Note: Yes, I changed the title of this post. It seemed apropos.
I've been sitting on this for a while, and at this point it's almost just old news. But two things compelled me to just go ahead and post it. The first is that the initial link below is still relevant as all get out. It was my initial inspiration for this post. The second is Dan's most recent post as his Blog of Lies and Perversions, wherein he indulges in his well known psychotic and very unChristian grace embracing hatred of our president. Dan continues to be the poster child for "All Which Is Wrong With America". So here it is...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As we all know, Dems in Dem states won elections. Virginia, New Jersey and NYC all elected Dems for the various open offices on the ballot. Not a one of them was won by a Dem of class and character. Of course, those words...as well as words like "honor", "morality" and "honesty"...have no real value to either the political or religious left.
In pondering the outcome of these elections, I felt compelled to write about them here and what it portends. But that's kind of silly since what has occurred was what past elections had portended at the time. Thus, things are moving in the worst way in the worst direction, slowed only by the great work of our president and a few conservative governors.
So as I was trying to figure out how to express myself, I found a great piece which says much in my stead.
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2025/11/results_are_in_american_leftists_willingly_embrace_evil.html
I was so impressed with the author's comprehensive analysis. She really presented well so many of the vile things with which the left aligns themselves. As an aside, I also appreciate the fact that she referred to George Floyd's death as "self-inflicted" as opposed to a murder, which is how even way too many conservatives describe it, simply because a poor justice system said so.
Moron Zamdani naturally gets most of the attention, as he is, by far, the most egregious winner among the leftist election victories. It's amazing that in a city which was the target of an islamic attack which murdered 3000 Americans, most of whom were in the World Trade Center buildings destroyed in the assault, it's also a city comprised of so many Jews, who are still constantly targeted by islamists of the type Moron Zamdani just couldn't bring himself to condemn for their October 7, 2023 murder, rape and kidnapping spree. I guess he views it as "the voice of the unheard" or some kind of "self-determination" migration into Israel from Gaza. But he is representative of what the Democrat Party has become, and they have plenty of support from the stupider of the unwashed.
As regards that particular election, there's much which alarms, such as who celebrated his victory:
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2025/11/hamas_linked_jew_hater_pours_out_the_congratulations_to_mamdani.html
And there are other things quite interesting, one of which suggests a huge problem with the 19th Amendment:
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2025/11/almost_a_republican_sweep_last_night_if_only_men_voted.html
236 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 236 of 236To the "unknown":
To question Dan's mental acuity and competence is not out of bounds. To do so anonymously and without an argument to defend or promote a position...yours, ours or his...definitely is. Dan's coward enough for all of us.
Some final comments, just to set the factual record straight.
Marshal:
You don't get to assert your explanations are compelling. If they don't compel, they aren't.
If I'm speaking as to whether or not I find something compelling, YES, I do, of course, have the freedom to say what is and isn't compelling TO ME. As you do, you. That's the point. You find your arrogant, presumptuous, harmful, opinions on LGBTQ matters to be compelling. I find them sickly, ill, dangerous and harmful. Anti-Christ. You don't find my opinions on the same topic compelling, but I DO, as a point of fact. In reality, YOU do not get to decide for other people what is and isn't compelling, reasonable, biblical, Godly or moral.
Just as a point of fact.
Which leads to the WHY you need some rubric/pope/authoritative source. IF you want to claim - contrary to reality - that YOU are the one who has understood God's will objectively right on matters of LGBTQ concerns (for example, but this is true for all the areas where we disagree), it's not enough for you to just say, "I, Marshal, am understanding it 100% right and you are not..." THAT is an empty claim, subjective and arrogant as hell. IF you want to say there is ONE correct and authoritative answer and YOU objectively have it, you need SOME authoritative source to support that bold claim. Your personal opinions of what the Bible say are NOT an objective source. They are subjective, by definition, when they have no objective proof to support the claim.
Marshal, again addressing my opinions about LGBTQ matters:
you are only compelled by that with which you already agree...
Because you were already supportive of the agenda.
Again, as a point of fact in the real world, I WAS OPPOSED to LGBTQ "rights" and concerns. I AGREED with your traditions, which were then my traditions on that topic. I had NO plan or desire to change my mind and was convinced that I was understanding the bible correctly and, thus, I was understanding God correctly.
But then, the more I read in the Bible and the more I listened to my own (and others like me) arguments against support for our LGBTQ friends and family, the LESS compelling I found them. Eventually, I grew to find the Old Arguments immoral, unbiblical and anti-Christ.
That is just the reality of it all. You don't get to falsely, arrogantly claim that YOU know best my motives for changing. You weren't there, you don't know and you're not me. I AM me and I am the sole person between the two of us to know why I changed my mind.
Reality is just reality. You all don't get your own alternative facts or reality. That you keep trying to insist your non-reality IS reality, the more detached from reality you prove yourselves to be.
The text simply does not compel the conclusions you insist you drew from your "serious and prayerful" study.
That is YOUR opinion that YOU hold. I sincerely and factually disagree. Again, with no rubric, YOU do not get to claim to be the authority on the matter. You are welcome to your personal opinions - even if they are harmful and unGodly, lacking in reason, grace and love - but you are NOT the sole authority on how such passages and ideas are understood.
All of my points here are just objective reality.
I DO know my reasons and you do NOT.
I DO know if I find something compelling or not, you do NOT get to say if I found an argument/idea compelling.
You ARE NOT the authoritative voice to decide how passages/ideas are rightly understood.
I WAS opposed to LGBTQ concerns until Bible study and prayer led me away from that position to a position of love and grace.
Those are the facts.
Humble yourselves.
Marshal...
This is not believable by any honest person who reads Scripture honestly and without preconceived notions.
And yet, it actually happened. Reality is reality. You can believably say, "I, Marshal, cannot imagine an honest person actually reaching this conclusion..." but you can't say it didn't happen because it literally did in the real world. And not just with me. Well over half the Christians at my church have a similar story.
Why do you kick so hard against reality?
Marshal...
When even a lesbian scholar of sex in the ancient world denies any possibility of tolerance of homosexuality
Now, you need to understand what I'm saying. I'm not saying that ancient cultures that codified the practice of killing disrespectful children and "men who laid with men..." who codified laws for how to sell your children into slavery and thought that God allowed them to kidnap virgin girls of an enemy and forcibly wed (rape) them... that these ancient people's were supportive of gay folks marrying. You DO understand that this has NEVER been my argument, right?
I'm arguing that, of course, the God of love, acceptance and welcome would celebrate gay folks marrying and be opposed to oppressing them. As God's nature is described in the Bible and as is reasonable IF you accept the premise of a perfectly loving, gracious and just God.
You understand, THAT is what I've been talking about all these years?
While Dan continues to ignore the point of the post, he finally demonstrates something akin to "grace" by providing evidence to support the premise of the first link found therein: the progressive's embrace of evil. We begin with his comment on December 13, 2025 at 8:51 AM.
I had said: "You don't get to assert your explanations are compelling. If they don't compel, they aren't." To which Dan replied:
"If I'm speaking as to whether or not I find something compelling, YES, I do, of course, have the freedom to say what is and isn't compelling TO ME."
Two problems here:
1. I made absolutely no comments suggesting you're not free to find compelling whatever you think or say is.
2. My comment was in reference to you describing your arguments as compelling. It goes without saying that when one expresses a position and an argument for it, one hopes to argue in a compelling manner. I know I do! The point is to persuade, or failing that goal, to force one's opponent to stop and reflect on what is said. That's what compelling arguments are supposed to do and yours never does either. It might if you could someday fill enough of the many holes in your positions. But you're a like a small child explaining to Momma why he just can't put his toys away when he's done playing with them, except your arguments aren't nearly as strong.
"You find your arrogant, presumptuous, harmful, opinions on LGBTQ matters to be compelling."
Three problems with this:
1. I don't present "opinions" on LGBTQ++++ matters without clearly stating I'm offering an opinion. I've corrected you on this many times, so you're just lying.
2. The facts, truths and evidence I present in arguing my position does not in any way suggest "arrogance, presumption or harm" in any way. So this is another lie. You just say this kind of shit, and do it a lot, but never back up such a claim with support of any kind, much less of a quality you demand of those like me at your Blog of Lies and Perversions.
3. I do not express the facts, truths and evidence I present on LGBTQ++++ matters with any thought to how compelling they might be, though I hope they will be. And I do believe that all honest people couldn't help but regard them as compelling because honest people are so enamored with facts, truths and evidence. Those are the very things which compel honest people on fence to get off on my side, which is the side of truth and facts.
In the meantime, I can't account for how dishonest people will receive them, and dishonest people like you are resistant to truth, facts and evidence which contradict what you prefer reality to be. With those of your kind, I await with little hope, but hope nonetheless, that your lack of honest and intelligent and in no way factual support for any counter argument will be what compels you to at least reconsider your ill-considered embrace of falsehoods.
"I find them sickly, ill, dangerous and harmful. Anti-Christ."
That's because you're a pervert who embraces evil, not because of any actual flaws in my positions you've EVER been able to expose.
continuing
"You don't find my opinions on the same topic compelling, but I DO, as a point of fact."
More's the pity.
"In reality, YOU do not get to decide for other people what is and isn't compelling, reasonable, biblical, Godly or moral."
Of course I don't try. I'm merely saying that your crap isn't compelling to me. It's directed to me, so I get to decide if it's compelling or worthless crap. It's worthless crap. OR, I can just as easily say that it's compelling insofar as it compels me to accurately label it as crap. It's also never reasonable...a word you don't understand...Biblical, Godly or moral...a word you use as a punchline. As to Biblical or Godly, there's nothing in your positions which are found in the Bible or the Words of God, except possibly on a very superficial level so it sounds "Christiany" while actually being heresy or abject idiocy.
"Which leads to the WHY you need some rubric/pope/authoritative source.""
Here comes the idiocy:
"IF you want to claim - contrary to reality - that YOU are the one who has understood God's will objectively right on matters of LGBTQ concerns (for example, but this is true for all the areas where we disagree), it's not enough for you to just say, "I, Marshal, am understanding it 100% right and you are not...""
You keep running this crap as if it bears any resemblance to truth. It's not in the slightest way a honest and accurate representation of any of my arguments. Why you continue to tell this lie is disturbing.
"THAT is an empty claim, subjective and arrogant as hell."
YOURS is a bullshit claim, with no relation to reality. To continue pretending my actual arguments resemble this fiction you present is simply you lying and THAT is "arrogant as hell".
"IF you want to say there is ONE correct and authoritative answer and YOU objectively have it, you need SOME authoritative source to support that bold claim. Your personal opinions of what the Bible say are NOT an objective source. They are subjective, by definition, when they have no objective proof to support the claim."
This is exactly what I've been referencing over the past week or so regarding your dishonest and evasive manner of debate. You keep running this shit instead of mounting a compelling argument, and after I've gone through and shown it to be your standard operating procedure for avoiding your obligations in defending our position or proving ours in any way in error, you respond by just running the same shit over again.
I hold positions for which my "objective" proof is Scripture, which is most perfect source for defending the positions I hold because they're influenced DIRECTLY by the text. Most of my positions IS the text presented more often than not word for word with chapter and verse added so its context can be reviewed as well. Scholarly commentaries I cite to validate my understanding do not rely, as yours does, on perverting Scripture or original language definitions (which are also dishonestly used by you to avoid the truth).
continuing
"Again, as a point of fact in the real world, I WAS OPPOSED to LGBTQ "rights" and concerns."
That means nothing, and your not a reliable source for seeking understanding about why you once opposed what no longer do despite Scripture's clear and unmistakable opposition to any manifestation of this perversion you love and adore more than God. In short, I don't believe a word which flows from your lying mind to the words of yours submitted for publication here.
"I AGREED with your traditions, which were then my traditions on that topic."
No you didn't, because you falsely describe mine now. Thus, what you thought then, are not at all what my positions are now, except for perhaps on the most superficial of levels. What's more, I don't have "traditions". I have facts and truth teachings from Scripture which are God's Will revealed to us. You have heresy and lies. You embrace evil.
"I had NO plan or desire to change my mind and was convinced that I was understanding the bible correctly and, thus, I was understanding God correctly."
Not believable by any stretch of the imagination. But I will concede your understanding of Scripture then was no better than it is now, but only different. At the same time, regardless of your poor understanding then, it was closer to the truth of it, and thus more honest...if that word can ever be used regarding you. NOW, however, your poor understanding is willful and intentional corruption to defend, promote and enable detestable perversion and blasphemous to assert it is God-breathed to the sorry likes of you and your kind.
"But then, the more I read in the Bible and the more I listened to my own (and others like me) arguments against support for our LGBTQ friends and family, the LESS compelling I found them. Eventually, I grew to find the Old Arguments immoral, unbiblical and anti-Christ."
Because you're stupid, morally bankrupt and one who embraces evil...or more precisely, you've allowed evil to embrace you by the throat. God's Truth does not become "less compelling" without evil leading you from it, which is clearly the case with you. For your current arguments do not come close to "compelling" to anyone who isn't sick and twisted in the first place. It comes off as comedy...a real joke which isn't funny given the consequences you'll be facing for daring to suggest it was God's Holy Spirit guiding you to embrace that which He calls abomination.
continuing
"That is just the reality of it all."
Very doubtful. Keep in mind. I know you're a liar.
"You don't get to falsely, arrogantly claim that YOU know best my motives for changing."
I get to call bullshit when it reeks as your does here.
"You weren't there"
I don't need to have been. What you say now doesn't pass the smell test.
"you're not me."
I truly have been blessed by God.
"I AM me..."
That really sucks for you.
"and I am the sole person between the two of us to know why I changed my mind."
And you're the far less reliable to relate an autobiography honestly. You're far less credible, nowhere near honest, a well known liar and purveyor of perversion.
"Reality is just reality. You all don't get your own alternative facts or reality. That you keep trying to insist your non-reality IS reality, the more detached from reality you prove yourselves to be."
No doubt you desperately need to believe this. Sad for you.
"That is YOUR opinion that YOU hold. I sincerely and factually disagree."
It's not opinion. It's fact. You wanna know what would contradict that? An actual argument with unassailable facts of your own. ACTUAL facts which can be researched if necessary, not the assertions so common to you.
continuing
"Again, with no rubric"
Don't need one simply because you demand one simply because it's easier than proving me wrong or you right.
"YOU do not get to claim to be the authority on the matter."
Good thing I never do, eh?
"You are welcome to your personal opinions"
I don't need your permission or welcome, and when I choose to express what's no more than my opinion, I'll state that's what it is. You are NOT "welcome" to regard the facts I present as "opinion" simply because you're too stupid, too lazy or too evil and false to deal with them. -
"even if they are harmful and unGodly, lacking in reason, grace and love"
My opinions never are. Not even my low opinion of you because of your low character. Less so are the facts and truths I present and defend. But if the truth hurts, so be it. It wouldn't if those you defend would abide it. It hurts because they reject it and the consequences are uncomfortable. Boo hoo.
"but you are NOT the sole authority on how such passages and ideas are understood."
I don't need to be. But I'm honest enough to see and relate the obvious. What's important is that you're not possessed of any authority to reject what you don't like about Scripture...which is pretty much all of it.
continuing
"All of my points here are just objective reality."
No. They're not.
"I DO know my reasons and you do NOT."
Yes I do, because you told me. I simply don't believe them because they're so stupid and false.
"I DO know if I find something compelling or not, you do NOT get to say if I found an argument/idea compelling."
I don't give a flying rat's ass what you find compelling or not, until you put on someone's big boy pants and actually explain what makes it so or how it fails to be so.
In the meantime, Nancy...I DO get to say whether or not YOUR arguments are compelling. They're not only crap, but I've explained why in great detail over the years far beyond any ability of yours to counter, if you even step up to try...which you rarely do.
"You ARE NOT the authoritative voice to decide how passages/ideas are rightly understood."
I don't need to be. But I'm absolutely a far more honest voice that are you in doing so.
"I WAS opposed to LGBTQ concerns until Bible study and prayer led me away from that position to a position of love and grace."
This is a lie. I've read all your crap with regard to rationalizing your heresies regarding this issue and "compelling" isn't a word which has any place in the discussion. Your arguments are simply crap. They're laughable. I wouldn't show them to a "gay" guy. He'd be embarrassed.
"Those are the facts."
Not even close to ''facts".
"Humble yourselves."
Pound sand.
December 13, 2025 at 4:10 PM
"And yet, it actually happened."
Liars like you aren't believable. Thus, I don't believe you.
"but you can't say it didn't happen because it literally did in the real world."
I have only the word of an inveterate liar to attest to it.
"And not just with me. Well over half the Christians at my church have a similar story."
You realize you just indicted "well over half the Christians at" your church as being liars just like you. I'll bet they'll be tickled pink to hear it!
"Why do you kick so hard against reality?"
Why do you pretend I do when you don't even know what the word "reality" means?
I had said:
"When even a lesbian scholar of sex in the ancient world denies any possibility of tolerance of homosexuality"
Dan the Pervert perverted it thusly:
"I'm not saying that ancient cultures that codified the practice of killing disrespectful children and "men who laid with men..." who codified laws for how to sell your children into slavery and thought that God allowed them to kidnap virgin girls of an enemy and forcibly wed (rape) them... that these ancient people's were supportive of gay folks marrying. You DO understand that this has NEVER been my argument, right?"
I DO understand this is a waste of keystrokes. It bears no relation to the comment of mine for which this was intended to received as an honest, intelligent direct response. Why did you mention all that unrelated shit to respond to a factual statement regarding a lesbian scholar to affirms there exists absolutely nothing in Scripture which in any way promotes any "form" of homosexual behavior and as such there can be no way to pervert Scripture as you do in order to pretend God might bless SSMs?
"I'm arguing that, of course, the God of love, acceptance and welcome would celebrate gay folks marrying and be opposed to oppressing them. As God's nature is described in the Bible and as is reasonable IF you accept the premise of a perfectly loving, gracious and just God.
You understand, THAT is what I've been talking about all these years?"
Yes. And you do so with absolutely no factual support from Scripture. You've invented a false god to worship, who loves "gay" people acting like "gay" people. You're a blasphemer and a heretic.
Repent. Be a man. Turn to the ACTUAL Christ, not the twisted perversion of the fake Christ you worship.
"But then, the more I read in the Bible and the more I listened to my own (and others like me) arguments against support for our LGBTQ friends and family, the LESS compelling I found them. Eventually, I grew to find the Old Arguments immoral, unbiblical and anti-Christ."
No one can seriously read the Bible and come to such conclusions. NO Christian can come to such a conclusion. Even biology argues against homosexuality! Which goes to prove Trabue a liar to say he once felt the way us sane, real Christians feel; he has no Holy Spirit, rather he has a spirit of Satan.
It certainly seems so. The only defense of his claims quoted in your comment is that those who cites as "others like me" are/were as stupid as he is. Too stupid to present an intelligent argument defending God's prohibition against his perverted LGBTQ++++ friends and family. That's sad, because maybe a little thought might have save the souls of those "friends and family". Instead, Dan has become another enabler with his foot on the accelerator, speeding them to perdition.
Glenn:
No one can seriously read the Bible and come to such conclusions. NO Christian can come to such a conclusion. Even biology argues against homosexuality!
You all keep saying ridiculous stuff like this. EACH of these claims is objectively wrong. The reality that I (and countless others like me) read the Bible seriously and came to this conclusion undermines that claim.
The reality that I am a Christian - a follower of Jesus, the risen son of God, saved by God's grace - and reached this conclusion undermines that claim.
The reality that "biology" made ZERO arguments "against homosexuality..." undermines that claim.
You all want to pretend that YOU are the sole deciders of reality, IN SPITE of reality, points to a malicious arrogance that is quite anti-Christ and entirely unhealthy.
As a reminder Glenn: I WAS OPPOSED to LGBTQ rights and arguments. I read the Bible to FIND SUPPORT for this opposition (and, of course, spent the entire first 33-35 years of my life in opposition to "gay stuff..." being quite indoctrinated into conservative "christian" traditions). And in that serious effort to UNDERMINE any arguments for LGBTQ rights, I reached a contrary opinion. It was, if anything, a bad faith reading on my part in favor of conservative human traditions, because I wasn't really open to the idea of being wrong (much like you all, clearly!). And yet, I read the Bible seriously and DID come to this conclusion. That's just a matter of historical record. You can ask my conservative friends I had growing up (who are now no longer seriously friends, by their choice, not mine). It IS reality.
And unless you want to pose some works-based salvation (where I have to agree with certain beliefs that YOU have in order to be saved), of course, I'm a Christian, even by traditional definitions of Christianity.
You all are undone by reality and you're too convinced of your own right-ness and your own human traditions to accept reality. But that's a sick place to be. Get help, men.
Danny girl,
OBJECTIVELY reading the BIBLE cannot lead anyone to conclude homosexual behavior is not condemned by God. Interesting, is it not, that for thousands of years everyone who read the Bible saw that homosexuality was an abomination before God but in the last few decades when LEFTISTS wanted to sanction such perversion they suddenly found that GOD is okay with it!
You are a not a follower of the real Jesus any more than is a Mormon. The real Jesus condemns homosexual behavior and abortion and yet your Jesus is okay with both.
Your lengthy paragraph about your “reminder” is a bald faced lie excuse to sanction perversions.
Biology says the penis does not belong in the anus. (And some heterosexual wrongly use their female partner’s anus!) Anal intercourse does damage to the anus. And AIDS developed from such activity.
December 15, 2025 at 9:29 AM
Dan, you continue with the same crap which I've been highlighting is evidence of your embrace of evil. It's as if you need to emphasize that embrace because you're not certain you've gotten the point across.
"You all keep saying ridiculous stuff like this. EACH of these claims is objectively wrong. The reality that I (and countless others like me) read the Bible seriously and came to this conclusion undermines that claim."
Not in the slightest, because your words to not present an intelligent, Scripture-based argument in favor of your perversions and heresies. Your appeal to numbers ("countless others like me") does not enhance the credibility of your claim one iota. Given the falseness of your claims about Scripture, it only suggests there are "countless other" liars like you who are also unable to make a legitimate argument in favor of your perversions and heresies.
"The reality that I am a Christian - a follower of Jesus, the risen son of God, saved by God's grace - and reached this conclusion undermines that claim."
The reality is the "conclusion" you've reached is evidence you aren't a Christian at all, as the "conclusion" is starkly anathema to Christian teaching on the subject.
"The reality that "biology" made ZERO arguments "against homosexuality..." undermines that claim."
This is just a straight up, intentionally told lie. Biology absolutely argues against homosexuality being anything other than disorder.
"You all want to pretend that YOU are the sole deciders of reality, IN SPITE of reality, points to a malicious arrogance that is quite anti-Christ and entirely unhealthy."
Ironic and hypocritical coming from the very pervert who insists constantly on telling us what reality is...which is really just him trying to make his bullshit truer by daring to do so.
We pretend nothing. We cite fact and truth which to which you constantly respond with shit like this, rather than with any "hard data" or facts.
" And yet, I read the Bible seriously and DID come to this conclusion."
Not only not possible, but your laughable explanation for how it happened doesn't provide any legitimate, explanation for how it might be. All you've provided was nonsensical inferences the text itself does not in any way actually imply or provide. This has been dealt with many times since you first posted that comedy gold. You routinely fail to do anything but assert that this shit you threw at the wall must be regarded as intelligent and compelling, and worse, a reasonable interpretation of Scripture on the subject. It is not. Not even close.
"You can ask my conservative friends I had growing up (who are now no longer seriously friends, by their choice, not mine)."
Yeah. Right. Sure, Nancy. But at least they've demonstrated wisdom in cutting you from their circle of friends.
"And unless you want to pose some works-based salvation (where I have to agree with certain beliefs that YOU have in order to be saved), of course, I'm a Christian, even by traditional definitions of Christianity."
It's not "works based salvation" to reject the promotion of heretical perversions of Scripture such as those you so warmly embrace like a pervert. You're not Christian by any definition. Christians do not promote the exact opposite of what God prohibits.
"You all are undone by reality and you're too convinced of your own right-ness..."
Such arrogance. Such evil!
"But that's a sick place to be."
Says the fake Christian pervert who wallows in sexual perversions.
Ironically, Dan constantly proves himself to be both a dick and an asshole.
(A correction: AIDS spread by such activity.)
Glenn...
OBJECTIVELY reading the BIBLE cannot lead anyone to conclude homosexual behavior is not condemned by God.
And yet, objectively and as demonstrated by reality, it did. Again, you can disagree with my conclusions, but you cannot disagree with factual reality.
You do not get to speak for my reality. That's just foolhardy arrogance.
December 15, 2025 at 12:07 PM
"And yet, objectively and as demonstrated by reality, it did."
Objectively, the reality is that it did not. That truth is borne out by your inability to make a direct connection between anything in Scripture and the heretical position you now promote as having been informed by Scripture. You simply never have. I know your response will be something along the lines of, "Just because you don't like my explanation, that doesn't mean I didn't explain it." But the truth is that a bullshit explanation is no explanation at all, and if you can't satisfy the many obvious problems in your explanations identified by us, then you indeed have explained nothing. What you've done is no better than telling us it's warm out because the chair is leaning on the coffee table. That is, you simply say whatever sounds good to you, and expect the average adult to regard it as an actual explanation.
To have a "conclusion" requires having something which compels it. You've never provided anything which actually compels the heretical conclusions you now embrace. The factual reality is you're doing no more than forcing nonsense into Scripture and saying to yourself, "Look! Here's the 'truth' I was looking for!" and pretending you actually found truth.
So feel free to provide a link to your series of nonsensical explanations and I'll do a post on it again, where real Christians can ignore it, read it and weep or laugh at the absurdity of it and maybe even take the time to once again attempt to force you to fill the gaping holes in it.
True arrogance is to present your crap sandwich and disparage us for not regarding it as filet mignon.
Marshal (and truly, the last time here...)
Objectively, the reality is that it did not.
YES, it did. The reality IS just as I've explained it over and over and over. I WAS THERE. YOU WERE NOT. It was MY VIEWS that you don't and can't know. I DO.
* I was raised in a conservative church (Victory Memorial Baptist church, Louisville, KY)
* I was raised believing that homosexuality was a sin. Period.
* I was raised believing that this is what the Bible taught, because OF COURSE, it did (I thought at the time). The question wasn't in dispute.
* I believed this all the way up until I was about 33, give or take (sometime probably in 1997)
These are ALL objective facts. Facts you can't dispute because they're just a matter of historical record. If you truly wanted to try to dispute it, you could talk to the actual people who knew me - conservatives, all - and they would confirm this reality.
From there, I started attending a church that was more open to LGBTQ matters. I disagreed with them on that but saw that in every other way, it was a phenomenal church, true to the roots of the Christian church and the early church, which was quite important to me.
And so, I revisited the topic and read through the Bible so I could better dispute anything they might say if and when the question came up. Because I was confronted with actual Christians who disagreed with me on this point, I studied the topic more seriously than ever before. I LISTENED to the arguments conservatives were making and began seeing holes in the reasoning, given what the Bible actually says (and doesn't say).
And on it goes. And, in the real history of the real world, I was a person opposed to support for LGBTQ and in studying the Bible to defend that position, I came away no longer believing that anti-LGBTQ matters were biblical and, indeed, that they were contrary to the teachings of Jesus and good moral reasoning.
That is the objective reality of my changing of positions. That you men can't UNDERSTAND HOW it came to be does not negate the objective fact that it DID come to be, just as I've repeatedly described to you in great detail. YOUR failure to understand doesn't change reality. That you can't imagine it happening is rendered useless in the face of the reality that it DID happen.
HOW do you explain the reality of my changed position? By saying it's all a lie? But it's not. Why would I lie? It is just what happened.
You simply are blinded by your partisan human bigotries, men, and I don't know how to help you there. That you embrace unreality over reality and a fake history over actual history is a real problem in your minds and, sadly, in your souls. Get help.
Danny, YOU ARE A LIAR. You did NOT read the Bible OBJECTIVELY to believe God approves of sodomy and other homosexual acts. You are a pawn of Satan to say such lies.
December 15, 2025 at 2:56 PM
"YES, it did. The reality IS just as I've explained it over and over and over. I WAS THERE. YOU WERE NOT. It was MY VIEWS that you don't and can't know. I DO."
You're not believable given your long history of lying on the blogs. I can know what you write, because I read the blogs. I can match what you assert is true with what is true and find that you're full of crap from a variety of angles. And I can know that what you say Scripture revealed to you which led to your alleged change of heart on the issue of LGBTQ++++ is not what Scripture says...because in fact it doesn't. At all. Not even a little bit. Indeed, so not at all, even a lesbian scholar and other pro-homosexual Biblical scholars far more educated in the text than you don't agree that Scripture says what you pretend it says to rationalize your pro-homosexual point of view...not that I need them to know, because it so clearly doesn't say what you pretend it does.
"* I was raised in a conservative church (Victory Memorial Baptist church, Louisville, KY)"
So you say. That doesn't mean they're worth a damn, even if it can be ascertained just how conservative they might be. Clearly they didn't teach you well, if you could cast off Biblical truth on so shoddy a "study" which you pretend removed the scales from your eyes. A solid, sound and true Christian education won't result in such without the student in question being intellectually dysfunctional, which tracks with your intellect as evidenced by 17 years of your comments.
"* I was raised believing that homosexuality was a sin. Period."
Which is a fact.
"* I was raised believing that this is what the Bible taught, because OF COURSE, it did (I thought at the time). The question wasn't in dispute."
As well it shouldn't have been given how unequivocal, unambiguous and unassailable the Scriptural prohibition was and remains. How and why you no longer "think" that is that which has never been intelligently explained. There are two HUGE problems with your "explanation" for your conversion from God's Will to the will of the perversion activists:
1. Your explanation is chock full of lies.
2. If I was unaware of the truth, your explanation comes off as lies being told by a liar.
"* I believed this all the way up until I was about 33, give or take (sometime probably in 1997)"
That's when you went from ignorant with only a rote, superficial understanding of Scripture to a whole-hog liar who expresses nonsense with only the most superficial resemblance to Christianity.
continuing
"These are ALL objective facts."
...of absolutely no value even if they are, given the point here is about your inability and unwillingness to truly defend your position, but would prefer to dick around with these irrelevancies instead, as if they make any difference to anything of concern here.
"If you truly wanted to try to dispute it, you could talk to the actual people who knew me - conservatives, all - and they would confirm this reality."
More worthless drivel with no bearing on why you embrace evil so firmly, rather than adhere to the Will of God with the same gusto. Are these people who knew you going to explain how Scripture convinces actual honest people that God might actually bless two perverts who pretend to be married to each other? I'm guessing no. The best you could hope for is that they would affirm you've said all sorts to stupid shit you now say, all of which is irrelevant and has no value here.
"From there, I started attending a church that was more open to LGBTQ matters."
A heretical church of pro-homo enablers. So what?
"...a phenomenal church, true to the roots of the Christian church and the early church..."
The roots of the Christian church and the early church didn't play fast and loose with the clear revelation of God regarding sinful behaviors like homosexuality. So, you're shining on once again to pretend this church was better than that of your childhood, despite how questionable that one appears to be given your lack in conviction on all you may or may not have been taught there.
continuing
"And so, I revisited the topic and read through the Bible so I could better dispute anything they might say if and when the question came up. Because I was confronted with actual Christians who disagreed with me on this point, I studied the topic more seriously than ever before."
Affirming what I had said about you, which you insisted wasn't true...that you were influenced into pretending Scripture supports your current position. It wasn't just some out of the blue decision on your part to see why anyone would claim what you claim now. You placed yourself amongst pro-homo enablers and nonetheless pretend you came to all by your lonesome without any outside influence by these new associations. This is, by the way, the reason for the righteous teaching of casting out such people from the church who insist on promoting as true that which is false, that which as Godly that which is abjectly not. You prefer to regard such righteous responses to "oppression" and "homophobia" and attack them as anti-Christian.
"I LISTENED to the arguments conservatives were making and began seeing holes in the reasoning, given what the Bible actually says (and doesn't say)."
The very things we've been asking of you without you delivering. You've never shown anything the Bible says which validates your heresy nor exposes as untrue the truths we defend. NEVER! You simply assert that you have and pretend we forgot or somehow don't understand...because as a liar, it's all you have.
"And on it goes. And, in the real history of the real world, I was a person opposed to support for LGBTQ and in studying the Bible to defend that position, I came away no longer believing that anti-LGBTQ matters were biblical and, indeed, that they were contrary to the teachings of Jesus and good moral reasoning."
The actual reality is that under the influence, instruction and "guidance" of a pro-homo enabling fake Christian church, you bought lock, stock and barrel the host of pro-homo enabling lies without putting in the effort to invent a less laughable explanation for how you could hold that position. Now, instead of presenting something resembling that, you waste time with these bullshit, irrelevant autobiographical deflections.
continuing
"That is the objective reality of my changing of positions."
It's your self-serving fictional account you expect us to regard as "objective reality" as if you've the credibility to even use that term. Worse than that is how you bore us with continuing to offer it up instead of an actual, Scripture based explanation for your embrace of evil.
"That you men can't UNDERSTAND HOW it came to be does not negate the objective fact that it DID come to be, just as I've repeatedly described to you in great detail. YOUR failure to understand doesn't change reality. That you can't imagine it happening is rendered useless in the face of the reality that it DID happen."
And there it is. It us. It's never Dan. It's always the other guy. But it doesn't matter if we buy your bottled diarrhea. None of it matters. What matters is that you promote heresy and instead of defending it, you waste time and keystrokes with another boring retelling of how you came to do so. No. One. Cares. Defend the position. Do it at your Blog of Lies and Perversions. I'll link to it here and shred it again for the comedy gold it is.
"HOW do you explain the reality of my changed position? By saying it's all a lie? But it's not. Why would I lie?"
For the praise of your kind: the homosexuals and homosexual enablers. They're clearly far more important to you than God. Jesus would not do as you do, and to dare say you're modeling Him is blasphemy as in doing so you're insisting the Christ of Scripture doesn't exist, and instead this cartoon of yours is He. You were far better off not understanding Scripture when you were still with that alleged conservative church than you are misunderstanding Scripture in the company and influence of abject heretics, and becoming one yourself.
"You simply are blinded by your partisan human bigotries..."
Not blind at all, Sally. We see clearly what you've done, as if our faces were pushed closely to it. There's no doubt about what you've done.
"I don't know how to help you there."
Its' YOU who's in need of help, but like so many homosexuals, you don't want help. You want everyone to accept your fiction, or for everyone to allow you to live your fiction as if it's possibly true and no more or less so than the truths defended by actual Christians. You're twisted. You're no Christian. Good luck with that.
This points out the incredibly low bar Dan has to meet before he's convinced that something is "reality", He has to convince Himself, that His hunches, convince Him, that He is correct. Not particularly impressive.
"Humble yourselves" and bow at the feet of the mighty Dan.
Narcissistic, not at all.
"I'm arguing that, of course, the God of love, acceptance and welcome would celebrate gay folks marrying and be opposed to oppressing them.'
No one is denying that you have "argued" this nonsense. The problem is that you haven't proven it based on anything beyond yourself. You haven't offered any Hebrew or Christian scripture to back up your hunch, nothing from the early Church, nothing from 1st century non canonical writings, nothing beyond you convincing yourself that "marriage" magically makes homosexual sex not abominable.
If one follows this logic than two atheist gays who drive through the Elvis chapel in Vegas completely drunk somehow magically get "blessed" because they got a piece of paper. Or two gays get "married" yet choose an open "marriage" and continue to promiscuously have sex, are "blessed" because a judge said a magic spell.
That you've been "talking about" something for "all these years" doesn't magically make your hunch True.
Glenn, I beg to differ. I agree that Scripture doesn't support Dan's hunches explicitly or implicitly, yet people regularly reach all sorts of strange conclusions about what Scripture says. It's not necessarily logical, or consistent with what scripture actually says, but people can conjure up all sorts of strange hunches and blame scripture.
What's strange is that Dan acknowledges that he has no specific, direct, unambiguous, scriptural (or other) support for his hunches. Rather he's taken a few proof texts out of contexts, slathered on some other random buzzwords, and cooked up quite the strange stew so that he can convince himself, of how intelligent his hunches are.
Years ago I provided plenty of evidence from doctors and experts that unanimously agreed that anal sex is harmful under almost all conditions, especially if it is the only sexual act engaged in. Dan wasn't convinced by this "DATA", nor by the experts then and is unlikely to be convinced now. That it could be argued that homosexual anal sex violates Dan's credo of not doing harm to others is obvious.
Dan seems to have no trouble insisting that he knows, better than us, what we think and mean. He's repeatedly made claims about my personal experience as if he is some magical arbiter of reality. Strangely enough, this is one more instance of him refusing to hold himself to the behavior he demands of others.
The problem is that Dan insists that his "changed position" is "reality", yet cannot provide objective proof of his claim beyond "I told you so.". Which is not objective proof, merely self serving, self referencing.
If I had to guess, I'd say that he did grow up in a church which held a Biblical position on various things, and that Dan "believed" those things by virtue of attending that church. It seems likely that he simply assumed the beliefs of others rather than developed his own. It also seems likely that, as he got older and society changed around these issues that Dan glombed onto some folx who concocted a quasi Biblical justification to align with the societal changes and went along for the ride. (I know a lot of folx who did this. Mostly because they couldn't accept that their friend or child was actually sinful and needed a way to accommodate their behavior. Some version of "Oh Bob is a wonderful Christian guy and there's no possible way that him banging a dude outside of marriage could possibly be sinful.".
Again we'll never know for sure. We weren't there, and Dan has a tendency to put himself in the best possible light.
I can't tell y'all how delusional you are. Craig:
Dan seems to have no trouble insisting that he knows, better than us, what we think and mean. He's repeatedly made claims about my personal experience as if he is some magical arbiter of reality. Strangely enough, this is one more instance of him refusing to hold himself to the behavior he demands of others.
To be clear: Craig APPEARS to be referring to a case where HE is claiming perhaps to say that he has "objective proof" that he's witnessed supernatural miracles where God or an angel or something supersecret magical did something supernatural and impossible. (I say "Appears" because, as always, he's being vague and non-specific). That is: HE is making a claim of something bizarre, unproven and magical, something beyond the realm of normal human reality.
On the other hand, I'm simply telling you all the facts of what I experienced changing my mind on what the Bible does and doesn't teach... changing my mind on a human interpretation of a possible biblical teaching. NOTHING at all supernatural or unusual or beyond the norm of human experience: People DO change their opinions on textual interpretations.
These two things are not the same.
Further, I'm NOT claiming that Craig didn't see what he thinks he saw (or whatever... again, he was vague and non-specific about whatever magical experience he thinks he experienced/saw/heard about). I merely noted the simple observable reality that we have NO DATA to prove objectively that Craig witnessed something spooky and miraculous and otherworldly. And, as a point of fact, we DON'T have any proof. Hell, we don't have any proof of ANYTHING because he was so vague about whatever he was vaguely sorta kinda alluding to, maybe.
Noting the reality that we have no data to prove Craig observed/heard about/felt "something" "miraculous" is NOT me saying I know better than him what he experienced, just that we factually have NO DATA about whatever it is.
On the other hand, I DO know specifically and literally that I DID hold one position on the rationality of a biblical position on LGBTQ issues and NOW, I no longer hold that position AND the reality is that I reached that conclusion from reading the Bible and using my God-given reason, as we ALL do when we form opinions on biblical interpretations.
These two things are not alike.
That you all don't understand that simple obvious reality is part of the problem.
"Dan seems to have no trouble insisting that he knows, better than us, what we think and mean."
Yet being Danny-Double-Standard, he really takes issue when he asserts we're doing that to him...though I don't think there's any real mirror imaging in this. With him, what he claims to think or have thought doesn't track with everything else about his autobiography. It's really a case of "can't get there from here", but he insists he did.
"The problem is that Dan insists that his "changed position" is "reality", yet cannot provide objective proof of his claim beyond "I told you so.""
No problem, really. All we have to do is to track down everyone from his past, including those he says no longer associate with him due to his conversion to perversion, and they'll confirm everything he's said to a T.
One thing which puts this claim under suspicion is the moving from the alleged conservative church to the pro-homo enabling church, which also allegedly simply had this feature with which he found fault upon joining. As little as I care to hear more boring tales of his past which would bridge that gap, I have questions:
1. Why did he leave the conservative church in the first place? Did he move away to a new neighborhood? Did it burn down? Did they kick him out because he's just too stupid to bear (I can believe this possibility!)?
2. How did he come to find the progressive pro-homo enabling church? Was he turned on to it by homosexuals whose advice an allegedly conservative boy like Dan likely wouldn't have taken?
3. How can a church he described as very much (in his mind) like the first Christians, and the early church at the same time enable behaviors the early Christians never would? Were the homosexual in that church attempting to repent, or were they practicing homosexuals who were nonetheless tolerated and "included", which is not how the first Christians would act?
These questions expose a huge gap in his story and I'd say at the risk of being bored out of our minds, needs to be answered...when he chooses to take up the issue again at his Blog of Lies and Perversions (and not here).
Your take on the possibility of how he went from one belief to another is as possibly likely as any. But I insist that he did NOT come to believe Scripture supports his current position without being guided to it. Yet, I wonder if even the homosexuals agree with his take on Scripture. Most simply ignore God's prohibition and pretend He's cool with them just as they are.
December 16, 2025 at 9:16 PM
Of course, Dan. I don't need "data" to find Craig's testimony credible, because for all the years we've engaged on the blogs, he's never come across as anything but.
YOU, on the other hand, are a liar, so no testimony of yours is credible, especially given the laughable testimony that even a moron like you could actually be persuaded by a reading of Scripture to come to the unquestionably false conclusion about homosexuality as you claim is "reality". Sorry, Polly. Your "reason" is shit and Scripture is without any debate 100% opposed to homosexuality in any form. THAT is reality.
It is always gratifying when Dan literally demonstrates exactly the point I was making about his. That he thought that the best way to demonstrate his point was to engage in exactly the behavior his is bitching about. That Dan is so confident that he knows what I was referring to better than I know what I was referring to is simply an excellent example of the point I was making. That he's unaware of his idiocy just makes his faux outrage more amusing.
The problem with Dan's example is not that I refused to give him what he demanded, it's that he refused to allow me to lay the foundation before providing him with an explanation. Had he done so, I would have happily pointed him to sources (that aren't me) so that he could have confirmed the facts of the situation. Than Dan is impatient, arrogant, and demanding is the problem here.
Unfortunately, his behavior has once again resulted in an outcome that he doesn't like. His inability to acknowledge the role his behavior played in this instance, is simply par for the correct.
The difference is that I could have (had he played along) given him external sources to confirm the facts. Dan insists that we simply accept his claims as "reality" without providing any external validation of his claims. Offering himself as proof of "reality" is simply how he rolls.
Thanks.
I did send you some of the details that Dan would have gotten had he been able to control himself.
Post a Comment