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:
1 – 200 of 236 Newer› Newest»Much like those jurisdictions that vote senile, old, corrupt, politicians for decades voters will get exactly what they deserve. As we've seen here in the people's republic, the urban liberals have blessed us with fraud, scandal, and ineffective governance over the last decade or so.
I wonder whether rage over Trump and the GOP has exceeded rage over Muslims.
To the lunatic left, there is no one more evil and hated than Donald J. Trump, followed closely by all actual conservatives.
Y'all continue to miss the point?
WHY would any rational, moral adult "rage over Muslims...", any more than we'd rage against Christians or rage against Jews? We're not bigoted that way, that we'd choose a whole group of people to demonize and attack.
A bigoted person rages against groups of people. The wise, rational, moral people rage against those who cause harm. Against this shooter, yes. Against the specific murderers in the department of defense who command soldiers to murder people outside the bounds of law.
Blame the guilty specifically. Not ALL Republicans. Not ALL Muslims.
Why, that's almost biblical and, even more importantly, it's rational and moral.
Dan
I'm unaware of anyone who is engaged in "rage over Muslims", so that seems like a straw man to me.
Now are some people upset at things like Muslims taking over various suburbs of Detroit, engaging is systemic massive fraud, large rape rings in the UK, high crime rates of certain nationalities, high numbers of first cousin marriages and the genetic problems that brings, slaughter of Christians in Africa, of course. All of those things are worthy of being upset over. But some vague, general, "rage over Muslims", that I'm not seeing. I am seeing quite the opposite, where certain folx are making excuses and accommodations for Muslims, but no "rage".
Dan rages against Trump and the "MAGOP", therefore be must be bigoted.
Dan, you're an imbecile. Their holy book literally teaches them to harass and harm people of other religions. We have every reason to be wary of a people group of whom the vast majority seemingly show little interest in assimilating into cultures that differ from their own. It's best that you do not go around showcasing your bigoted ignorance under the guise of humble, reasoned inquiry.
November 30, 2025 at 8:09 PM
"WHY would any rational, moral adult "rage over Muslims...", any more than we'd rage against Christians or rage against Jews?"
How abjectly and patently dishonest it is to type out the above sentence, which clearly implies the first group is no different than the other two. That's like grouping Craig with Dan and a Hampshire (the first one is a cool dude and the next two are both pigs). A good government puts its people over those who aren't. That's their obligation as a good government over all else. Dan pretends muslims aren't given to putting their "religion" over everything and everyone who is not muslim, too. That clearly puts us at risk given the teachings of their "faith". Their history is such that, unlike with any other group except for the extreme of progressives (known as "communists"), islam is totally incompatible with our way of life. Thus, it is reasonable, logical, essential and Christian for our government to treat them differently than most every other people on earth.
Dan perverts Scripture once again to suppose that we're to ignore the dangers of a people taught to convert, enslave or murder those who won't accept their false religion, and, unlike with most any other group except for the extreme of progressives (known as "communists"), they teach that it is OK to lie to non-muslims to further the islamic cause.
Thus, the wise, rational, moral people rage against those like muslims who cause so much harm, in much the same way they "rage" against Democrats and other progressives.
"Against the specific murderers in the department of defense who command soldiers to murder people outside the bounds of law."
Support this stupidly false and baseless claim, hateful liar.
"Blame the guilty specifically."
Like muslims who have for centuries spread their message by the sword.
Like progressives/Democrats/marxists/fake Christians like Dan who promote, defend, support policies which result in 800000 infant deaths per year in our country, as well as the politicians to enact legislation to that end, as well as scores of other harmful policies and ideas...like treating muslims like everyone else.
And that's not "Biblical" at all.
Jesse:
Dan, you're an imbecile. Their holy book literally teaches them to harass and harm people of other religions.
No. I'm informed. I know Muslims. I hang out with Muslims and speak with them and share meals with them, as do many friends from my church and extended circles. Because I'm informed, I know that it's wrong to let some conservative Christian extremist to pretend to speak for Muslim's, telling them what they believe.
There's a difference between being informed and recognizing that there are SOME Muslim extremists - conservative zealots of their religion and human traditions - just like there are some Christian extremists - conservative zealots of their religion and human traditions... there are some Muslim extremists and there are some rational, compassionate Muslims. We don't blame the whole for the bad actions of a few.
THAT is the practice of bigots, but I'm informed, rational and not a bigot, by definition.
Same for you and your irrational, bigoted comments, Marshal.
The reality is: Rational people hold guilty people accountable for harmful actions, not everyone from the group they're from. Bigots blame them all.
And that IS biblical, moral, Godly and reasonable.
Understand now?
Just as a reminder:
Bigot:
"a person who is obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, especially one who is prejudiced against or antagonistic toward a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group."
and
"a narrow-minded person who obstinately adheres to their own opinions and prejudices
especially : one who strongly and unfairly dislikes or feels hatred toward others based on their group membership"
Y'all are literally operating as Muslim bigots, definitionally.
So, when young Jesse irrationally and falsely states:
It's best that you do not go around showcasing your bigoted ignorance under the guise of humble, reasoned inquiry.
We can see that I am not acting in a bigoted or ignorant manner, definitionally. I'm well aware that MANY bigoted conservatives make those claims about what Islam does and doesn't teach. And I'm informed (not ignorant) enough to know that some Muslims MIGHT teach what you suggest... but I'm also informed and not bigoted enough to know that not all Muslims think of Islamic teachings in the way you do. Another thing that is irrational and bigoted is presuming that you as a privileged white conservative Christian male are in a better position to decide what Muslims believe rather than actual Muslims.
Bigotry and arrogance are a bad combination, sirs.
December 2, 2025 at 12:59 PM
"I'm informed."
You certainly think you are. But you haven't convinced me you aren't more than a useful idiot for any number of groups of people. Muslims can only be but one more on the list. But given the teachings of islam, which has been confirmed repeatedly by muslims themselves, the fact remains that simply being muslim logically implicates one as being a threat because islam itself is a threat to all who are not muslim, too.
Are all muslims a direct threat to any non-muslim? That doesn't matter even if we could confirm a given muslim isn't, though that's impossible. The fact that a muslim "seems nice" and hasn't acted violently toward anyone, doesn't mean they won't. And again, unlike with any other group except for the extreme of progressives (known as "communists")...shit...ANY progressives if recent history is taken into account...violence is always an option, is rewarded by their false god if directed against non-muslims and there are many instances of support by allegedly non-violent muslims which are easy to find. The risk to our people is too great to pretend they're "just like us", when they all too often prove otherwise.
"I hang out with Muslims and speak with them and share meals with them, as do many friends from my church and extended circles."
Not the least bit compelling, as useful idiots are especially poor sources about the people for whom they serve as the useful idiots they are...as YOU are.
"I know that it's wrong to let some conservative Christian extremist to pretend to speak for Muslim's, telling them what they believe."
And just like the muslims themselves, you clearly believe it's acceptable to lie about conservative Christians. We do not "pretend" to speak for muslims. We repeat what their "holy book" has revealed as confirmed by many muslims and scholars of the "faith".
THAT is the practice of truly informed people...they go right to the source. Bigots are those who rebuke those who do because they speak the truth bigots like you don't like or want to hear.
"Rational people hold guilty people accountable for harmful actions, not everyone from the group they're from. Bigots blame them all."
Truly rational people hold accountable not just those who perpetrated heinous acts, but those who could have and should have prevented their own from doing so.
Truly rational people do not risk the safety of their own simply to posture. It's not bigotry at all to act on probabilities supported by 1400 years of history. And that IS biblical, moral, Godly and reasonable.
For those who were raised in muslim households but do not practice the "faith", I would prefer that they, like you, no longer refer to themselves as members of the faith they don't follow. But let them first reject the faith in their own countries and deal with those who would see them dead. Most don't come here to assimilate.
No Dan, you're not informed, or at least you're informed but do not care enough about reality. Millions of Christians through history have lived under the brutality of Islamic rule. No other religion on the planet has as horrible a track record as that. You're so desperate, that you take potential exceptions to the rule and use that as a wedge in an attempt knock down the truth that I set before you. But it still stands solid as is, and you have a noticeable lump on your head from banging it around in the dark. Also, you have no idea what my age is, what my nationality is, or anything else about me for that matter. Keep your moldy foot in your mouth where it belongs. I see you're casually mentioning other people's skin color. It's always nutcases like you who have to play that game. But hey, you're the left-wing version of flat-earthers. You fit right into the crowd of all of the political loons who run around today like chickens without their heads on. I will always be a morally and intellectually superior person to somebody like you.
December 2, 2025 at 1:20 PM
"Y'all are literally operating as Muslim bigots, definitionally."
YOU are operating as an asshole...a useful idiot for islam. WE are operating as people who put the lives of our own above rank posturing.
"We can see that I am not acting in a bigoted or ignorant manner, definitionally."
We can see that you're acting like a moron, and not so much ignorant, but more "there are none so blind as those who will not see" kind of stupid. The next line is a perfect example:
"I'm well aware that MANY bigoted conservatives make those claims about what Islam does and doesn't teach. And I'm informed (not ignorant) enough to know that some Muslims MIGHT teach what you suggest... "
It's not what "some muslims" "might" teach. It's what their "holy book" teaches...what their "prophet" teaches...what their imams teach. And those you want to believe are teaching something apart from that might simply be actually living according to those teachings and can see you as the chump you clearly are.
" Another thing that is irrational and bigoted is presuming that you as a privileged white conservative Christian male are in a better position to decide what Muslims believe rather than actual Muslims."
And thus you willfully, intentionally, consciously and happily lie once again. YOU have NO idea what those across the table from you actually believe. You simply swallow whatever they feed you and pretend you are "informed".
WE on the other hand, don't concern ourselves with what any individual muslim thinks, but instead pay heed to what is taught them by their "holy book", "prophet" and imams.
"Bigotry and arrogance are a bad combination, sirs."
As we don't emulate those qualities, it's unnecessary to say such a thing. It's worse, however, in dealing with you, a combo of bigotry, arrogance, condescension, stupidity and heresy.
OK, Dan knows a few Muslims therefore he's more equipped to comment on Muslim scripture, doctrine, practice, than other "christians". Despite the clear teachings of the Quran and multiple Imams, and simply observing the laws and actions of Muslim majority countries. Marrying 1st cousins, perfectly fine, marrying 9 year olds, also fine, subjugating and oppressing woman, great, but Dan knows all because he's hung out with a few Muslims. Or maybe they were just exposing him to taqiyya or something. One wonders what they'd say about Muslim religious leaders defending the rape and kidnapping of a 12 year old.
Thanks for demonstrating that you are a bigot.
Evaluating Muslims based on the literal tenets of Islam isn't bigotry, it's simply looking at the evidence.
I'll note that I've posted many examples of Muslim religious and political leaders who adamantly disagree with Dan's whitewashing of Islam.
A simple look at Dan, demonstrates why bigotry and arrogance are such a problem.
Educate yourselves, sirs...
https://www.christiancentury.org/article/2010-04/body-counts
Jesse...
"Also, you have no idea what my age is, what my nationality is, or anything else about me for that matter."
My apologies if I was mistaken. You read like a young white privileged male conservative without a great deal of higher education (although one who has read a lot of conservative writings).
Are you not?
Jesse...
No other religion on the planet has as horrible a track record as that.
As the source I provided shows, extremists in both the Muslim AND Christian world have a bad track record. Rational people who are not bigots can recognize that observable reality. History shows what History shows.
Now, there are different ways to try to count atrocities and human rights violations, so precise numbers are not provable, but people from BOTH religions have committed their fair share of atrocities. As an informed and historically-aware Christian, I can admit that.
But for bigots who obstinately adhere to their own opinions and prejudices
especially : one who strongly and unfairly dislikes or feels hatred toward others based on their group membership... I get that they don't see that in themselves.
Slave owners, after all, didn't view themselves as bigots or bad guys, either, but they were definitionally bigots, just the same.
Now you're just stereotyping. I don't talk like anything of the sort.
I read your article, Dan, and I wasn't impressed by it at all.
Miroslav Volf’s essay rests on a foundation of shaky statistics and sweeping generalizations. His reliance on Naveed Sheikh’s Body Count is particularly troubling. The classification of Nazi genocides as “Christian” is not only historically inaccurate but intellectually dishonest. Nazism was explicitly hostile to Christianity, replacing Christian ethics with racial paganism and pseudo-scientific ideology. To lump Nazi atrocities into the Christian ledger is as absurd as calling Stalin’s purges “Christian” simply because they occurred in lands once shaped by Christian culture. Worse still, Volf ignores the blood-soaked record of the Ottoman Empire, whose campaigns of conquest, enslavement, and massacre across Europe rivaled or exceeded many Christian wars. This selective accounting betrays a bias: violence in Christian-majority societies is labeled “Christian,” while violence in Muslim or secular societies is conveniently detached from religion. Such methodology is not scholarship; it is polemic.
His framing of modern conflicts as “Christian wars” is equally misleading. The United States, though majority-Christian, is a secular republic whose wars are driven by geopolitics, not theology. To describe Iraq or Afghanistan as “Christian wars” is a distortion that erases the complex motives of statecraft and reduces them to religious caricature. Coalition forces include atheists, Jews, Muslims, and others, yet Volf insists on branding these conflicts as Christian. This is a rhetorical sleight of hand, not serious analysis. Ironically, the Christian just war tradition he invokes has often condemned these very wars, showing that Christianity provides the moral tools to critique violence rather than justify it. To blame Christianity for wars waged by secular states is to confuse cultural demographics with theological causation.
Volf’s historical selectivity further undermines his credibility. He highlights Christian violence while downplaying Islamic conquests, Mongol massacres, and the genocides of atheistic regimes in the twentieth century. The Mongols alone killed tens of millions, dwarfing many European conflicts, yet their atrocities are not attributed to “Mongol religion.” Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot together murdered more than any Christian empire, yet their crimes are conveniently excluded from the comparison. This cherry-picking of evidence creates a distorted narrative in which Christianity appears uniquely violent, when in fact violence is a universal human phenomenon. To single out Christianity is not historical analysis but ideological targeting.
His romanticized contrast between Nicholas of Cusa’s dialogue and Piccolomini’s crusade is another example of oversimplification. Volf claims dialogue “won” and explains Western ascendency, but this is historical fantasy. Western dominance was built on a complex interplay of Renaissance humanism, scientific revolution, industrialization, capitalism, and military power. Dialogue with Islam did not prevent centuries of conflict, from the sieges of Vienna to Barbary piracy. To suggest that “ideas, not guns” explain Western success is to ignore the obvious role of naval supremacy, industrialized warfare, and colonial expansion. Dialogue mattered, but it was hardly the decisive factor. Volf’s narrative reduces history to a moral fable, stripping it of complexity.
Finally, the essay’s one-sidedness is glaring. Volf emphasizes Christian failures while ignoring Christianity’s transformative contributions. The abolition of slavery, the rise of universities, the nurturing of science, and the birth of humanitarian movements were all profoundly shaped by Christian thought and activism. To present Christianity only as a source of violence is not balance but caricature. It is a polemical indictment masquerading as historical reflection.
Again, my standards are so high that you could not even begin to meet them.
It's weird how Dan's comment seems to imply that "white people" as a category are automatically somehow "privileged." This is just plain ignorant as to how the real world works, which is that people come from a variety of different backgrounds no matter their chromosomal makeup. I could describe myself as privileged in the sense of being born into a country with greater freedoms, but that doesn't mean people are inherently predisposed to a better outcome in life just because of who they are. Dan just sounds...so...childish, naive, simple. I guess that a grey head doesn't really mean all that much anymore. How pathetic.
Marshal...
It's not what "some muslims" "might" teach. It's what their "holy book" teaches...what their "prophet" teaches...what their imams teach.
Bullshit.
That's all. Bullshit. This is just the type of ignorant diarrhetic bullshit claim that bigots make.
Probably what you bigots are speaking of, from a place of removed ignorance, is the notion in Islam of Taqiyya. This teaching is that, while Islam demands truthfulness and honesty from its followers (understand? Honesty is a fundamental demand of islam) that says there MAY be temporal exceptions where it CAN be allowed to deceive... IF your life is at risk if you confess to being Muslim... BUT that is an exception in specific circumstances.
Is Taqiyya what you're speaking of? Well then, YOU fellas are not Islamic experts who get to tell Muslims what it means. That's just the thinking of bigots, by definition.
Dan
Read and learn...
https://al-islam.org/taqiyyah-sayyid-saeed-akhtar-rizvi/taqiyyah
Shocking, Dan's bias/prejudice/bigotry on full display.
Dan's willingness to blindly accept the testimony of a couple of Muslims that he knows (ignoring the fact that Islam encourages lying) and extrapolate that tiny sample size as representative of all/most Muslims is kind of scary. That he chooses to ignore the evidence that is readily available of what Islam and Muslims intend to accomplish, imposition of Sharia over US law for one, and to ignore the history of Islam as a force for conquest and oppression, because he knows a couple of Muslims is the opposite of venerating DATA.
I read as much of the article as I could stomach. It seems clear that the authors have stacked the deck to attribute all sorts of deaths to "Christians", while ignoring the conquests of Islam.
For example, the Crusades were a response to aggressive attempts at conquest and oppression by Islam, and as such any casualties should be laid at the feet of Islam, not Christianity. Likewise, when Spanish patriots rose up to expel Islam after to conquered the Iberian peninsula. the deaths should be credited to Islam.
Excellent point about balancing Christianity's "failures" against the successes. While Christians died to end slavery in the 1800s. Muslims still practice it in 2025. Not to mention Islam's role in the selling of slaves.
Dan doesn't really have standards because his tend to be so incredibly flexible.
I guess my posting video of Imam after Imam, Muslim politician after politician, and DATA about the affects of cousin marriage and the vast number of rapes in Europe (and in the US) means nothing because Dan talked to a couple of Muslims.
Excellent point. Christianity has a tradition, going back to Christ and the very first of His close followers of clinging to The Truth even if it lead to death, while Islam claims to revere truth while given Muslims an excuse to lie.
It's hilarious that Dan who's information comes from talking to a couple of Muslims, and a couple of Google searches deems himself in a position to demean our knowledge of Islam. That doing so requires a straw man is just icing on the cake.
I'll simply note that I've posted many videos of Muslims speaking for themselves about what they believe and what they intend to do, as well as Muslims who have risked death to speak out for Truth. I've posted many news stories that quote Muslim sources (clergy, politicians, and the like) who are also quite clear about their goals.
For anyone to ignore what is being said, implemented, and practiced in Muslim controlled countries, and communities across the globe is to choose ignorance.
FYI, out of the 56 Muslim majority countries in the world, how many of them became Muslim by conquest, and oppression of the natives? How many of those 56 Muslim majority countries give non Muslims full and complete freedom and all of the rights and privileges of Muslims?
The problem is that we tend to look ate what Muslims across the globe are doing and saying, instead of simply talking to a couple of Muslims in Louisville.
Well, though Dan has again strayed from the topic of the post, he has nonetheless validated the main point of it in his support of those who promoted and engage in bad behaviors. We can always depend upon Dan to validate our low opinion of progressive ideology.
Jesse,
I applaud you for your analysis of Dan's "proof". Very well done. Dan constantly likes to play the "whataboutism/moral relativism" game. I will always take an "extremist Christian" over any "extremist muslim", as well as over any lefty of any extreme and certainly over fake Christians like Dan. The extremist Christian is no one to fear. What Dan has in mind are those who are no more Christian than he is, or like him they're CINOs exploiting the Name of Christ to further their truly non-Christian agendas.
Dan straying from the topic of posts is his MO. When people do so at his blog, they get deleted.
December 2, 2025 at 9:16 PM
"Bullshit.
That's all. Bullshit. This is just the type of ignorant diarrhetic bullshit claim that bigots make."
I see. So by your logic, it's the epitome of wisdom for a seeker to get his info about Christianity from a perverse heretic like a Dan Trabue than from Scripture, the Words of Christ or the teachings of two thousand years of Christian scholars. Got it.
"Is Taqiyya what you're speaking of? Well then, YOU fellas are not Islamic experts who get to tell Muslims what it means."
Fortunately, we do not hold ourselves as islamic experts, nor are we seeking to tell muslims what it means, as they already know. We're people who derive our information from islamic sources and tell fake Christian assholes like you what taqiyya means and is and how it is understood and practiced by muslims.
Read and learn...
https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/taqiyya.aspx
I've heard this testimony from actual muslims who consider themselves "good muslims", so I would take their word over yours and your muslim friends (assuming they properly explained their faith....assuming they actually are faithful muslims....assuming [a big assumption] you actually asked them about this concept and understood their response, which of course assumes they weren't lying about it).
No doubt he'll justify it because "muslim" was mentioned in the post.
Still failing to understand the point, Craig said:
I'll simply note that I've posted many videos of Muslims speaking for themselves about what they believe and what they intend to do
I have made it absolutely clear that there ARE SOME EXTREMIST CONSERVATIVE Muslims who have ill intent, who would lie to take advantage of others. Those people exist, JUST LIKE extremist conservative Christians exist. My point has been that we don't judge all for the behavior of some. That is definitionally bigotry.
We hold those Muslims with deadly or harmful behavior accountable for THEIR misdeeds. We hold those Christians with deadly/harmful behavior for THEIR misdeeds. AND we don't blame the whole for the actions of some, because that is bigotry on the one hand and anti-biblical (for those who take the Bible sort of literally) and it is irrational and unjust.
And fyi, Craig, I have friends/connections who live in Muslim Morocco and Muslim Albania, so I'm not speaking of just local Louisville Muslims. Also, I have this special power called "Reading," which enables me to read about other Muslims I don't know. Y'all should try it instead of your special power of bigotry.
DO YOU ADMIT/recognize that blaming the whole group for the actions of a few is literally bigotry?
Marshal, as to being off topic: I hate to tell you this, but I didn't read your little screed, as I don't place much value on your opinions. I commented here solely in response to young Jesse's comment,
"I wonder whether rage over Trump and the GOP has exceeded rage over Muslims."
He's the one who brought up Muslims, not me. I just responded to this grade school opinion.
Anyone with half a brain who would study the religion and practices of Islam since its inception would see that there is no such thing as a truly peaceful Muslim. Their teachings are to pretend peace and friendship until in a position of power. The goal of Islam is world domination, as one can see by the current disasters in Europe and Britain, as well as New York and Minnesota. Islam is the religion of Satan, period.
Funny, you call it a grade school opinion, yet you still can’t pass the test. And if it’s so childish, explain why millions of adults worldwide share the same concerns. Honestly, your own writing reads more like it came from someone unschooled than anything I’ve put together.
So you're saying you just click on "comments" and read comments under posts you didn't read? Yeah...sure you do. Yet nonetheless you've read MY comments, too, and are now responding to them. You make it too easy, Buffoon.
In the meantime, you so eagerly and arrogantly, in your grace embracing way, choose without just cause to refer to us as "bigots" for believing our government is doing their job by preventing those from muslim countries to enter our country. It's our government's job to protect the people of this country, not to allow entry to anyone who wants to enter. Who gets to enter in the case of muslims particularly, requires they are not of a group known for murder, rape, and the spread of anti-American doctrines.
I don't care who you know. I don't believe you're capable of recognizing either a decent or an indecent person, and your choice of Joe Biden over Donald Trump proves it. Your choice of LGBTQ++++ people over actual Christians who encourage their repentance proves it. Your choice of illegal immigrants over those who have suffered by their being here proves it.
Vetting people from muslim dominant countries is too often impossible. Thus, without proper vetting, they don't get in. It's not America's fault they, as a group, have a horrible reputation.
We have muslims in this country already. A few...like Zudhi Jasser...have proven themselves to as good an extent as is possible, to not be a threat. Indeed, he heads up an organization striving to reform islam from it's savage and barbarous character (likely putting a target on his back). But where there are pockets of muslims asserting they can dictate to law enforcement as if they own the place is reason enough to check the immigration status of all of them and send back any who aren't legal.
Your special power is reading? Reading is one thing. Comprehension and discernment are far more powerful. You've never demonstrated either.
I've mentioned more than once next door neighbors of mine who are from Bosnia. They are muslim but didn't seem to be "practicing" muslims and both husband and wife seemed to be more than assimilated. They spoke English to their kids (though visiting parents didn't speak English at all). We got along famously prior to our moving apart. I also worked with a few muslims in my time, some no doubt foreigners, and others Americanized to a great extent, but still muslim. I worked with a Moroccan, though the subject of islam never came up. Got along with all of them just fine.
But none of this matters with regard to how our government chooses to operate with regard to more muslims coming to our shores. Even you Joe Biden's people warned about how many terrorists were likely here already, and you want to risk more. You want to risk that the next one won't rape your wife just because he thinks allah says it's OK.
You're a moron. And if you're not going to read my posts, what the fuck are you even doing here?
Indeed, Jesse. Dan is truly a legend in his own twisted, fake Christian mind. And here's the thing: Most of my family is of Polish descent. If the Poles were acting as muslims do and with the greater probability that it will be harmful as is the case with muslims, I would move to block more of them coming in as well. Even by Biblical standards, our government is not obliged to wait until we are harmed by people with a history of bringing harm before choosing whether or not to give them the opportunity. I love my own people too much to put them at risk. Dan loves his posturing too much to care about the risk to his own family.
So, Jesse, by not answering my questions, are you saying that, yes, you are not college educated, you are a white male and you're youngish (ie, younger than geezers like Marshal and I)?
Bigots gonna bigot, Marshal. All I'm doing is noting the reality that you all are acting in a bigoted manner by definition. That's just observable.
Marshal:
So you're saying you just click on "comments" and read comments under posts you didn't read? Yeah...sure you do.
Not usually. This time I did. Why is that hard to believe? Why would I make something like that up?
You all consistenly behave in a strange and irrational manner, that's just one small example.
Jesse:
you call it a grade school opinion, yet you still can’t pass the test.
? This would be an example of grade school style of writing.
I still can't pass WHAT test? It's an empty accusation that's not pinned to anything that's been written thus far. YOU cited liberals presumably lacking something you called "rage over Muslims..."
ALL I did was respond to the unsupported and frankly rather silly little point by asking "Why would we rage over Muslims?"
You all responded as if it were a given that all people SHOULD be outraged against "Muslims" as a category because of reasons you all personally hold but have not supported. You all are literally encouraging "rage" against the Group rather than being opposed specifically to those who cause harm. Again, that's literally bigotry, by definition.
WHERE in any of that is there a "test..."??
If I had to guess - and I'm sure you wouldn't admit it even if I'm correct - that I "failed the test" of agreeing with you all because you all are, in your minds, faithful "christians" and therefore, all good Christians should agree with your opinions, even if they are literally bigoted opinions.
But again, regardless, that sort of vaguely accusatory but with no basis in the actual conversation or ANY kind of clear support is what makes it seem like you are younger and less adept at writing and rational thought. Again, my apologies and condolences if you are actually old and educated enough to know better.
Jesse:
Miroslav Volf’s essay rests on a foundation of shaky statistics and sweeping generalizations.,/I>
As both Volf and I made clear: There are many ways of trying to reach such a "body count..." and no clear One Right Way. I think his point, and mine certainly, is that both religious traditions have had their share of human rights violations and harmful, deadly violence. To try to pretend like Muslims are pure evil always trying to kill and subjugate while Christians are pure and sinless is a betrayal of reality and history.
If you are a student of history, as you presume to be (I think), then surely we can agree upon that much.
Jesse:
It's weird how Dan's comment seems to imply that "white people" as a category are automatically somehow "privileged."
Likewise, in our nation and in our history, yes, of course, white straight men have demonstrably, objectively led privileged lives over and against black people, women, LGBTQ citizens and others. Now, it IS true that bigots would object to that, but reality is what it is. This, too, would be an indication of immature and less-than-judicious reasoning if you're rejecting that reality. Of course, probably Marshal and Glenn, and probably Craig, too, are the same age as me and they'd probably reject that, as well, even though they're old enough to know better.
Jesse:
To describe Iraq or Afghanistan as “Christian wars” is a distortion that erases the complex motives of statecraft and reduces them to religious caricature. Coalition forces include atheists, Jews, Muslims, and others, yet Volf insists on branding these conflicts as Christian.
Another sign of immature reading and reasoning. Volf did not call the Iraq War a "christian war..." He stated quite clearly and factually:
That would be four unjust wars, all of them waged by
a country whose population is predominantly Christian.
This is a simple observable fact. Do you disagree, sir?
Do you then agree with the reality that he did not call these "Christian wars..." and that his statement is factually correct? And perhaps can you agree that you're doing precisely what you're accusing him of - a rhetorical sleight of hand?
Jesse:
Ironically, the Christian just war tradition he invokes has often condemned these very wars, showing that Christianity provides the moral tools to critique violence rather than justify it.
And you thereby prove Volf's point: Yes, even Just War Theory (Augustine's invention, mind you, not Jesus') would have/should have condemned the GOP war in Iraq. And progressives and moderates across the US and the world united to point out how wrong it was... And yet, the conservative Christians who put Bush in office (the Bushes, if we count both wars/invasions) are the ones at whose feet we can lay the blame for Bush not following even JWT, much less the Christian teachings of Jesus.
Thus, in the sense that it was conservative Christians who put Bush in office and supported him even in this misguided war, Volf is not mistaken to note that it was Christians who empowered this war, not Muslims.
See how when you think things through on a deeper level, you get a richer and more correct understanding?
Looking at your post, I continue to find grade-school level bigotry... Not even the "adult" "classy" bigotry of KKK types. You stupidly made the clearly bigoted claim:
Of course, those words...as well as words like "honor", "morality" and "honesty"...have no real value to either the political or religious left.
Of course, in the real world, there are countless numbers of honorable progressives, those who are honest and moral. The irony of you, who endlessly support an overtly dishonorable, overtly corrupt, overtly amoral and dishonest deviant like the Felon saying that there is no honor, honesty or morality on the Left is especially telling.
Now, I'll call your attention to the difference between my claim and your claim.
You made a bigoted-by-definition claim that all "those liberals" are "bad" (summing up your unsupported claim of no honor, no integrity, no morality).
I, on the other hand, made the supported by reality claim about ONE person (not all conservatives), in this case, Trump. And he IS a deviant, lacking in character, as evidenced by his hedonistic, skirt-chasing, money-loving, misogynistic, corrupt and dishonest life. People have counted. As president, he has told more overt stupidly false claims than ANY president that's ever been counted. He's generated a whole new field of journalism (or a whole new level of an existing field): Fact-checking. This is due to his endless false claims.
And he is clearly immoral/amoral, even by your partisan standards. His endless cheating on his many wives and girlfriends, his over-the-top hedonism, his arrogance and selfish pride... He is, on the face of it, an over-the-top moral deviant and even most rational conservatives are glad to admit as much.
And what Honor does he have? The honor of thieves? The honor of loyalty to other ultra-wealthy, privileged and powerful types? Come on.
You can't rationally make a sweeping charge like that of all progressives. Period. AND, you especially can't make that sort of unsupported, stupidly false charge WHILE supporting the single most amoral and corrupt president in modern history.
Be reasonable.
For my part: I make no such sweeping claims about "conservatives" as a group. My parents were and many family members are conservatives. I WAS a conservative for half my life. I know honorable, moral and honest conservatives... just like I know honorable, moral and honest liberals and Muslims. I wouldn't make a sweeping claim like that because I'm not a bigot, by definition, in the way that you are, by definition.
Can you at least acknowledge that you are acting in a definitionally bigoted manner with these comments about Muslims and progressives?
"So, Jesse, by not answering my questions, are you saying that, yes, you are not college educated, you are a white male and you're youngish (ie, younger than geezers like Marshal and I)?"
Not exactly. It means that I remain mostly anonymous, and have good reasons for doing so.
Dan Trabue’s reply is not simply flawed; it is a caricature of argumentation, a performance of intellectual laziness dressed up as analysis. His defense of Volf collapses immediately under the weight of its own evasions. To claim that Volf did not call Iraq a “Christian war” but merely noted that it was waged by a predominantly Christian nation is sophistry of the most transparent kind. This is demographic reductionism at its most juvenile. By such reasoning, Stalin’s purges become “Orthodox wars,” Mao’s campaigns “Confucian wars,” and Mongol massacres “Tengrist wars.” No serious historian would indulge such absurdity. Trabue’s position is not scholarship—it is a crude tautology: “Christians live in America, therefore American wars are Christian.” This is the intellectual equivalent of a child’s syllogism, unworthy of serious consideration.
His misuse of Augustine’s Just War tradition is equally embarrassing. The tradition exists to separate wars that conform to Christian moral reasoning from those that do not. To note that Just War theory condemns Iraq is not evidence of Christianity’s complicity but proof of Christianity’s ability to critique violence. Trabue’s inversion of this logic is a textbook case of incompetence. He confuses Christianity’s ethical resources for restraint with evidence of guilt, thereby demonstrating a failure to grasp even the most elementary function of moral theology. This is not “deeper thinking”; it is intellectual malpractice.
The claim that “conservative Christians put Bush in office” is crude reductionism bordering on propaganda. Elections are decided by coalitions of millions across religious and secular lines. To single out one demographic as the causal agent is empirically indefensible and analytically juvenile. Worse, the leap from electoral support to theological responsibility is a non sequitur so glaring that it should shame anyone attempting to advance it. Christianity as a religion cannot be held accountable for the geopolitical decisions of a secular republic, even if some adherents supported the administration. Trabue’s argument is nothing more than guilt by association, a fallacy so obvious that it disqualifies his response from serious discourse.
Finally, his patronizing admonition that “thinking things through on a deeper level” yields a richer understanding is laughable. What he offers is not depth but shallow conflation, not rigor but rhetorical vanity. His tone substitutes smugness for substance, and his reasoning demonstrates precisely the methodological sloppiness I critiqued in Volf. To call this “deeper thinking” is to mistake intellectual vanity for scholarship. It is the hollow self-congratulation of someone who confuses assertion with analysis.
In sum, Trabue’s rejoinder is beneath serious engagement. It confuses demographics with causation, misapplies theological categories, reduces complex political phenomena to simplistic blame, and cloaks these errors in a veneer of superiority. There is no intellectual merit here, no serious engagement with history, theology, or political science. His response is not worth further dialogue. To continue engaging would be to dignify what is, in truth, little more than polemical noise. He has proven himself not an interlocutor but a distraction, and thus not worth another moment of serious attention.
Dan Trabue’s reply is once again a performance of intellectual sloppiness masquerading as analysis. His defense of Volf’s reliance on “body counts” is a concession that the statistics are methodologically unstable, yet he attempts to salvage them by claiming there is “no clear One Right Way.” This is not an argument; it is an abdication of scholarly responsibility. Historiography demands rigor, not relativism. To excuse shaky numbers by appealing to the impossibility of precision is to admit the foundation is unsound while pretending the edifice still stands. Such reasoning is not serious scholarship but apologetics for error.
His claim that both religious traditions have committed violence is a truism so banal it borders on irrelevance. No one disputes that violence is a universal human phenomenon. The issue is Volf’s selective framing, which exaggerates Christian culpability while minimizing or ignoring other traditions and ideologies. Trabue’s defense reduces to a straw man: he accuses critics of pretending Muslims are “pure evil” and Christians “pure and sinless.” This is rhetorical invention, not engagement. No serious historian advances such a dichotomy. By fabricating extremes, Trabue avoids confronting the actual critique—that Volf’s essay distorts history through selective emphasis and methodological carelessness.
His pivot to race and privilege is equally shallow. To assert that “white straight men have demonstrably, objectively led privileged lives” is a sociological generalization that, while true in certain structural contexts, is irrelevant to the critique of Volf’s essay. Trabue introduces it not as analysis but as moral posturing, a way of signaling virtue rather than addressing the argument at hand. Worse, he couches his claim in condescension, suggesting that disagreement is evidence of “immature and less-than-judicious reasoning.” This is not scholarship; it is rhetorical bullying. It substitutes insult for evidence and smugness for substance.
The invocation of names—Marshal, Glenn, Craig—only underscores the unseriousness of his reply. Rather than engage with ideas, Trabue resorts to insinuations about individuals, as though historical analysis could be settled by personal anecdotes or generational stereotypes. This is the opposite of academic rigor. It is gossip disguised as argument, a tactic unworthy of serious discourse.
In conclusion, Trabue’s rejoinder fails entirely. It concedes the instability of Volf’s statistics, fabricates straw men to avoid substantive critique, introduces irrelevant sociological posturing, and descends into personal insinuation. There is no intellectual merit here, no serious engagement with history, theology, or methodology. His response is beneath further dialogue. To continue engaging would be to dignify what is, in truth, little more than rhetorical noise. He has proven himself not an interlocutor but a distraction, and thus not worth another moment of serious attention.
Once again, Jesse...Bravo! A wonderful take down Dan won't even be able to perceive, much less understand or rebut intelligently.
I have to say that I didn't read Dan's link, as I have to decide if I really have time to read Dan's offerings, which routinely result in time wasted, and too often suggest he never read them himself. One thing which sticks out to me in your review of his link is the similarity with Dan's constant comparison between muslim extremists and Christian extremists. I say again that those two groups are absolute and unequivocal polar opposites, with the latter being that to which all Christians should aspire. Not to brag, given what an especially low bar he is, but Dan continues to prove himself to be so much farther away from that lofty goal than even the poor example of a Christian I am.
"Of course, in the real world, there are countless numbers of honorable progressives, those who are honest and moral."
How shocking you would say so. But then, you're not honest or moral and thus not an honorable source for such information about those who support a political party like the Democrat Party.
"The irony of you, who endlessly support an overtly dishonorable, overtly corrupt, overtly amoral and dishonest deviant like the Felon saying that there is no honor, honesty or morality on the Left is especially telling."
I don't support anyone as that whom you describe. I support a president who was unjustly convicted of bullshit charges in a kangaroo court, the false conviction of which is ripe for reversal. But the first link I presented in my post you didn't read gave quite a comprehensive analysis of all which supports the contention, given the space limitations of the host website.
You seem to think that the constant cherry picking of possible exceptions to the rule negates the rule as false. Yet still, you have such a perverse notion of concepts like "honor", "morality" and "honesty" as to make them mean nothing. This is typical of your kind.
"You made a bigoted-by-definition claim that all "those liberals" are "bad" (summing up your unsupported claim of no honor, no integrity, no morality)."
And you're a massive hypocrite for daring to accuse me of what you do constantly with regard to conservatives. The true difference is that I fully understand what your kind is, while you still fail to demonstrate any understanding of conservatism beyond a possible superficial, cartoon version in your hateful mind.
continuing
"I, on the other hand, made the supported by reality claim about ONE person (not all conservatives), in this case, Trump."
You're a liar. Your attacks on conservatives as opposed to Trump is up for grabs as to which is more common, but both truly are. You base your grace-embracing hatred of both on your weak understandings and partisan rhetoric...not much on verified or verifiable facts, with next to nothing one can regard as the level of evidentiary support you demand for claims made by any of us at your Blog of Lies and Perversions. So who are you crappin'?
"And he IS a deviant, lacking in character, as evidenced by his hedonistic, skirt-chasing, money-loving, misogynistic, corrupt and dishonest life."
He's nowhere NEAR the perverse deviant YOU are. Digging hot babes is NOT "deviancy" or "perversion". LGBTQ++++ people and their enablers are both by definition. As such, you're lacking in character, particularly of the Christian kind.
Does he like having lots of money and the opulent life it affords him? Sure. Most who have a bank account like him do, including an incredible amount of "progressives" which makes your focus on him demented. In that regard he's no better or worse than any of them, yet you pretend he is.
He's hired too many women to run important aspects of both his business and his administration for a liar like you to dare accuse him of misogyny...another word you don't understand. Diggin' hot babes is not hating women. Hiring women is not hating women. Treating asshole women the same way he treats asshole men is not hating women. Misogyny is the hate of women. You're a moron. You're far more moron than he'll ever be a misogynist.
You know nothing about his life being corrupt except what you've read by Trump-haters. But YOUR life is corrupt in your defense of abortion, pervert rights, coveting the wealth of the productive to pretend it's YOU providing for the needy. And that's just a taste of your vile ideology.
continuing
"People have counted. As president, he has told more overt stupidly false claims than ANY president that's ever been counted. He's generated a whole new field of journalism (or a whole new level of an existing field): Fact-checking. This is due to his endless false claims."
I recall you old friend Geoffrey thinking he'd exposed Bush 43 by listing what he said were George's lies. Except that they weren't. You rely on Trump-haters of the WaPo who count every little thing he says that isn't 100% accurate, as well as repetitions of them as individual lies to pad the list. Yet, among them are none of any true significance...nothing which persuaded anyone to vote for him or hid anything which would lead to anyone rejecting him, ala the Hunter laptop. No lies that misled like "if you like your doctor/health care plan, you can keep it", or "my opponent loves nazis and hates brown people and is racist". No one lies like a progressive and Trump doesn't lie as much as you do.
"His endless cheating on his many wives and girlfriends, his over-the-top hedonism, his arrogance and selfish pride... He is, on the face of it, an over-the-top moral deviant and even most rational conservatives are glad to admit as much."
Actual rational conservatives judge his personal apart from his presidency, which no Dem in your lifetime can touch for benefits he's procured for the nation and many of our allies as well. But you, in your fake Christian grace embracing ignores absolutely every wonderful thing he's accomplished on behavior of others just as perversely as you ignore the perversions of your progressive friends to focus on their good deeds, none of which can match Trump's in number or quality.
And being an inveterate pervert, you judge a conservative as "rational" by the severity of their TDS.
"And what Honor does he have?"
The honor of an American who puts America first and who's suffered the slings and arrows of lying, dishonorable leftists, including assassination attempts, to continue doing it. You're not honorable and thus are unworthy to assess the honor of others.
"You can't rationally make a sweeping charge like that of all progressives. Period."
Of course I can. There's a time when generalizing is appropriate and acceptable, plus as a whole, progressives are not good people. How can they be when they defend the murder of innocent people, and marginalize progressives who don't (those being few in number percentage-wise)? I'm not going to go into the litany of all which supports my position, as the link I provided does the job well enough.
"AND, you especially can't make that sort of unsupported, stupidly false charge WHILE supporting the single most amoral and corrupt president in modern history."
But I don't support Biden or Obama or Clinton or any other Democrat, so that's nonsensical for you to say that.
"Be reasonable."
Another word of which you don't know the meaning.
continuing
"For my part: I make no such sweeping claims about "conservatives" as a group."
Bullshit. You do it all the time ("that the problem with 'modern conservatives'"). You're a liar.
"My parents were and many family members are conservatives. I WAS a conservative for half my life."
Don't bring up your parents and family, because there's no way for anyone here to verify what is likely untrue, given it's you saying it. And you were NEVER "conservative" or you would have at some point over the last 17 years demonstrated some understanding of what that word means.
"I wouldn't make a sweeping claim like that because I'm not a bigot"
Again, you're a liar. You do it a lot and are clearly bigoted against conservatives and true Christians.
"Can you at least acknowledge that you are acting in a definitionally bigoted manner with these comments about Muslims and progressives?"
No, because speaking the truth about a group isn't bigotry. It's speaking the truth, even if there are exceptions.
Interesting that Dan possesses the power to magically determine that Muslim clerics and leaders he hasn't listened to are automatically extremists. By definition Muslims are much better equipped (and Muslim clerics/leaders even more so) to speak to and about Islam and what it's tenets are. But Dan, who's talked to a couple of Muslims, is prepared to label these Muslims as "extremists" without even listening to them. Bigotry?
Strange that you somehow magically believe that your "reading" gives you some special insight, while ignoring the fact that the rest of us read and study as well.
The problem you have is that I'm not doing what you (straw man) claim I am. I am not holding all Muslims responsible for the specific actions of millions of Muslims. What I am doing is holding them responsible for failing to deal with these alleged "extremists". We've got Ilhan Omar making excuses for the fraud, we've got a mosque making excses for raping a child, we see silence from the European Muslim community on the massive amount of rapes (except from those who justify the rapes), so I absolutely hold the alleged "moderate" Muslims responsible for their silence and refusal to act. Further, I draw a distinction between the acts of Muslims, and what Islam teaches.
But I understand, you're the expert because you talked to a few Muslims.
Clearly the Muslims I've "talked to" over the years and the non Muslims I've talked to who came to the US because Muslims wanted to kill them, aren't as valid as the few Muslims you talked to.
Yeah, some of your best friends are Muslim.
Strangely enough, despite my Cherokee heritage, Dan continues to insist that I am a privileged white man.
That we have Muslims elected to government roles in the US and the UK who are up front about their intent to dominate The West, Dan clearly knows better.
CRAIG!
I may have unintentionally deleted one of your latest comment submissions. I hope not, but...
Indeed. How does that old expression go? You can know another by the company he keeps? I could use it for Dan, but as I think more on it, it's better used for those who keep Dan as company! Otherwise, when all we have is the word of Dan Trabue, I can't put much stock into the quality of people with whom he associates. It really doesn't serve him as well as it thinks it does for him to speak of what other progressives say, or what politics his parents supposedly were or about his idea of "rational conservatives" say. It's Dan relating their words and he's not at all reliable.
I also do not hold all muslims responsible for the actions of other muslims. But the muslims who act the worst are motivated by what they regard as a religion, and for any who adhere to that religion, one is irresponsible to ignore what that religion teaches when it comes to decisions regarding who is allowed to migrant across our borders, be it legally or not. The fact of the matter remains, that muslims are disproportionately responsible for harm suffered by others. As one for whom the lives of over 340 million are my responsibility (were I president), I'm unconcerned by the desires of those who are not my fellow citizens. If one demographic is taught the most noble and honorable and eternal reward-worthy act a member can to is to die killing non-muslims, muslims are simply not allowed here any more. I don't care what fake Christians/Americans like Dan says. As Craig more than implied, when I see a great upheavel in the muslim world of peace-loving reformers pushing back on the murderers among them, we can reconsider...in perhaps a generation or two.
No problem.
I think that it is important to note that the fact that Muslims don't hold other Muslims to account, or even speak out against what Dan believes is "extremism" does place some level of culpability on Muslims at large.
According to Danny Boy I'm also a privileged white man. But, I grew up with abusive father who filed bankruptcy three times over the years, who divorced my mother when I was 12 and got custody of my brother and me, took us to Denver (from central Ohio) and we lived in Federal Housing Projects where we were beat up often due to being the only white kids living amongst Mexicans. I went to 10 schools before graduation and as soon as I was able I joined the Army where I excelled for five years and got awards for outstanding performance (i.e. busting my but working hard). Upon leaving service I started with low paying jobs and worked my way up to where I finally got a job as an Air Traffic Controller where I retired after 30 years with many performance awards. I busted MY BUTT to get everything I got and noting because I was "privileged."
Glenn...
I grew up with abusive father who filed bankruptcy three times over the years, who divorced my mother when I was 12 and got custody of my brother and me, took us to Denver (from central Ohio) and we lived in Federal Housing Projects where we were beat up often due to being the only white kids living amongst Mexicans.
There's some deeply sad psychoanalysis at play here. No wonder you support the deviant... you're still trying to win Daddy's love, just like the psychotic felon y'all defend.
You don't understand the concept of white privilege, G. Read. Educate yourself. Free yourself from your burdened mind.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/danabrownlee/2022/08/16/dear-white-people-lets-clarify-white-privilege-once-and-for-all/
Glenn...
I busted MY BUTT to get everything I got and noting because I was "privileged."
I hate to tell you this, sir, but THAT is probably the MOST white privilegey thing white guys love to say. Fyi.
You don't hate to say it. You love to lie. It's what you do.
I read this drivel by a woman who's bio shows no real job...no understanding of anything outside academia.
Fools like you and her think the "definition" of "white privilege" is misunderstood. It's not. Objection and criticism isn't directed at the definition of it, but at the lie of it. It's used by race-baiters as an excuse for the failures of those with low ability or little self-discipline, yet too much ego to acknowledge their shortcomings. And in comparing the extent of their progress with that of white people, make it the disparity about race. It's intellectual laziness and the intellectually deficient...like you...run with it as if it's an epiphany from God. Honest people of character, regardless of race, justly disdain the expenditure of a single second on crap like this. You wouldn't know, not being one of them.
No. It's just his autobiography which doesn't include any form or privilege which helped him along.
Our minds aren't "burdened". Yours is filled with crap. Leave it at your Blog of Lies and Perversions.
The term, race-baiters, is likewise a nonsense term generally used by privileged white males and open racists.
Fyi.
The term "race-baiter" is one coined to describe leftists like you who thrill at deepening racial division by suggesting racism is at the heart of every sorrow endured by minorities, especially when their suffering is self-inflicted. It was race-baiting which invented the notion of "white privilege" to explain why white people might succeed when individual non-Whites don't, rather than to address obvious failings of character which are truly the cause. Race-baiters demand the word "black" be capitalized when referencing black people, while at the same time never affording white people the same respect.
I would add "FYI" to close this comment, but you already know all I've said is true, but as a typical leftist race-baiter, you prefer race-baiting lies to truth.
Dan Trabue is mentally retarded. He's got to have his finguer up his bottom right now.
Dan's intellectual deficiencies isn't so bad as to be considered a clinically retarded. His problem is he's a reprobate. His thumb isn't up his ass because he can't fit it up there with his head in the way.
As Dan continues to focus his unChristian obsessive hatred on Trump, his administration, the GOP and conservatives (be they Christian or not), one needn't look for examples of true evil and deceit from his own. With access to honest journalism, such stories fall in one's lap:
https://thefederalist.com/2025/12/05/democrats-latest-hit-job-on-hegseth-reeks-of-psyop/
It's always the same with the left/Democrats/progressives/marxists (same things) and TDS-stricken RINOs. Their routine lying provokes a legitimate fear they may one day be honest in pointing our real harm and no one will listen. How unlikely that is tempers that fear.
Danny boy loves psychobabble. And lies like a rug--Trump isn't the deviant, you are, you pervert-supporting spawn of satan.
Oh, and Danny girl, I do indeed understand the concept of "white privilege." It's a racist psychobabble concept. My point was there was nothing privileged about my life.
You attract a classy and well-rounded group of bigots here, Marshal.
FYI: Folks with intellectual disabilities and their loved ones and allies will tell you that the R-word is an offensive and harmful word. Using it in this way is to spit in their faces, adding insult to injury to, well, hell, boys, you all are just damned despicable when you do this. God have more mercy on your souls than you have for the least of these.
Marshal:
The term "race-baiter" is one coined to describe leftists like you who thrill at deepening racial division by suggesting racism is at the heart of every sorrow
FYI: The term "race-baiter" originated in the 1920s, used to describe whites who'd stoke fears of them "dangerous blacks..." These whites were trying to win elections and further marginalize/keep oppressed black citizens by fear-mongering, with black men typically being the target of their aggression.
https://www.dictionary.com/e/politics/race-baiting/
That you all misappropriate the term and flip it on its head, using it to describe, attack and demonize people who merely cite reality and history is another level of despicable. But at least now you know better... at least on the history of the term.
Marshal, these attacks on boats near Venezuela ARE murder and attempted murder and probably terrorism.
We are NOT at war with Venezuela. Trump can't just order boats to be blown up because he thinks that they might have drugs on them. EVEN IF there were drug dealers on these boats (an unproven and likely false claim), you can't just kill drug dealers. We have laws. We are a nation of laws. We have procedures in place. IF there were drug dealers, then the Coast Guard has authority to stop them and make arrests. The Coast Guard can't just blow them up, and certainly our military can't. This is WHY it is so important to remind all military types that they have an obligation to disobey illegal orders.
When Hegseth and Trump go down (if there is any justice in the world... which we know is often lacking when we're talking about rich hedonistic oppressors), the admirals and soldiers/sailors obeying his commands will likely also go down. This is a horrible thing to do to our military.
And IF these murdered people on these boats WERE drug dealers, THEN you capture them and confiscate the drugs and question them to try to capture MORE drug dealers. That this administration is blowing up all evidence and even waiting around and executing survivors floating in the waters, suggests to rational people that there likely IS no evidence of them being drug dealers.
IF they actually were drug dealers, then this administration is criminally incompetent in legal matters, as well as justice and morality matters.
Dealing drugs is not terrorism. Words have meanings. We have laws and IF there is any justice, one day soon, Hegseth, Trump and all who obeyed these criminal commands will be in jail and, because of his age, Trump will likely die in his jail cell... celebrated as a martyr by the useful idiots who pledge allegiance to him, and not to human rights or our nation.
Shame on y'all. You will be judged harshly by history.
Is it worth pointing out to you all that being a privileged white male does NOT mean you've had it easy. It does NOT mean you haven't worked. It does NOT mean everything was given to you.
What it means:
As a male, you never had to walk down streets with the fear that you may be raped, assaulted or just harassed.
As a white male, you didn't have to deal with the systemic racism that black citizens so often live with.
As a white male, you didn't have to worry that, when a cop pulled you over, you might go to jail or worse.
As a white male, you didn't have to worry when you went into a store, that the clerks were watching you, suspecting you of being a thief because of your skin color.
As a white male in a predominantly white society, you regularly saw white people like yourself represented in a positive manner on TV, in the news, in the community and in your teachers. Your elected officials were most often white males.
As a straight white male, you could count on holding official roles in your church that LGBTQ folks couldn't. In fact, you could count on your church just obviously including you and welcoming you. You didn't have to worry about being kicked out of your church OR your family because of your sexual or gender orientation.
And I could go on and on. There are hundreds (thousands?? Millions??) of privileges we experience as white men vis a vis being a person of color, a woman, an immigrant or an LGBTQ person. That doesn't say anything about how hard you worked or if you also had hard times. It's just acknowledging that we had/have benefits that other people haven't had.
But surely you've heard all this before?
How can you deny that these are not obvious privileges that we live with as straight, CIS white males in our society, especially when we were younger (but still)?
Dan:
"So, Jesse, by not answering my questions, are you saying that, yes, you are not college educated, you are a white male and you're youngish (ie, younger than geezers like Marshal and I)?"
Jesse:
Not exactly. It means that I remain mostly anonymous, and have good reasons for doing so.
Because if you "give away" that you're white, conservative, not college educated and under 50-ish, you will have exposed your true secret identity.
Ha! Thanks for the laugh.
Although I AM saddened by the paranoia y'all live under. There again, that's one of the signs of being a privileged white male. Fear and a sad toxic masculinity. Of course, that's true for conservatives, in general, not limited to males.
And yes, I admit, I'm being a bit ungracious towards young Jess. My apologies.
Jesse:
To claim that Volf did not call Iraq a “Christian war” but merely noted that it was waged by a predominantly Christian nation is sophistry of the most transparent kind. This is demographic reductionism at its most juvenile.
Well, it has two very specific advantages, when it comes to the import of this discussion:
1. It's simply factually correct and that's important, no matter what Jesse may think (the modern maga "conservatism" has abandoned all pretense to the notion of honesty and factual clarity, sadly).
2. It points precisely to the problem of assessing "who killed more...?"
IF we're talking about specifically religiously-instituted states (ie, literally a "Christian nation" as defined by a Constitution or literally a Muslim nation defined by its Constitution), then of course, more Muslim nations have killed more people. IF for no other reason than the reality that 23 (ish) of the 46 Muslim nations are Muslim by Constitution/code. While, on the other hand, there are only ~20 specifically Christian nations, by their Constitution/code, including Vatican City... that out of ~120 Christian majority nations.
I am, of course, a Christian and not, of course, a Muslim. One of the flaws of Islam, in my thinking, is this tendency to lean towards a nationalistic/theistic belief system that tends to limit religious liberty. This is one of the things that, I think, Christian traditions tend to get right. We value religious liberty and tend to be wary of Christian nationalistic thinking.
Which, of course, is one of the concerns that many of us have with this current maga-conservatism/"christianity..." Christian nationalism is way more accepted. There is a fairly widespread belief (sometimes echoed by some here) that we SHOULD be a Christian nation, by design and we SHOULD limit at least some other religions, including Islam.
I rather wonder: Do you fellas solidly reject Christian nationalism and making the US specifically a "christian state..."?
But that's all an aside. My point was that Do Christian nations kill more than Muslim nations is a tricky question, because the percentage of Christian nations is lower. We'd need a better question than that, seems to me. And my greater point was that it IS a difficult thing to accurately assess precisely because we can't agree on defined terms.
For one final instance: I rather imagine that you fellas think that when a Christian goes out and kills someone in response to their Christian faith, they do so in contradiction of actual Christianity, right? (A point I would agree with, by the by). On the other hand, when a Muslim goes out and kills, you all would prefer to imagine that those Muslims did so in accordance to Islam, not in contradiction of it. And that many Muslims would vehemently disagree with your white Christian assumptions about Islam, you don't care. You know better than Muslims what Islam teaches re: violence.
Is that accurate?
And, if so, do you see the problem? WHO gets to decide if a killer is truly acting in the name of their religion? If it's Christians who always get to decide (and thus, very few Christians kill for God while huge numbers of Muslims kill for Allah), well, there's a rational bias there.
Can you acknowledge that problem?
Glenn:
My point was there was nothing privileged about my life.
But the reality is, sir, that you DID/DO enjoy privileges, as I have pointed out. You have NOT had to worry about being kicked out of your church due to your orientation. That is a privilege that not everyone has. You have NOT had to worry about being pulled over by the police because of your race.
That you don't recognize these realities doesn't mean you don't enjoy them. Your responses indicate that you simply don't even understand the privileges you enjoy, even when they're pointed out directly to you.
Glenn:
-Trump isn't the deviant, you are, you pervert-supporting spawn of satan.
Your partisanship and privileges blind you, sir. I am a lifelong Christian, a Sunday School teacher, a deacon, a music leader in my church... I am the husband of one wife for 40+ years, a wife I've always been faithful to. I am the loving and faithful father of two wonderful (adult) children. My children, my wife and I pour out our lives in service to the community in a variety of ways. I am not narcissistic, I'm not hedonistic. I haven't blown up any Venezuelan fishermen... that you view people like us as a "deviant" indicates a profound lack of understanding of reality. And this is NOT about me, as always... you all say things like this about all kinds of progressive people living good lives, poured out in service in a variety of ways, while you defend the murdering, licentious, hedonistic, narcissistic corrupt lying felon.
Your eyes have been blinded and your hearts hardened, good men. You have become useful idiots for a not very intelligent con man. You've been played for fools and used as pawns to advance evil purposes.
Pray for a softening of your hearts and an opening of your eyes and minds. Repent, it's not too late. At the very least, stop calling Good "evil" and Evil, "good..."
If nothing else, it's just embarrassing for y'all.
"FYI: Folks with intellectual disabilities and their loved ones and allies will tell you that the R-word is an offensive and harmful word."
Are you referring to "retard"? That's offensive and insulting to those who are actually mentally retarded if it is used for the express purpose of being offensives to them and insulting them. This is the same as referring to a fat ass as "fat ass". The fat ass doesn't like it. However, as a statement of fact, it isn't and despite being sad to have to face reality, all alternative terms for the condition eventually become insults as well.
However, for the truly mentally challenged to take offense at some like you being so referenced, the insult is that unlike you, they are actually born that way and thus you have no excuse for your stupidity and willful deceits, heresies and perversions. See the distinction here?
More to the point, I don't attract such people here. YOU do. If you didn't come here and act like a Trabue, no random visitor would offer such an opinion. And I reiterate that there was a time when words like "idiot" and "moron" were used clinically, as had been "retarded". But as those words became insults, new words took their place which eventually became insults as well and were also subsequently replaced. When they replace the current term "special needs" with "Trabues", then it will really be an insult.
For the "special needs" people in my life...none of whom are in my immediate family, but a grandchild, a grandchild of an acquaintance and a grandchild of a friend of my wife...were I to have occasion to discuss with any of them a situation where they had been or might be mocked for their unfortunate state, I would encourage them to take no offense, pray for those who insult them and consider the source. I grew up under a "sticks and stones can break my bones, but words will never hurt me" environment. I taught that to all my kids, and they're well equipped for the possibility. This is what parents of special needs kids should be teaching their special needs kids...not to melt into a puddle of self-pity and victim-hood so common to the snowflake progressives.
Then finally, like the term "race-baiter", assholes like you orgasm at the opportunity to scold anyone who uses the term "retard" as if they're attacking the disabled. You NEED and WANT your betters to be such people so you can feel morally superior while you live lives of perversion and corruption. We no longer expect any better from the likes of you.
"That you all misappropriate the term and flip it on its head"
No. We didn't. It's been YOU assholes who flipped it because it's your kind who continues to play the race card just as was the case of your kind in the 1920s in the manner you describe. Those people you describe are your kind, not ours and you thus, you are still appropriately labeled "race-baiters".
Thanks for the assist.
"Marshal, these attacks on boats near Venezuela ARE murder and attempted murder and probably terrorism."
Prove it. Prove there's no authority possessed by the president and his departments involved to proceed as they are. Typical of the nation's preeminent lying assholes...progressives/marxists/Democrats/Trabues (same things)...you allege and thus the case is closed. Bullshit. You asshats haven't the first clue about what's allowed and what isn't and your kind perverts the law (being true perverts and all) as you've done attempt to prove Trump guilty of all manner of fantasies since he rode down the escalator.
You have no idea how they know to target the boats they've attacked. None whatsoever. I provided a link (not a conservative source, either) which gave details as to the many methods which can be employed to detect scumbags in boats heading our way. If any of your kind has any way to prove wrongdoing, present the evidence and we'll talk. Given this president has proven your kind wrong so very many times on a wide variety of issues, I'm fine with giving him the benefit of the doubt. You're too wrapped up in your obsession with the thought of him grabbing women by the crotch to make any effort to truly learn what's what. You're a fraud.
And speaking of your fraudulence, you constantly dare to accuse us of being uninformed. You've provided nothing about this issue but your desperate hope that he's murdering innocent people so you can legitimize your hatred of the man.
It is well known that terrorist organizations deal drugs to finance their power. There are something like 80 entities designated by the United States government as Foreign Terrorists Organizations or as Specially Designated Global Terrorists. Fourteen of them have been so designated as both by Trump since he took office last January. He also named Venezuela's president Maduro as a cartel member which carries that designation. Thus, to hit boats speeding our way from Venezuela...particularly the type of boats being hit and the type of engines which propel them across the water...is unlikely to be just random hits on hapless fishermen. Terrorists are more enemy combatants than the typical drug dealer we see on TV shows, though I regard street gangs and organized crime families as terrorists as well.
It's not for you to narrow any definition to serve your hatred against Trump. The only people concerned about his actions against drug boats are assholes who hate him anyway, with a small percentage of supporters who have a legit concern about where the in is drawn in this situation and if Trump has crossed it. Again, despite your uninformed hateful opinion of Trump's intelligence and ability as president, it's far less likely he's wrong than right.
Clearly you don't care about dead Americans, many of whom didn't even know lethal drugs were in what they consumed. You only care about "Orange Man Bad". You have no business filling out an election ballot. You're too stupid and morally corrupt.
"Is it worth pointing out to you all that being a privileged white male does NOT mean you've had it easy."
No, because the term "white privilege" is fraudulent and a term to excuse failure, laziness and criminality.
The people we saw in TV, in movies, in public who were authority figures, heroes, etc., were indeed mostly white, which is strange in a nation with less than 20% of the population being something other than white. That's just the way it was, but for a non-white to pretend not seeing enough people like him in roles mostly populated by white people and use that as an excuse for their failures demonstrates their own racism. How is it THEY get to judge others on the color of their skin rather than simply see white people as brothers and sisters?
And keep in mind that many of us of my age grew up in areas where there were not black people or very, very few. There was one black family in my neighborhood when I was a kid. My oldest friend (going back to 1st grade) was a racist back then, but the black kids were girls and slightly different ages, so there was no mingling with them until much later. Another kid moved in... a year or so younger than myself...and was a peripheral part of the crowd with which I was a part. Nobody cared. But the real point here is that with so few black people for miles, the only "privilege" racially was that no assholes walked around whining about white privilege. How can there be any with no non-white people around?
It's a racist term invented by racists, and racists are always lefties.
Don't come here and pretend you can group among those with immutable traits the people who choose perverse behaviors as if they incapable of choosing moral behavior.
In the meantime, your butt buddy still hasn't revealed his true identity to us, so piss off. You owe Jesse a sincere apology for questioning his motives.
Blah, blah, blah. Jesse's analysis is damned near perfect. You can't sit their in your own bodily waste and honestly insist that islam doesn't preach harm to non-muslims. Well, of course you can because that's what you're doing. You're playing the typical lying moral relativism game. There is no comparison between Christianity and islam with regard to how either regards other people and how they're taught to treat others.
Christians killing for God is almost non-existent. Muslims killing for Allah is a tenet of the "faith". It's not "bias", asshole. It's honesty. It's history. It's all too common place in the world.
All real Christian churches are failing to do their duty if they allow openly sinful people to remain in their midst. I don't mean the average person who fails to perfectly act like a Christian. I'm obviously referring to those like openly homosexual individuals who indulge in homosexual behavior with their homosexual partner (or partners) and promote the lifestyle as compatible with Christianity. I'm talking about Democrats who support or work for the advancement of "pro-choice" laws which result in the murder of hundreds of thousands of Americans every year.
Pulled over for being black is a fiction. How easy can you describe anyone driving by you? If they're going the same speed without tinted windows, but not exceeding the limit or driving badly or driving a junker with lights missing, cops don't just pull people over for no reason. Churches don't kick out people who are not overtly promoting their favorite sin.
There's no privilege we enjoy which black people don't enjoy as well when amongst white people who aren't leftists.
I'm going to give visitors a chance to read this last comment. By Monday or Tuesday I'm going to delete it because I'm tired of you doing your "good deeds" crap pretending it covers for your heresies, your support of perversions, your support of infanticide, criminality, covetousness and lying. No. You haven't blown up any fisherman (neither has Trump). But you're complicit in hundreds of thousands of infant murders every year, as well as the murders of born people murdered and raped by assholes let into this country by the president you still pretend is a better man than our current president.
You're not a Christian. You're a fraud and a heretic.
Danny boy, for the years I lived in the Federal Housing projects, I feared every single time I went outdoors, and I had to walk a couple miles to school. I was beat up by Mexicans and still have two deformities from broken nose and hand.
As a white male in an all Mexican area I was harassed and attacked for being a white male.
AS for fearing being pulled over by cops because of skin color, that is pure B.S. and if you look at what is happening across the country stores are being robbed all over by BLACKS!.
As a "straight white male" I am not in rebellion against nature and God with LGBTQ behaviors, agendas, and ideologies harmful to society as a whole.
As a white male I was unable to get a job on the Columbus, OH police force because racist judicial system said they couldn't hire a white person until the percentage of blacks on the force equaled the percentage of blacks in the city.
Then bidding on the job of supervisor ATC I had a woman and black who also bid and I was told they had to choose one of them before they could choose me. Fortunately for me, the black guy was so very unqualified (no DEI forcing anyway) that it became between me and the woman. I was the most qualified and most experienced with several awards for performance that SHE didn't have and the only reason I got promoted was because she decided to take a job at a larger facility.
So take your whining, crybaby LEFTIST, racist "privileged" claim and shove it where the sun doesn't shine.
Danny boy,
Getting kicked out of church for rebelling against God is called excommunication, which is biblical. Your support of the most sexually perverted behavior in total rebellion against God tells me are just a pawn of SATAN.
Dannyboy , You can claim to be a Christian all you want, but your beliefs and actions are demonic. PERIOD. YOU are not a true believer because you continually rebel against God with all that is unholy and deviant and perverse.
Marshal...
I'm tired of you doing your "good deeds" crap pretending it covers for your heresies, your support of perversions, your support of infanticide...
You're providing a list of your opinions that you think, in your head, if people don't agree with your opinions, they are heretics and not a Christian, in your opinion. That is, by definition, a works-based religion, which is, ironically, usually considered a heresy amongst Christians.
Also, it is almost certainly blasphemous to elevate your opinions with God's Word, another heresy.
Finally, when Jesus and others talked about recognizing Christians/followers, he said by their works they'll be known... by the way they love, they'll be known.
So, noting that people like me are known to be loving and faithful spouses and parents, that we're committed to our local faith communities and, indeed, are leaders in it, that we live our lives in service to the poor and marginalized, that we believe in God and love the Bible and the teachings of Jesus specifically... THESE are the things that the biblical texts offer as ways of recognizing believers.
In short, you have no coherent message of Christianity.
To you, it's not enough that:
I believe in God the creator;
and in Jesus Christ, God's son;
and in the teachings of Jesus, which are beloved by folks like me;
and in the teachings of the Bible, which are beloved by folks like me;
and that I believe that Jesus came, taught, lived and pissed off the leadership and they killed him;
and that he rose from the dead and the church began;
It's not enough that we're faithful spouses and parents;
It's not enough that we live our lives in service to the poor and marginalized and in the defense of God's creation;
To people like you: ALL these things are not sufficient... there are other hoops you'd have people to jump through, there are other beliefs you believe they should affirm.
It's a works-based scam and not a rationally or morally consistent one, at that. You have NO complete list of ALL the things that you think that we must affirm, as if you were the final arbiter of moral decisions, which is, you recognize, bullshit.
That is why I point it out. You all can't stand decent, loving, committed Christians like us BUT, at the same time, you think the sexually perverted, sexual predator, serial cheating, amoral Felon you keep defending... someone who does NOT affirm God or the teachings of Jesus in any serious way, someone who's run scams on churches and church-goers ("buy my very special expensive Bible and get a bonus photo of your lord, Donnie! for a small extra fee!") and clearly only uses a version of Christian traditions as a prop, not a belief system... you treat THAT man as if he's a good man, a moral man, a rational man.
And you all don't even seem to understand the contradiction, the hypocrisy of it all. Again, may your eyes be opened and may you truly embrace the Grace of God.
Dan, what you have written is not an argument but a clumsy parade of intellectual vanity, the sort of self‑indulgent rambling that mistakes verbosity for depth. You posture as though you are engaged in serious analysis, but every sentence betrays the hollowness of your thought. It is the work of someone desperate to sound scholarly while lacking the discipline, precision, or honesty that scholarship demands. One does not so much read your words as endure them, like listening to a pompous amateur lecture on subjects he barely understands.
Your attempt at psychoanalysis — anonymity as paranoia, paranoia as toxic masculinity, toxic masculinity as conservatism — is laughably crude. It is the kind of reductionism that would embarrass a freshman in a remedial rhetoric course. You wield clichés like blunt instruments, mistaking them for arguments, and congratulate yourself for insights that are neither original nor coherent. It is intellectual graffiti, slogans scrawled on the walls of discourse, and you seem to imagine that this constitutes analysis.
Your invocation of Volf is worse still. To claim that Iraq was a “Christian war” because it was waged by a majority‑Christian nation is a category error so glaring it should disqualify you from serious conversation. You collapse sociological description into theological causation, as though census data were equivalent to doctrinal intent. This is sophistry so transparent it verges on parody. It is the reasoning of someone who cannot distinguish between correlation and causation, and who mistakes demographic trivia for profound insight.
The statistical detour into the number of “Muslim nations” versus “Christian nations” is risible. You rattle off figures — 23 out of 46, 20 out of 120 — with the solemnity of a priest reciting liturgy, as though enumeration alone confers profundity. But counting constitutions is not analysis; it is numerology. You have confused arithmetic with philosophy, tallying with thinking. It is the intellectual equivalent of reciting a phone directory and mistaking it for a treatise. One almost admires the confidence with which you parade irrelevance as though it were revelation.
And then, the hollow gesture: “who gets to decide if violence is truly religious?” You pose the question as though it were profound, but it is nothing more than a rhetorical smokescreen. You accuse others of bias while smuggling in your own. This is not insight; it is projection. You have merely inverted the bias you claim to expose, reproducing the very asymmetry you pretend to critique. It is a hall of mirrors in which every reflection is distorted, and you mistake the distortion for clarity.
In sum, your discourse is a monument to mediocrity. It is arrogant without justification, moralizing without substance, statistical without meaning, and theological without comprehension. It is “academic‑sounding” only in the sense that it mimics the cadence of scholarship while betraying none of its rigor. To call it ungracious would be too kind; it is simply inept. One leaves your words not enlightened but exhausted, as though forced to wade through the swamp of your self‑importance, only to discover there was no solid ground beneath it at all.
As to this ongoing nonsense about "hating Trump..." I'm just stating what all rational people think (when they still have their souls about them), including many of his current sycophants. It's not a secret that Trump is an idiot, that he's a liar, that he's corrupt, that he's deviant. Even conservatives say so:
“I’m a Never Trump guy.”….“My god, what an idiot.”…“He is America’s Hitler”
J.D. Vance
“The American people deserve to know that President Trump asked me to put him over my oath to the Constitution. … Anyone who puts himself over the Constitution should never be president of the United States.”
Mike Pence
“In our nation’s 248-year history, there has never been an individual who is a greater threat to our republic than Donald Trump,” “...He tried to steal the last election using lies and violence to keep himself in power after the voters had rejected him. He can never be trusted with power again."
Dick Cheney
Esper repeated a warning that Trump is “a threat to democracy” and added, “I think there’s a lot to be concerned about.” …. “I think he’s unfit for office. … He puts himself before country. His actions are all about him and not about the country."
Mark Esper
“A person that has nothing but contempt for our democratic institutions, our Constitution, and the rule of law. There is nothing more that can be said. God help us.”
John Kelley
“I think that Donald Trump is the most grave threat we will face to our democracy in our lifetime, and potentially in American history.”
Cassidy Hutchison
“I believe (foreign leaders) think he is a laughing fool.”…"Trump is unfit to be president, he really cares only about retribution for himself, and it will consume much of a second term,"
John Bolton
“(Trump’s) understanding of global events, his understanding of global history, his understanding of US history was really limited. It’s really hard to have a conversation with someone who doesn’t even understand the concept for why we’re talking about this.”
Rex Tillerson
“Republicans that vote for Donald Trump would doom the country to a dark and dangerous future”
Mitt Romney
“He(Trump) lies practically every word that comes out of his mouth, and in a pattern that I think is straight out of a psychology textbook, his response is to accuse everybody else of lying.”… “Whatever lie he’s telling, at that minute he believes it, but the man is utterly amoral”
Ted Cruz
“What he’s good at is destroying things,” …“He’s the undisputed world champion of that. He could easily destroy us if we play it wrong.”…“I hate him passionately,"
Tucker Carlson
"Tonight, I say this to my Republican colleagues who are defending the indefensible: There will come a day when Donald Trump is gone, but your dishonor will remain,"
Liz Cheney
Amen, Sister Cheney
There's also the matter of the authoritarians who DO approve of him (or at least say so to play to his tiny, fragile ego and get what they want):
“[Trump is a] self-made man” who has a “different approach to everything.”…”I believe that will be good for the world politics,”
Viktor Orbán - Authoritarian dictator of Hungary , Putin Ally, and friend of Trump.
etc.
Barck Obama:
Spied on Americans
Armed ISIS
Gave billions of $$$ to Iran
Covered up Benghazi
Weaponized the IRS
Sold 20% of our uranium to Russia
Apologized for American foreign policy to countries who that hate the USA
Destroyed our health care system.
Divide the nation by pushing racism that didn't exist
Biden was even worse.
All your citations are by people with "sour grapes." And opinions with no facts to support. Trump has done some stupid actions (not near as stupid as recent demokrat presidents) and says a lot of stupid things, but he is the best thing this country has had since Obama and Biden, two of the most destructive and cultural polluting of the USA in history!
Most of the sour grapes attacks on Trump, and TDS, are because he puts the USA first and is fixing what Demokrats have ruined.
Jesse...
One does not so much read your words as endure them, like listening to a pompous amateur lecture on subjects he barely understands.
You say that, entirely not understanding the irony of YOU making this claim. But it's often easier to criticize in others what you fail to see about yourself.
For my part, I'm making no scholarly claims, there's no pretense of being an expert, much less an expert of other people's religion. I'm merely citing a few rational and self-evident claims... all of which you're ignoring or worse, explaining it away with no solid support.
For instance, where you say...
1. Their holy book literally teaches them to harass and harm people of other religions....
You are offering your own opinion and interpretation... one that does not align with all Muslim opinions of the Quran. And frankly, as a conservative Christian who is hostile to Islam, your personal opinion doesn't count for much.
2. We have every reason to be wary of a people group of whom the vast majority seemingly show little interest in assimilating into cultures that differ from their own.
An unsupported claim is not worth much. Agreed?
3. Or, your original insinuation...
wonder whether rage over Trump and the GOP has exceeded rage over Muslims.
To which I asked the reasonable question... "Why would have "rage over Muslims..?" A question which you failed to answer other than continued opinions that Muslims, as a group, are untrustworthy and even dangerous. Which is yet another empty claims.
4. To which, I offered the rational response, We ought not blame the whole for the actions of a subset. I noted that this is both rational and biblical. A point you ignored, I believe.
Among other rational points.
So, at any point you wish to be taken as a reasonable critic engaged in good faith conversations, by all means, answer these questions/deal with the holes in your opinions.
Dan, your words stumble onto the page like a drunk actor who forgot his lines, yet insists on staying in the spotlight. You accuse others of pompous lecturing while delivering your own sermon, blind to the irony that your entire response is precisely the pompous lecture you claim to despise. It’s as if you’re holding up a mirror, horrified at the reflection, and then insisting it belongs to someone else.
You hide behind the limp excuse of “not making scholarly claims,” as though disclaiming rigor somehow elevates your argument. It doesn’t. It reduces your words to the intellectual equivalent of a child scribbling on the wall and then declaring, “I never said it was art.” You mistake abdication for humility, and cowardice for virtue.
On the Quran, you trot out the tired refrain that “not all Muslims interpret it that way.” That’s not an argument—it’s a magician’s distraction. The text says what it says, and your attempt to wave it away is nothing more than plugging your ears and humming loudly. You don’t refute the claim; you simply declare it irrelevant, which is the refuge of someone terrified of substance.
On assimilation, you demand “support” for the claim that many resist it, as though the observable reality of parallel societies across Europe and beyond is a hallucination. Your tactic is to dismiss inconvenient facts as “unsupported” rather than confront them. It’s sweeping dirt under the rug and then boasting about how spotless the floor looks.
On rage and Trump, you ask why anyone would have “rage over Muslims” as though the question itself is profound. It isn’t. It’s a cheap attempt to moralize instead of analyze. Rage exists because ideology and behavior sometimes clash violently with host cultures. To feign confusion here is either disingenuous or willfully obtuse.
And your appeal to “not blame the whole for the subset” is a tired cliché masquerading as wisdom. No one is suggesting collective guilt for every individual. But when patterns emerge across communities, ignoring them in favor of pious slogans is not rational—it’s cowardly. You elevate platitude over reality, sermon over evidence, and then congratulate yourself for being “biblical.”
Dan, your entire response is not debate—it is theater. You are not engaging with ideas; you are performing moral virtue, hoping the audience applauds your posture rather than notices the emptiness of your words. You mistake condescension for clarity, platitudes for rationality, and evasion for wisdom. You are the actor who mistakes applause for understanding, the preacher who mistakes volume for truth.
Final Curtain: No further correspondence is required from you. Your points have been weighed, found wanting, and dismissed. The stage is cleared, the lights dim, and the audience has left. Exit stage left, Dan, and let silence do what your words could not.
December 6, 2025 at 9:38 AM
To repeat: Blah, blah, blah.
"You're providing a list of your opinions that you think, in your head, if people don't agree with your opinions, they are heretics and not a Christian, in your opinion."
Once again, if I offer up an opinion, I state that it's my opinion. Otherwise, I present facts and truths, most of which have been thoroughly and comprehensively supported in past discussions covering the same issues. Thus, as I state that which is factual. To reject what I've stated is to reject fact and truth as taught in Scripture (and supported with relative citations of chapter and verse). Scripture (also properly regarded as "the Word of God") prohibits homosexuality in every verse which references the practice. You pretend there's something in Scripture which provides caveat to that truth...some context or scenario in which the indulgence in the prohibited behavior is not still prohibited. You provide nothing but your lame "arguments" which rely on that which is clearly false, such as the notion that any mention of marriage might include same-sex unions of any kind. Said another way, you intentionally lie about the meaning of words (like "marriage") in order to pretend that God might actually bless that which He clearly, unequivocally and without caveat prohibited as an abomination or detestable.
These are the "opinions" with which a true Christian as you laughingly claim to be can "reasonably" or "rationally" disagree. The issue of homosexuality is the most egregious example of your perversions of Scripture. Perversions of Scripture are not "disagreeing with opinions".
"That is, by definition, a works-based religion, which is, ironically, usually considered a heresy amongst Christians."
Remember this lie about my presentation of facts.
"Also, it is almost certainly blasphemous to elevate your opinions with God's Word, another heresy."
Says the liar by whose opinion he insists God's Word includes blessing SSMs.
"Finally, when Jesus and others talked about recognizing Christians/followers, he said by their works they'll be known..."
Says the lying clown who just said, "That is, by definition, a works-based religion, which is, ironically, usually considered a heresy amongst Christians."
continuing
"So, noting that people like me are known to be loving and faithful spouses and parents, that we're committed to our local faith communities and, indeed, are leaders in it, that we live our lives in service to the poor and marginalized, that we believe in God and love the Bible and the teachings of Jesus specifically... THESE are the things that the biblical texts offer as ways of recognizing believers."
Do not even pagans do that? (Matt 5:46-47) But more specifically, what you regard as the teachings of Jesus specifically is superficial and perverted to your liking. You can't support abortion "rights" and pretend to love the teachings of Jesus. This lies manifests on a number of topics. So again, listing your good deeds doesn't cover your vile perversions.
So no, it's not at all enough that you do what non-believers also do. It's what you fail to do which non-believers also fail to do.
"It's a works-based scam"
No, pervert. That would be your works based theology as you think listing your good deeds, your claims of being devoted to God excuses you blatant unChristian behaviors and causes you support.
"You all can't stand decent, loving, committed Christians like us BUT, at the same time..."
You're not "decent" and your love and defense of perversions proves you're not committed to Christ as much as you are to those perversions. But it gets worse in what follows this tripe. To once again pretend that we're supporting Trump's negative traits because we support his stellar work as president is itself a willful lie told repeatedly despite constantly being corrected. And of course, you inflate his sins while at the same time...as has been constantly pointed out...you ignore the sins of your own (not to mention of yours specifically). You're the worst kind of hypocrite and projectionist of your own evil, and it manifests blatantly in your response to Jesse below. We do not pretend he is more than he is, but you pretend he is far less than he is. My position is that he is far better than the lying likes of a pervert like you.
That's a fact and you can only lie to attempt to refute it.
You're exactly right, Glenn. I was going to address this "rational conservative" crap of Dan's myself, but you saved me the trouble. Sure, Vance and Cruz attacked Trump's character, but that was before they worked with him. Cruz changed his mind during the first term, and Vance came to change his tune as well, both as a result of Trump's great work as president which improved life for all Americans after the two terms of Obama incompetence and corruption. Now he's fixing the mess Biden left and assholes like Dan and those he praises don't have the honesty to at least shut the hell up in the face of it all. No. They continue to invent ways to obstruct and attack him, as if that's their purpose in life or in their political positions.
To dickheads like Dan, "rational" is whatever they need "rational" to be. But there's nothing at all rational about the level of real hatred he and his kind have for Trump, and all their attempts to "pretty up" that hatred (as manifested in the quotes Dan selected) don't change that.
December 6, 2025 at 1:19 PM
"You say that, entirely not understanding the irony of YOU making this claim. But it's often easier to criticize in others what you fail to see about yourself."
This is Dan again engaging in childishness. It's his "I know you are, but what am I?" response.
"For my part, I'm making no scholarly claims..."
Says the pervert who never fails to fail in presenting a scholarly argument.
"I'm merely citing a few rational and self-evident claims..."
...despite having an especially poor grasp of what constitutes "rational" or "self-evident". Our claims about islam are supported by evidence.
"You are offering your own opinion and interpretation... one that does not align with all Muslim opinions of the Quran."
"All muslim opinions"??? All which matters is what the Quran actually says, which is been studied intently by many people including non-muslims, such as Robert Spencer, Daniel Pipes, Pamella Gellar, to name a few, as well as former muslims like Walid Shoebat, Ergin and Emir Caner, Ayana Hirsi Ali and others like them, as well as muslim reformers like Mohamed Zuhdi Jasser, who acknowledges as obvious problems that which you want to pretend are mere interpretational opinions.
"And frankly, as a conservative Christian who is hostile to Islam, your personal opinion doesn't count for much."
Again, the "Nyuh uh" argument. For lefties in general, and Dan and his pervert friends in particular, all responses to truths and facts presented to them, but which they don't like, are reduced to being mere "opinion", which is so much easier that providing actual countervailing evidence to refute what gives him the vapors.
Conservative Christians don't fuck around with the facts. The facts are that we don't accuse any subset. We recognize that due to their "religious" teachings, the past 1400 years of their history of conquest and oppression and colonization, the example of their "prophet", it's next to impossible to determine who is truly among that subset who are peaceful, loving and willing to live harmoniously with non-muslims, especially Christians and Jews.
"So, at any point you wish to be taken as a reasonable critic engaged in good faith conversations, by all means, answer these questions/deal with the holes in your opinions."
It is Jesse who's proven himself to be the reasonable one who engages in truly good faith. It's YOU who has proven to be unworthy to even use those terms and make demands of others...demands you relegate to others only and by which you do not yourself live. Your are the poster girl for bad faith, unreasonable criticism.
Danny boy's support for Islam PROVES beyond a shadow of a doubt that he has not studied the history of Islam, has not actually read the Quran (I Have) and has not listened to Muslim scholars around the world or even examined how Muslims around the world are taking over and destroying the cultures around them, "rape, kill, pillage and burn" is what they do.
THAT sort of stuff, Jesse... all of what you're saying - the paragraphs of words and unsupported claims where you spend an incredible amount of time and energy saying what could be stated more briefly as "you dum, dan!" with NO support for anything you're saying.
And all the while, you're not answering the reasonable questions put to you.
You say, for instance:
On the Quran, you trot out the tired refrain that “not all Muslims interpret it that way.” That’s not an argument—it’s a magician’s distraction.
But it IS an argument. Y'all can't be this daft. If someone says, "But the Bible explains clearly how parents can sell their children... how rape victims have to marry their assailants... how to enslave other people and force women to marry your soldiers... and NONE of it is unclear. It's right there in the words. THEREFORE, Christians must be okay with enslaving people and selling their children into slavery and rape/forced marriages..." You all KNOW that you would say, "But that ISN'T the intent of those passages!"
And that's what Muslims say to you. Why, then, would YOU get a pass that you're not willing to give to Muslims?
It's not rational and it's not moral.
Now, rather than spend time rambling and ranting about how you REALLLLY disagree with me and REALLLY don't think I'm making good points, why not step up and SHOW me by answering the questions put to you?
Your dodging of questions is what makes you seem like you're not arguing in good faith - at best - and as a rather childish debater - at also best - or just outright dishonest - at worst.
HERE are the ideas I'm engaging with and some of the questions you need to address if you wish to be arguing in good faith, young Jesse:
1. DOES Islam teach what you conservative white religionists THINK in your heads it teaches? It's a reasonable question, whether you think so or not, no matter how many paragraphs you blather on about how "drunk actor" I am
2. Are YOU the final arbiters of what the quran means? Again, a reasonable question.
3. Who IS a reasonable arbiter of the meaning of various texts in the quran?
4. Given the reality that Muslims don't all agree on the meaning of various texts (even texts that YOU may think in your own bigoted heads are "clear"), who DOES get to speak authoritatively about the definitive meaning of various texts?
5. OR, is it like the Bible and Christian traditions: There IS no human, no group of humans who are authorized to speak authoritatively about Biblical texts and definitive answers are simply often not available?
Now, stop wasting words and answer questions. Engage in conversation like a good faith adult.
Dan Trabue is a white porch monkey. Ooh, ooh, ooh, ahh, ahh, ahh. I always thought the idea of Curious George to be interesting until I found out he was actually a living being, and he's been around for decades.
Well, Dan's an asshat, so what more can be expected?
December 6, 2025 at 10:11 PM
"THAT sort of stuff..." is Jesse presenting an accurate assessment of what for you passes as "reasonable" arguments without any of your crap being so. Your link is not "evidence" or "support" for you crap, but just another guy with the same bullshit opinion you express without facts.
" And all the while, you're not answering the reasonable questions put to you."
Your questions aren't at all "reasonable". They're loaded questions implying falsehood or are straight out deceptive. What's more, it's not for you to put questions to anyone until you've sufficiently answered questions put to you. If you allowed true adult, good faith discourse at your Blog of Lies and Perversions, you can make demands of others. Not here. You ask questions because you're unable to defend your nonsense. It's deflection and avoidance, not a true seeking of clarity.
"But it IS an argument."
No it isn't. At best it's a moot point. There's no obligation to collect every possible interpretation, only to then have to discern which is worth the time of day. It's another deflection question to avoid addressing the legitimate concerns regarding islam. Honest people don't take your Biblical interpretations seriously and to expect that one must take every interpretation of the quran by muslims who are unnamed/anonymous and possibly non-existent is moronic. Only YOU are the daft person here. Not Jesse, not Glenn, not Craig, not Bubba...YOU are the person failing to make your case. Jesse correctly pointed out the stupidity of your link and arguments.
continuing
"If someone says, "But the Bible explains clearly how parents can sell their children... how rape victims have to marry their assailants... how to enslave other people and force women to marry your soldiers... and NONE of it is unclear. It's right there in the words. THEREFORE, Christians must be okay with enslaving people and selling their children into slavery and rape/forced marriages..." You all KNOW that you would say, "But that ISN'T the intent of those passages!" "
No. We say what is true, which that no one is saying what you're suggesting, even as a hypothetical, but YOU, and thus, it's bullshit to compare the proper understanding of the clear evil of islam to made up shit you invent to serve your fake-Christian agenda.
"It's not rational and it's not moral."
Two more words with which you have a grave lack of understanding.
"Your dodging of questions is what makes you seem like you're not arguing in good faith..."
The absolute gall of this hypocrisy is world class.
"HERE are the ideas I'm engaging with and some of the questions you need to address if you wish to be arguing in good faith, young Jesse: "
Here again you presume you have any authority or standing to demand of anyone answers to YOUR questions, while continually failing to adequately act in kind, you lying pervert. And to top it off, you again engage in the bullshit condescension in addressing Jesse as "young Jesse" just to be a dick. And despite my warnings, I publish your crap anyway, while you delete for far less.
continuing
Dan, your latest outburst is less an argument than a tantrum dressed in pseudo-intellectual garb. You mistake prolixity for profundity, and in doing so, you reveal yourself as the very caricature of the verbose crank who confuses noise with knowledge. Allow me to disassemble your performance with the precision of a surgeon and the disdain of a critic who has seen this play staged far too many times.
You trumpet the tired refrain that “not all Muslims interpret it that way” as though it were a revelation. This is not an argument—it is a platitude so obvious it barely rises to the level of truism. It is the intellectual equivalent of announcing that “not all people read Shakespeare the same way.” Congratulations, Dan, you’ve discovered hermeneutics 101. What you have not discovered is how to move beyond this banal observation to anything resembling analysis. You wield interpretive diversity like a shield, but it is a shield made of tissue paper.
Your numbered list is a monument to false dichotomies and category errors. Meaning is not bestowed by authority figures like papal decrees; meaning is discerned through textual analysis, historical context, and linguistic rigor. Your demand for a “reasonable arbiter” is a category mistake so glaring it would earn a failing grade in any freshman philosophy seminar. You are not asking questions in good faith; you are staging rhetorical theater, hoping the audience mistakes your gesticulations for substance.
You accuse others of dishonesty and childishness while indulging in precisely those vices yourself. You posture as the champion of “good faith” debate, yet your every sentence drips with condescension, caricature, and projection. You demand answers, but your premises are loaded, your analogies flawed, and your reasoning nonexistent. This is not good faith engagement—it is intellectual cosplay, a costume party where you dress up as a serious thinker but cannot sustain the role.
Your prose is bloated, your reasoning emaciated, and your conclusions bankrupt. You mistake volume for validity, indignation for insight, and repetition for rigor. You are the embodiment of the Dunning-Kruger effect in debate form: supremely confident, conspicuously uninformed, and utterly unaware of both. You do not argue—you perform. And like all bad performances, yours is intolerable not because it is shocking, but because it is tedious.
Dan, you are not a serious interlocutor. You are a rhetorical vandal, smashing nuance with the blunt instrument of your indignation. If you wish to be taken seriously, abandon the theatrics, learn the difference between apologetics and exegesis, and stop confusing your own outrage for argument. Until then, your interventions will remain what they are: the shrill buzzing of a gadfly mistaking itself for a philosopher.
"1. DOES Islam teach what you conservative white religionists THINK in your heads it teaches?"
Again with the racism, as if black, asian or any others...including muslims I've named above, don't KNOW what this false religion teaches. We know what YOUR false religion, which you pretend is Christianity, teaches. It's not hard to discern. It's not a reasonable question. Rather, "reasonable" would be for you to prove what it means if it doesn't mean what we know it does. You do the very same thing with Scripture when you encounter that which you find inconvenient to your fake-Christian agenda.
"2. Are YOU the final arbiters of what the quran means? Again, a reasonable question."
Not a "reasonable" question, but a cowardly one. If you believe our understanding is wrong, you should be proving it wrong, not questioning whether we made a claim about ourselves we never freakin' made. Ours sources informing our understanding is solid. Yours are totally unknown and likely don't exist.
"3. Who IS a reasonable arbiter of the meaning of various texts in the quran?"
Honest people with at least an average level IQ, which leaves you out.
continuing
"5. OR, is it like the Bible and Christian traditions: There IS no human, no group of humans who are authorized to speak authoritatively about Biblical texts and definitive answers are simply often not available?"
This isn't the case, as Scripture is not the ambiguous mystery you need it to be in order to carry on with your heresies.
And while you continue to push this crap, you continue to avoid explaining how the truths we present are truths at all. You bring no intelligent, coherent alternative and certainly no supportive evidence if you imply one. It's just you again obfuscating, equivocating and straight up bullshitting so you can continue promoting evil and perversion and still pretend to be a Christian.
"Now, stop wasting words and answer questions. Engage in conversation like a good faith adult."
Now, go pound sand up your ass you vile hypocritical pervert, then return your head up there where you've proven it belongs.
Jesse...
You accuse others of dishonesty and childishness while indulging in precisely those vices yourself. You posture as the champion of “good faith” debate, yet your every sentence drips with condescension, caricature, and projection. You demand answers, but your premises are loaded, your analogies flawed, and your reasoning nonexistent. This is not good faith engagement...
Your prose is bloated, your reasoning emaciated, and your conclusions bankrupt. You mistake volume for validity, indignation for insight, and repetition for rigor.
Are you even reading my words? What I'm primarily doing is asking a series of actually reasonable, actually good faith questions and instead of even one of y'all answering these questions, you engage in a series of ad hom, ridiculous personal attacks.
Anyone reading in good faith can easily see you're not answering the questions.
Merely saying, Nyuh uh, that's not a good question is insufficient for the moral, rational adult.
I'll leave it at that. Your collective intellectual cowardice and irrational attacks are answer enough.
This petty level of childish intellectually depleted nonsense are what is wrong with the modern magaconservative orgy of validity.
If and when you want to answer questions like an adult, let me know.
Sorry Danny girl, but “not all Muslims interpret it that way” is indeed NOT an argument, just like “not all Christians believe the Bible the same way” is not an argument. The argument is what both systems —Bible and Quran (and the Hadith)—actually teach in their holy books, what the holy books meant when written. LEFTIST so-called Christians like you interpret the Bible your way because you don’t like the truth it teaches. Meanwhile there are LEFTIST Muslims who argue against their writings because they are embarrassed by true Islam.
The teachings of Islam are plain to see in their authenticity by the study of Islam since the 7th century, the destruction they have caused everywhere they go, their murder of Christians and Jews especially. Their treatment of women as nothing but sex toys.
YOU need to grow up.
Dan stated: "So, Jesse, by not answering my questions, are you saying that, yes, you are not college educated..."
Dan seems to think if one is not college educated (mostly indoctrinated) then they aren't credible with discussions. Unless one needs college for a profession, such as doctors, lawyers, engineers, etc, then college is a waste of money.
I don't have any college myself, but my various trainings and research/studies are worth more than most college degrees because I have a lot more rounded education:
I can start by saying I have read hundreds of books, not including the Bible, on history, logic, apologetics, theology, culture, psychology, science, biology, etc, etc.
In the Army I was trained as a Combat Engineer, which means I was trained to build bridges or blow them up, build runways or blow them up, build bunkers or blow them up, etc, which meant lots of training and study. Additionally, I was a training sergeant for an entire battalion and later an operations and training sergeant for a company.
Then I have a commercial pilot license for airplanes and helicopters, single and multi-engined airplanes, and instrument rated, and that is one heck of a lot of training.
I took FAA management training at two different colleges, two years apart and spent 10 years as an Air Traffic Control supervisor.
I took training for making me the Deputy Commander for Cadets for Civil Air Patrol.
I have attended 11 apologetics conferences and three biblical counseling conferences and have had an apologetics ministry for almost 50 years. As such I have taught apologetics classes for adult and high school Sunday School.
My apologetics and biblical studies have been in depth, studying materials by some top-notch biblical and/or apologetics scholars.
But, hey, I don't have any college degrees so according to Dan I'm not credible for any discussions.
Let me try a quick summary of all the points you're dodging/not addressing/missing entirely:
1. Now, either a holy book can be 100% correctly understood or not - there's some infallible key or an official spokesperson who can speak authoritatively on questions of interpretations.
Do you agree with that simple reality?
2. Neither the Quran nor the bible have that key or official spokesperson.
Do you agree with that simple reality?
3. As a point of fact and observable reality, all Christians do not agree on which points in the Bible are objectively true and which aren't. There are countless ideas and theories that I might think are CLEARLY entirely rational and hard to miss or disagree... AND YET, you will disagree with me and say I'm clearly wrong... that you are equally convinced of the opposite interpretation (the human theories of Penal Substitution, human theories of "just war" or of being more pacifistic, celebrating gay folk marrying, killing off gay folks, etc, etc. We both are convinced of the Biblical and/or rational Rightness of our contradicting theories).
Right?
4. And yet, there is NO sacred Key, no Pope or human authority to decide on these matters between us.
Right?
5. AND, the same is true for the Quran, there is no sacred Key, no human authority to settle matters.
Right?
6. Further, we have no objective measure as to how many Christians or how many Muslims believe this way or that on the various ideas that might be covered in our respective holy texts. SOME Christians confidently believe A and some confidently believe NOT A. And SOME Muslims just as confidently believe A and some NOT A... and we have neither an authority to objectively settle these matters for us nor any proof even of what percentage believes which way on any of these topics.
ALL of these are objectively factual claims. Do you recognize that reality?
And understand: IF you think you can prove that even ONE of my fact claims above are not factually correct, and you can objectively prove your position, do so.
But also, understand that when none of you - not one - even TRIES to objectively prove it (and you won't try because you simply can't), then your silence is a testimony to the factual correctness of my positions because, of course, they're facts. Anyone can see that.
On the other hand, if you want to engage in good faith debate, you are welcome to admit that these are all, of course, facts, and we can move on from there.
One final caveat, before you all start reading things into my words that I'm not saying:
A. I'm NOT saying that I think the Bible is confusing or "impossible to understand." Indeed, I think it is often quite reasonable and relatively easy to understand... I just think you're getting it wrong.
B. I'm NOT saying I'm an expert in Islam - any more than any of you are. I'm just noting that I know enough about reality to affirm these fact statements above, just because they are obvious on the face of it.
Now, feel free to agree to these facts or to remain silent/ignore them and show you agree with them, even if you're not willing to admit it. Responding with more ad hom attacks will just be another logical fallacy exposing your rather puerile reasoning (or lack, thereof).
December 7, 2025 at 11:56 PM
You could not be more absurd. To wit:
1. Not a "simple reality", but something you need us to agree is reality because it serves you to do so. If Scripture or the false religion can't be "100%" correctly understood, then you can make any self-serving claim you want under the lame excuse. Indeed, you can reject Truth by employing that weak-ass argument. It doesn't wash with honest adults, and is incredibly irrelevant to any discussion regarding interpretations.
2. Despite what you need to believe in order for your fantasies to be true, no such person is required to understand that which is not mysterious.
3. There is nothing about which true Christians disagree which has any real significance. But where YOU'RE concerned, there are heresies you promote and pretend are simply honest interpretations resulting from what you laughingly refer to as "serious and prayerful study". You can't possibly prove or support your heresies as remotely factual, so you run this crap about disagreements as if your heresies can be included in good faith debate. Again, laughable on its face.
4. Honest and true Christians need to adjudicator to know that God doesn't bless SSMs, that abortion is always murder of the most innocent and that Jesus/God the Father plays no favorites regarding rich and poor (for starters). PSA is clearly taught in Scripture and you've done nothing to support your opposition to it but to make these cheesy tangential arguments about different interpretations.
5. Likewise with the quran, one needs to have an actual argument to say that up is down...without which your bullshit "rubric" game is just as weak a deflection from proving your case as it is when used regarding Scripture.
We actually defend our positions. You play these games to avoid admitting your position is the crap sandwich everyone knows it to be.
6. Totally irrelevant and pointless. If I'm the only one who knows the Truth, it is still the Truth. If you disagree, you need to bring HARD DATA, like you demand of us. You never do. You don't even come close. More often, you waste keystrokes with all manner of crap, such as you are doing now.
"ALL of these are objectively factual claims. Do you recognize that reality?"
That's not only not reality, you're incredibly inadequate a source for an understanding of what reality is. That is, reality is what Dan Trabue says it is, simply because he needs reality to be what he wants it to be. Hardly an example of "good faith" or "adult" discourse. It's petulant childishness.
Here's how you can determine if you might be closer to Truth than we are: we can't come up with an objection to any of your arguments...we can't provide Scriptural support for said objections. When has anything like this every happened? Answer: Never. You simply cramp up and start with the type of bullshit you're spreading in this, your latest comment.
continuing
"And understand: IF you think you can prove that even ONE of my fact claims above are not factually correct, and you can objectively prove your position, do so."
And you can pull your head out of your ass, pound a five gallon bucket of sand up there before reinserting your head. It is YOU who needs to prove your claims as being factually correct. We're not obliged to do a damned thing. You don't get to come here and spew crap as if it's "reality" and then demand we must prove otherwise if we don't agree. Again, you are devoid of credibility with regard determining what is or isn't factual. Indeed, not a damned thing you've said is factual simply because you say it is.
You're not "that key or official spokesperson".
Marshal:
If Scripture or the false religion can't be "100%" correctly understood, then you can make any self-serving claim you want under the lame excuse.
Soooo... you think that anyone who picks up the Bible (and Quran) and reads it, they will "100% correctly understand" the text and various thoughts and teachings?
So if that's the case, I have read the Bible a LOT, and love it and hope to embrace it's teachings by God's grace... that means I'm understanding it 100% correct in my understandings?
Thanks for the vote of confidence!
Of course, you don't believe that. Your OWN testimony, then, is that not everyone 100% understands it correctly, Right?
So, how do you square that ridiculous circle?
You see, you can't have it both ways, sir. IF we all will read it and understand it correctly, then there will be no disagreements in interpretations. IF there are disagreements in interpretations, then we don't all understand it correctly.
How specifically am I mistaken?
Now, I KNOW you are very likely to say something like, "Oh, YOU understand it right... you just understand it and reject it and prefer to say it's something else, even though you know that's wrong..." Is that right?
But of course, that arrogant and stupidly false theory is, of course of course, just stupidly false. You can disagree with my opinions and understandings but you can't just say, "NO, you don't really believe that! I know better what you're thinking than you do!"
That's just arrogant as all hades, sir, if that's the direction you want to take.
It's for circular, fallacious nonsense like this that you all are losing these sorts of discussions so badly. Everything is wrapped up in your arrogant and unproven opinions, which you pretend to conflate as facts, without ever proving them or dealing with their rational inconsistencies.
Failing answering these questions/dealing with these HUGE holes, you've lost. If you can't admit it, just move on. Or, better yet, apologize and admit you were mistaken. Be a better man, sir. I believe in you.
Marshal, missing the point entirely, said...
If I'm the only one who knows the Truth, it is still the Truth. If you disagree, you need to bring HARD DATA, like you demand of us.
The hard data is YOU. YOU don't think everyone reads the Bible and understands it 100% correctly, right? Nor do I. You and I agree on that reality.
M...
we can't come up with an objection to any of your arguments...we can't provide Scriptural support for said objections. When has anything like this every happened?
That is why an infallible key, rubric, pope or other entity is needed. You all personally come up with verses that you think in your personal heads make sense to you, but it doesn't make sense or pass rational OR biblical scrutiny to me.
WHO SAYS that your personal opinions have more validity than mine?
You've got nothing other than your personal human assurance that you personally REAALLLLLY think you're right. That's not proof and it's certainly not objective proof.
It's literally your unproven human opinion.
Right on the nose.
December 8, 2025 at 8:42 AM
"Soooo... you think that anyone who picks up the Bible (and Quran) and reads it, they will "100% correctly understand" the text and various thoughts and teachings?"
Clearly you don't even pay attention to your own claims. Your claim was, and I quote:
"...either a holy book can be 100% correctly understood or not..."
That's not the same as saying "anyone who picks up the Bible...will "100% correctly understand" the text and various thoughts and teachings". You clearly and routinely demonstrate that's not true of you personally, but not that no one can understand it. And whether or not I, Craig, Glenn, Jesse or Bubba have failed to do so is something to which you haven't come within a light year of demonstrating, regardless of whether or not we understand it perfectly and without any error.
So as you continue to condescend with regard to our understanding, you've again proven your own inadequacy in making such determination as this first italicized comment of your exposes.
"So if that's the case, I have read the Bible a LOT, and love it and hope to embrace it's teachings by God's grace... that means I'm understanding it 100% correct in my understandings?"
That's funny from start to finish. I've no doubt you love your corrupted version of it. To what extent that corruption is the result of your intellectual shortcomings or intentional perversion is another matter. At this stage of the game, it's long ago stopped being a matter of how much or how well you understand. It's now simply and clearly a matter of how badly you pervert what you claim to have studied "seriously and prayerfully".
continuing.
One of the problems of the "not all Muslims interpret..." excuse is that it ignores the fact that tens of millions of Muslims do interpret the Quran in ways that encourage violence, genocide, rape, subjugation, slavery, FGM, honor killings, and the like. It also ignores that fact that the Muslims who "don't" agree with theses tens of millions, say and do nothing to stop the carnage.
The fact that there has never been a reformation in Islam, and that anyone who dare attempt such a thing would condemn themselves to death.
Christianity tolerates and accepts a broad degree of disagreement over many issues, Islam does not.
Ultimately it's amusing to see folx like Dan so vehemently shilling for Islam, without the self awareness to understand that Muslims are using him and his ilk as useful idiots to further their own goals. This is even stranger because it ignores what happened in Iran (progressives welcomed Khomeini and then he killed them), and the many public statements of Muslim leaders over the last couple of years. It seems strange to advocate for an worldview that so disagrees with you enough to kill you.
"Your OWN testimony, then, is that not everyone 100% understands it correctly, Right?"
Again, this isn't what you originally said. As I reminded you, you said it can't be understood perfectly. Thus, I've never argued that not everyone does or doesn't, and even that isn't the issue here. The issue is that you don't, or that you've chosen to inject your own preferred meaning into the text where the text can't be argued to have said what you insist it does.
"How specifically am I mistaken?"
By ignoring your original statement and insisting I'm arguing something different than what it was.
"I KNOW you are very likely to say something like, "Oh, YOU understand it right... you just understand it and reject it and prefer to say it's something else, even though you know that's wrong..." Is that right?"
I accept this statement as being close enough to reality to surprise regular readers of your comments.
"But of course, that arrogant and stupidly false theory is, of course of course, just stupidly false. You can disagree with my opinions and understandings but you can't just say, "NO, you don't really believe that! I know better what you're thinking than you do!""
But of course you have to return to falsehood resulting from your poor comprehension skills. I don't really argue in terms of what you really believe. Again, it no longer matters at this point whether you believe your own crap or not. What matters is the crap itself and how you fail to defend it as being even remotely likely, never mind true.
continuing
Dan's obsession with college education is strange, as his his worship of credentialism.
For example, he took some classes at a JUCO in journalism which he seems to think make him an expert, yet he acts as if my actual degree in the subject has no value. The disdain for any learning which doesn't come from a particular set of institutions of "higher learning" is nuts. Especially given what we are learning about the fraud inherent in the "peer review" process and the fact that admissions policies discriminate against many of those with better academic credentials, in favor of those less qualified but who fit the demographic profile.
As I saw over the weekend, "We used to teach Greek and Latin in high school, now we teach remedial English in college.".
Our education system is severely screwed up, and needs an complete overhaul.
It's strange that, in the middle of some narcissistic self aggrandizement, Dan insists that he's not a narcissist.
The problem of his philosophy about determining "good" people by their "good" actions is that it ignores Trump's "good" actions. Primarily because Trump has a history of not boasting about his "good" actions.
"It's for circular, fallacious nonsense like this that you all are losing these sorts of discussions so badly."
Says the Black Knight missing both arms and both legs.
"Everything is wrapped up in your arrogant and unproven opinions, which you pretend to conflate as facts, without ever proving them or dealing with their rational inconsistencies."
Similar to above, you just say shit as if the shit is true or factual. As with our positions on the teachings of Scripture, we support and prove our positions more comprehensively and logically than anything you've ever presented to contradict or correct them. Your objections to our positions are as poorly supported (meaning, they aren't) as are your perversions of Scripture. You simply arrogantly assert you've won the say while your severed limbs lay beside you on the ground.
"Failing answering these questions/dealing with these HUGE holes, you've lost."
You've identified no holes. You answer no questions yourself. You've come nowhere near "winning". Ever. I've nothing for which I need apologize to the likes of you, I'm not mistaken and even in my lowly state I'm a far better man than you'll ever be. But then, you're such a low bar.
Losing, huh? This is like the second time I've ever engaged Dan, and he got his rear end handed back to him badly in this instance. It isn't hard for me to outpace the likes of him. If I continued responding, I'm pretty sure I'd just be repeating myself. I rest my case.
December 8, 2025 at 10:05 AM
"The hard data is YOU. YOU don't think everyone reads the Bible and understands it 100% correctly, right? Nor do I. You and I agree on that reality."
Sad pervert. This is just another case of you making an allegation against a better man and equating that allegation to proof of guilt. Then you again lodge an objection to that which I never asserted. You've not moved the needle by suggesting we agree on something about which I never offered a single comment.
"That is why an infallible key, rubric, pope or other entity is needed. You all personally come up with verses that you think in your personal heads make sense to you, but it doesn't make sense or pass rational OR biblical scrutiny to me."
Not my problem that your low intellect and inability to grasp truth results in truth being rejected by you. Despite your claims to the contrary, you most certainly do not support your claims in a manner which overcomes any criticisms of them or prevents more from being lodged. Indeed, you're really, really bad at it.
"WHO SAYS that your personal opinions have more validity than mine?"
Honest people. Honest people continue to await support for your opinions...support and explanation which never comes. Instead, we get crap like this italicized quote of yours above. Instead of providing real compelling support for your laughable positions, you revert to arguing that not everyone agrees, "where's your rubric" and other such deflections from your obligation.
"You've got nothing other than your personal human assurance that you personally REAALLLLLY think you're right. That's not proof and it's certainly not objective proof."
This is literally a lie. You simply reject all evidentiary support presented without the slightest countervailing evidence of your own, and then write it all off as "opinion". It's cheap and deceitful cowardice on your part.
"It's literally your unproven human opinion."
It's literally you rejecting all proofs and evidence presented without intelligent counter argument.
Sigh.
I said/Marshal responded:
"...either a holy book can be 100% correctly understood or not..."
That's not the same as saying "anyone who picks up the Bible...will "100% correctly understand" the text and various thoughts and teachings".
When I said either a holy book can be 100% correctly understood or not, I meant just what I said: 100 percent completely understood in all of its teaching by 100% of all people. You know, 100%.
But fine, is it your little theory that "The BIBLE" can be 100% correctly understood by SOME people, but not 100% of the people?
First of all, wow. That's quite a claim. You personally 100% understand 100% of the Bible. Wow. Frankly, arrogant much?!
Secondly, okay, let's run with your unproven hunch: WHICH people 100% understand 100% of the Bible? Who KNOWS which people 100% understand 100% of the Bible? WHO is the arbiter for who "got it right" and who didn't?
Don't you see the problem? Because, you have a huge hole in your theory.
"That is why an infallible key, rubric, pope or other entity is needed. You all personally come up with verses that you think in your personal heads make sense to you, but it doesn't make sense or pass rational OR biblical scrutiny to me."
Aside from being a false dilemma, it's funny to note that Roman Catholicism is the only major world religion that demands infallible interpretation. He should just shut up and join the Roman Catholic Church if that's the case, in which he will not.
Jesse...
It isn't hard for me to outpace the likes of him...
Son, until you start answering reasonable questions and ignoring the gaping holes in your arguments, you aren't outpacing me... you're running in the opposite direction.
But thanks for the chuckle.
Marshal:
Despite your claims to the contrary, you most certainly do not support your claims in a manner which overcomes any criticisms of them or prevents more from being lodged.
According to YOUR personal human opinion. Are you saying then, that MARSHAL is the Rubric, the Pope that gets to decide who's right and who's not? If it's not you, then what difference does it make that your opinion is different than mine? WHY is your opinion "right" (in your personal human opinion) and mine "wrong..."?
After all, I think my opinions are not only more biblically astute than yours, I think they are far and away more Godly, more rational, most just and more decent than yours. WHO gets to decide and based on what OBJECTIVE criteria?
It's not enough for you to say you really disagree with me or that you personally find my arguments less-sound than yours. Those are subjective and unproven opinions. Where is the authority to decide who's right and who's not?
If you can't even answer that for the Bible and Christians, on what rational basis do you think YOU all are in a position to make that call for the Quran and Muslims?
More questions to go unanswered.
Coming from someone who spends all kinds of time arguing their arrogant and unproven hunches and insisting that those hunches are reality, this is rich indeed.
Dan's problem as a narcissist is that he firmly believes that something he perceives as a hole (based on his prejudices, preconceptions, and biases) is actually the hole that he believes it to be. Because Dan's Reason is the answer to everything.
Well, that's it in a nutshell, Craig, and pretty much what my response to Dan has been. While he does next to nothing to support his opinions, he does far less to show our positions are wrong but to whine on about who gets to decide. Frankly, I don't much care who gets to decide as much as I care about a compelling argument which has potential to persuade. We don't get that from Dan and we aren't about to ever get one, because he doesn't feel the need and couldn't anyway. His positions are not defensible because they're positions he injects into Scripture rather than the result of having truly been informed by it. And how many times has he confirmed this by saying he doesn't need Scripture to back up his positions?
"When I said either a holy book can be 100% correctly understood or not, I meant just what I said: 100 percent completely understood in all of its teaching by 100% of all people."
No. Saying a book either can or can't be understood perfectly is not the same as saying even a single person ever has understood it perfectly. The latter doesn't follow the former. Either it can or can't, and thus it's a question of whether anyone has done so or has no one done so. Here again we see that we totally understand your words better than you do. That is, what you think you're expressing is expressed so poorly that you need to tap-dance when the implication of your statement has been exposed as something you didn't intend for us to infer. That's on you.
"But fine, is it your little theory that "The BIBLE" can be 100% correctly understood by SOME people, but not 100% of the people?"
I offered no theories. I presented an obvious fact. Your understanding of Scripture is crap and often intentional perversion to fit your pervert agenda.
It's not at all arrogant to be confident in my understanding, as my arguments for why I hold one position or another is far more solidly supported than any you've ever presented for your heresies and perversions. Indeed, your failures to adequately and intelligently support your opinions are legendary.
"Don't you see the problem?"
Yeah. You're again wasting time asserting I've presented some "hunch" I never suggested at all. Thus, no theory, no hole to plug. Here's another problem I see: you play these games in order to avoid defending your defenseless opinions. We're all tired of that crap. Borrow a pair of testicles and get to work or crawl back to your Blog of Lies and Perversions and pretend your fantasy world is the real world.
Girl, you wouldn't know a reasonable question if one kicked you in your vagina.
"According to YOUR personal human opinion."
What more do I really need? None the less, you're the only one here who thinks so, so perhaps the problem is YOUR "personal inhuman opinion". Indeed, there's no "perhaps" about it.
"Are you saying then, that MARSHAL is the Rubric, the Pope that gets to decide who's right and who's not?"
As regards the many disagreements between us, absolutely. You're too stupid and dishonest for that responsibility. And in the event you were ever capable of proving me wrong about anything, I'm not afraid to cop to it. YOU, on the other hand, NEVER will admit you're wrong because it is YOU who is the arrogant fraud who demands your heresies be proven wrong while never doing jack to prove them so much as possibly true.
"After all, I think my opinions are not only more biblically astute than yours, I think they are far and away more Godly, more rational, most just and more decent than yours."
The very arrogance I just referenced. Thanks for the assist.
"WHO gets to decide and based on what OBJECTIVE criteria?"
There you go again wasting time asking these bullshit questions instead of bringing the heat of unassailable evidence and arguments. You're weak, Dan.
"It's not enough for you to say you really disagree with me or that you personally find my arguments less-sound than yours."
And as such that's never been the alpha and omega of my opposition. However, that's pretty much all you ever bring...that and this bullshit irrelevant crap about "rubrics" and "by who's authority".
"If you can't even answer that for the Bible and Christians, on what rational basis do you think YOU all are in a position to make that call for the Quran and Muslims?"
Again, it's a bullshit demand made simply so you can pretend your bullshit positions are legit or possibly just as reasonable or likely true as those of anyone else, which is laughably absurd.
"More questions to go unanswered."
When you ask an intelligent question of relevance, you'll get more answer than you have the smarts to handle. You've won nothing here, but more yawning.
Jesse (and dealing with Marshal's nonsense dodges and obfuscations...)
Aside from being a false dilemma, it's funny to note that Roman Catholicism is the only major world religion that demands infallible interpretation...
This, in response to my point that, IF one is going to claim that their human interpretation of scripture is "factual " and another's is mistaken or false.
1. Of course, it's not a false dilemma. IF someone is saying about a text, "Only me and those who agree with me are rightly understanding this text and those who disagree are factually wrong!" Then, of course, a rational response is, Says who? To Whom or What are you appealing to support your claim that your personal human interpretation is factually correct?
What false dilemma is there?
Yet another question that will go unanswered.
2. And let me address a point being falsely made, at this point. I have no hang up with people requiring a college degree. None. I didn't start college until I was 29. My first 15 years (more than 1/3 of my 42 years of work), I was a woodworker and delivery driver. We NEED more people to embrace blue collar work. Indeed, I'm in the finishing stages of finishing building my deck, among other woodworking tasks, I'm currently engaged in).
But, ONE of the problems of SOME who don't engage in higher education (either independently or via college) is having an under-deveoped approach to reason. Young Jesse is demonstrating this lack of rational understanding in his nonsense claim that my comment represented a False Dilemma. As I've shown, it does nothing of the sort. A point that, if history is any judge, Jesse, Marshal, et al will just ignore or, at best, respond with a hardy, Nyuh uh!
But, by all means, explain why it's a false dilemma and not a vital, rational question.
Almost certainly, there will be no response beyond more ad hom fallacies.
As to the Catholic charge, I just don't think you're understanding the point, young Jesse. I am NOT the one saying we DO have an authoritative decider, pope, rubric. I'm the one observing the reality that none of us do have such.
Is that a point/an observable reality you can agree upon?
Dan, making a rational and observable point, said:
"According to YOUR personal human opinion."
Marshal, needing language explained to him, asked:
What more do I really need?
IF you want to say, "THIS is my opinion and I think it's rational and biblical and moral..." Then you need not one thing more.
BUT, IF you want to say, "THIS IS A FACT, and those who disagree with my opinion are objectively mistaken and/or liars..." You need proof. Objectively demonstrable proof.
It's the difference between having opinions and making fact claims.
For example:
As a point of observable, know, provable fact: God has never told anyone, "Hey, I'm opposed to two gay guys marrying." God has never hinted at that in ANY provable way. People who hold that theory about God are holding an unproven and unprovable opinion. Likewise, those who opine that God can only forgive/is only willing to forgive a human sinner IF Jesus "paid" for his "sin" by shedding his "blood" to "pay" for that sin... such people are holding an unproven opinion. God has never said anything like that.
Now, if you want to hold those opinions as personal human opinions, subjective and unproven... no problem. Hold those opinions (although, you should know that they're neither rational nor moral...) BUT, if you want to say that those are objective fact claims, THEN the onus is on you to prove those ridiculous, immoral (and frankly, blasphemous) claims.
Understand the difference? In short: Your opinion is only valuable to you and no one is beholden to your personal human opinion, especially if they're so ugly and harmful and irrational.
I laugh at you and your arrogance at your own ignorance, Dan. You senility must be kicking in fairly early.
Marshal:
"After all, I think my opinions are not only more biblically astute than yours, I think they are far and away more Godly, more rational, most just and more decent than yours."
The very arrogance I just referenced.
So, when YOU say that, not only are your opinions better than mine, but that YOU should be the one who tells me what MY opinion is or should be... that's NOT arrogant? But when I merely state the obvious: That I value my opinions as more rational, biblical and moral over yours, THAT is arrogant?
Aren't you accusing yourself, then?
I had said:
"WHO gets to decide and based on what OBJECTIVE criteria?"
Marshal replied (along with all the others here, with the cowardly and intellectually vapid...)
There you go again wasting time asking these bullshit questions instead of bringing the heat of unassailable evidence and arguments.
WHY is it a waste of time? YOU have presented your "evidence" (weak though it may be) over the years for your personal human opinions. I have presented mine. Neither of us are convinced by the others' arguments or "evidence"/reasoning. IF that is the case (and it objectively, observably is) then why is "WHO gets to be the arbiter? Who decides?" NOT a reasonable question?
But sure, just like everyone else here: Dodge, hide, run away, ignore reasonable, moral, biblical questions like these. Your intellectual cowardice is obvious to all but people like you who also ignore reasonable, vital questions.
December 8, 2025 at 7:20 PM
"What false dilemma is there?"
Wow. You don't even understand your own comments. The following is the false dilemma identified by Jesse:
"That is why an infallible key, rubric, pope or other entity is needed. You all personally come up with verses that you think in your personal heads make sense to you, but it doesn't make sense or pass rational OR biblical scrutiny to me."
That YOU believe some infallible key, rubric, pope or other entity is needed to settle disagreement between us is nonsensical. All which is needed are:
1. A compelling argument supported by fact which results in one's opponent rendered incapable of a true, countervailing argument, complete with its own evidentiary support. Then,
2. When one side or the other is so rendered defeated, it is likely due to the victorious side having the truth of the matter.
3. Finally, it requires the defeated side to have the honor and integrity to admit defeat and if not a moron like you, adopt the position of the winning side, at least until such time when the loser shall come upon new evidence or argument by which he (you) can re-engage. This last point will never happen because despite constantly failing to present a compelling argument with facts/evidence which renders us incapable of continued response, you refuse to admit defeat regardless of how blindingly clear you defeat has been had.
It's when your pathetic attempts to defend your indefensible and nonsensical opinions crashes and burns yet again...and again and again and again...that you trot out this crap about a need for a rubric; a whiter flag of surrender you could not wave.
Further, you can't explain why our positions and the arguments in support of them "make no rational sense to" you, nor do you ever truly try. You simply assert they're irrational and voila!, they're not rational, as if you're the arbiter of rationality. Well, YOU certainly aren't the infallible key, rubric, pope or other entity by which rationality is determined. You're required to make that case, not simply pretend the case is made because DAN THE RUBRIC said it's irrational. That's what "dodging" looks like. That's what "Nyuh uh" looks like.
So THAT question is answered fully and completely.
continuing
"But, ONE of the problems of SOME who don't engage in higher education (either independently or via college) is having an under-deveoped approach to reason."
Again you without basis or credential assume for yourself the position of arbiter, the infallible key, rubric, pope or other entity by which "reason" is determined. There's a huge difference between "reason" as something one does, versus "reason" as something one has. You are devoid of the latter, once again merely asserting what it is because it serves your agenda or "argument" without any attempt to demonstrate reasonableness. So you write of Jesse's incredibly sound and intelligent analysis of your crap because it's easier to call it unreasonable and call it a day than to address it directly. His claim of your presenting a false dilemma is true and factual. You present such routinely rather than indulge in actual reason to counter that which you find problematic to your self-serving alternative Christianity. You have NOT shown that an infallible key, rubric, pope or other entity is required to debate points of Scripture or anything else. You just throw that up like puke when you're confronted with that for which you have no intelligent, fact-based response. We can set our fucking watches by it.
So there. I've explained explain why it's a false dilemma and not a vital, rational question. "Rational questions" simply aren't your forte, and you lack standing to dictate what constitutes a rational question.
"I am NOT the one saying we DO have an authoritative decider, pope, rubric."
We all understand that little Danny girl. We understand you're the only one who demands we must have one in order to assert and have confidence in the soundness, logic and truth of our positions. We understand the demand is meaningless beyond being another way to tap-dance away from your obligation to debate like an honest adult.
Marshal:
All which is needed are:
1. A compelling argument supported by fact which results in one's opponent rendered incapable of a true, countervailing argument, complete with its own evidentiary support. Then,...
I HAVE sets of compelling arguments for holding my positions. I find them compelling, rational, moral and biblical. YOU disagree. In the real world, we simply disagree about something which neither of us have or can prove in any objective manner. That YOU personally don't find my arguments compelling to you personally does NOT mean that A. my arguments are not compelling or B. My arguments are not compelling to me.
Thus we're at an impasse UNLESS one of us can present a rubric or pope to answer the question authoritatively.
Why would we NOT need such a source to make any claims of objective facts?
2. When one side or the other is so rendered defeated, it is likely due to the victorious side having the truth of the matter.
But you have NEVER "defeated" my arguments. Indeed, the more you blather on and on with your personal flaccid irrational and often immoral opinions, the more I'm convinced of the wrongness of your personal opinions and the righteousness of mine.
On what authoritative basis (if any) would you consider your personal little opinions have somehow "rendered defeated" my opinions? Because you REALLLY like them? That's just piss in the wind, sir. And you're standing against the wind.
Come on. Do you TRULY not understand the vapid lack of rational thinking in your comments? The arrogance?
I prefer to let the loon expose his lunacy. While his barf remains visible to all, he can't say that I'm doing what he routinely does at his Blog of Lies and Perversions: delete the better argument and then tell lies about the person who presented it. I want all to see exactly what I'm attacking and how moronic it is. This is why I try to remember to highlight in bold the date and time of the comment of his to which I'm responding, so anyone who cares can find it and confirm his own words which aid in debunking, refuting and destroying his vapid arguments.
December 8, 2025 at 7:50 PM
Dan said,
"Dan, making a rational and observable point, said:
"According to YOUR personal human opinion.""
Note the problems in this little bit of puss. First, Dan states as face that his point is both observable and rational. Well, we can concede it was observable, as I copy/pasted his response, too. But that means pretty much nothing. "I present the point I want to make and thus it is 'observable'! Who wants to step up and pretend it can't be seen??!!" How fucking stupid.
But the first part is different. He doesn't do jack to demonstrate what makes the subsequent point "rational" at all. It's "rational" because Dan says it is, which is remarkably similar to what he constantly and falsely accuses me of doing. It's only "rational" in his opinion until those who consider the subsequent statement agree that it's factually rational. Where it fails miserably is in how it's just another case of him writing off as mere opinion facts he does not want to concede. I get this constantly in debates with lefties all the time in lieu of any intelligent, fact-based counter argument. With Dan, he thinks he's doing that by diverting to not-necessarily-strong-or-intelligent explanations on the difference between fact and opinion. But even if what I put forth is just opinion, it still requires evidence to dispel it from my mind. "That's just your opinion" doesn't get it done. It's childish petulance...something for which Dan is well known.
Conversely, he constantly hides by proclaiming his position is only opinion and somehow he believes that enough to absolve of the obligation to support that opinion in any compelling, intelligent, fact-based way. (He argues against this, but in vain because we've know him and his methods all to well.)
continuing
"Marshal, needing language explained to him, asked:"
Again with the condescending arrogance, as if were I to need anything explained to me about language I would seek out his "expertise". (I just made myself laugh) Those like Dan are well known for having perverted the language to suit their agenda of perversions.
Then again, I'm in no such need in the first place. So I asked:
"What more do I really need?"
Again, be it opinion or fact I present, I don't need to wait until some rubric or expert of your choosing is available prove what is simply some hotshot agreeing with you and not me. That's how you always choose your sources, because your sources never bring more to the table save perhaps a more professorial manner of spewing the same falsehoods you find so pleasing.
But of course, rarely do I offer opinion, but even then, like the facts I most commonly present, they're accompanied by evidence you NEVER truly confront much less overcome. Instead, you again give us this crap about rubrics and by whose authority and other such obfuscation and equivocation.
"IF you want to say, "THIS is my opinion and I think it's rational and biblical and moral..." Then you need not one thing more."
Not true. First of all, when I offer opinion, I state without your standard equivocation that it's opinion I'm offering, yet I still give far more solid and fact-based support for it...especially because unlike you're willing to do yourself, you demand it from everyone else. Thus, every time you choose to hide behind, "but I'm just expressing my opinion", you're still obliged to provide something substantive to support holding it. You. Never. Do.
"BUT, IF you want to say, "THIS IS A FACT, and those who disagree with my opinion are objectively mistaken and/or liars..." You need proof. Objectively demonstrable proof."
Two problems here:
1. As I always present facts and truths unless clearly stating I'm presenting only my opinion, I don't need to say disagreement is to be mistaken. That's a given and is true any time facts and truths are present. In your case, you're lying as much as mistaken when disagreeing with the facts and truths I present.
2. Unless I'm saying what I've already stated many times and already supported with evidence you haven't refuted with countervailing evidence of your own, that which I prevent is more than sufficiently supported. The problem here is it doesn't matter how much evidence is provided or whence it came, it never clears your ever rising bar of "objective proof" if it continues to expose you as wrong in your opposition to it. You once again demonstrate that you have supreme knowledge of what constitutes "good enough" as regards evidence and support for that which you oppose, as well as supreme authority to dismiss that which does because you're too given over to your corruption.
continuing
"It's the difference between having opinions and making fact claims."
More arrogance by someone not honest enough to concede facts he can't overcome.
"As a point of observable, know, provable fact: God has never told anyone, "Hey, I'm opposed to two gay guys marrying.""
Irrelevant crap, as no one makes that claim. Ever.
"God has never hinted at that in ANY provable way. People who hold that theory about God are holding an unproven and unprovable opinion."
Blatant bullshit. It is illogical that God would bless unions composed of two people indulging in that which He regards as detestable or an abomination...a behavior which is never mentioned in Scripture in a positive way or as if there's some morally acceptable context or scenario in which two perverts can indulge in it and not still be abomination. This fact is all the hint necessary, especially when partnered with the fact that no mention of "marriage" refers to anything other than a one man/one woman arrangement. You pretend as if the definition of marriage is fluid and can mean whatever a perv like yourself needs it to mean to hold an absolutely ludicrous position as you hold on this issue. What's worse, it flies in the face of your claims about the value of "God given reasoning", as no reasoning can extract this syphilitic tumor of a belief from the purity of Scripture.
"Likewise, those who opine that God can only forgive/is only willing to forgive a human sinner IF Jesus "paid" for his "sin" by shedding his "blood" to "pay" for that sin... such people are holding an unproven opinion. God has never said anything like that."
This nonsense is of your own making, intended to corrupt the position we hold about how salvation and atonement is provided us. It's not a matter of what God "can" do. It's what He's chosen to do. Scripture is not ambiguous about the need for Christ to shed His Blood for the forgiveness of our sin. You just don't like that truth. You pretend His execution was not in any way related to our salvation, when it was the very purpose of His 1st Coming.
continuing
"Now, if you want to hold those opinions as personal human opinions, subjective and unproven... no problem."
More arrogance, as you believe yourself possessed of the authority to dictate what we're allowed to do. And until you bring something substantive regarding any of what you so desperately need to write off as mere opinion you can dismiss, you're still just dodging like the coward you are. Again, fact or opinion no longer matters. Your compelling argument is required. Don't waste our time with this bullshit.
"Hold those opinions (although, you should know that they're neither rational nor moral...)"
"Irrational and immoral"??? Prove this truth claim or retract it with an apology. I'll make it easy for you: Simply say you'll provide the next time the subjects come up in posts covering them specifically. You haven't the authority nor the intelligence and clearly not the integrity to make such claims about the positions we present, be they presented as fact OR opinion. Vile people like you don't get to dictate such things.
"BUT, if you want to say that those are objective fact claims, THEN the onus is on you to prove those ridiculous, immoral (and frankly, blasphemous) claims."
Clearly you're referring to the perverted version of the positions we hold, such as the "if you think God said pervs can't marry" bullshit. That IS ridiculous and immoral to pretend we said it. To suggest He might in light of all we know about the issue and Scripture, the blasphemy is in daring to suggest that God would bless SSMs. It's absurd on its face as I've explained above. That brief explanation is beyond your ability to counter, and you have no evidence which can make that happen.
But that's for another time.
"Understand the difference? In short: Your opinion is only valuable to you and no one is beholden to your personal human opinion, especially if they're so ugly and harmful and irrational."
What I understand is that you're a vile and arrogant fuck, and my evidence is your comments here in this thread. I don't insist my opinion must be adopted by anyone, though I do insist it should be, especially where dumbasses like you are concerned. Your eternity will doubtlessly be more pleasant if you would. But my "opinions", unlike yours, are STRONGLY supported by evidence. Yours are not. You make shit up and pretend you've presented a compelling case. You never truly do.
December 8, 2025 at 8:02 PM
"So, when YOU say that, not only are your opinions better than mine, but that YOU should be the one who tells me what MY opinion is or should be... that's NOT arrogant?"
No. But I don't care who tells you what your opinion should be so long as it's not those you now hold. Anyone can tell you my opinions are more sound than yours are, because they can see the evidence I've provided so many times in support of them and how you provide nothing but comedy presented as "reasoned thought". It's a no-brainer. But again, I don't express opinion unless I'm explicitly stating what I'm presenting is no more than my opinion. As is obvious to everyone, you simply dismiss what you don't like, regardless of how much supporting evidence has been supplied and how often, as opinion. Then you do nothing to prove the "opinion" as erroneous or your heretical fantasies as more likely true.
"But when I merely state the obvious: That I value my opinions as more rational, biblical and moral over yours, THAT is arrogant?"
Yes, because you leave it there. You don't provide any compelling argument or evidence to persuade anyone that your opinions are indeed more rational, biblical or moral. You simply assert that they are. That dog won't hunt, girl.
"Aren't you accusing yourself, then?"
No.
"I had said:
"WHO gets to decide and based on what OBJECTIVE criteria?""
And I replied that it's a bullshit question intended to avoid your obligation to make your case. No one ever asks you these bullshit questions. They always ask you to support your position and to resolve the problems so easily seen in it. You can't, so you resort to these games.
continuing
"WHY is it a waste of time? YOU have presented your "evidence" (weak though it may be) over the years for your personal human opinions. I have presented mine. Neither of us are convinced by the others' arguments or "evidence"/reasoning. IF that is the case (and it objectively, observably is) then why is "WHO gets to be the arbiter? Who decides?" NOT a reasonable question?"
My evidence is never weak. You simply say it so you don't have to spend time refuting it, since you can't.
Your evidence is always laughable, and when you can't respond intelligently and honestly and honorably to criticisms of the many obvious flaws of your position, you pull out this "by who's authority" bullshit.
Don't try to make the absurd argument that we're each doing the same thing in how we argue our positions. That would be just another of your many lies.
"But sure, just like everyone else here: Dodge, hide, run away, ignore reasonable, moral, biblical questions like these. Your intellectual cowardice is obvious to all but people like you who also ignore reasonable, vital questions."
That pig won't fly, girl. We're not dodging real questions of import. We're dodging your dumbass games about "rubrics" and shit. There's nothing intellectual about your dodging and suggesting we're dodging because we're done with your baby games doesn't change the truth about your inability to truly find fault in our positions and your equally comedic attempts to put lipstick on the pigs you present as "more rational, Biblical and moral" positions.
Keep in mind, you're not dealing with someone of the Trabue family or from Jeff St. Normal people don't find you to be the intellectual you think you are.
December 8, 2025 at 9:00 PM
"I HAVE sets of compelling arguments for holding my positions."
Do you think we'll ever get to see them?
"I find them compelling, rational, moral and biblical."
I'm sure you do. Will we? Not likely. You've never presented any yet. What's more, it's not a matter of what YOU think about your arguments. It's your audience who gets to decide if they're "compelling, rational, moral and biblical." Here's how you can tell they actually are: you audience adopts them as such for themselves. That's because they can't find fault or flaw in them.
Sadly for you, no one here suffers from such a low level intellect and can easily see the problems in what you pretend are "compelling, rational, moral and biblical." That's because aside from their absurdity on their face, you provide no evidence of substance which truly supports them as the truths you want believe they are and desperately wish they could be.
"In the real world, we simply disagree about something which neither of us have or can prove in any objective manner."
That's patently false. In THIS real world (not the fantasy world of your Blog of Lies and Perversions), you simply don't deal in equal standards for determining the merit of arguments. Yours needs less support for by golly, how could they not be true. Ours needs an unlimited supply of support you'll never accept if it means giving up your position to concede ours is true. The bottom line is that our positions are always better supported than yours. You just continue to dismiss our evidence regardless. (Then dare insist you debate in "good faith". Another funny joke.)
"That YOU personally don't find my arguments compelling to you personally does NOT mean that A. my arguments are not compelling"
Well, that's how it works, girl. You make an argument and I'm supposed to be compelled by the wisdom and unassailable logic and evidence you present, should you actually present any...which you never do. It's only compelling if it compels. But conversely, you are devoid of integrity when the shoe's on the other foot. You just dismiss, plug your ears and scream "Lalalalala" and pretend I've failed in my obligation because you don't like truth.
"Thus we're at an impasse UNLESS one of us can present a rubric or pope to answer the question authoritatively."
No. We're come to impasses because you stubbornly refuse to accept truths you find inconvenient to your leftist agenda and ideology. What's needed is honor and honesty and integrity on your part. Until you employ some, we'll never progress. I won't change my mind if you don't provide good reason. You won't change yours because of the ramifications for you and your little utopia of a corrupt world you inhabit. All the other lefties and pervert grannies will disown you if you stand up for God's Truth or even the truth of better political thought than you defend. That happens to those like you who are of the world rather than just in it.
"Why would we NOT need such a source to make any claims of objective facts?"
Well the obvious reason is that you'll just question the quality of the source and reject it if it confirms the flaws we've pointed out to you. You'll just play the same game with the Ultimate Source Of All Knowledge whose rulings you originally agreed to accept. How would that not be the case? You call for such things but only do so in the wild ass belief you'd be affirmed as the side with the truth. Again...not a Trabue or Jeff Streeter here, girl.
continuing
"But you have NEVER "defeated" my arguments."
I've never NOT defeated them. You just play the Black Knight and bob about with your limbs cut off insisting you've won.
"Indeed, the more you blather on and on with your personal flaccid irrational and often immoral opinions, the more I'm convinced of the wrongness of your personal opinions and the righteousness of mine."
This is just you affirming that you simply dismiss my arguments and the evidence which affirms them as true or truer than yours. You start with your preconceived notions and won't let go. Don't try to Trabue me here, girl.
"On what authoritative basis (if any) would you consider your personal little opinions have somehow "rendered defeated" my opinions?"
There you go again, perv. It never ends with you. No integrity. No honor. No honesty. No Christianity.
"Do you TRULY not understand the vapid lack of rational thinking in your comments? The arrogance?"
What you mean to say is, "Stop disagreeing with me!"
I had noted the reality:
"In the real world, we simply disagree about something which neither of us have or can prove in any objective manner."
Marshal responded with a false claim, in spite of reality:
That's patently false. In THIS real world (not the fantasy world of your Blog of Lies and Perversions), you simply don't deal in equal standards for determining the merit of arguments.
This is my final attempt.
Be rational.
As a point of observable fact, you and I disagree on some topics. For an example, the human theory of Penal Substitutionary Atonement.
YOU think that is both a biblical and rational theory. Am I correct? (Yes, I am.)
I think that it is neither biblical nor rational and, indeed, it is reasonably understood as depicting an immoral and whimsical godling, rather than a perfect God of Love and Grace.
As a point of fact, we disagree. It is NOT patently false. Presumably you can agree with that much.
Then, to the second part, where you claimed, "In THIS real world..., you simply don't deal in equal standards for determining the merit of arguments."
Now note my exact claim which is, in fact, a demonstrable fact, objectively so.
we simply disagree
about something which neither of us have or can
prove in any objective manner."
As a point of fact, you have never objectively proven that God approves of your human theory of atonement. Not once. And, of course, I have not proven that God disapproves of your little theory. It is an unprovable claim. Objectively so.
Now, for THAT to be "patently false" (instead of objective reality), you'd need to prove your human theory. The equal standards that applies to BOTH of us is that we can either objectively prove our positions or we can't. That is equal and it's real.
There is not a spot anywhere in my claim that has anything that is false. If there were, you could point to it.
WHAT do you think is false? That you can't objectively prove your human theory=what God thinks? Then objectively prove it. You never have simply because you can't. NO ONE has. It is an unproven and unprovable theory, short of some new outside/unknown revelations.
Be an adult, Marshal. Apologize. You're accusing me of false claims when it is you who are making the false claims. Maybe it's the case that you misunderstood the point in question... maybe you just got carried away. Whatever. I hold no ill will against you for your false claims. Just admit it and move on.
December 9, 2025 at 9:34 AM
All you're doing here is arguing for the very deceptive practices about which I've rightly and justly criticized as such. You continue to assume authority you don't have to judge the merits and quality of support for arguments you oppose as not measuring up to your ever fluid and rising standards of acceptability. This "final attempt" of yours is no more than another attempt to force upon us compliance with your arbitrary, subjective and self-serving rules for determining that acceptability for the purpose of abdicating your obligation to actually make an intelligent and coherent argument of any kind. You demand your "Nyuh uh" to be the final word on all matters of disagreement.
"Be rational."
I always am. You're always wrong in understanding what "rational" is and what it looks like. Stop using the word until you learn what it means, and definitely stop using it without proving you're justified in trying to apply it.
"the human theory of Penal Substitutionary Atonement.
YOU think that is both a biblical and rational theory. Am I correct? (Yes, I am.)"
No. You are not. You're wrong right off the bat by asserting I "think" its true, when the truth is it IS true and has comprehensively been supported as true. Thus, you're ridiculously wrong in asserting you're correct about your assertion.
"As a point of fact, we disagree. It is NOT patently false."
You're a moron. I never argued against the given and obvious fact that we disagree. WTF! I disagree with the claim that my/our position regarding PSA hasn't been objectively proven. The clear and obvious truth is that this is yet another issue where no quantity or quality of evidence is sufficient for you to show some honor and integrity. You simply say, "Nyuh uh! You haven't proven your position!" despite it supported far beyond any hope of yours to contradict it...which has been evident by your never supplying an intelligent, coherent counter argument.
continuing
"As a point of fact, you have never objectively proven that God approves of your human theory of atonement. Not once."
This is a lie in two ways:
1. The argument hasn't been one of proving God approves of my position on PSA, but that PSA is Biblical truth, and
2. We have most certainly proven, with Scriptural evidence, that PSA is indeed Biblical truth.
"And, of course, I have not proven that God disapproves of your little theory. It is an unprovable claim. Objectively so."
This represents reality in two ways:
1. It's non-provable because PSA is Biblical teaching. It's like saying you can't disprove God commanded "Thou shalt not bear false witness against they neighbor" because it is true.
2. You haven't mounted a serious attempt to disprove PSA...nothing which doesn't provoke howls of laughter.
Also, you again pretend there was ever a debate on whether or not God approves or disapproves of either position on PSA. It's moronic you keep saying shit like this!
"Now, for THAT to be "patently false" (instead of objective reality), you'd need to prove your human theory."
That's been done many times by more than one of us and won't be debated in this thread at all. Do you understand this? Don't try to debate PSA specifically.
"The equal standards that applies to BOTH of us is that we can either objectively prove our positions or we can't. That is equal and it's real."
I not only know the standards of proper debate, I abide them always. That's not the case with you and this line of discourse is you proving your lack of integrity. There's absolutely no equality in the quality and quantity of evidence supplied in support for our positions or against those put forth by the other. No. You simply refuse to accept any evidence given without good reason, and you offer next to nothing in return. You speak of "equal standards" but there's never any true reciprocity from you. This has been the common complaint by all of us about you and your deceptive and dishonest debate practices.
"There is not a spot anywhere in my claim that has anything that is false. If there were, you could point to it."
And I did point to it. It's been pointed out repeatedly over the years. It's the claim that you've not had provided for you objective proofs and evidence for our positions or to refute yours. This claim is an abject lie and your only defense is the "Nyuh uh" defense. You presume only you have authority to dictate what constitutes sufficient "objective" proofs, while at the same time demanding that we accept the weak crap you offer for your positions as beyond reproach and good enough. Further, you demand that we're somehow at fault for not recognizing either based solely on your demand that we must.
None of this routine shit has ever any hope of getting us to anything resembling agreement on anything, because you're concerning yourself with these tactics which deflect from your obligations to put up or shut up. And we'd much prefer you do the latter since you continually refuse to do the former.
continuing
"WHAT do you think is false?"
I just told you, asshole.
"That you can't objectively prove your human theory=what God thinks?"
Make up your mind. Is it about the reality of PSA or what God thinks? You can't even keep your criticisms straight. And being a lying dickhead, you constantly want to frame things as "knowing what God thinks", when we're debating what Scripture clearly and unequivocally reveals to us. We can surmise such and such indicates what God thinks if only the discussion was centered on what He thinks. But they're always focused on what Scripture teaches. So cut this ongoing crap and make your case when dare to oppose what we say.
"Be an adult, Marshal."
Fuck you, Dan. Be an honest person. Try being an actual Christian rather than a fraud who exploits the word to serve your perverted agenda.
"Apologize."
When I do something wrong, I will. I always do.
"You're accusing me of false claims when it is you who are making the false claims."
You're a liar. A well known liar who makes false claims while asserting truth tellers are lying.
"Maybe it's the case that you misunderstood the point in question..."
No, that isn't it. The case is that you again lied about "objective proofs" and your authority to dictate what is or isn't "objective proofs" and your lack of integrity of ever accepting any proofs regardless of your constantly rising bar for determining what's sufficient to satisfy your demands, while at the same time never, EVER, yourself meeting those demands in the true spirit of reciprocity and good faith. It's about "good faith" and "adult discourse" being no more than punchlines to you.
"I hold no ill will against you for your false claims."
I feel so much better knowing you'll hold no ill will for false claims you pretend I've made. In the meantime, I hold quite a bit against you for your ongoing lying and perversions, and the arrogance for which you have no justification in daring to accuse me without basis or your refusal to supply it.
"Just admit it and move on."
Just repent, turn to Christ or STFU.
Marshal, doubling down on nonsense and mistakes, said:
1. The argument hasn't been one of proving God approves of my position on PSA, but that PSA is Biblical truth, and
2. We have most certainly proven, with Scriptural evidence, that PSA is indeed Biblical truth.
By all means, DEFINE "biblical truth."
IF you mean, "there are verses scattered here and there in the Bible that some humans have read and found support in those words for the theory of atonement I prefer..." Then, YES, I'm glad to concede there are verses in the Bible that some humans have taken to support PSA theory.
IF, on the other hand, you mean that PSA theory has been "revealed" to us in biblical text as the ONE RIGHT understanding of God's idea of atonement, and objectively so, then NO, that hasn't happened. Objectively.
I just don't think you're understanding the distinction between subjective opinion and objective, provable facts. I'm talking about what is and isn't objectively proven to be a fact, and authoritatively so.
That some humans read such words and reach that conclusion does not make it a fact that this human theory = what God wants us to believe. Do you understand that?
Lord, this is difficult!
December 9, 2025 at 1:18 PM
We're not debating PSA here, Dan, and thus taking this thread further from the point of the post. The point is your dishonest, dishonorable commandeering of authority to dictate what is or isn't sufficient regarding evidence provided, as well as you willful refusal to abide your own demands. And the only way this relates to the post itself, is how it adds to the points made in the first link provided therein regarding the willingness of your kind to embrace evil. Your complaints are false, your attempts to disparage me are lies and your arrogance in pretending you have the moral high ground is laughable.
The problem isn't one of "understanding the distinction between subjective opinion and objective, provable facts." The problem is you dictating the distinction according to how either agrees with your positions. That's very convenient for you, as you can never fail under such presumption regardless of how stupid and unChristian your positions on any subject or issue...which is very.
Dan posits that "two things are needed", fails to provide either yet somehow repeatedly claims that his hunches are "reality" or the we are somehow "wrong". He almost always grounds his claims in himself. Whether it's his "Reason", what he "thinks", it makes no sense to make an argument that sounds like it's objective, which is solely grounded in the imagination of the one making the argument. On the rare occasions when he mentions scripture, there is a tendency to proof text, alter the context, or edit the passage, to fit his hunches or cast things in terms of what he thinks something might mean.
Dan's much too stupid to judge anything carefully. I'd focus on offending him all the more if I were you.
He just wants our souls to be black like his, black like charcoal.
Craig, missing the point entirely, said...
He almost always grounds his claims in himself....
You are the man.
But that is precisely what YOU ALL are doing. You personally think various texts mean, God saves via PSA Theory... or, God is opposed to gay guys marrying... God HATES it when that happens... or numbers of other human theories... and then conflate your human theories that YOU personally hold, to a fact of what God thinks.
You are grounding those theories in YOUR human opinions, as if you aren't fallible.
I, alone, amongst us, am humble enough to recognize and acknowledge it's my opinion, just as your opinions are YOUR human opinions
Sorry Dan. It's bad enough your deleted comment was just more of the same crap about why you can't stick to proving your position, pretending we haven't and never prove ours.
While I saw no point in allowing it, I would have had you not also including your pearl clutching crap about my behavior and Jesse's last comment, you hypocritical piece of shit. You routinely insult both political conservatives as well as conservative Christians, which all who come here not named Dan Trabue or feo are. Thus, you insult us as well. You call us irrational, unreasonable, incapable of understanding words and concepts related to how to debate. You lie about us not having proven our positions, or that you have proven yours. You call us homophobe, misogynists, supporters of perversion because we regard Trump's work as president as worthy of applause, because it is. Your arrogant condescension...aside from this hypocritical scolding in this deleted comment...is constant and insulting as well. This is just a short list of the many ways you routinely insult us, and I invite the rest to add to the list if they so choose to do so. You don't get to, so don't try.
You're lying again, which is also childishly insulting. We ground our positions in what's clearly revealed in Scripture, without adding to it, or injecting our preferred alterations to it. When I criticize your fantasy that God would bless SSMs, it's based on all we do know without error because what is revealed is so plain. It hinges on two unassailable, unmistakable, non-debatable points...
1. God forbids homosexual behavior. There's no caveat to this. Nowhere in Scripture is there any context or scenario provided in which you can perv out and not be detestable.
2. Everywhere "marriage" is mentioned, (as it refers to people), it refers to one man/one woman unions. Full stop. End of story. Thus, it is not mere "opinion" to insist that God would not bless SSMs. It's the only conclusion to which honest students of Scripture can come.
There's no way honest people can disagree on this. None. You can speak of "good faith disagreement", but to disagree on this is not only a rejection of good faith discourse. It's spitting in the face of God and pretending that calling it "opinion" makes it OK. It's not at all an honest opinion, because there's no honest way to paint lipstick on that perverse pig of an preference.
Marshal...
There's no way honest people can disagree on this. None.
And yet, reality is different. Just because YOU THINK in your own head, that can't happen, it doesn't change the reality that of course there are innumerable people who do honestly disagree with your opinion on the matter.
This is where your human culture is leading you to an arrogance that has blinded you to simple observable reality.
You see, I look at reality and SEE honest people disagreeing with your opinion in good faith, whereas, you look at your human traditions and opinions and just presume no one could honestly disagree.
Your arrogance has blinded you.
"I, alone, amongst us, am humble enough to recognize and acknowledge it's my opinion, just as your opinions are YOUR human opinions."
Boy oh boy, isn't this the most humble guy on the face of the earth? It's more like he's boasting about virtues he doesn't have.
No, no we're not.
If you have to announce how humble you are, it's a clear indication that you are not humble.
The problem with you hiding behind your "opinion" excuse is that you repeatedly insist that your "opinions" equal "reality" and that your "opinions" are right while ours are wrong. You argue and treat your "opinions" as if they were objectively factual. I cannot recall an instance where you've grounded an argument in anything beyond yourself, it's possible, but rare.
Dan postures like a sage, but every word drips with the insecurity of a child desperate to be taken seriously.
You don’t sound like someone who’s discovered truth—you sound like someone terrified the world will notice you haven’t.
Every time Dan claims certainty, it’s less theology and more therapy. He's just preaching to convince himself.
Dan,
I interact with a lot of politically left wing, progressive christian, folx on a regular basis. Many of them with much more impressive credentials and intellectual abilities than you. Literally none of them engage in your practice of grounding your arguments solely in themselves, I know that you have quite an inflated opinion of your Reason and your intelligence, but impressing yourself with your hunches is an absurdly low bar when it comes to persuading others.
I would say it's more accurate to say he already feels himself validated in his false beliefs and that he has relevance in expressing them. Neither are true.
I wish I had such people with whom I can engage in debate. I can't imagine what it might be like to have such a left-wing progressive Christian challenge me with more than "Nyuh uh" and "that's just your opinion" as if they're legit counter arguments.
December 10, 2025 at 8:31 AM
"And yet, reality is different."
There you go again...presuming yourself well qualified to identify "reality". The "reality" is, your' not.
"...there are innumerable people who do honestly disagree with your opinion on the matter."
You have a low threshold for determining "honest" disagreement. More often than not, you demonstrate it means those who agree with you and not those who don't.
For me, it requires more than just saying, "I disagree"...or more demonstrative of YOUR style, "Nyuh uh". It requires a detailed, fact-based, intelligent counter argument with real potential to persuade against my position. I've been begging for such from you and have been left wanting.
"This is where your human culture is leading you to an arrogance that has blinded you to simple observable reality."
Blah, blah, blah. This statement is worthless and is compelled by YOUR arrogance in suggesting I'm the arrogant one. There's no "arrogance" in my conviction in my positions and challenges to your kind to put up or shut up. To routinely puke out statements like yours above is in lieu of actual arguments of no consequence. It's just you crapping on better people because crap is all you have.
"Human" culture. WTF!!!
"You see, I look at reality and SEE honest people disagreeing with your opinion in good faith, whereas, you look at your human traditions and opinions and just presume no one could honestly disagree."
You see what you want to see, while what you truly could see is impossible with your head so far up your ass. In the meantime, while you pretend to see such people, that claim, too, is just you deflecting once again from you obligation to present a legitimate, intelligent, coherent and fact-based counter argument. Even if I live the full 120 years God allows us, I've got less than 50 years. Stop wasting my time with crap and nonsense. Support something! Anything! But don't bore me with your bullshit.
Your head up your ass blinds you.
I'm perfectly fine having a discussion which is based on something beyond simply self reference. I have no problem with someone who says that XYZ scripture means ABC, as long as they have something besides "My Reason" or "I Think" to back up their claims.
I've gotten to spend some time with Greg Boyd (for example) who has some incredibly progressive views, and is exponentially more intelligent and engaging than Dan is, yet also has some views that Dan would label as "conservative extremism". The difference is that Boyd is much more well educated, much more versed in Biblical interpretation, and is/has been both a university professor and pastor. I may not agree with him on everything, but I can respect him for how he conducts himself.
This. He wouldn't recognize humility if it bit him.
I had said:
"I, alone, amongst us, am humble enough to recognize and acknowledge it's my opinion, just as your opinions are YOUR human opinions."
Jesse and Craig replied, perhaps missing the point...
Boy oh boy, isn't this the most humble guy on the face of the earth? It's more like he's boasting about virtues he doesn't have.
There is no boasting here. I'm noting that I factually acknowledge my opinions about theories like PSA and "God is opposed to LGBTQ folks" and others ARE my opinions. I can not objectively PROVE that God agrees with my understanding any more than any of YOU can objectively prove God agrees with YOUR human opinions/interpretations... OR that you are objectively factually correct in your understanding of God's will on this point.
Am I mistaken? IF any of you fellas are willing to admit, "Yes, Dan, just like you, I acknowledge I can not objectively prove my understanding of God's ways on some of these points are 100% correct or that my interpretations of these various biblical texts in question are 100% correct.
I can not TELL you how happy I would be to admit that I was wrong, and that you fellas, too, are glad to acknowledge your subjective opinions on these topics (and others) ARE your subjective opinions. I will bow and apologize profusely IF that is the case.
I don't think it is. Certainly not for Marshal, who is clear that he thinks "IF Scripture or the false religion can't be "100%" correctly understood..." then it's not trustworthy. So, apparently MARSHAL thinks Scripture is able to be 100% correctly understood (and thus, his interpretations are objectively correct).
Of course, that was another of the many questions that you all collectively dodged/ran away from.
So, clarify away. I stand ready to apologize to you each individually or collectively if and when you make clear that you ARE like me and humble enough to admit that you can't objectively prove your opinions.
And yet, another question to run away from.
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2025/12/two_defectors_say_trump_was_right_all_along_about_venezuela_being_a_narcostate.html
The above is likely more relevant to the post of Oct. 30, but given this one speaks to Dems embracing evil, it does address the position of one particular hater who embraces more evil than grace.
December 10, 2025 at 3:48 PM
"There is no boasting here. I'm noting that I factually acknowledge my opinions about theories like PSA and "God is opposed to LGBTQ folks" and others ARE my opinions."
But then, what more can they be with no support...specifically no support of the type you demand of us only to reject it upon receipt? Your statement is akin to "faint praise". In the meantime, as stated, you haven't the humility to acknowledge the quality and quantity of our supportive evidence and facts, and make no quality effort to show why any of it fails to satisfy. You simply don't like what's being supported by it, so you dismiss and reject it.
"I can not objectively PROVE that God agrees with my understanding any more than any of YOU can objectively prove God agrees with YOUR human opinions/interpretations..."
I'll make it easy for you: if YOU like it, God most likely doesn't. But of course, we on this side of the divide are not trying to say "God agrees with us". We're stating and providing quality evidence in support of our premise of what Scripture teaches us, which results with us agreeing with Him, or more specifically, that we're adhering to the clear teachings of Scripture.
"OR that you are objectively factually correct in your understanding of God's will on this point."
As always, until you can actually prove that we aren't, we are. It's really that simple and a simpleton like you should be able to grasp how this all works, especially given how you like to berate us for not knowing how debate works...which is really stupidly false. One would think that if there was any possibility that your objections have merit, you'd have instilled doubt in our minds as to that which we hold as true and factual. Instead...zippo! Just whining about "rubrics" and crap like that.
"Am I mistaken?"
Can't particularly recall a time when you haven't been. It's like your superpower.
"IF any of you fellas are willing to admit, "Yes, Dan, just like you, I acknowledge I can not objectively prove my understanding of God's ways on some of these points are 100% correct or that my interpretations of these various biblical texts in question are 100% correct."
Why would we do that? The first problem is the wild concept that we are in any way "just like you". As God is my witness, I have plenty enough already for which I need forgiveness.
The second problem is the equally lame implication that your position on the issues which have been debated is as likely to be accurate as ours. Hard to make such a claim when you're always so devoid of the same degree, quality and quantity of support for them as you demand from us before rejecting it all anyway. There's really no question about it. You've never filled any hole in your position we've identified (and there are always plenty, most of which are gaping), while you've never identified actual holes in our positions you pretend need filling.
continuing
"I can not TELL you how happy I would be to admit that I was wrong, and that you fellas, too, are glad to acknowledge your subjective opinions on these topics (and others) ARE your subjective opinions."
Bullshit. You've had multiple opportunities to admit you're wrong, but you reject our arguments and our support for them out of hand because you don't like them. And as always, the facts and truths I present are factual and truth until...and ONLY until...you provide a compelling argument which actually exposes flaws, holes or errors. Maybe someday you'll grace us with such an argument on ANY of the positions we hold. I don't think I'll last another fifty years, so get on with it.
"I will bow and apologize profusely IF that is the case."
An entirely empty promise as you've no intention of ever doing anything like this for any reason.
"Certainly not for Marshal, who is clear that he thinks "IF Scripture or the false religion can't be "100%" correctly understood..." then it's not trustworthy."
NEVER have I EVER expressed anything which so much as hints as such a self-serving bullshit claim. This is the type of wild claim for which you'd demand evidence or an apology and block further comments until you received either if I had made it. Again demonstrating your double standards. Indeed, this is so wildly apart from anything I've ever said that I can only classify this as yet another willfully told intentional lie.
"So, apparently MARSHAL thinks Scripture is able to be 100% correctly understood (and thus, his interpretations are objectively correct)."
Not at all a far fetched notion, but in truth I speak of only those issues we've debated. I do, though, regard Scripture to be quite clear about most everything, and I can't off the top of my head think of anything which keeps me up nights wondering how I'll unlock the mystery. To wit:
There's no mystery about murder, Mr. Pro Choice.
There's no mystery about homosexuality always being abomination, Mr. Pervert.
There's no mystery about Christ's sacrifice being necessary for our salvation, Mr. Christ Died Simply Because "The Man" Was Pissed.
There's no mystery about treating everyone without favoritism, Mr. Rich Guy Evil.
continuing
"Of course, that was another of the many questions that you all collectively dodged/ran away from."
There's no question here which hasn't been addressed in full many times. What's more, we're under no obligation to answer every dumbshit question you conjure in your ongoing effort to avoid answering ours.
"I stand ready to apologize to you each individually or collectively if and when you make clear that you ARE like me and humble enough to admit that you can't objectively prove your opinions."
But we'd be lying, just like you are in insisting we haven't defended our positions to a degree impossible for you to contradict with the same degree of quality evidence in the quantities provided in an attempt to finally clear your rigorous-for-us-only high bar of expectations. We're done with that crap, girl.
I said:
Certainly not for Marshal, who is clear that he thinks "IF Scripture or the false religion can't be "100%" correctly understood..." then it's not trustworthy."
Marshal replied:
NEVER have I EVER expressed anything which so much as hints as such a self-serving bullshit claim. This is the type of wild claim for which you'd demand evidence or an apology and block further comments until you received either if I had made it.
Marshal, earlier:
If Scripture or the false religion can't be "100%" correctly understood, then you can make any self-serving claim you want under the lame excuse.
I was just quoting you.
But again, by all means, make yourself clear: When you hold your personal positions on your personal interpretations of verses (and any other evidence that might apply) on topics where we disagree - PSA theories, LGBTQ theories, "inerrant" bible theories, etc... are you saying that you do NOT think you personally can "objectively" know you hold the "right" understanding on those topics and that you do NOT 100% know the right answer in any provable, objective fashion?
Again, I'm more than glad to apologize IF I have misunderstood you. But if you all just keep ignoring clarifying questions and opportunities to make yourself clear, then I'm just operating on what you've literally said.
And, once again, another question to go unanswered.
Marshal:
The second problem is the equally lame implication that your position on the issues which have been debated is as likely to be accurate as ours.
But that is a personal opinion you hold, NOT an objective fact. In reality, we've talked about these topics for 20 years now. I've posted thousands of words, for instance, explaining how I moved from being opposed to LGBTQ concerns to completely thinking such anti-LGBTQ theories are not in keeping with reason, love, grace or the Bible. I HAVE explained my positions and what literally changed my mind, including looking at Bible verses.
The point is NOT "Did it change my mind?" The point is it DID change my mind and in good faith, I no longer believe as you do... as I used to, and it's precisely as a matter of objective fact and history, because I love God, love the Bible and disagree with those old human interpretations.
Again, you can disagree with my conclusions, but you can't say I haven't given a greatly detailed explanation of how I reached those opinions.
That YOU personally aren't convinced doesn't mean I wasn't, because, of course, I was. That you personally don't find the case compelling doesn't mean the case isn't compelling because, as a point of fact, I was compelled to change my position in order to embrace God's grace - and basic justice and reason - more fully and correctly.
And THAT is why, if you want to claim there is ONE objective answer to such questions and that YOU hold that objectively factual answer, you need SOME arbiter, some decider or otherwise, you have no basis on which to say you know your personal human opinion, objectively as a fact, is correct... is God's Will.
Without that, we are two humans with differing opinions and no way to objectively prove which is correct.
But I've said all this reality stuff before and you just ignore it, as if it's enough that YOU make the claim to settle it as an objective fact.
DO you now admit that this is NOT objectively proven (on these issues where we have genuine, good faith disagreements) and that you (nor I) CAN prove it objectively?
OR, do you think you have some super secret method of proving it objectively and you're not going to say what it is?
Because we can all see that is just a cowardly dodge.
December 10, 2025 at 8:28 PM
I would like to say that there is no greater evidence of what an abject moron Dan is, than this last comment of his from the date and time in bold. However, as I'm speaking of Dan Trabue, I've no doubt he'll top even this display of stupidity in no time. To wit:
I said:
"If Scripture or the false religion can't be "100%" correctly understood, then you can make any self-serving claim you want under the lame excuse."
Dan claims he's quoting me by paraphrasing me in the following manner:
"Certainly not for Marshal, who is clear that he thinks "IF Scripture or the false religion can't be "100%" correctly understood..." then it's not trustworthy."'
Can anyone spot the difference between the two? It's as if he's grabbing us by the lapels, shaking us vigorously as he screams wildly, "Admit it now to the whole world! I'm a fucking idiot!!" "I was just quoting you," he said.
I do not regard Scripture as untrustworthy (I do not care about the "holy" book of murderous inbreds), nor have I ever so much as hinted at such a preposterous notion. Clearly, and beyond any doubt, my original comment which he claims to have quoted by presenting something wholly unrelated to it, was in reference to his preference of insisting we can't know Scripture well enough to understand simple teachings he finds inconvenient for him and all his perverted, fake Christian friends and associates. And indeed, Dan constantly makes every self-serving false claim he prefers to the truths within Scripture about which we've debated for 17 fucking years. It's no wonder so many refuse to allow him to comment at their blogs. We face the usual conundrum of trying to discern if Dan's the liar he appears to be, or simply clinically mentally retarded. This blatant disparity compels that choice upon us once again. It really fucking blows my mind. There is NO similarity between the quote of mine he presented, and his bullshit paraphrasing of it, yet he claims he's quoting me nonetheless. Simply fucking amazing.
continuing
"But again, by all means, make yourself clear"
The struggle to decide goes on. He's either stupid or lying that I've been nothing if not crystal clear, or have many times clarified my positions. But the stupid continues:
"When you hold your personal positions on your personal interpretations of verses on topics where we disagree - (snip)- are you saying that you do NOT think you personally can "objectively" know you hold the "right" understanding on those topics and that you do NOT 100% know the right answer in any provable, objective fashion?"
No. Any honest reading of my words will clearly remind you of the fact: my positions are accurate and factual representations of Scripture unless and until a bright little girl like you can provide overwhelmingly compelling and persuasive arguments for another with a degree, quantity and quality of evidence you demand of me yet nonetheless dismiss because you don't want to believe anything but your fantasy. For all others, just a compelling and honest alternative to consider will do. Why would I admit my position isn't 100% correct without such a counter argument to provoke doubt about my position? It's ludicrous to the Trabue degree!
"Again, I'm more than glad to apologize IF I have misunderstood you."
You're an inveterate liar. Clearly and beyond any debate.
"But if you all just keep ignoring clarifying questions and opportunities to make yourself clear,..."
We don't, indeed never really do when you ask honest questions. When you play your games, we're not so obliged, particularly when we were as clear as any normal, honest person would require us to be. Go ahead. Find a normal, honest person and ask him.
"then I'm just operating on what you've literally said."
Clearly, you've not "operated" on what I literally said by any stretch of the imagination, as this last comment of your so blatantly demonstrates. Thus, the stupid/liar debate rages on. You're one or the other at best.
"And, once again, another question to go unanswered."
And, once again, you lie about questions going unanswered. You're battin' 1.000, girl.
I've said for years that I cannot prove my "opinions". I've done so without having to brag about my humility or defending myself bragging about my humility.
I do want to note that "proof" for Dan seems to be a fluid and elusive thing. It is certainly something he often demands, yet rarely provides. His demands for proof seem to be missing a critical factor. The missing factor is what level of proof is enough for him.
I recall a discussion years ago about the inherent harm in anal sex, and the fact that gay men had a significantly higher risk of all sorts of harm simply because of that one single factor. I provided links to scientific studies, doctors, and who knows what else, yet Dan continued to insist homosexuality did not carry an inherently higher risk of harm.
I could go on with other examples, but it seems pointless, as Dan's response will be predictable enough that I could probably write it with a high degree of accuracy.
Dan seems to demand a level of proof from us that he does not demand from himself of for things that align with his worldview.
For months, if not years, I have pointed out (contemporaneously) instances where you have misrepresented me, have falsely represented what I've said, and have done so after being corrected. I cannot recall a single instance of you ever apologizing. I've answered "clarifying questions" ad nauseum, only to have you trot out the old "Craig doesn't ever answer any questions" chestnut.
Dan has a history of doing this. I can't count the times he'll "paraphrase" something by leaving critical information or context out, and act as if he's quoting. This is not an example of misunderstanding, you were quite clear in what you said. Dan intentionally changed what you said into something entirely different, and claims to be quoting you.
Your original point was clear and is vital to Dan's tactics. He needs the ambiguity inherent in his "It's all just human opinion" position. As long as it's all just opinion, he is free to not prove his claims (because they're merely hunches), and he doesn't need to respond to what we provide him because he's already dismissed it as merely opinion. It's a tactic to ensure that he never loses an argument, and never has to apologize because it's all opinion.
I suspect that his insistence that there are multiple truths plays a role in this as well.
Ahhhhhhhhhhh, the old "Make yourself clear" canard. This is a well used and tiresome tactic to pretend that no one has ever explained the orthodox, historical, Christian position on anything in a manner that is clear enough for Dan.
I freely admit that I sometimes am unable to express complex theological concepts clearly, I am a limited human and not perfect. When I run across a situation where I don't think I'm communicating clearly, I simply refer to the work of those who are better communicators than I. Strangely enough, no one I've ever referred to has ever been able to be clear enough for Dan.
Maybe the problem isn't us and our ability to communicate clearly...
December 10, 2025 at 8:37 PM
"But that is a personal opinion you hold, NOT an objective fact."
It's absolutely an objective fact based on a clear and honest reading of the text. While you bristle at the mention of Neil Simpson's "100% of Biblical verses" list, that list provides the truth you can't deny without inserting into the text meaning the text itself doesn't the least bit imply. Thus, you merely reject the truth of it, that nothing in Scripture can honestly be used in support of your current position.
"I've posted thousands of words, for instance, explaining how I moved from being opposed to LGBTQ concerns to completely thinking such anti-LGBTQ theories are not in keeping with reason, love, grace or the Bible."
Sure, and we all got a real good laugh in reading it. But nothing in it stands as a "rational" argument for your current position as it requires the aforementioned eisegesis to pretend your position reflects actual Scriptural teaching.
"The point is it DID change my mind and in good faith, I no longer believe as you do..."
This is not believable by any honest person who reads Scripture honestly and without preconceived notions. When even a lesbian scholar of sex in the ancient world denies any possibility of tolerance of homosexuality, and thus no possibility of being perpetrated in a manner which would invite God's blessing, it's clear your mind was set on finding ways to pervert Scripture to validate your promotion of this perversion. That is to say, I do not believe you weren't encouraged by pro-homosexual influence of some kind to not just read Scripture, but to read it with their perverse and dishonest slant in mind beforehand. I don't have any way to prove this, and you'd deny and reject the proof anyway if I did, but there's no way to look at Scripture and come to these laughable conclusions without prompting. Your claim it happened as you say is a worthless claim. It's just another case of searching Scripture for some way to legitimize what it really doesn't legitimize.
continuing
"...it's precisely as a matter of objective fact and history, because I love God, love the Bible and disagree with those old human interpretations."
So you say, but that's not at all reflected in the positions you take which do not conform with any honest reading of the text. Furthermore, the "age" of an interpretation is insignificant. Only the truth of it is, and yours is totally devoid of truth. Yours is the stuff of invention and deception.
"Again, you can disagree with my conclusions, but you can't say I haven't given a greatly detailed explanation of how I reached those opinions."
The former is the result of the lack of quality, logic and truth of the latter. Again, we all had a good laugh when reading your "greatly detail explanation". Small children make similar arguments to defend their actions and desires. Your explanation smacks of that level of logic.
"That YOU personally aren't convinced doesn't mean I wasn't, because, of course, I was."
Because you were already supportive of the agenda. The text simply does not compel the conclusions you insist you drew from your "serious and prayerful" study. Your multi-post series explaining your position on wealth and economics is equally laughable due to how much of it requires including that which isn't really addressing either, but merely mentions someone with money in the point intended. Thus, it does the same thing. It shows that you already had a position and your "study" only serves to validate it.
And I don't need to be an expert or need to have some "rubric" or "authority" to inform my response to you convoluted explanations, their absurdity slaps one in the face with how obviously absurd it all is. That's not my fault. It's yours.
continuing
"That you personally don't find the case compelling doesn't mean the case isn't compelling because, as a point of fact, I was compelled to change my position in order to embrace God's grace - and basic justice and reason - more fully and correctly."
You don't get to assert your explanations are compelling. If they don't compel, they aren't. How you were compelled is in question. Was it the text or pro-homo influence? The text doesn't provide. Not without inserting meaning it doesn't itself convey.
But you are only compelled by that with which you already agree. You've proven that more than once, and on this issue in particular as "I don't find it compelling" was your only counter argument to a very extensive explanation I presented way back in the first days of my blog. You didn't rebut, refute or prove wrong any part of it, and you fail to do so on every other issue about which we disagree. I repeat, you fail to fill the gaping holes in your positions exposed by our criticisms, and you invent holes you only pretend exist in ours.
What's more, there's no "justice and reason" in promoting, defending and enabling that which God calls detestable.
"THAT is why, if you want to claim there is ONE objective answer to such questions and that YOU hold that objectively factual answer, you need SOME arbiter, some decider or otherwise, you have no basis on which to say you know your personal human opinion, objectively as a fact, is correct..."
No. That's just what you say when your argument falls so flat and can't be made believable. That's just what you say when you are incapable of finding true fault in our positions which makes your the crap sandwiches they are. You want to insist that without doing the heavy lifting of supporting your positions, and without presenting real problems with ours beyond the fact you don't like them, that somehow it remains true that your positions are equally likely to be accurate representations of truth and fact as are ours. That's not even an assertion. That's desperation.
continuing
"Without that, we are two humans with differing opinions and no way to objectively prove which is correct."
No. We are two humans with you refusing to accept that sufficient proofs have been provided to confirm that which you dislike. There's only you who fails to come close to proving your positions, because you don't have the evidence, are incapable of finding any, or you don't think you're obliged to try. You certainly have proven you don't feel obliged to abide the same standards for such you demand we accept.
"But I've said all this reality stuff before and you just ignore it, as if it's enough that YOU make the claim to settle it as an objective fact."
Two errors here, if not outright lies:
1. There's no reality in what you say, and
2. We do far more than merely make a claim to affirm fact. This is absolutely a lie to say otherwise.
"DO you now admit that this is NOT objectively proven (on these issues where we have genuine, good faith disagreements) and that you (nor I) CAN prove it objectively?"
No. I will NOT admit I haven't done what I done fully, comprehensively and beyond your ability to counter. But you will continue to validate my claim that there is no point at which you'll accept any argument, or evidence for it, which differs from what you prefer to believe. You always do. You're right, we're wrong and that's all we're to accept. Ain't happening, Nancy.
"OR, do you think you have some super secret method of proving it objectively and you're not going to say what it is?"
It's not secret. But it does involve an adherence to honesty you won't employ if it means you must reject your position as the laughable bullshit it is. Honesty is the key and honesty doesn't work for you. Lying doesn't either, but you don't mind employing that as it serves you to do so. The text is crystal clear on the issues between us. You lie that it isn't because ambiguity is essential for adhering to your heresies.
"Because we can all see that is just a cowardly dodge."
Your protests throughout this thread represent the true cowardly dodge. And you'll continue pursuing this fraudulent argument because your perversions are all which matter.
Yeah, it never stops with this kid. But it doesn't matter how clear we are, how clear are our sources or anything like that. He pretends we aren't clear because forcing us to repeat ourselves in every way possible is a key tactic in deflecting from his obligation to legitimize his bullshit and heresies. Look how long he's gone on talking about how to talk! What has it accomplished but to fill the thread? It hasn't made his positions on anything more correct, truthful or compelling. It hasn't forced us to accept his terms for constitutes "good faith/adult" discourse. It's just him trying and failing to prop himself up as the good guy, the "reasonable/rational" guy, the sincere seeker of truth guy...all while doing nothing to confirm any of that being the case. We're to just accept it.
No. The problem isn't our ability to communicate. The problem is Dan's blatant and inveterate dishonesty.
Yeah, he'll never admit he's wrong and any claim by him that he's will to admit he might be about something is just a lying smokescreen.
Dan seems to thrive on ambiguity and confusion. He'll ignore or didge questions for as ling as he can, then give vague or contradictory answers for the most part. Again, I believe that his commitment to the postmodern/many truths worldview is what makes this internally coherent. It seems as though his hunches are also his truths, and therefore are more than hunches in his mind.
I appreciate clarity as much as anyone, but when Dan got pissy because I answered his yes/no questions with yes/no answers, it gave me a glimpse into how his mind works.
I can't recall him ever doing so, nor can I imagine a circumstance where he would. For someone who clings to the narratives he cherishes regardless of evidence to the contrary, I can't imagine what it would take for him to admit to being wrong.
Indeed. Ambiguity and vagueness is essential. One can suppose anything is true or more likely so if one can insist there's no "objective" proofs, and even that insistence is based on an ambiguous notion of what constitutes "objective". All we know is Dan knows when he sees it, and he never sees it nor ever will.
In his mind...or in what for him passes as a mind...Dan is never wrong. It's as simple as that. Despite his feigning at humility in expressing he understands he might be wrong, and that he's only expressing "opinion", it carries the weight of fact which can't be denied, despite no ability to bring anything more than incredibly weak arguments supported by that which doesn't really support his positions at all.
Yup, it seems like everything is much more about deflecting and obfuscating his positions and misrepresenting ours than simply making a positive case grounded outside of his Reason for his hunches.
Post a Comment