that impressive.
Dan's list of "conservative authors" he "read" decades ago is just a list of names. No specific books, no specific concepts, not even necessarily conservative by any standard than "to the right of Dan". He probably just googled "conservative authors before 1990" and cherry picked a few.
Brother Lawrence, a modern conservative, hardly.
Bonhoeffer, would probably be a liberal today (although one with much more courage and conviction than most modern liberals)
Of course the post 1990 examples he references are the ones he quote mines and cherry picks to score rhetorical points.
The reality is that his mind as been closed to "conservative thought" (despite the fact that he dabbles in it) since 1990.
Limbaugh literally was the single entity that revived an entire industry and saved AM/talk radio. The ASLP spent millions propping up wannabes to compete and started a freaking radio network to try to compete. They failed miserably. Yeah, a "buffoon" but one that they couldn't compete with and who's success helped two entire industries.
One thought on "producing" things that people value.
I may not agree with the value of certain things that are produced (porn, OF, content creation, abortion, mutilated people, and junk food) but I don't deny the reality that there is enough demand for those things to have developed the production to meet the demand. My personal feelings about what is produced aren't the issue, it's the reality of supply and demand.
Craig...
"Maybe I'm a simple, foolish, trusting person. I am content in knowing that YHWH as revealed in scripture (even though I'd prefer more details) is a good, loving, just, perfect, God who loves and cares for those who He's chosen to be His people."
Me, too. Did you know that?
I think God, as revealed in the stories in the Bible, is a majestically marvelous loving God of Grace. I don't find the biblical authors confusing or unclear much at all.
I just disagree in good faith with your understanding of those beautiful texts.
And THAT is precisely why the questions...
Given the reality of good faith disagreements on meanings of texts, how do we know who has it right and who is mistaken? Or, can we NOT authoritatively, objectively prove it one way or the other?
...are we reasonable questions. It's a rational, biblically respect set of questions to ask.
Do you disagree, gentlemen?
Okay, so Dan reads lots of conservative authors; apparently he hasn't learned from anything he reads!
Marshal asked for what has presented time and time again:
here's the best proof, the only proof I'd need: you demonstrate an understanding of a conservative position by providing a compelling, fact-based, evidence-supported counter argument.
Conservative evangelicals believe in the theory of "Total depravity." That is, according to the conservatives at Got Answers:
the doctrine of total depravity is an acknowledgement
that the Bible teaches
that as a result of the fall of man (Genesis 3:6)
every part of man—his mind, will, emotions and flesh—
have been corrupted by sin.
In other words, sin affects all areas of our being
including who we are and what we do.
https://www.gotquestions.org/total-depravity.html
And according to the conservatives at Ligonier:
To say that the doctrine of total depravity is a fundamental tenet of Reformed theology would be tantamount to acknowledging that water is wet. So central, in fact, is the doctrine of total depravity to Reformed theology that R.C. Sproul described it as one of Reformed theology’s “core ideas...”
"The term “total depravity” was coined to mean that sin affects the whole person, that the total essence of our humanity is fallen. That is, our minds are fallen, our wills are fallen, our bodies are fallen. The whole person is caught up in this fallenness."
That IS, in so many words, what I grew up believing and reading in conservative indoctrination and it is what conservative religionists in the Calvinist human tradition still believe (allowing that some conservative religionists may use different words to say essentially the same thing.)
That IS the conservative teaching about that theory (although, by and large, they would not call it a theory, they would insist that it is THE teaching of "the Bible" or, less and more directly, "God." As they believe it (as I used to believe it).
Now in noting that reality of what I used to believe and what many traditionalists still believe, I'm correctly identifying that theory held by many conservative religionists. That is, I'm "demonstrating an understanding of a conservative position."
AM I NOT?
If you can agree that that IS the traditional conservative tradition of many conservative religionists (and it is) AND that I'm correctly noting that they have said as much (given that I'm pointing to actual quotes and affirming, YES, that is what they literally believe, given their OWN WORDS), then can you acknowledge that I'm correctly understanding that conservative human tradition (which again, THEY would not say is a tradition at all, but of course, it is)?
More to come, dealing with the second half of your request...
Marshal asked for what has presented time and time again:
here's the best proof, the only proof I'd need: you demonstrate an understanding of a conservative position by providing a compelling, fact-based, evidence-supported counter argument.
GIVEN that unproven human theory held by many conservative religionists in the Calvinist tradition (that "sin affects the whole person, that the total essence of our humanity is fallen. That is, our minds are fallen, our wills are fallen, our bodies are fallen."), my counter argument is this...
1. The Bible literally does not say this, nor does it insist upon this theory. It is what SOME HUMAN TRADITIONS believe is how we ought to understand the nature of sin as THEY interpret various biblical lines.
2. They can and do cite some passages that contain lines that might HINT at this... "all our righteousness are as filthy rags..." and, "The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?" for two examples
3. Yet, at the same time, they acknowledge that hyperbole, imagery, figurative speaking, allegory and other less-than-literal language is used throughout the Bible. GIVEN that, on what basis do we assume that those verses that they/you might choose to cite are to be taken literally?
They/you literally have no answer to that beyond, "It's 'obvious' (to 'US')" as if being obvious to them is an objective measure.
4. The passage I gave above from Jeremiah ("the heart is deceitful above all things..."), for instance, is CLEARLY, literally speaking figuratively. No rational person thinks that the beating muscle of the human heart is, itself, "deceitful." That's crazy talk. Of course, that's being used metaphorically, right? Even you would not disagree with that.
Further, there are multiple examples given in the Bible of humans with "good hearts," which presumably, then, aren't "deceitful..." David was a man after God's own heart. Does a man after God's own heart have, then, a deceitful heart? OR is it possible for humans to have GOOD hearts, seeking the good and right of God's ways?
5. The fact is, in the various biblical texts (some of which may or may not have been intended to be taken literally and some, figuratively), we find texts talking about how humans are "a little lower than God" and that we have "God's Word, written upon our hearts" and that we DO have the ability to understand God's ways (insisting, then, that not all hearts are deceitful above all things.)
To take the Bible as a consistent message, then, we can clearly see that this is a hyperbolic message, or otherwise figurative.
6. BEYOND what the various human biblical authors may or may not have said, we can observe with our own eyes human beings who are obviously good, who have good intentions, good lives and do good, kind, helpful, generous, just things. Why is the testimony of our own eyes about at least some humans equal or more valuable than SOME humans' interpretations and theories of how to understand various biblical texts?
And I can go on. As I HAVE been going on for decades with you all. While you may not ultimately agree with my reasoning on these theories of yours (any more than I agree with YOUR reasoning on your theories), that IS a fact-based, evidence-supported answer.
cont'd...
Facts/Evidence:
A. The Bible DOES contain figurative language in parables, metaphors, hyperbole and otherwise imaginative language. NO ONE DISPUTES THIS, not even you.
B. YOU have no rubric to say authoritatively that "THIS interpretation is objectively correct..." Rather, you have your interpretations and I have mine. That is just a fact, as evidenced by you NEVER even trying to provide an objective rubric because it simply doesn't exist. IF it did, you would have provided your holy and infallible rubric.
C. It is an observable fact that some (many) humans are various degrees of Good in their actions. That reality must insist that the notion of "human hearts being totally depraved" can't be fully objectively factual or people would not be able to be good NOR would we be able to recognize that good. Now, whether or not you AGREE with that observable reality (for instance, if you define "good" in some non-standard, non-biblical way to get around that observable reality) does not mean that it's not an observable reality that we can see good people every day... people whose "hearts" are NOT "totally depraved."
Again, you may ultimately not accept this line of reasoning, but it doesn't mean I haven't made a rational and biblical case for my position. NOR that I have not given objective, observable facts to support my case.
It just doesn't.
Indeed, of the two of us, I'm the only one pointing to observable facts. You are pointing to human traditions and insisting that they must be taken as proven facts, EVEN WHEN you can't objectively prove them.
Come dear brother. Be reasonable. You've gotten caught up in a set of human traditions and taken those indoctrinations to be facts when you can't prove them. There's nothing to gain by holding on to that error.
You can be better.
Marshal:
Not at all difficult to compile a list of conservative authors, pundits, blogs and other sources. One doesn't have to have read or listened to any of it.
Are you suggesting that I HAVE NOT read all the writings I cite? Based upon what? WHY would I do that? I don't have time to just make up stuff.
I read and then watched "The Cross and the Switchblade." Starring Pat Boone. It was quite popular in Southern Baptist youth groups in the 1970s and 1980s. As were the Tim LaHaye feverish anti-christ porn of the Left Behind series. As were ALL of CS Lewis books. I've read and re-read all the Narnia books and the Silent Planet trilogy as well as many if not most of his more serious books... Mere Christianity, Screwtape Letters, Shadowlands... off the top of my head.
Reepicheep to this day remains one of my favorite most heroic characters in literature. Do you even KNOW who Reepicheep is? Do you KNOW what the Silent Planet trilogy is? Do you have a favorite book in either series (Probably The Magician's Nephew and Perelandra, for me)? Do you KNOW who Screwtape is?
Do you understand WHY Sheldon's In His Steps was so compelling for many readers over the last 100+ years? I do. How many times have you read that book (granted, you may not count that as a conservative book, given its progressive influences - but many in MY conservative Southern Baptist circles valued it greatly)?
Did you wake up at 4 am many years to read a reflection from Oswald Chambers' "My Utmost for his Highest" before having your morning prayers? I did (although, to be fair, I fell asleep many days, too!)
What is wrong with someone like you that you must mistrust so many people? Of course, I've read all these writings. Them and many more. Again, I've almost certainly forgotten more about these dozens of books than you ever even knew. Who WAS Shadowlands written in reference to, do you know? Because I do. What WAS Leonard Ravenhill's best book? Do you know? I'd say that many would point to Why Revival Tarries and I think rightly so. Have you read it?
Do you think that Josh McDowell's book, Evidence that Demands an Answer, was a helpful source as you spoke with non-believers? Or have you even read it? I have.
Again, What is wrong with someone like you that you must mistrust so many people? WHY would I bother creating a list of books that I've never read? By and large, people/rational adults don't have time for that kind of nonsense. If I hadn't read them, I wouldn't make the claim. To what end?!
This is lazy and foolish on your part. You have no evidence that I haven't read them and that I can speak from memory of the points of many of them is testimony that I have, of course, read them.
Look, by all means, it's completely rational (as far as that goes) to think in your head, "Well, whatever he was raised with or believing, I don't think he is conservative now..." and that would be rational AND correct. But it's just irrational to say I wasn't raised as a conservative or that I didn't read the books I actually read, nor the sites and essays I've read in the years since.
Be a better man, Marshal.
Marshal falsely and irrational said:
and referring to Limbaugh as a "radio buffoon" tells me you never listened to him or having listened, you were incapable of understanding what he said
In the late 1980s/early 1990s, I was still in a Southern Baptist Church, still holding conservative Christian beliefs, still playing most weekends in a CCM band that traveled the southeast singing songs like "Sinner Man" and "Don't Be Deceived." (We self-produced two cassettes, Shout and Sing and Sinner Man, both not great!)
I worked at Custom Woodworking on Bardstown Rd and the hippy I worked with and I took turns choosing what to listen to. He chose progressive jazz (Spyro Gyra, for instance) and when it was my turn, I would choose to listen to Rush Limbaugh and his silly accounts about Feminazis and those "wacky liberals..." I thought he was funny (although by then, I was starting to be appalled by his vulgar attacks against women, even if it was in "good fun...")
If I didn't understand him, then why did I think he was funny AND right, a lot of time (when I was more conservative)? WHEN did I not understand him, when I thought he was right or when I disagreed?
You know nothing about who I've read and listened to over the years, nor what I thought about them. What's wrong with you that you can't just recognize reality when it's a point you're clearly ignorant of?
To be clear: Limbaugh for years noted that he was "an entertainer, not a journalist..." and he alluded to his "act" that this was his radio "persona." I'm referring to that person who thought he was not a journalist, but an entertainer with an on-air persona and I think it's fair to call him a clown. He made jokes at the expense of many to entertain conservative people and he did so stupidly, derisively, not in an adult, well-reasoned manner.
A clown is a clown is a clown.
More crazy from Dan.
First of all, that quote was from my comment, not Craig's.
Secondly, your rank stupidity and hatred shines through as usual. The quote refers to the wealthy specifically, since it was made in regards to comments about your hatred and stupidity about the rich.
Thirdly, you again demonstrate your rank idiocy and ignorance...if not willful dishonesty (most likely)...about Trump. His work in real estate alone is indeed an example of being incredibly productive, not only in creating that which people need and/or want, but in the jobs and tax revenues produced. You have no idea of how he utilized his inheritance or ran his businesses. You want to believe the worst about him because you're a rank hater.
Fourth, only a covetous, envious progressive who pretends to be a Christian...you know...like you...would suggest that one must go home tired, sweaty and in pain to not have "worked hard". Go ahead, asshole. Start up and run a business and tell me you're not working hard if you hire others to do the manual labor. Leave it to a marxist to insist that the hired hand is the creator of production...the real producer. The hired hand is a tool the producer who takes on all the risk and responsibility for everything. The hired hand puts in his hours, takes his pay and goes home. At best, one can say that the good hired hand is productive for the benefit of the producer.
Post a Comment