The following was put together by Dan at his Blog of Lies and Perversions and I had bring it here so he couldn't delete my response. I believe it was in the comments section of his Wendell Berry "Memorial" on September 22, 2026 at 5:29 AM. I’ll be adding my response to his selections after each, providing truths Dan ignores to pretend his beloved are actually saints and/or heroes. However, I’m going to reverse the lists and begins with those Dan has condemned in his typically “erase grace” manner.
Conservative heroes about whom Dan asserts are actually bad and vulgar people, criminals and killers, and frankly, as a rule, just generally not that bright.
Trump (corrupt felon, sexual
predator and war criminal)
It can definitely be said that Trump is “vulgar” in the original sense of the
word, which refers to the common or ordinary man. Despite his wealth and celebrity, he’s very
much like most Americans. Thus, Dan
finds Americans to be vulgar in the more contemporary sense: “morally
crude/offensive”, which describes Dan’s type quite well given that which he
supports, defends, celebrates and enables.
One example of this is Dan’s defaulting to Trump’s conviction in a clearly
kangaroo court, the purpose of which was to interfere in the upcoming election
and deny Trump a legitimate contest out of pure hatred and spite. That his kind have a legitimate reason for
this attitude is unproven and without true basis. As is so common of the truly vulgar fake
Christian, one need not have evidence for a charge against an opponent, but
only has the assertion of the charge for that charge to be fact.
The charge of sexual predation is equally devoid of true substance, but only
the word of almost a dozen women, two of whom are, by definition, whores, another
his ex-wife who admitted her charges against him in her autobiography were
false and driven by spite. (She supported him for president). No others have any evidence making their
claims against him credible in the least.
The real issue here is that Trump is a well known womanizer, though no
known case of his alleged “predation” involved force, and his “prey” were
willing accomplices in his immorality due to the potential windfall for them
had he made any of them his main squeeze.
In other words, totally consensual affairs. Trump’s public (and not so public) joking
about women provide haters and graceless fake Louisville “Christians” ammo to
exploit to perpetuate a fantasy about the man for partisan gain.
The “war criminal” charge is pure stupidity which also lacks hard evidence to
make it worthy of the time of day.
Reagan (war criminal)
This also is the fantasy of leftist haters…for many because this former
Democrat left the party after seeing the light.
The abjectly hateful make this charge because he made life hard for
actual war criminals. Reagan is the
other side of the coin tossed to decide between whether it is he or Trump who
gets the trophy for best president since 1955 (the year of my birth). Both raised living conditions of all
Americans through economic polices which led to growth. Both fought to defeat real threats to our way
of life. Both revitalized a US military previous
administrations allowed to decay. Both
elevated the spirit of patriotism among the populace, making it OK to love
America again.
Kirk
I’m going to go out on a limb and assume Dan’s referring to Charlie Kirk
here. It’s fashionable for progressives
to hate on Charlie Kirk as if they actually have legitimate reason to do so. This young man died at the hands of “trans”
enabler, partially for speaking the truth about the lies of the “pro-trans”
community activists, but also because he had a keen mind regarding all the
issues upon which he debated. As Kirk
was not in any way actually bad or a vulgar person as Dan defines the word, nor
was he in any way a criminal or killer, that leaves on the nonsensical notion
that he was in some way “not that bright”.
But then, this comes from the imagination of Dan Trabue who can’t even
defend his own positions in an honest, straightforward manner as if he truly
believes his own nonsense. Dan just
hates, and he hates truth. Kirk defended
truth, and that’s enough to put him on Dan’s hit list of better people he wants
others to hate along with him
Jan 6 felons (violent criminals)
Very few of the Jan 6 defendants were actually held or convicted for violent
acts. Of those who were, it’s highly
questionable how many acted without provocation given the unprofessional
actions of Capitol police. Yet, the
massive amounts of destruction and people killed during the many “mostly
peaceful” protests of Dan’s kind provoke no consideration by the likes of Dan.
White men who shoot black men
(violent criminals/murderers)
Are abjectly few in number, far outweighed by the murders and other attacks on
white people by black men, as all reputable sources confirm. And it doesn’t come close to the number of
black men murdered by black men…also confirmed by law enforcement statistics. Not to put too fine a point on it, this is
just Dan padding his list with fantasy from the race baiters and race hustlers
he stupidly regards as credible.
ICE kidnappers and murderers...
There are none.
White "Jesus," in THEIR
conservative words (ie, not actually Jesus)
Our conservative words speak accurately only of the Jesus of Scripture. Only racist Jeff St. grace erasing fake
Christians speak of a “white Jesus”. The
hippie Jesus of which such people speak bears only the most superficial of
resemblances to the actual Jesus revealed to us in Scripture.
Now we look at “Progressive saints/heroes”...about whom Dan regards as actually
good people noted for their great love and stands for justice for all and human
rights.
Wendell Berry
This is a guy I’m now still researching, but the early returns leave me hard
pressed not to regard this guy as highly overrated. What he brings to the table is exactly the
same pretentious tripe which those like Dan find so enamoring. I’ll be hitting the Charleston library soon
to find a few tomes of this dude to slog through what no doubt will improve my
ability to sleep, but I’m willing to given him a chance as a writer. What I don’t expect to see is anything
written which is worth more than making lefties feel good…nothing of substance
upon which a legitimate responsible society can act in a corporate manner to
make life better for all. Here I offer
three of the only articles I’ve found which directly find fault in the guy, and
while I don’t think I’ll find anything which makes me hate the guy to any
extent, I’m no confident I’ll find anything which is more the idealistic drivel
which comes with no legitimate plan of action to improve our lot as
Americans…that is, nothing which is not already known to honest people:
https://www.plough.com/articles/the-hole-in-wendell-berrys-gospel
I found a response to this which didn’t negate the points of contention raised
by this author.
https://faithandleadership.com/allen-t-stanton-why-i-hate-wendell-berry
https://allenstanton.substack.com/p/when-i-hated-wendell-berry-why-we
As you can see, these two are from the same dude, the second of which prompted
by responses to the first. As one raised
in a basically rural area which grew into something far more, I can relate to
much of what he says. It should be
understood that none of it should be taken as a claim that Berry is some kind
of horror show Dan pretends is true of the previous list. I just think that the labels “saint” or
“hero” do not at all apply to this guy, regardless of how I eventually might
come to regard him after reading some of his stuff. If he was the man Dan pretends he is, I’m
left wondering why a guy like me, who reads all sorts of stuff, is not well
familiar with him. At this point, I
would simply suggest he’s just some dude who writes pretentious stuff and
thinks having his plough pulled by a horse makes him more noble or
saintly. Not a bad guy…just not at all a
great one.
Barack Obama
This one is hilarious. This is a guy
who’s greatest accomplishment was to increase the cost of health care on the
passage of a bill we were told would lead to a reduction. He’s a fraud and his shipments of cash to the
mullahs of Iran led to countless deaths and these animals being closer to
launching nuclear weapons. He totally
trashed race relations in this country (his wife being a total racist) and
overall did next to nothing for the black community. He did promote perversion, which isn’t hard
to believe for a guy who wrote about homosexual fantasies, allowed a homosexual
to pleasure his member orally while he toked on a crack pipe (twice) and whose
relationship with two different homosexuals who allegedly committed suicide was
ignored as not even a reality by sycophants in the media, and of course
rejected as conservative conspiracy theories by those like Dan. (In the meantime, keep in mind, negative
allegations by those of Dan’s kind against conservatives are as fact simply
because the allegations were made!
Dorothy Day (who wouldn't want to be
called a saint!)
Socialist who distanced herself from the term after converting to Catholicism
and continued being a socialist.
Annie Dillard
Not much found as yet, but what I’ve found suggests more pretentious crap of
the type which tingles the lady bits of those like Dan Trabue. How such a person, even if personally
enjoyed, can be regarded as either a saint or hero requires some truly
substantive arguments. Just how has
anything she’s written resulted in the betterment of the general welfare.
Just as for Dan accusing right-wing figures of evil makes the claim of their
evil a fact, so too does Dan’s worship of whomever he worships make the person
worshiped a deity. No evidence
required. Dan has spoken.
Jimmy Carter
I present the following written by a lefty, who clearly has more on the ball
than a simp like Dan ever could have:
https://www.counterpunch.org/2016/01/11/jimmy-carters-blood-drenched-legacy-2/
Hard to read and come away believing the writer is a conservative. To this I would add his posturing during and
after his presidency. Carrying his own
luggage for posturing purposes when in fact the suitcase was empty. Pretending he’s making a difference by
wearing a sweater and turning down the White House thermostat. Wasting several acres of farmable land on
solar panels. Dressing like a carpenter
to hammer in a few nails for the camera where volunteers for Habitat of
Humanity were doing the actual work, and
then leaving after the shots were taken.
Validating corrupted elections as If he had the ability to truly detect
fraud and the power to then do something about it.
Rev. Dr Martin Luther King, Jr
The vile, vulgar and outrageous evil of this guy has been documented by both
Chad O. Jackson and Matt Walsh. King was
the perverse sexual predator Dan wishes Trump would be. King physically abused women, as was
confirmed by his own associates. He was
a communist, a plagiarist and not really a reverend. He certainly was no Christian and rejected
much of basic Christian doctrine. Dan
likes to call Trump a con artist. Kind
was the epitome of such a criminal and people like Dan just fall all over
themselves like perfect useful idiot sheep when references to King come
up.
Gandhi
https://allthatsinteresting.com/gandhi-facts-quotes-dark-side#19
Yeah…Dan’s judgement of character is unsurpassed.
Jane Goodall
I found this one to be a strange addition.
Goodall’s work with chimps is well known, but as I refreshed my memory of
her life and times there are the typical leftist environmental slop which always
warm the cockles of many a progressive heart.
On one hand, I think her work was indeed quite cool. On the other, I have big problems with anthropomorphism,
and Janie’s big on it. I don’t care that
animals have feelings, especially when I’m grilling one up. Animals exist primarily for human
benefit. It’s not noble or godly to deny
the use of animals for the purpose of scientific research in the development of
medicines or anything else which leads to saving human lives.
And then there’s this:
https://ksj.mit.edu/tracker-archive/jane-goodall-book-scandal-most-journalis/
Yet, she might be the least offensive on Dan’s list.
Jesus, in his own words
Now here’s one who is not, because the Jesus Dan pretends to worship is a Jesus
of his own making. Dan’s Jesus is a hippie. And when Dan speaks of “Jesus, in his own
words”, he’s referring only to those words of Jesus he likes, as well as words
he can pervert to mean what he needs them to mean.
What’s most glaring about Dan’s lists is how it’s yet another manifestation of that which is all too routine…he inflates and elevates the character of his heroes and does just the opposite with regard to those he doesn’t regard as heroes at all. You’ll note he calls his progressive heroes “saints” and doesn’t use that word for the conservatives. This is a noted symptom of Dan’s sin nature, which inhibits his ability to be honest.
The reality is that Dan’s two lists are really one list comprised of sinners…people with sin natures (I’m naturally exempting the true Jesus of Scripture and ignoring Dan’s cartoon Jesus who only superficially resembles the true Jesus of Scripture). But Dan goes way out of his way to focus on that which he believes are positive traits of his progressive heroes while totally ignoring their negatives, which for several of them are indeed severely negative, and conversely focuses on the negatives of the conservatives, inflating their “missteps” and “mark missing” while totally ignoring their documented beneficial works. It’s as if he put this list together in order to admit he’s a hateful grace erasing liar.
336 comments:
1 – 200 of 336 Newer› Newest»Of Dan's list of conservative heroes, Reagan is the only one who is probably considered a True hero. If Kirk had not been brutally murdered by a crazed progressive, he probably wouldn’t have hero status yet, although he might have in time.
Trump has done good things, but probably not hero status for most. I’d be much more likely to hero Trump for his years of quietly helping people in need with zero publicity personally.
The rest aren’t heroes by any reasonable measure. Although I highly respect any LE who put themselves in danger to do their job.
The other list is just people Dan idolizes and not heroes or saints to any significant extent. It’s Dan imposing his preferences on every progressive in the world. Arrogant and narcissistic to the core.
"Hero" is one of those words which has been diluted, and it's not surprising it would be perverted by someone like Dan. "Progressives" have cornered the market on the redefinition of words for personal gain. Dan always elevates those he favors to a status way above what is reasonable, while doing just the opposite toward those who don't meet his twisted double standards.
I don't necessarily regard anyone who simply encourages or inspires to be heroes for simply encouraging or inspiring, though certainly true heroes...as we understand the word in its classical sense...do inspire by their acts of heroism. We all want to be that guy who runs head long into danger in order to save the weak and defenseless. But what heroic acts have been attributed to any of Dan's "heroes"? I can't think of any.
He does as much abuse with the word "saint". Paul uses the word to speak of Christ followers in general. The Catholic Church (not exclusively) uses the word as a title to honor certain people, though most often after actual miracles (another abused word) have been attributed to or directly connected to them. Dan has so canonized Wendell Berry, by referring to him as "St." Wendell. I doubt I'll find reason to agree with that designation even if I digest every word written by the guy. It's as pretentious as Berry's poetry appears to be.
While I recognize Medal of Honor recipients as heroes (again, by the classical understanding of the word), I don't claim anyone as a personal hero. Never seemed appropriate. Should someone at some future date snatch me from the jaws of death, I could then be so inclined.
For Dan's list, we can see his double-standard writ large as he puts MLK Jr on his list of heroes, but not Trump. We know now just what a commie scumbag MLK Jr was...the very sexual predator Dan insists Trump is...and that he accomplished very little by comparison with Trump. I stand by that and would challenge Dan to prove it's not true. He won't. He can't.
Craig
Absolutely! Hero has definitely been devalued over the years.
I agree that I would try to define hero in the same sense you do. One who would "lay down his life for his friends", not merely someone who changes their Facebook photo to a black square. Dan's heroes haven't really done anything heroic. I'll be charitable and suggest that Dan should be using another word for his list other than hero. Idol, perhaps.
Saint is problematic as you note. However, I would automatically preclude anyone who is not a believer in Jesus from being called as saint in any context.
Dan does have a habit of beatifying those he likes, regardless of whether or not they actually should be referred to thus.
Look, I get it, Dan is a fan of Berry. Berry says things that Dan agrees with and which reinforce Dan's preferences and prejudices. Given the fact that Berry isn't someone particularly revered outside of some very particular leftist silos, there's probably a degree of possessiveness over being one of the in crowd. It's perfectly fine to be a fan of someone, but when fandom transfers into beatification, that might be a bridge too far.
Personally, I've always felt like the pilots and crew of Torpedo Squadron 8 at Midway was an excellent example of heroism and of a sacrifice to be emulated.
I'd argue that the fact that MLK was killed for his work could make him a hero to some degree, yet his character flaws might suggest otherwise.
As noted above, Reagan is the only person on Dan's list who I would possibly consider a hero at some level, but I tend to think that hero is a bit much even for Reagan.
I'd argue that the last politician that could legitimately be consider for hero status was Eisenhower, although he wasn't in any particularly dangerous situations, perhaps Truman's service in WW1 could be considered. I'd argue that Truman desegregating the military was pretty heroic in a political sense, but not in the classical sense.
A point to make about Carter: He is the reason for the horrible “Department of Education.” He made this departed in payback to teachers’ unions for their support. All the DOE did was to destroy actual education (as can be see through the high levels of students who can’t read or write and are totally indoctrinated into all things LEFT) and at the same time cost taxpayers billions of dollars.
I knew that.
I'd be surprised if Dan actually heard of Torpedo Squadron 8!
Yeah...a "political" hero, if expressed in that manner, still seems an abuse of the word "hero", but does distinguishes it as a rhetorical flourish. JFK might be deserving, given the PT 109 story. Those considered "war heroes" usually did something extraordinary compared to even others whose lives were at risk by virtue of having endured combat, especially if they were enlisted men. I don't think it applies to MLK just because he was shot dead. I don't believe he really felt he was likely to be. He's simply unworthy.
He was pretty worthless as a president, just like Obama and Biden.
Marshal:
Socialist who distanced herself from the term after converting to Catholicism and continued being a socialist.
Let's look at this actually great saint and hero, as compared to the buffoon, war criminal, Bonzo. But first, a reminder of the definition of Hero:
Courageous Figure: Someone who faces danger or adversity and acts with bravery, selflessness, or strength to help others...
Role Model: An individual widely looked up to for their personal character or contributions to the community
Day was a staunch advocate for the rights of women and their right to vote in the early 1900s and later, an opponent of the KKK and supporter of human rights in the US South, where her life was threatened many times, including being shot at by the KKK and threatened with mob violence by good ol' boy southern traditionalists who were angry at her working for rights of black people in the South.
Heroic.
Reagan was a B grade actor (at best) and got quite wealthy as an actor living the big life in Hollywood. He was not a good actor, nor a good student, but he was a good communicator, many people thought.
Hardly heroic.
Day fought for women's rights and helped win the vote for women in the early part of the century and for black men and women in the mid-century. She did not become wealthy doing this sort of work and, again, was harassed and targeted with violence.
Heroic.
Reagan parlayed his mediocre acting career into the governorship in California and eventually being the president.
Neither of those things are heroic, in and of themselves.
Day started the Catholic Worker Movement and in that arena, helped provide food and housing and employment support to, ultimately, millions of poor people around the globe.
The very definition of a follower of Jesus according to Jesus' life and words.
Heroic.
Reagan caused great harm to poor people with his policies and his Rich People first efforts ("trickle down" bullshit).
Again, not heroic... except maybe some rich people considered him helpful, that way.
Day was a pacifist who fought for peaceful solutions to international difficulties, knowing that warring and violence always hurts the poor and marginalized, children and others, disproportionately.
Again, very saintly, very Christ-like, very heroic.
Reagan is a literal war criminal, ordering attacks and policies that eventually caused the US to be found guilty of actual war crimes. And now, I KNOW that you boys like to say (when it's one of your heroes that is held accountable to law) that it "didn't count" and it wasn't a "real war crime." Your little opinions, notwithstanding, do not diminish the reality of his war crimes.
NOT heroic.
Reagan funded bin Laden and actual terrorism.
Day funded the poor and marginalized.
She is the very definition of a saint (and on her way there literally, in the Catholic Church) who poured her life out for Jesus on behalf of the poor and marginalized, and doing so at personal risk and without personal gain.
Reagan is the opposite.
Look, ALL I'm suggesting is that you'd be more credible if you could at LEAST acknowledge the reality that Day, King, Carter, Gandhi, etc, etc, etc ARE very good, decent people who DO follow the teachings of Jesus and who are widely recognized as great moral leaders.
And Reagan and Trump, not at all. Just speaking in terms of observable reality.
Look at your friend Glenn, who has to castigate Carter for something as HORRIBLE!!!! as helping start the Department of Education... while Reagan started terrorism, bin Laden, war crimes and harm to the poor and marginalized.
LOOK at your values. IF you have to attack helping the poor, fighting for human rights, for women's rights, for immigrants, for education... these sort of objectively good things... if you have to attack those as BAD all the while ignoring rape, sexual predation, war crimes, felonies, profiteering, harm to the poor... there is something deeply wrong with your value system. It's upside down and backwards and quite anti-Christ-like.
Marshal epitomized the graceless, loveless hopelessness of modern Pharisees, saying...
I don't claim anyone as a personal hero.
How pathetic. My life is full of heroes for a wide range of reasons and you can't even claim ONE? Either you live a spectactularly awful life surrounded by pathetic cowards or it's just how you're choosing to see things.
It's also emblematic of the "alpha male" pettiness of modern maga weaklings - "TRUE heroes are those who run into battle where one might be killed" and that sort of toxic masculinity nonsense. That isn't the exclusive definition of hero, as the word is known in rational circles.
It's rather pathetic that you can think of no heroes in your life. How embarrassing it must be to be related to such a graceless coward.
Again, poser. You're abusing the word. By your two definitions provided by you in your earlier comment above, I absolutely reject the second as no better than an "add on" definition by those like yourself seeking to elevate as heroes those who actually aren't. They might more appropriately be labeled "role models" or "personal inspirations", but "heroes", again, dilutes the meaning of the word.
Are there people throughout my life I admired? Of course there are, a few upon whom you most egregiously, unjustly and certainly in a most anti-Christ manner crapped.
But actual heroes? Those who actually confronted death head on, face-to-face to save the life or lives of others? An Audie Murphy? A Desmond Doss? No. I've never met such a person.
There's no such thing as "toxic masculinity". That's what feminists and the effeminate call "men"..."protectors"..."defenders of the weak and defenseless"..."real men of God". You don't move in "rational circles". You move among pussies and liars. The morally spineless and covetous. Frauds and fake Christians and posturing buffoons.
There's nothing "pathetic" about reserving certain labels for those for whom they are truly appropriate. It's called honesty and I reserve terms like "heroes" for those who've engaged in actual acts of heroism which are very specific, just as I reserve "good" for God for there are no others but He who are truly good.
"Pathetic" is a "progressive" asshat like you who'll apply the word "hero" or "saint" to those who aren't either. It's an insult to those who are truly deserving of those labels. I have more respect for such people than to use such terms so loosely, just as I have too much respect for actual Christians to apply that label to you.
Merriam Websters first definition of hero hardens back to its literally mythic origins in ancient Greek, a superpower full demigod. The next definitions are what we more typically mean...
b
: an illustrious warrior or soldier
c
: a person who shows great courage
d
: a person admired for achievements and noble qualities
Those ARE the definitions of hero as we use it.
The problems with your alternative, narrow definition include:
1. It's a schoolboy immature and shallow definition of hero. You're literally imagining it as exclusively the domain of cowboys, soldiers and John Wayne.
2. It's not standard English
3. Your own explanation would exclude Jesus and those who act like Jesus, like MLK or Dorothy Day.
Now here, I expect you'll push back and carve out an exception for Jesus who DID selflessly pour out his life to save others. And, of course, he did.
But so did MLK and Dorothy Day and Jimmy Carter.
It's time you set aside milk and mature up into solid food, not Saturday morning GI Joe cartoons.
Dan
From the conservative, traditional Institute for Faith and Culture...
"How the Bible Defines a Hero
When I think of heroism in God’s terms, I think of Romans 15:1-2.
We who are strong ought to bear with the failings of the weak and not to please ourselves. Each of us should please our neighbors for their good, to build them up.
This verse describes the different characteristics of heroism:
Helping those in need
Buttressing the weaknesses of others with our strengths and vice versa
Contributing to the welfare of our neighbor.
These are all active words. Being a hero means being a helper, supporter, and friend. "
Your narrow definition is much less than biblical.
Hell, just recall the Heroes of Faith listed in Hebrews 11. Nary a cowboy among them.
Dan
I do think that clarifying that someone is a political or musical hero does imply a change in the definition of hero which most would understand.
Good call on JFK for his military service, you could maybe add Bush as well because of his service.
I agree that MLK isn't on the hero level of an MOH winner, but hearing first hand from John Perkins how dangerous things were for civil rights leaders in the south, I could see that every one of them was aware that they could be killed for their work. It's one thing to read about that period of history, it's another to hear from someone who lived through it. Although I respect the hell out of Perkins and what he did for his community, I think he'd be embarrassed to be called a hero. Despite his military service.
Carter was a crappy president, who had a great PR team after office. He latched on to the work that Millard Fuller and Habitat were already doing and was basically a fundraising mascot for Habitat. His involvement benefited Habitat and polished his image, while simultaneously leading to the minimization of Fuller and the move of Habitat away from it's Christian foundation.
I'd be surprised if Dan knew what a torpedo was.
Shockingly the decline of American educational outcomes on virtually every measurable metric has declined significantly since the Dept of Education was foisted upon us. More layers of bureaucracy and money which primarily benefit teacher's unions and school administrators.
That we don't agree with your personal beatification of your idols doesn't mean that we are attacking them. The last I checked, it was still perfectly acceptable to agree with Dan on those who we respect. But maybe I was wrong. Strangely enough, Dan has no problem attacking, denigrating, and even slandering those he disagrees with (see his repeated references to Trump as a "rapist"), but can't stand anyone disagreeing with his idols. Sad.
As to your three posts (two from the same person) talking about Wendell Berry, I'm not sure you're getting their point. They both seem to be mostly fans of Wendell Berry, and for all the right reasons. From the first author:
The pleasure I experience reading a novel set in idyllic Port William, before war, agribusiness, and corporate industrialism pillage the town, turns quickly from a nostalgic glow to an ugly flame. I agree with the author’s animosity toward institutional and human greed, but I’m troubled by the apparent evils he chooses to overlook.
The stories in Berry's fiction (both these writers are overlooking his essays) DO deal with the ugly sides of rural life - the murders, cheating, hypocrisy, etc - along with the idyllic. Berry is not painting a portrait of an idealized utopia. At all. He would, indeed, reject such interpretations. Likewise, he is not drafting a Ten Commandments for how everyone should live and castigating those who do not bow to his Ten Commandments. Again, the very suggestion of that runs counter to Berry's ethos.
It can fairly be noted (and again, Berry would agree - I've listened to him in person talk about such things) that some may interpret his portrait of rural life as an agrarian utopia and him as an infallible pope, but that is NOT the point of his art/work. Just the opposite.
Your second author notes:
The title of this essay was originally meant as a joke. I texted it to a friend and mentor. He is an unabashed lover of Berry’s work and of rural life. His reply was insightful: “Even when they quote him reverently, the whole world hates Wendell Berry, because so few actually live the way he calls for.”
THAT would be the point. Berry is pointing to, IN PART, some very real and observably measurable dysfunctions of our current systems. In many cases, he includes himself as a participant in the dysfunction. But he also notes that it's all the more important to not let our limits of imperfection prevent us from working for wholeness and holiness.
"This is no paradisal dream. Its hardship is its possibility."
Read more on Berry's recognition of his own imperfections and deficits, his own complicity in harm of nature by his driving a gas-powered truck, for instance.
https://medium.com/@keith.phillips4760/wendell-berry-part-i-idyllic-cynicism-feb7fdd3920
The points that Berry's agrarianism may seem TOO idyllic are fair, but it doesn't remove the wholeness and holiness of his ideals. Yes, there are racists and bad people in Berry's small town and in his fictional small town, it's all there in his books. Which doesn't undo the soundness of his points.
I'm not sure your articles do anything to counter Berry's good nature and great writing, it seems only to emphasize the point.
Just one more example of Dan playing semantic games. That we have higher standards for who we consider heroes, does not mean that we don't admire or respect people in many walks of life. Politically, I greatly respect Lincoln, Truman, Polk, Teddy Roosevelt, and Reagan (presidents). I greatly respect and admire any number of musicians for their talent, skill and ability. (My respect and admiration for Sturgill Simpson went up significantly last night)
As noted, I consider the actions of the members of Torpedo 8 to be heroism of the highest order, I consider nothing more heroic than choosing to do one's duty even knowing that it means almost certain death.
Dan's problem is not that we don't have people to admire, it's that we don't throw around terms like hero or saint as lightly as he does.
How absolutely condescending. That someone would dare to apply a specific definition of the word to themselves and how they choose to use the word elicits this condescending and pedantic diatribe is the epitome of gracelessness.
Yeah, Jesus did selflessly, and willingly choose to fulfill YHWH's redemptive plan by submitting Himself to the torture and execution of Rome. He's actually the archetype of the hero Art is speaking of. One who willingly went to certain (horrible) death to benefit others. Just like Stephen, and the majority of the Apostles.
Craig, missing the point...
"Jesus did selflessly, and willingly choose to fulfill YHWH's redemptive plan by submitting Himself to the torture and execution of Rome. He's actually the archetype of the hero Art is speaking of. One who willingly went to certain (horrible) death to benefit others. Just like Stephen, and the majority of the Apostles."
Yes. Just like MLK and Dorothy Day.
Dan
Look, no one is suggesting that being a fan of Berry is wrong or evil. Fanboy or fangirl over Berry all you want. Hell, idolize him as much as you want. I simply don't care who you are a fan of. It's when you start to beatify people and seemingly insist that everyone elevate these people to "heroes and saints" that you lose people.
Look, I get it. Berry writes about an "agricultural Utopian" ,"simple life" that you seem to idolize or aspire to, yet choose not to actually live. So what? That doesn't objectively make him a saint or a hero. It makes him a writer you idolize and are a fan of. Cool, you do you. Just don't expect everyone else to share your idols.
Really? Are you suggesting that King or Day went knowingly and willingly to a horrific death to benefit others? They they were playing a critical part in YHWH's redemptive plan?
You don't have to answer, these are rhetorical questions.
Imagine putting MLK and Dorothy Day on the same level as Jesus.
And look I'm fine if you fellows want to use an alternate definition for hero for yourselves. But you don't get to define that for everyone else. My list is of people who are heroes precisely as the word is defined.
That is you can say, "Well I personally don't include anyone who's not a war hero as a hero, just speaking for myself," but you can't say, "...and neither should you." Words have meanings. That's just crazy. Do you want to say that other people shouldn't use the term "car" to speak of an automobile?
Dan
Or how about Carter? He was in the Navy and he risked his life to enter a broken nuclear reactor to repair it to help save other lives. By your narrow personal definition you would have to say he's a hero, right?
Myself, I tend to differentiate between a heroic act like Carter being lowered into a nuclear reactor to repair it and heroic lives, pouring oneself out over the course of their life in service to others, sometimes at personal cost and personal risk, as with King and Day and others including Wendell Berry.
Dan
Craig...
"Really? Are you suggesting that King or Day went knowingly and willingly to a horrific death to benefit others? They they were playing a critical part in YHWH's redemptive plan?"
I'm noting the observable reality that they gave of themselves and impoverished themselves to work for others, knowing that they might be imprisoned or would be imprisoned and they might be killed or would be killed, in the case of King. They are literally heroes by your narrow measure.
And yes I am saying they are heroes in the same way that Jesus is a hero. They gave their lives on behalf of the poor and marginalized to save lives. They literally did and they literally made the world a better place, much like Jesus.
Am I saying they are gods? No but once again you can notice the similarity to people's lives and the lives of Jesus and the teachings of Jesus without saying they are equal to Jesus. What is wrong with you all? Is it so hard for you to acknowledge that, yes, by normal hero measures, King and Day are heroes?
Your incapacity for acknowledging good, giving lives of actual heroes is impoverished your souls and incapacitating your reasoning.
Embrace grace, mortals.
Dan
One could easily argue that, if MLK "willingly went to certain (horrible) death to benefit others," so did Charlie Kirk. Both spoke out in public, at great personal risk to themselves, to argue for what the genuinely believed to be right, for what is morally good and objectively true.
But nevermind the similarities.
Anything unsavory about King must be minimized or denied outright: he is a hero and saint, which by its usage means he is a political ally.
But anything commendable about Kirk must be swept aside. He must be denounced as hateful and immoral, for the opposite reason that he was Dan's political enemy.
Agreement with Dan is the measure of all humanity.
Merriam-Webster's definitions 1b & 1c both require the actions or intentions of those referenced in them. What makes a warrior or soldier "illustrious"? What actions are manifestations of "great courage". 1c is applied to cancer patients who face their fate with stoic firmness (outwardly...who knows how likely they are to pee themselves at the same time), and I can accept that application given the circumstances. Those circumstances deal with one's mortality directly, as to those of the courageous soldier, LEO or firefighter, if the circumstances they face are a clear and imminent threat to themselves and others.
1d, however, is an add on, due to the word being abused as you're abusing it here. Now it's in the dictionary, but only because of common usage, not because the word was coined to apply to people we simply admire. And while there might be some "heroic" similarity between risking one's wealth, reputation or social standing, that's hardly comparable to those who risk life and limb. It's an unnecessary use of the word when "admirable" is quite sufficient. I would expect people of honor to bristle at the notion that anyone would consider them "heroes" for not actually doing anything heroic by the classical definition of the word.
Moreover, I'm not wrong for rejecting your usage of the word and reserving for true heroes, determined by what was consciously put at risk by them.
As to that, how can it be determined that either Day or the vile MLK consciously chose their course of action with a real expectation of facing death because of it? By that measure, I'm a hero just for getting out of bed in the morning, particularly if my daily travels puts me in or near high crime areas. That would be absurd.
Real solid food doesn't include calling communists...particularly one who plagiarized sexually abused women..."heroes" just because they got out of bed in the morning to pursue their communists goals. Unless you're a communist, too.
Bubba, I've had nothing much at all to say about Kirk, a young arrogant man feeling his wild oats. Okay, that's typical. I've not said anything good or bad about him. You, on the other hand, are trying to dump on Dr. King, an actual civil rights hero?
I mean, I guess it's okay for the rapist and murderer and coward King David to be called a man after God's own heart, but Dr King has to be perfect in order to be considered a saint or hero in your eyes?
What a typical white conservative religionist response.
Look, all I'm saying is that by Marshal's narrow definition of hero (that he personally chooses to prefer to think of heroes), Dr. King and Dorothy Day both fit. They are very much in the model of Jesus, pouring out their lives to help the poor and marginalized at some great cost and risk to themselves. Is that not a good enough definition for you either, Bubba?
Graceless, judgmental hearts are wounded people. God had mercy on them.
I will note one significant difference between the saints, Dr. King and Dorothy Day, etc: they were pouring out their lives to help the poor and oppressed and actually accomplished a great deal. Kirk, on the other hand, enriched himself to the tune of millions of dollars to try to win arguments for petty partisan politics. He was an influencer who made himself rich off of his stylized influencing. That is not what makes a hero. His death is a tragedy and shouldn't have happened but simply being killed does not make one a hero.
Dan
A great point, and as regards minimizing the sins of those he loves, Dan does that all the time. I doubt either Kirk or MLK truly believed they faced death every day just by going out in public and expressing their beliefs...Kirk's beliefs being Christian and American, King's being marxist and manipulative.
Dan earlier condescended to refer to my position as akin to watch GI Joe cartoons, when his understanding of MLK is indeed the common cartoonish deification of a man unworthy of true respect and praise.
Craig, still missing the point...
"Look, I get it. Berry writes about an "agricultural Utopian" ,"simple life" that you seem to idolize or aspire to, yet choose not to actually live."
If you understood Berry's writings you wouldn't make such a stupid claim. Berry was not advocating that everybody be a farmer. But farmers need supporters and local farmers need local supporters. I support local farms, that is part of the solution that Berry envisioned and rationally so.
And, "so what?"
Ask an American farmer. Learn about the struggles, the real-world struggles and threats faced by small-scale farmers. We have a crisis in our world and in our nation that is threatening our health. Barry is living out a demonstration of how to do it better and teaching us about that. That's so what.
But I get it, maybe you're ignorant of the crisis in American/global farming... and So you don't see why it's important. It's okay that you're not informed on the topic. But you should make yourself informed. If you read Wendell Berry, you will become informed.
Dan
Marshal...
"I doubt either Kirk or MLK truly believed they faced death every day just by going out in public and expressing their beliefs."
Are you serious? Are you saying you're ignorant of the very real threats faced by King and his family??
Demonstrate you're ignorant about MLK without saying you're ignorant of MLK!
Dan
Marshal, demonstrating how blind his white privilege has made him suggested that King had no reason to guess his life was at risk....
Death ThreatsCount: There is no exact or official total number for the death threats against Dr. King.Details: Law enforcement and historical archives (including extensive FBI files) note there were dozens, if not hundreds or thousands, of reported anonymous threats made by phone, mail, and telegram, particularly during peak campaigns like the Montgomery Bus Boycott, the Selma march, and his opposition to the Vietnam War.Major Physical Assaults and Murder AttemptsWhile countless threats proved non-actionable or harmless, Dr. King survived several severe, documented physical attacks and assassination attempts before his fatal shooting:January 30, 1956 (Home Bombing): A bomb was detonated on the front porch of Dr. King's home in Montgomery, Alabama, while his wife and baby daughter were inside. Everyone survived without serious injury.September 20, 1958 (Harlem Stabbing): Dr. King was seriously stabbed in the chest with a steel letter opener by Izola Ware Curry during a book signing at Blumstein's Department Store in Harlem, New York. The blade came dangerously close to his aorta, and doctors later told him that a simple sneeze or cough could have proved fatal.April 3, 1968 (Bomb Threat / Sabotage Scares): On the day before his assassination, his flight to Memphis was delayed due to a bomb threat against his plane, which required an exhaustive luggage and cargo search...
Dan
How does having high standards about who one believes to be a hero have anything to do with Pharisees or Grace? What a stupid incantation.
C
Hero as defined by 1828 Webster
1. A man of distinguished valor, intrepidity or enterprise in danger; as in “a hero in arms.”
2. A great, illustrious or extraordinary person; as “a hero in learning.”
3. In a poem, or romance, the principal person who has the principal share in the transactions related; Achilles in the Iliad, Ulysses in the Odyssey and Aeneas in the Aeneid.
4. In pagan mythology, a hero was an illustrious person, mortal indeed, but supposed by the populace to partake of immortality, and after his death to be placed among the gods.
Yes Glenn, definitions change over time. Indeed as I noted, the roots of hero harken back to ancient Greek demigods. You ain't no demigod and you ain't Daniel Webster.
And so, do you own the copyright on Hero? If not, welcome to the 21st century. It does not belong to you.
Dan
Which seems to suggest that there could be different types or levels of heroes. That someone who called Keaggy a hero on guitar might not be equating him with Chesty Puller. (Someone else Dan is probably unaware of)
C
Unknown, uncounted, vague, non specific death threats aren’t the same as someone knowing choosing to put themselves in the way of almost certain harm.
It’s certainly not Jesus level risk, but after Medgar and other incidents King was at some level of risk. Yet he did not seek risk by intentionally putting himself in high risk situations or by forgoing police or security.
I’ll grant that it might be the best argument for King, but it’s not quite the same.
Here is where you err. You assume that I care about the writings of one of your idols. I have more than enough to read without diving into your idols.
I’m making a larger point. The fact that you are a fan of one of your idols doesn’t magically elevate that idol to myhthic proportions..
C
First I appreciate the commitment to the double standard. The “I refuse to ever read anything you suggest,” while demanding that we read everything you suggest is quite the arrogant, narcissistic attitude.
FYI, you abject moron, I AM much more of an American Farmer than you will ever be. I come from a family of farmers and own significant farm acreage. But by all means keep up the condescending BS, while my family will keep producing corn, beans, wheat, and hay., I don’t need Berry to be informed about farming, but thanks for the condescending suggestion.
C
By all means prove Art's opinion objectively incorrect. Does someone who’s living in fear for his life stand exposed in a public place?
Again, I’m not denying reality, I’m also expecting you to prove your BS.
C
So no you want to equate their actions to Jesus’ without acknowledging the reality that they were not equal.
No, they’re heroes and saints by your very broad measure. But for you to insist that your measure is “normal” is arrogant and narcissistic.
No one is refusing grace, we simply disagree with your beatification of your idols.
Which is pretty much what we’ve said. You’re the one insisting that everyone must adopt your definition.
C
Kirk advocated free speech and civil disagreement, strangely enough his death threats were significant enough that he actually had to take protective precautions. Yet he continued to put himself out in public with minimal protection.
The only person who’s said Kirk is a hero is you…. None of us have agreed with your BS claim. But you are so good at arguing against yourself.
C
Just to check, because I don’t want to assume, who in this conversation owns and farms more than one section of farmland?
C
Craig...
"It’s certainly not Jesus level risk, but after Medgar.."
What in the name of all that is holy is wrong with you all? It's not a contest. We don't need to be able to be as good as Jesus to be called good. We don't need to be as heroic as Jesus to be called heroes. Words have meanings. We can just use the words as they are used.
This sort of things smacks of the whole consistently gracelessness in modern (and ancient!) Pharisaism, conservative religiosity.
King regularly knowingly put himself at great risk, knowing that there was a good chance he would eventually be killed. He did so to make the world a better place and help his fellow citizens, especially the oppressed, have a better world. That is heroic. Period.
Same for Day.
WHY do you all kick against the goads?
Why NOT just allow that, of course, Day was a giving person who selflessly poured out her life to help the poor and oppressed, thus, making her life's work, by normal standards, heroic... period? And the same for King?
Dan
Craig, apparently as ignorant of actual history as Marshal:
By all means prove Art's opinion objectively incorrect. Does someone who’s living in fear for his life stand exposed in a public place?
The Reverend Dr Martin Luther King, Jr, in his own words the night he was assassinated:
"Like anybody, I would like to live a long life - longevity has its place. But I'm not concerned about that now.
"I just want to do God's will. And he's allowed me to go up to the mountain. And I've looked over and I've seen the Promised Land.
"I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight, that we, as a people, will get to the Promised Land.
"And so I'm happy tonight; I'm not worried about anything; I'm not fearing any man. Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord."
YES, the ongoing threats and attempted assassinations and bombings and HIS OWN GOV'T acting against him, in the context of the Civil Rights struggle where "uppity black men" were regularly killed by white oppressors, let Dr King know that OF COURSE, his life was daily at risk.
Man. If nothing else, you all make an AIRTIGHT CASE in favor of improved DEI and Civil Rights history instruction in schools and in museums and in our daily lives at the local, state and national level.
How do you all NOT know of the real risks that black men faced at this time, just in general, and especially if they were overtly actively involved in the fight for civil rights?
Craig:
who in this conversation owns and farms more than one section of farmland?
Wait. Are you suggesting that YOU own and "farm" more than one section of farmland? (640 acres+)
Then, are you involved in agribusiness of the unsustainable sort? (ie, most if not all of agribusiness) If so, no wonder you don't mind speaking ill of the dead. Berry was an "enemy" of the agribusiness land barons in the same way that King was an "enemy" of the white racists. Which is to say, they both were on the side of justice for all (including the racists and the "agribusiness barons") which is generally considered to be a threat to the active oppressors.
You haven't answered the question. King's speech doesn't necessarily mean he's truly in constant fear of his life. I would submit that it's more likely that he didn't spend a whole lot of time actually worrying about it, believing not only the possibility low, but also that his security detail would protect him. I would also suggest his speech was posturing, "Look how I'm unafraid to face death on a daily basis!" Indeed, he was so in fear of his life, he was getting jiggy as if his last night on earth:
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1989-10-11-mn-354-story.html
In the meantime, we know that Trump was shot, and had at least two or three other attempts as well as conspirators planning attempts as well. Yet he also continues to make public appearances. And given how we know how much people of your tribe take pleasure in the thought of him being offed, he too is at risk to at least the same degree as was King. The difference however is that Trump works on behalf of all Americans and can arguably be said to have done more for the black race than did King. King didn't even have the ear of all black people! Many opposed his efforts for a variety of reasons, including the fact that many were insulted by what he "preached".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tv5D1-GuGXc
You'll note, Dan, if you actually take the time to watch the short video, that another prominent and ACTUAL Christian leader of the black community, one Rev. Joseph H. Jackson, did something quite similar to the work of Clarence and Florence Jordan, without the aid of a communist like Dorothy Day. (I would insist they would have gotten on just fine without her.)
And that's another thing one must keep in mind when throwing around labels life "hero". To whom are such people heroes and for what reasons? I contend that no one who promotes communist/marxist/socialist/liberation theology is promoting something beneficial for anyone. Trump and Reagan and Kirk took bullets for promoting American values, including true Christian values as well. Those values are honorable. Leftist values are not.
Danny boy, you just want to make up your own definitions as to what a hero is. Just like you make up your own definition for marriage, and man and woman, et al.
I wouldn't bother with authors Dan reads. First, because I rarely waste time with novels; second, because if he reads them they have to be LEFTISTs in ideology.
Not quite the same, but sure. Carter engaged in a heroic act.
Not the same as your other idols, but that probably doesn't matter.
As Dan has never even hinted that he'd read any of the materials I compiled in a post a few years ago, and has flat out said that he won't read, watch, or listen to anything I suggest, I see no reason to take his demands that I read his idols work seriously. It's just more of Dan's one way/double standard.
No, I'm not "suggesting" that, I am stating as a fact that I (along with my wife) own and "farm" more than one section of farmland.
As this farmland has been passed from family member to family member for over 100 years, and is still productive today, I see no reason to believe that anything is unsustainable.
However, I see exactly what you've done here. You said "Ask an American farmer. Learn about the struggles, the real-world struggles and threats faced by small-scale farmers." as if no one here had any connection with American Farmers. You presumed that you and you idol had some sort of secret insider knowledge that no one in the thread possessed. I didn't need to ask anyone, because I am one you freaking idiot. I grew up surrounded by farmers, spent plenty of time on farms, and (beside myself/wife) have multiple farmers in my family.
Once your gambit failed, you moved the goalposts by making unfounded assumptions and painting me as somehow an "agribusiness land baron". Nice unfounded slander and steaming pile of bullshit.
This is what happens when you make assumptions and choose gracelessness and BS to cover your false assumption.
I'll be waiting for your apology (probably for ever).
This may be informative... Who DO you fellas consider to be heroes? Set aside Jesus, God and Zeus for a minute... what mortals do you consider to be heroes?
Dan
As Art noted, you haven't done what you were asked to do. You've taken an excerpt from one speech (which seems a bit hyperbolic) and somehow magically transformed that into something entirely different.
I'll give you the grace and acknowledge that you probably haven't read or remembered what I've written here, so I'll remind you that I've acknowledged there was a potential threat to King after Medgar Evers was murdered. That reality doesn't translate into daily, intentionally, walking into situations where there was a significant chance of death or injury.
Based on the snippet of the speech you quote, I suspect King believed that one way or another that the end goal of his movement might not be realized until after his death (natural or otherwise). Which isn't the same thing as intentionally entering a situation where death or injury is imminent.
I never said it was a contest. I'm suggesting that dealing with a vague and nonspecific caution about a potential threat is not the same as Jesus intentionally choosing to submit Himself to the horrific torture and death He endured. But whatever. If you want to put King on some level as being equal to Jesus, feel free.
No kicking, no goads. Just arguing with an idiot who can't distinguish between people disagreeing with his beatification and idolatry of his idols and attacking/denigrating those idols. Chill out, it's OK to disagree.
By your definition, sure. But it's all subjective, innit?
Again, no one but you is arguing that their definition of hero should absolutely be accepted by anyone else.
I just have to acknowledge how well Dan has done this. He's decided that he and his idol get to determine who is or is not a "farmer" and to unilaterally decide which farmers are "good" and which are "evil oppressors".
He bitches about individual definitions of hero, but insists on defining farmer.
"Why NOT just allow that, of course, Day was a giving person who selflessly poured out her life to help the poor and oppressed, thus, making her life's work, by normal standards, heroic... period? And the same for King?"
Not exactly sure...specifically...how her "help" was actually helpful. That's not to say that her desire to help, assuming it was sincere, is worthless. But there's a big difference between passing out towels in a downpour versus passing out umbrellas, if the goal is helping people stay dry. Both actions work toward that goal. One does it far better than the other.
I suspect also that you find it "heroic" that she "poured out her life" (OH! how much more heroic it sounds to describe it that way!) to help the poor without enriching herself at the same time. But it isn't. She could've helped the poor by starting a thriving business and hiring poor people who would in turn have more money to save and invest which creates wealth for more people. I just saw a great meme:
https://x.com/RobertMSterling/status/2104423535665951053
...which provides examples of how people who have created great wealth have done so by providing for the general public, and in doing so have employed thousands and thousands of people. Are their efforts less "heroic" because their focus wasn't on lifting people up economically despite lifting up so many? Those efforts quite often include great personal sacrifice in time, money and effort, often without pay in the start up period. Are heroes required to be as poor and destitute as those the "heroic" seek to help? Does it not matter the quantity of people helped and the quality of the outcomes of that help?
And what did Day to personally which wasn't more than giving a fish rather than teaching one to fish? She didn't found the community to which she gave her time. Jordan did, and likely would've done as much good without Day as he did with her, to whatever extent her help added to it. I think it's clear that in her case, the fact that she didn't seek a comfortable living was what makes her a hero in your mind, more than the work she did. But if the point is to help those in need, I'll take an entrepreneur any day. We need volunteers, but the point is more than just getting the poor through another day.
As to King? Did you watch the video I posted, or do you simply prefer the myth over reality?
I’ve mentioned quite a few examples, must I repeat them?
I've mentioned two in particular myself, along with a clear reference to Medal of Honor recipients. I've also made mention of LEOs and firefighters who run to life threatening trouble to protect lives.
So, cowboys, cops and toy soldiers. Got it. [Rolls eyes].
But, you DO understand that other people don't limit "heroes" to big strong sweaty muscle men, right? That THE DEFINITION of heroes is not limited to that, right?
And do you have the grace and wherewithal to allow that other people in good faith DO consider folks like King and Day to be actual heroes and that's okay with you? Or must everyone comply with your limited definition? (Here's a secret, li'l cowboy: we won't bow to your tin gun demands, even if you huff and puff and get all pouty.)
Marshal, in a bit of pouty, privileged li'l boy ignorance said of actual heroes King and Day:
Not exactly sure...specifically...how her "help" was actually helpful.
They worked to get WOMEN and BLACK PEOPLE THE RIGHT TO VOTE and other basic liberties. That is, they worked at great risk and deprivation to secure human rights for people who didn't have them.
HOW in the name of all that is holy, decent and not pathetic is that NOT helping?
What have YOU done to save/secure human rights for millions of people?
Good GOD, have mercy!
Art, this is what happens when Dan doesn’t read the comments or forgets what he read.
But, I’d add ToussInt and those who followed him to my list. It’s pretty heroic to battle the three preeminent powers of the time and win.
Two thoughts, most heroes have no interest in being labeled as heroes so anyone who does is questionable in my eyes (which is why McArthur wouldn’t make my list despite obvious heroism). I’d add that doing something heroic may not always make someone a hero.
C
You asked, we answered, with more than the “tin soldiers and cowboys” you mock.
Let’s ignore for a moment that those you mockingly dismiss prevented the victory of actual NAZIs and of a racist/expansionist/vile Japanese empire so you could worship your little idols is peace.
You keep confusing us with you. We don’t want to stop you from idolizing and beatifying your little idols, we just want you to stop imposing your idols on others. You worship, beatify, idolize, and fanboy/girl whoever you want.
But stop trying to tell us who are heroes are, what criteria we must use for our heroes, and that we must affirm yours.
C
Never mentioned cowboys. I don't know how far up your ass you had to cram your arm to pull out that turd.
LEOs are often called to go where you wouldn't dream of walking in the middle of the night. Domestic disturbance calls often present the most problems, though chasing thugs can put their lives at risk as well, not to mention collateral damage from those jackwagons like Dan would defend against the cop who had to choose between the life of the thug or his own. And that, too, makes them heroes, knowing that it's likely their very lives, livelihoods and liberty is at risk due to asshole progressives pretending they know better than the cop compelled to shoot a scumbag. Race-hustlers seek the heads of cops forced to shoot a black punk and progressives throw the cops under the bus. It takes a hero to put his sworn duty first under such egregious nonsense.
Tin soldiers??? You think a femboy like you has any right to disparage Medal of Honor recipients?? Did you ever take the time to review what these actual heroes did which merited that honor, so many of the posthumously? You're a real piece of shit.
Yeah..."HERO" beings there and everything less fails to merit the word in my eyes.
Worse than that...worse than a twinkie like you daring to condescend to their sacrifice... is how you think it right and just to apply the term to those who don't measure up in terms of personal risk compared to such people, but more importantly, in terms of what your "heroes" championed. I prefer my heroes to support American principles and true Christian notions of righteousness, not marxist/socialist/progressive crap.
"They worked" doesn't mean they did anything specifically meaningful, in the sense that it wouldn't have gotten done without them. Day, for instance, avoided taking a formal leadership position and preferred being one of the crowd, so to speak. Her writing may have done more than her actual physical actions. Joining the crowd doesn't make her a hero even by your standards, as such a position would mitigate her personal effectiveness
It's pretty cheap to suppose that I need to have marched for socialist causes to merit your admiration. Looking at women of today, I don't see that the 19th Amendment was all that great an idea. This again points to use of the term "hero" for those who champion bad ideas. Those you unjustly honor with that title promote detrimental ideologies. They're undeserving.
But don't think this is merely a partisan thing. I think JFK's actions after his PT boat was rammed by a Japanese destroyer was indeed heroic and politics and ideology played no role in those actions. His men were in the water and he led them to safety. If the roles were reversed, and it was the Jap crew swimming for safety, the Jap skipper would have been the hero for the same reasons. But if he died in action on behalf of the Emperor, I would not consider him a hero regardless of the circumstances of his death. It's a nuanced thing. You wouldn't understand.
Lots of people work, yet accomplish very little. So mere work shouldn’t be criteria for hero status IMO. But in the ASPL world where intention matters more than results I can see how they’d idolize those who work with good intentions.
Look I don't think y'all are getting it. Of course saving a fellow soldier is a heroic act. (As long as one is not harming others, that is.) It's a heroic act as far as it goes, a one-time kind of thing.
On the other hand firefighters, for instance, who constantly put their lives on the line as a choice, knowingly going into dangerous situations over and over, that's also heroic. It's a heroic lifestyle.
At the same time our civil rights heroes, all of them, the ones who fought for women's rights, for the rights of Black people, for the rights of disabled people, the ones who did so knowing they would be arrested and beaten and maligned and sometimes killed, they are heroes too for living heroic lifestyles, selflessly pouring out their lives for others. Why is that so hard for y'all to acknowledge?
Also, this:
"Looking at women of today, I don't see that the 19th Amendment was all that great an idea."
Craig, will you denounce this pigish, sexist, misogynistic bullshit for what it is? Day's work was precisely heroic because of cowardly pigs like Marshall. He just doesn't give a damn for human rights for other people if he doesn't think they're worth it. That is why her work was so important and so heroic and that is why you are a coward and just a dim-witted pig. With apologies to pigs.
Dan
I'm trying to do better when I comment from my phone.
To be fair and accurate, the Hebrews 11 is literally, specifically, about those who showed great faith in YHWH and the word "hero(s)" appears nowhere in the chapter. However, what does appear in the chapter is the following.
"33 who through faith conquered kingdoms, administered justice, and gained what was promised; who shut the mouths of lions, 34 quenched the fury of the flames, and escaped the edge of the sword; whose weakness was turned to strength; and who became powerful in battle and routed foreign armies. 35 Women received back their dead, raised to life again. There were others who were tortured, refusing to be released so that they might gain an even better resurrection. 36 Some faced jeers and flogging, and even chains and imprisonment. 37 They were put to death by stoning;[e] they were sawed in two; they were killed by the sword. They went about in sheepskins and goatskins, destitute, persecuted and mistreated— 38 the world was not worthy of them. They wandered in deserts and mountains, living in caves and in holes in the ground."
At least some of them were the "tin soldiers" and "cowboys" you so scorn.
Of course, you'd brush all that off as myth anyway.
An excellent point as always. To beatify any human as Dan is doing, it would seem necessary to balance the "good" they do/did with that in their life which was not "good". As you note, the unsavory side of MLK has been suppressed for decades. But should be considered when labeling him a "hero".
It could be argued that King accomplished more in death than he ever could of had he lived. Had he not been killed, it's possible (even likely) that his unsavory side would have been revealed and that his private behavior would have set the civil rights movement back. It's possible (even likely) that his death actually made it noble to protect his image from the reality of his behavior. Yet his private behavior seems to be quite the contrast to his public image and his "christianity" seems to have been quite different from that of his namesake.
Yeah, it's speculation, but not too far out there.
I think you make an interesting point about it being partisan. I noted several political "heroes" of mine that were democrats because I make these judgements based on actions not politics. It could be argued that Ben Carson's rise from abject poverty to becoming one of the best in the world in his field is heroic, yet Dan was vehemently critical of him when he ran for president.
Maybe the problem is that Dan wants to label people as "heroes" because they did some things that he considers heroic. Maybe this should be about identifying people's actions as heroic, rather than labeling them "heroes". Or maybe we need another term for people who inspire us or who have done or said things that inspire us.
I think, as I believe you said earlier, that "hero" is a term that has been debased over time and is applied in ways that it probably should not be.
Is it perfectly fine for Dan to idolize, respect, be inspired by, or be a fan of these people, absolutely yes. Dan should be free to choose who he's inspired by no matter what other people think. Do we have to agree, of course not, and we can provide reasons why we disagree. But if Dan wants to idolize someone with an unsavory sexual history because of other things they did, that's his call. If the ASPL wants to idolize Margaret Sanger, give awards named after her, and use hundreds of millions of tax dollars to fund the organization that she founded to exterminate black people they certainly can ignore history and reality to do so. But it's then incumbent on others to remind people of that racist reality that they support.
No, I won't denounce someone for having an opinion that you don't like simply to gain your momentary favor. Your admiration or agreement means so little to me that I see no reason to compromise my commitment to allowing anyone to express their opinions. Your slanderous BS, only makes your overreaction more amusing. It's simply funny to see you overreact, blow something completely out of proportion, and provide such an over the top reaction.
But your embrace of grace for those who dare to disagree with you is, as always, exemplary. Really, calling people "pigs" is clearly a great example of your gracelessness.
"Why is that so hard for y'all to acknowledge?"
Why is what so hard to acknowledge?
That you find these people inspirational and worthy of idolization and beatification in your opinion? No one argues that you shouldn't have or express your opinions on your idols.
That their actions, worthy as they might have been or are, might not meet some people's threshold for "hero" or "saint"? Again, no one is suggesting that you can have your feelings about these people, only that you aren't in a position to dictate what others believe about them.
But, you do you.
I just have to note how quickly Dan ran away from his "farmer" bullshit. It's hard for him to admit when he's wrong or when he's slandered someone, so he just ignores it and pretends that it didn't happen. Just like he ignores his promises.
Hell, just watch a few body cam videos and it quickly becomes obvious that any traffic stop is a potentially dangerous situation. That body cams have had the exact opposite affect than what the ASPL thought when they demanded this is hilarious enough. What's more hilarious is ASPL now whining about body cameras showing the reality of policing and making their pets look bad.
When you live in a safe little enclave where you only associate with people who agree with you, it's much easier to minimize and denigrate the actions of those who put themselves in harm's way to protect the freedom if folx like Dan.
https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/some-reasons-why-we-oppose-votes-for-women/
Such piggish women opposing women's suffrage! They numbered in the hundreds of thousands!
The Lindsay Clancy case has exposed the problem of women as voters, but more so, has exposed how oppressive to children they can be. The problem with repealing the 19th is the loss of the conservative women vote, not the loss of the female vote in general. Note also how many interfering with the righteous enforcement of immigration laws are leftist women, acting on pure emotion with no regard to the logic of the policy, devoid of thought to the many women (citizen or not) victimized by illegal aliens. Not the poor reasoning of so many women on the judicial benches who have failed to protect the citizenry by protecting thugs instead.
But again, conservative women have not inflicted such suffering on America, but as the above link suggests, they still would have influence without having the vote.
I do have to apologize for one thing, however: in expressing my belief that the 19th might better serve the nation by its repeal, I left out adding my belief that effeminate marxist twinks like Dan should be denied as well.
Art, I understand the sentiment, have seen the data, watched the Clancy nightmare, and absolutely support your having this opinion. I also think that the likelihood of anything happening is tiny. But you unfortunately know how Dan'll paint this and the slander and vitriol headed your way.
I guess by Dan's measure that would make me "heroic"!
I totally agree that the foolish are free to laud as heroes upon whomever they stupidly choose to bestow that honor. I am likewise free to point out just how foolish Dan is in doing so.
The most foolish aspect of Dan's labeling is his penchant for exaggeration in his praise for his marxist "heroes", so it's no surprise he'd abuse the word for that effect. I most certainly reject any description of "heroism" by Dan's idols due to both his own dishonesty and his eager, useful idiot willingness to buy into inaccurate descriptions he reads. Here's an example:
https://nuclearheritage.com/jimmy-carter-and-the-nrx-accident-how-legends-grow/
What we've seen yet again in Dan's two lists is his standard practice of inflating the character of those he worships, while ignoring the often better character or track record of those he chooses out of his grace-embracing hatefulness to demonize. This is clearly compelled by his obvious sin nature he pretends he was born without.
Dan had finished with the following, which indicts him more than he understands:
“You will be known by the heroes you keep.”
Wow. Y'all are more delusional and dangerous than I'd guessed. Marshal for openly promoting the overt oppression of women and Craig for remaining cowardly silent.
You all are PRECISELY why Day and King are heroes and you all, on the other hand, cowardly oppressors.
Yes, that would seem to apply to him.
By Dan's measure that would make you an "evil, NAZI, supporter of rapists, racist, and lover of genocide" or some such nonsense. But as always, Dan holds himself to different standards than us.
No, Dan. Supporting abortion "rights" is oppression. Preventing the harm to the nation the ratification of the 19th imposed by repealing it isn't oppression at all. Did you even read my link which spoke to the reasons so many women opposed the Amendment at the time it was debated? Again, tens of thousands of women opposed the Amendment. Explain to me how they were all "cowardly oppressors". I'm sure it will be hilarious.
Both King and Day were marxists. Marxists aren't heroes except to marxists and stupid people.
Some apt wisdom from the pages of the Bible, pertinent to the oppressors and abusers of humanity:
“Make them bear their guilt, O God; let them fall by their own counsels.”
“The enemy’s mischief returns upon their own heads, and on their own heads their violence descends.”
“Let them be caught in the schemes they have devised.”
“Break the arm of the evildoers; seek out their wickedness until you find none.”
“Let the wicked be put to shame; let them go dumbfounded to Sheol.”
“Let ruin come on them unawares; let the net that they hid ensnare them.”
“The wicked’s sword shall enter their own heart; and their bows shall be broken,”
“I know that the Lord maintains the cause of the needy, and executes justice for the poor.”
"The LORD brings this charge against the elders and leaders of God's people: 'You have devoured the vineyard; the plunder of the poor is in your houses. What do you mean by crushing My people and grinding the faces of the poor?' declares the Lord GOD of Hosts."
"Then God will say to those without compassion, 'Depart from Me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels'"
"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier provisions of the Law: justice and mercy and faithfulness... you blind guides!"
"As we have said before, I now say again: If anyone preaches to you a gospel contrary to what you received, a curse be on him! "
etc.
Dan needs bogeymen to hate and fear, apparently we are the bogeymen.
The ironic hypocrisy of this buffoon is beyond description. Here's a guy who advocates for "abortion rights" pretending to care about "oppressors and abusers of humanity"! The absolute gall of this guy knows no equal! He supports open borders with all the dangers that entailed the welcome of actual oppressors and the vilest of abusers into our country to rob women of their "human right" to live unmolested in their own country! He stands for the "self-determination" of these and other miscreants, such as the disordered "trans" people, particularly men who violate the privacy of female facilities to appease their disorder, as well as to allow actual rapists and abusers that access to assault females. Then, because he's a vile fraud and lowest of the low, dares cite Scripture in his "grace embracing" accusations against us for being what he is. Amazing!
Marshal...
"Here's a guy who advocates for "abortion rights" pretending to care about "oppressors and abusers of humanity"!"
1. Not so much advocating for abortion rights as I am saying that when it comes to the health decisions of pregnant women, the pregnant women should be the ones to decide, not Marshal, not their rapists, not some creepy congressman. Call me crazy but it's a human rights issue. You don't get to decide medical decisions for other people.
2. And speaking of human rights you seriously have no moral or rational grounding to complain about this when you can't even advocate for the rights of women who are actually already born to have freedom from oppression and the freedom to vote. You have no moral or rational grounds on which to stand. Indeed it seems like just another case of you wanting to decide for women what's best for them. To hell with your oppression. You're on the wrong side of decency and morality and the biblical witness.
3. And speaking of the biblical witness, yes of course, I am supportive of welcoming immigrants. I'm quite Christ-ian in that way. Of course in the pages of the Bible, there is almost no other group that God universally commands us to watch out for, to welcome in, to support, and ally with. I try to take Jesus seriously that way. On the other hand Jesus never fearmongered and attacked and demonized immigrants the way you do. You're not only on the wrong side of history and decency and moral and rational integrity but you're on the wrong side of biblical teachings.
Dan
1. So, you are for the right of some women to choose to end the lives of other women simply for their inconvenience at any point up to the moment of birth. How non oppressive.
2. Well this is a non sequitur and totally irrelevant. Especially from someone who (along with his political tribe) can't even define what a woman is.
3. The problem with this very surface level reading of Scripture as a means to support a political worldview is that it ignores how "immigrants" were to assimilate into Hebrew life, customs, and to follow YHWH's law. Unlike today. The absolute hubris and arrogance to announce that Dan is absolutely on the "right side" of things when he hasn't demonstrated that any of his hunches are objectively right (to be fair they're only opinions) is astounding.
1. Prevaricate? Equivocate? I'm going with cheap lying. Your double-talk and weasel words simply and clearly indicate advocacy of abortion under the guise of concern for a woman's "health decisions"...as if pregnancy is a tumor. I get to acknowledge abortion for what it is...the murder of innocents...and lobby to have it outlawed as the abusive, oppressive crime against humanity it is. A real Christian would promote and encourage sexual restraint rather than this cheap and evil abdication of responsibility for the consequences of their actions.
2. Having no vote...such as do the unborn...doesn't equate to oppression or a lack of freedom. That's just how you falsely frame the position compelled by the observed behavior and actions of women these days. If I could narrow the focus to women like you, that would be even better, because conservative women would still have a voice at the voting booth.
But women...morons like you or conservatives with brains...still have a voice regardless. The lack of a vote doesn't equate to a lack of influence. The trove of letters between John and Abigail Adams demonstrates female influence on a man of stature. That would surely continue, and no doubt in your home, the unfortunate Mrs. Trabue would surely remain
the dominant force.
My position isn't a matter of what's best for women, though as it would likely be best for the nation, that would collaterally benefit women as well. Your kind marching about wearing pink pussy hats, supporting Lindsay Clancy, believing shrews like Kamala Harris and Hillary Clinton are in any way deserving of a vote for president, ruling the most violent should be released into the public, attacking LEOs like ICE officers during the performance of their sworn duties, indicates a real problem for the nation with so many brain dead "progressive" women having a vote. They've been a real and dangerous source of true oppression and indecency.
Scripture supports the notion that men and women are equal. It does NOT support the notion they have equal roles in society.
3. You exploit Scripture and pervert it to support your moronic open borders position. You're not "Christ-ian" at all. Indeed, you're just the opposite. Obeying existing laws is rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar's. You're a heretic and a reprobate.
Art's 1. Absolutely, Dan doesn't have the courage to simply voice the end results of his support of abortion.
2. Dan doesn't give a shit (at least specifically and publicly) for the dozens of countries where women can't vote, and even less of a shit for the countries where no one can vote, because he's got conspiracy theories to get his panties in a wad about.
Art's 3. Dan absolutely takes snippets of Scripture out of context to support 21st century liberal political positions as if Jesus is a 21st century liberal.
The laws for immigration require certain thing to arrive legally. If one is disobeying the law by coming here illegally, they they are violating Christian teachings--the teachings which say to obey the law of the land as long as it doesn't conflict with God's law (as in Nazi law to turn in Jews for execution).
Exactly right, and that to which I referred in mentioning "render unto Caesar". It's not just taxes. It's honoring the law. One honors the law of the land (Caesar), and also one honors the Law of God. To the extent Dan does either, it's selectively based on HIS belief system, which he injects into both sets of Laws.
We ought not obey unjust, harmful laws. Do you all use the Bible for anything other than political toilet paper?
‘When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God..."
~Leviticus 19
“Cursed is anyone who withholds justice from the foreigner, the fatherless or the widow.”
~Deuteronomy 27
“You shall not oppress a stranger nor torment him, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt. You shall not oppress any widow or orphan.
If you oppress him at all, and if he does cry out to Me, I will assuredly hear his cry; and My anger will be kindled, and I will kill you with the sword!"
~Exodus 22
“Then I will come near to you for judgment; and I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers, the adulterers, against those who swear falsely, those who oppress the wage earner in his wages or the widow or the orphan, and those who turn away the foreigner from justice..."
~Malachi 3
"Behold, this was the sin of your sister Sodom:
she and her daughters had arrogance, plenty of food, and carefree ease, but she did not help the poor and needy." [which, of course, includes the needy foreigners and immigrants, of course, because, of course it does - you all take all the wrong parts of the Bible literally and ignore the important truths that are true regardless of a biblical verse!]
~Ezekiel 16
Etc, etc, etc.
ARGH-- I see typos dues to allowing the computer to put down what it thought I wanted to say. And I forget to check it! The worst there is "they they" instead of "then they"
No worries. Your intention was clear.
"We ought not obey unjust, harmful laws"
Our immigration laws are neither unjust nor harmful, and you're a liar to say they are.
"Do you all use the Bible for anything other than political toilet paper?"
You're a hypocrite, as you're doing exactly that in misapplying the verses which follow to defend illegal aliens who ignore our immigration laws for personal gain.
"– “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.” (Romans 13:1)
– “Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good.” (1 Peter 2:13-14)
– “Remind them to be submissive to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good work.” (Titus 3:1)"
You ignore verses like these and misapply those you provided to rationalize illegality. This illegality includes the profits of those criminals who facilitate the hordes seeking entry without regard for our established just procedures for doing so. Thus, you support not just the criminality of the illegal aliens...and yes, "misdemeanor" status of the crime doesn't mitigate the fact that committing the crime means the perpetrator is a criminal...but the scum who exploit them in so many ways to "help" them break our laws, i.e., the cartel thugs.
The following is a great analysis of this issue, and in particular separates truth from the Scriptural corruption in which you engage to rationalize law breaking so as to posture as "Christian".
(Oops!)
https://www.theamericanview.com/post/what-the-bible-says-about-illegal-immigration
By the way, this is not to allow you to further commandeer this thread to a tangent of your preference. The point of this post is to highlight your penchant for canonizing your idols as if they are actual saints while demonizing those you prefer to regard as evil and corrupt despite their having done so much good, and in the case of some, no more immoral than your own (such as your failed attempts to contrast Trump against King, who I would say is exactly the level of predator you pretend is the case with Trump).
Now, you seek to contrast yourself against us by using this issue of illegal aliens and the just laws they break as if it somehow makes you more "Christian" or compassionate. It does not. Quite the opposite. Defending your idols requires the same corruption of Scripture as you're employing in the issue of immigration. You have no argument and you have no plan except to allow sinful lawbreaking to continue while rationalizing it blasphemously as being in line with the teachings of Scripture.
You need to look a little deeper regarding the level of assimilation required of the foreigners under Hebrew/YHWH’s law.
Check out this exchange between me and the host of The Blog of Lies and Perversions:
-----------------
Marshal...
"Then why are we imperfect? What explanation can you give and what evidence supports it?"
This is, at least, a reasonable question. Unfortunately for you it also has a reasonable answer.
The answer is: Why would we be perfect? Why wouldn't we, when we are born, just live forever and never make mistakes? Why wouldn't the sun shine 24 hours a day and the rain only fall when we're asleep? Why wouldn't our pets just live forever and not bring us sadness when they die? It is an imperfect world. Just observably. Why would we expect it to be anything else?
The answer is, it's just the way it is. Why can birds fly and why don't we have wings so we can fly too? It's just the way it is. Why can't we swim underwater for hours on end like a fish? It's just the way it is. Why should it be another way?
The question is not, "Why isn't it a perfect world?" It just is. The right question is, "What can we do to make the world as good as possible?" The answer to that is:
- Live in the ways that Jesus taught.
- Live in the ways of truth and love and grace.
- Welcome those who need welcoming.
- Help those who are hurting.
- Love the unloved.
- Lend aid to those who need aid.
The question isn't the rather childish wish-fulfillment/Santa Claus fantasy of, "Why is this world not perfect and why don't we magically get everything we want?" The question is, "What are we doing to make it a better world?"
Where am I wrong?
Also, You're the one who leans more towards the theory that God created the world that God wanted it to be and this is all part of His plan, just as it is, rapes, genocids and all. So wouldn't you ask yourself: why would a perfectly loving God create such a world with THE PLAN to have such imperfections?
Dan
October 4, 2026 at 12:50 PM
_______________________
Marshal Art
"Imperfection is just the reality of being human..."
That's certainly the case now, and I would argue since the Fall of Man. There's no Biblical description of imperfection being caused by evil and it's not something with which every theologian agrees. The Bible doesn't describe Adam as having been created "perfect", but only "good".
But your quote is akin to saying "it's just the way it is that my car is rusty". That only speaks to the condition of the car...and by extension, mankind...as it now exists.
"The answer is: Why would we be perfect?"
That's not an answer. It's a question which in no way implies an answer, nor is it in any way a substitute for an actual answer.
"It is an imperfect world. Just observably. Why would we expect it to be anything else?"
Also evasive. The question is not that it is. The question is why is it? My answer is, "because of evil/sin". YOUR answer is to ask a question, meaning you have no answer and expect asking your questions provides something of substance when asking it provides nothing at all.
"It's just the way it is" is not an answer to the question of why "it" is as it is.
"The question is not, "Why isn't it a perfect world?""
You're right. The question is, "Then why are we imperfect? What explanation can you give and what evidence supports it?" Avoiding an answer in order to instead launch into another diatribe. So you're wrong in choosing to avoid providing an actual answer in favor of changing the subject.
"So wouldn't you ask yourself: why would a perfectly loving God create such a world with THE PLAN to have such imperfections?"
No, because I asked the question in response to your insistence that I prove my position that imperfection is connected to evil/sin. I'm not at all confused about why God created all things.
As to my question, you'd have been much better served to have simply said, "I dunno." And since you can't answer that question, I do not feel obliged to provide evidence for my position on the connection of human imperfection and evil/sin.
October 5, 2026 at 1:00 PM
-------------------------------------------
Dan Trabue
Marshal, some things just ARE. We only have one sun in our solar system. It's not "imperfect" or something to blame... it's just the reality of it. We don't have to have a reason.
I asked the question in response to your insistence that I prove my position that imperfection is connected to evil/sin.
Something you have not proven. You had ONE task and you ran away and doubled down on the abuse.
You are not the decider of how things are and the arrogance to act as if you are is precisely the sin of the Pharisees and not far from the sin of your sister, Sodom.
October 5, 2026 at 3:37 PM
____________________________
Marshal Art
I don't run away. I met your demand with a logical rejoinder, from which YOU'VE run away by your cheap and cowardly "that's just the way it is".
"The way it is" is a given. I've asked how you account for what is.
So here you are hiding behind the insistence "some things just are" and then hypocritically disparaging me for having the arrogance for deciding how things are! That's rich! How am I a Pharisee when you're not? And what does any of this have to do with your homosexuality?
Dan continues to prove that he has no real idea of the Christian faith, of its actual theology, what the Bible really says, etc.
What I find bizarre about Dan's "imperfect" claim is that the end result is functionally identical to those who acknowledge a Sin Nature. In terms of behavior and action, there's no difference. It's just a semantic game to explain Sin and it's effects in a way that allows Dan to insist on humans being born with inherent "goodness" and "sinlessness", while simultaneously acknowledging that we're born "imperfect" and that our imperfection means that we are inexorably drawn to sin.
What Dan's position also ignores is the perfection of Creation initially. Without a perfect Creator, a perfect Creation, and the introduction of Sin into Creation, you need an explanation for the state of things that doesn't acknowledge the Creation narrative.
In Dan's world it seems he posits a perfect God who created an imperfect world and imperfect humans, while then denying that the same God put in motion a plan whereby those imperfect humans could (at least some) be reconciled to the perfect God.
That's not an answer, let alone a "reasonable answer". It's vacuous speculation and rhetorical questions.
The answer is to be works focused "Live i the ways...", and hope that through human effort that the temporal world might become a "better place".
What Dan's philosophy seems to ignore is that evil exists in the world and that sometimes the eradication of evil people is necessary, and that people like him are enabling those who are bent on introducing evil and oppression to the countries that intend to conquer.
The childish "Where am I wrong?" BS is one of Dan's affectations which allows him to assume that he's right, without having to prove his assumptions are True. While simultaneously putting an an unreasonable burden of proof on those who disagree with him because he presumes that he is the final arbiter of Truth.
The blatant misrepresentations in the last two sentences blow me away.
As long as you are a Trump supporter, you lose the argument by definition. You give up any moral grounds to criticize anyone or anything. There is simply no limit to all the excuses that you make up to justify your lunacy. Marshal Fart, you are not worth arguing with. All you need to hear for your every statement is shut the fuck up on repeat.
Indeed. It's as if Dan has never "seriously and prayerfully" studied Scripture!
This sounds like feo, who isn't above submitting anonymous posts in order to have his low intellect opinion posted. Regardless, this is indeed a low intellect opinion.
As an American duty bound by both my citizenship as well as my Christian faith to act to move our nation in a more positive direction (hopefully closer to God as much as one can expect to do so), I am not without moral grounds to criticize everyone and everything simply because I continue to choose the far lesser of two evils...who happens to be Trump. I would be remiss to sit back and vote for no one simply because there are none who are as Apostles of Christ. The opposition is moving swiftly further toward that which is anathema to the United States' founding principles. Trump is slowing that trend, which only incites the buffoons like this "anonymous" person to disparage him even more.
But like Dan at his Blog of Lies and Perversions, feo at his cesspool Blog of Fallacious Self-Aggrandizement and Self-Satisfaction, all the leftists have is to insist those like me aren't worth debating and that those like me need to STFU, because they have no argument of any kind for or against my positions or theirs. The "progressive", socialist left are stupid people who are the cause of all suffering in this nation.
Craig rambled, irrationally...
"What Dan's position also ignores is the perfection of Creation initially. Without a perfect Creator, a perfect Creation, and the introduction of Sin into Creation, you need an explanation for the state of things that doesn't acknowledge the Creation narrative."
You appear to be erring, first of all, by treating the biblical creation story as a scientific treatise and not the myth that it is. Clearly. That's your first problem.
Your second problem is the biblical text itself does not call creation or the Garden of Eden "perfect" at any point. Here again y'all are reading something into texts on the strength of your presuppositions and human traditions that you all hold that just aren't held up by facts or data or reality. Or the Bible.
Do you recognize those problems?
Instead in the myth-telling of the creation story, God declares the earth and humans as very good. And indeed we can rationally observe this to be a reasonable conclusion. This is a very good world in many ways. The world itself and nature itself make no demands of perfection. Rationally speaking an omnipotent Likewise, a loving God would not demand perfection of imperfect mortal humans because that's crazy and cruel.
And likewise the Bible does not insist that God demands perfection of humans or else He's going to burn them good. It's not biblical, it's not rational, it's not moral, and it's not just. You all are building a human religion based on human traditions that are just cruel, irrational, and lacking in grace. I don't think you understand that, in your human imperfections.
More...
Dan
Craig...
[Without all that evil voodoo stuff and...] "Sin into Creation, you need an explanation for the state of things that doesn't acknowledge the Creation narrative."
..?? Why? Says who? What do you mean..?
WHY do we need an " explanation for the state of things..." why do we need a cause of anything about an imperfect world beyond noting the reality, it's an imperfect world.
Sometimes rain falls on the just and the unjust. Sometimes crops die. Sometimes sheep wander off. Sometimes tornadoes come and people die. Sometimes humans make bad decisions and hurt feelings. Sometimes humans make very bad decisions and cause great harm to people, (like this current administration, for instance, with all their murders and assaults and kidnappings and grotesquely unjust behaviors and policies.)
Are you positing that we need a boogeyman or to be able to say "the devil made me do it!?" You know that Flip Wilson was a comedian and not a religious or moral scholar, right?
Why must there be an explanation? Do we need an explanation to tell us why the zebra has stripes or snakes crawl on their belly? Some things just are. You're making no sense.
Dan
Wow, Dan can really spew the heresty. Genesis is a myth!?!?!
Craig opined with zero rational or fact-based support:
is that the end result is functionally identical to those who acknowledge a Sin Nature.
Of course, that's not the case.
This mythical "sin nature" theory that you all posit based on bad readings of biblical texts and reading INTO the text something that isn't there is part of a larger set of weird, graceless, immoral theories. It's a stepping stone in your bloodthirsty god theories.
It goes like this:
1. Humanity - every single person including babies and fetuses - are infected with this mythical "sin nature."
2. Because of this "sin nature," we are "sinners" while we're even in a mother's womb. That fetus, and later, that baby is "utterly depraved" ("corrupting every faculty" because of the "sin nature" you theorize.
That's ghastly enough, grotesque and evil on the face of it! But continuing with this blasphemous human theory...
3. AND, on top of that, there is a "god" who is PERFECT and above all of humanity and can't put up with "sin" or "sin nature." To this insufferable "god," all sin (from the slightest slip to genocide) ALL of it "deserves" "eternal punishment" and not ONLY eternal punishment, but punishment in an "everlasting hell" which is akin to being burned alive forever!
4.It's because, these humans theorize, that this "sin nature" and eventually (or maybe not? maybe just that "sin nature" is enough to cause you to "deserve hell" and be "spiritually dead" - it depends upon the religionist you speak with) actual misdeeds and sins we actually commit because of this "sin nature," means we are somehow literally "spiritually dead," and only those who are "spiritually alive" can be (or are) saved from that eternal torture.
5. BUT, according to this line of theories and premises, it's not ALL horror show bad news and spooky, creepy graceless gods! There IS hope (for some small percentage of humanity - for MOST of humanity, it IS the horror story bad news and genocide). There ARE an "elect" chosen by this "god" to "receive" "spiritual life" and thus, the opportunity to repent and get "saved" from the horror show that awaits most of humanity.
Once again, how far this "elect" theory goes depends largely on the calvinist/religionist human and their particular subset of human theories.
6. But for the mythical "elect" who have "received spiritual life" and thereby, the capacity to BE saved, they CAN be saved! How, you may ask? Does this god actually love them and decide to forgive their sins out of love and basic decency to spare them eternal torment? Well, no, not directly. You see, this "god" (according to this set of human theories) can't or won't simply forgive people. For THIS "god," that sin (even sins as small as taking cookies from a cookie jar) and, apparently worse, that "sin nature" can ONLY be forgiven by shedding of literal (but also figurative?? Depending on the type of religionist you ask) blood... and not just ANY blood but special "holy blood" spilled by a perfect God-man willing to "pay" for the great villainy of this "sin nature" and any specific "sins..." You see, for this godling, the only way they're willing or able to provide forgiveness is NOT through love and grace, but a business transaction. Holy blood = "paid for" sin. Now, the theory goes, this godling is willing to do this little sin business transaction out of love... but again, NOT for the majority of humanity. Once again, for most of humanity, this line of theories is NOT good news at all. It's a horror show.
Which is why this simple little thread... this stepping stone in your human tradition's reasoning is NOT the same as just acknowledging, Oh, the world is not perfect, and that's okay, as far as it goes. For you all, it's literally a grand and terrifying horror show.
Thankfully, you all can't prove ANY of this because it's literally not provable and frankly and ironically, as irrational and evil as your mythical hell!
See?
Glenn:
Dan can really spew the heresty. Genesis is a myth!?!?!
It is literally written in a mythic style at a time in history where stories like this were routinely told as myths.
1. There is NOTHING heretical about taking the data into consideration and concluding, "Given what we know, I think the genre in Genesis 1 and 2 is more like a myth..." Just like you're reading it and concluding, "I think this is something like a literally recorded literal history..." Deciding what genre a text is written in is a starting point to understanding a given text.
People of good faith can disagree on a given text's genre type without it being called "heretical."
You're hyperventilating and phariseeing on a difference of opinion.
2. Nowhere in the text of the Bible do the various biblical authors insist, "One must consider Genesis 1 to be a literal history in order to be consistent with Jesus' teachings." NOWHERE.
3. Likewise, nowhere in Jesus' teaching does he insist that Genesis=literal history is an essential element of his teachings.
This heresy nonsense is nothing more than wild imaginings of a person with arrogant, self-aggrandizing Pharisaical tendencies.
Dan,
Genesis is only "mythical" to those on the LEFT. It is written as history. If you don't have an Adam and Eve, then how can Jesus refer to them as literal people when he says in Matthew 19:4-6 and Mark 10:6-9, "at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female,"or Romans 5:1214 when Paul notes the fall of Adam and the O.T. genealogies start with Adam, and 1 Cor 15:22 &45 note the connection to Adam and his sin. Timothy and Titus both refer to Adam as a literal man. It is heretical to deny ADAM existed because without him the whole point of the gospel is lost.
It's also heretical because everyone who mentions him in the Bible become liars if he is only a myth
Glenn, repeating the same pablum based upon his human traditions and personal opinions...
It is written as history. If you don't have an Adam and Eve, then how can Jesus refer to them as literal people when he says in Matthew 19:4-6 and Mark 10:6-9, "at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female,"
That certainly is AN OPINION, but it's not certain fact. It's not just "left" researchers who would call these stories more mythic in style, but that's an aside. WHY would Jesus reference Adam and Eve? You appear to think it's because Jesus was insisting upon a literal historic reading of the text, but that is simply not demanded by the text or by reason. I REFERENCE ADAM regularly, NOT because I consider him anything more than a character in a mythic story, but because that story is part of the cultural zeitgeist: It is a reference point. I might say, "Since the days of Adam and Eve, we have had people called "very good," for instance, but that doesn't mean I believe in Adam and Eve as historic realities. Why is it not a possibility that Jesus referred to them in the same way? As a reference point? NOT to "prove" marriage is between a man and a woman only NOR to say THAT is the definition, but just as a cultural reference point. Also, Jesus doesn't reference Adam/Eve, he just references the notion of God made them, male and female... the POINT of these comments from Jesus was a defense of marriage and the abuse of women in marriages at the time, where they could be summarily dismissed and thrown into poverty and ruin. In the context of Jesus' teachings and just basic common sense and good reasoning, THAT would be more of the point of the story, not Jesus saying, "and therefore, Adam/Eve were REAL people and their story is a literally accurate historic reference point!"
Again, you are certainly welcome to your personal human interpretation, but daring to disagree with the almighty Glenn does not make it "heresy." That's the arrogant Pharisee in you coming out, Glenn, and it's not a good rational adult look.
In other words, a literally historic Genesis Creation story is NOT a part of sound doctrine essential to Christian teachings.
You can tell by the way Jesus never suggested such a thing or, you know, common sense, basic reasoning and shit.
Do you all REALLY think not taking Genesis 1/2 as literal history is somehow "heresy..."? Marshal? Craig? Will no one speak for basic common sense or, you know, Christian basics and shit?
"You appear to be erring, first of all, by treating the biblical creation story as a scientific treatise and not the myth that it is. Clearly."
Clearly you have evidence to back up your assertion that the Biblical creation story is myth. Someday you'll have to present it.
"Your second problem is the biblical text itself does not call creation or the Garden of Eden "perfect" at any point."
It calls it all "good" and on the sixth day, "very good":
The Hebrew word for "good" used throughout Genesis 1 is tov (טוֹב), while the word for "very" in the final declaration of Genesis 1:31 is me'od (מְאֹד), together creating the phrase tov me'od which means "exceedingly good" or "functionally complete". (Kinda sounds a lot like "perfect")
The Meaning of Tov (Good)
• Function and Purpose: As outlined by the Bible Project on Tov, tov means something is well-designed, practical, and working exactly as intended to support life. (Kinda sounds a lot like "perfect")
• Harmony and Beauty: It describes elements that are pleasant, life-giving, and properly fitted for their specific role in the universe. (Kinda sounds a lot like "perfect")
• Fulfilling Design: Rather than a narrow focus on abstract moral perfection, tov indicates that a created thing successfully accomplishes the purpose God gave it. (Kinda sounds a lot like "perfect")
The Meaning of Me'od (Very / Exceedingly)
• Strength and Might: The word me'od stems from a root meaning "strength," "force," or "abundance".
• Good to the Max: When attached to tov, it acts as an intensifier meaning "exceedingly," "greatly," or "to the maximum degree". (Kinda sounds a lot like "perfect")
• Holistic Approval: As noted in reflections on Genesis 1 and Tov Meod, when God viewed all the individual parts working together in unison on the sixth day, His total evaluation was that the entire system was powerfully and completely good. (One could say, it kinda sounds a lot like the entire system was "perfect")
There's certainly a bit of room to quibble...and atheists and pretend Christians from a little Jeff St. storefront "church" in Louisville, KY certainly will..., but all this happened before the Fall, when the totally fictitious Adam fictitiously ate of the fictitious fruit of the fictitious Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil which fictitiously brought into the "very good" creation fictitious sin...which is fiction.
"Do you recognize those problems?"
I recognize your entire belief system hinges on dismissing as much of the text as it is written, injecting as much ambiguity as possible elsewhere and pretending you're nonetheless still a believer.
" Instead in the myth-telling of the creation story, God declares the earth and humans as very good."
But He did so prior to Adam's sin, after which the ground...creation...was cursed and thus, no longer "good" or "perfect", and indeed we can truly rationally observe this to be a reasonable conclusion, given how the story is presented.
"This is a very good world in many ways."
Except for those earthquakes, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, tsunamis, volcanoes, lightning strikes, poisonous snakes and spiders, carnivorous animals which will bite your face off, the presence of sinners everywhere, some who will murder, steal and rape and others who will without evidence accuse political opponents of vile behaviors because they don't have a better candidate....other than all that and more, it can still sustain life and allow some good times.
"The world itself and nature itself make no demands of perfection."
What an incredibly stupid thing to say, as if it serves your position at all!
"Rationally speaking an omnipotent Likewise, a loving God would not demand perfection of imperfect mortal humans because that's crazy and cruel."
What's that "sanctification" thing all about? Then there's Leviticus 19:2, Matthew 5:48 and in case you didn't catch it the first time, 1 Peter 1:15–16.
"And likewise the Bible does not insist that God demands perfection of humans or else He's going to burn them good. It's not biblical, it's not rational, it's not moral, and it's not just."
What's irrational and immoral and unjust is presenting Biblical truth as mere malevolent caprice, which is blasphemous. One doesn't "build a religion" by adhering to the plain and clear teachings of Scripture. One does by rejecting those teachings to invent a more self-pleasing "kumbaya" alternative. Good luck with that.
Yes, Dan. You're a heretic. We can rationally observe this to be a reasonable conclusion.
Marshal, with no support and just a bit goofily, said:
Yes, Dan. You're a heretic.
You're confusing, "Dan disagrees with my personal little human opinions and it really hurts my feelings!!" with "Dan is holding positions contrary to the teachings of Jesus."
Don't do that. Be better.
No, little Danny. You couldn't possibly hurt my feelings. But you do without a doubt holding positions contrary to the teachings of Jesus, the Father and Scripture. We easily observe this to be a reasonable conclusion.
Don't be a heretic. Be a Christ follower.
Marshal makes a pathetic attempt to defend his "Genesis as History" theory. Whatever. Look, if you boys WANT to read that text and think, "I REALLLLY think that the universe was created in six days about 6,000 years ago, that there really was a perfect creation and perfect humans with a literal snake walking around on legs who turned out to be literally SATANNNN!! (in a perfect creation??) who later was made to crawl on his belly and lose his legs (and all snakes' legs for all of history) because of trying to be sneaky and get Eve and then Adam to literally take a bite of a literal fruit from a literal "Tree of Knowledge of Right and Wrong" and that Adam was a real person created from actual dust and that Eve was an actual person created from a rib from Adam... If you all want to believe that the leopard got their spots after listening to a wise baboon or ANY mythic story is literal history, you're welcome to do so, no matter how irrational or nutty it may be.
BUT, as Jesus literally did NOT teach that disagreeing with a literal Genesis is contrary to his teachings, it really ISN'T an essential teaching of Jesus, is it? Just literally, it's not, right?
The things you all want to argue about and take as "gospel" while ignoring the actually blasphemous teachings in your literally human traditions is just bizarre [shakes head.]
Dan's hate of truth makes him a heretic, and his worship of a different God and Jesus, not the God and Jesus of the Bible, makes him a heretic. The God & Jesus of the Bible says homosexual behavior is a huge sin, that abortion is murder, that the laws of the land that don't conflict with God's laws must be obeyed, etc. But Dan's God is pro-abortion, pro-homosexual "mirage" and pro-illegal immigration. And this is just for starters!
"You appear to be erring, first of all, by treating the biblical creation story as a scientific treatise and not the myth that it is. Clearly. That's your first problem."
You appear to be erring, first of all, by treating what I actually said as if it was something you made up and attributed to me. Nowhere did I say that I was treating Scripture as a "scientific treatise", you just made that shit up. Clearly that's your first problem.
You appear to be erring, second of all, by stating that the Creation account is the "myth that it is". I am unaware of your objective proof of your hunch about the Creation narrative being objectively "myth", perhaps you could provide that. The only think I can recall is you asserting that must be "myth" because it sounds like myth to you. That's hardly enough proof to justify your objective claim above. Clearly. That's your second problem.
"Do you recognize those problems?"
No, because substituting "very good" for perfect doesn't actually change anything because (as you yourself agree) the "good" or YHWH is perfection.
But, if it helps clam your little pedantic, heart, consider "very good" substituted for perfect.
Strangely enough, you insist that humans are merely "good", while YHWH referred to humans as "very good" at creation. Clearly, something changed to take humans from "very good" to "good".
Your last two paragraphs are merely you making shit up and pretending that it represents something I've said or a position I hold, therefore they are not worthy of comment.
"Why? Says who? What do you mean..?"
I mean that, as of now, you have not offered an explanation for your hunches. As best I can tell, your explanation is that YHWH made humans flawed and imperfect and that's just how it is. Which lacks any explanatory value.
When you make claims about the "state of things" absent an explanation, you are merely spewing random hunches. If that's what floats your boat, fine. But if you hope to persuade, then you need something more to be taken seriously.
The problem is that you're basing your "that's just the way it is" hunch on your assumption that Creation was not "good" and "very good", and that something changed that situation, but that Creation was always imperfect. You are imposing your hunches on Creation, while dismissing a "good/very good" Creation that has fallen as a "myth" absent any proof.
"Are you positing that we need a boogeyman or to be able to say "the devil made me do it!?" You know that Flip Wilson was a comedian and not a religious or moral scholar, right?"
No, and no.
"Why must there be an explanation?"
1. This is one of those things where you make a claim (we don't need an explanation), but don't live in accordance with your claim.
2. Why bother with scientific, or historical inquiry then? Why not just throw our hands in the air and be content with "Some things just are."?
"Do we need an explanation to tell us why the zebra has stripes or snakes crawl on their belly?"
Probably not, although how many millions of words have been written by those who advocate Naturalism/Materialism/Evolution to provide us with exactly those types of explanations. Are you suggesting that those who are engaged in those endeavors are wasting their time because "Some things just are"?
Look, if you're satisfied with a fatalistic "that's just how things are and there's no rhyme or reason" worldview, be my guest.
Just one more of his unproven claims.
An entire comment based on misrepresenting what others have actually said, and it doesn't even address the point I actually made.
Nothing in Dan's screed above is functionally any different if you substitute "imperfect/imperfection" for "Sin nature". Literally nothing changes in terms of how people live their lives.
The only thing that does change is agency. If humans are merely created "imperfect" then how could we possibly have agency or culpability for our actions. "We're just imperfect, some things just are.".
Thankfully, you can't prove your hunch either.
"but a business transaction."
Strangely enough, Jesus final words on the cross describe exactly that. The complete fulfillment of what He came to do. But why listen to Jesus or anything.
"Do you all REALLY think not taking Genesis 1/2 as literal history is somehow "heresy..."?"
I'll be nuanced here for a moment and suggest that the denial of Genesis as an accurate representation of the actions of YHWH in the Creation of everything, might not be heresy in and of itself. But, I'd suggest that removing a Creation narrative which represents reality from Scripture is foundational to all sorts of heresy. By removing the Creator, and replacing YHWH with random chance plus time, you lay the foundation for humans having intrinsic worth or value. By removing the concept of a "good/very good" Creation, you remove the entire redemptive arc of Scripture. If Creation was never "good/very good" (thanks Art for the clarification which Dan likely ignored), then there is no need for a Savior and no hope of Creation being redeemed.
"Marshal? Craig? Will no one speak for basic common sense or, you know, Christian basics and shit?"
Are you seriously claiming to be the voice of "basic common sense", "Christian basics and shit" in this conversation.
Glenn may not be 100% correct, but the results of any other reading of Scripture seem to inevitably lead to heresy.
FYI, the fact that Jesus regularly referred to people and events recorded in Genesis as if they were real people and factual events seems self evident. For Jesus to have said (especially in the context of Him being an observant 1st century Jew with their attitude towards the Torah) "Truly, Truly, I tell you Genesis is literal history." would have been redundant. Jesus' views of the Torah are implicit in His being an observant Jew. Further, had He done so, people like you would have dismissed His saying so as "hyperbole" or "figurative".
Unfortunately, both of those things can be True simultaneously.
Dan, you prove my point, lionizing your allies and excusing their flaws while refusing to do the same for those who dare disagree with you: MLK was like sinful King David, but Charlie Kirk was an arrogant profiteer. (Was Kirk worse than David?)
Your MO is to say that your side fights for the poor and oppressed and marginalized, but both the free market and traditional values greatly benefit those very groups. And it's worth noting that not every marginalized group finds their champions on your side, not least children in the womb.
But never mind all that, you get the basics of the gospel wrong.
You say your allies "are very much in the model of Jesus, pouring out their lives to help the poor and marginalized at some great cost and risk to themselves."
But Jesus didn't pour out His life for the poor and marginalized and oppressed to the exclusion of the rich and the influential and even the oppressor.
He died for Nicodemus the Pharisee.
And Zaccheus the tax collector.
And the centurion who commanded many.
He died for the whole world.
Craig...
"The problem is that you're basing your "that's just the way it is" hunch on your assumption that Creation was not "good" and "very good", and that something changed that situation, but that Creation was always imperfect."
? You do know that I am saying that God's creation, the earth, the universe, and humanity were and are good and very good... You understand that's my position, right? I also just acknowledge that it's imperfect, at least from the point of view of what we might prefer to happen. That is, a hurricane is neither evil nor bad. It's just a reality of the world. Now it may end up harming some humans and we think of that as bad but the hurricane itself is not immoral or evil or really even imperfect. It just is. How am I mistaken?
Likewise a bear that attacks a human when it gets too close to its babies is not bad or even imperfect. It just is. That's the way of this world. There's not really a moral judgment to attach to it. Do we agree on that?
The place where we can more reasonably start talking about actual imperfection is with humans who have some sense of agency, in some sense, to not do the wrong thing and, indeed, to do things that are helpful, kind, wholesome, and that promote the common good. We sometimes fail to do that when we could. We are imperfect in that way but imperfect doesn't mean evil. Evil is more like a deliberate attack against a fishing boat with the intent to kill people and call them terrorists without any proof or ruling from a court. That's evil... but mere human imperfection?, it's just human imperfection.
How is that mistaken or do we agree? How is that heretical? Of course, it's not.
Dan
Here's ultra-conservative Hank Hanegraaff taking on the mistaken suggestion that creation was perfect. Seriously.
https://www.andrewcorbett.net/articles/theology/was-the-original-creation-of-paradise-perfect/
Dan
No, I don't know that because you continue to insist, without proof, that the Creation narrative is a 'myth". Why would I magically believe that you've chosen one small element of this "myth" that you've decided is objectively True?
"I also just acknowledge that it's imperfect, at least from the point of view of what we might prefer to happen."
This is an interesting way to frame this.
1. You have previously simply stated that things are "imperfect" without the qualifier.
2. Your new, qualified, version of your hunch seems to suggest that "what we might prefer to happen" is the standard of perfection. Is that what you are suggesting?
What's interesting here is that you've posited a world where these things (hurricanes, bear attacks, etc) have always and will always exist. Yet, the Creation account (where things were "good/very good") and the texts that speak of the "new creation" would seem to suggest that your "what it is" is not what it always was or what it will be.
"How is that mistaken or do we agree?"
Whether it's "mistaken" is irrelevant. The problem is that you've merely, repeatedly, asserted this rather than proven it.
"How is that heretical?"
Where did I say that your nonsense was heretical?
I'm not going to point out again, how bad your analogy is. I am going to point out the obvious reality that a "ruling from a court" is an incredibly imperfect measure.
Bubba, unsure of what he's arguing against, said...
"Jesus didn't pour out His life for the poor and marginalized and oppressed to the exclusion of the rich and the influential and even the oppressor."
Indeed. That's nothing that I'm not saying. Indeed Jesus, righteousness, justice, and common sense invite the rich and powerful to join in solidarity with the poor and marginalized in the beloved community where Jesus resides. That is the gospel indeed. Good news for all, not some random select and to hell with everyone else. Agreed.?
I doubt it.
If y'all can't read my words and understand what I'm saying - and failing to understand so consistently - then maybe you should be a bit more humble in your presumption of certainty and your understanding and your human traditions (as it regards various biblical teachings or just plain human traditions).
Dan
Look let me try to explain again. I am a follower of Jesus, which is to say I believe that the words that Jesus taught are good and wise and faithful and true.
As a follower of Christ and someone who loves words and his teachings, I note that he is abundantly clear on many points.
1. He's not a Christian. He's a Jew.
2. He said he came to bring literal good news to all of humanity. He said that repeatedly throughout his teachings. This good news that he came to teach, he began consistently by identifying the poor and the marginalized as the people he'd come to preach this gospel to. The very ones most in need of good news.
3. From there his teachings are remarkably consistent in support of loving one another as the main starting point of loving God and loving humans.
4. Jesus is also consistently in disputes and fights with the rich oppressors, perhaps best exemplified by the Pharisees.
Jesus regularly contrasted his good news for all, beginning with the poor and marginalized, as a way of grace and love, as in contrast with the Pharisees, who are about following their human rules and distinctions between the clean and the unclean (where the unclean are almost always the poor and marginalized, the ones left out of good news).
There's more but in a short nutshell, that is the gospel of Jesus as literally recorded in the four gospel books.
5. At the same time Jesus does not at all, in any way, dwell on human theories of atonement or satisfying an angry God, or that the vast majority of humanity is being left out and punished eternally. Jesus does not dwell on human traditions like sin, nature, and a perfect creation or a literal Genesis story. These are human traditions that humans have long disagreed about and that's fine. If you want to give some credence to these theories, disagreeing with them because they're literally not part of the message of Jesus is simply not heretical as it relates to Jesus' teachings. Indeed, given Jesus' literal teachings, they must come way too close to blaspheming a perfect all-loving and welcoming God who came to preach good news not horror stories.
Feel free to disagree and give some credence to your human traditions, just recognize that I'm not a heretic for not affirming your particular human traditions and opinions.
Dan
"Sometimes rain falls on the just and the unjust. Sometimes crops die. Sometimes sheep wander off. Sometimes tornadoes come and people die"
We know why rain falls, why crops die, why sheep wander off and why tornadoes occur and why people die when they're caught up in them. We know the the just and unjust routinely live amongst each other and thus when the rain falls, it falls on them all.
But with that, together with the reality that people make bad decisions which hurt feelings and/or cause great harm, the reason is the same: sin entered the "very good" creation and now creation is no longer "very good" as the Hebrew used the terms. You ASSUME of that would have existed prior to the Fall of Man while creation was still "very good" and you make that assumption without the slightest bit of evidence.
"Are you positing that we need a boogeyman or to be able to say "the devil made me do it!?" You know that Flip Wilson was a comedian and not a religious or moral scholar, right?"
It's not a matter of "need". It's a matter of accepting the explanation for imperfections and human sufferings provided us in Scripture after it explained how God created all things in six days. If you disagree with that explanation, it's incumbent upon YOU to provide a more reasonable explanation. Hint: the secular explanation is wanting.
The reality here is your great fear at being disparaged and demeaned were you to accept the Biblical explanation for creation and why creation is imperfect and corrupted...so you assert that the threats and suffering we endure is "just the way it is" as if that's a mature and adult explanation. To you, "Almighty" is just a word you use which has no true meaning as an attribute of the Creator. He's not really "all mighty" or "all powerful". He's not capable of speaking creation into existence. He's only capable of the miracles you find "reasonable" to accept as (only) possible. I believe it means He's capable of having created all things in under six seconds if He so chose to do so. He's either "Almighty" or He's not. To you He's barely mighty at all! To you, He's wholly incapable of doing anything Dan Trabue regards as just too much to accept. If Dan Trabue buys into the Creation Story as it is written, he'll be ridiculed as an knuckle-dragging rube by all the sophisticated secularists and nominal Christians.
I think part of the problem y'all have, and maybe what stirs up all the emotional discomfort in your souls, is that people like me are the ones who hold the higher view of the teachings of Jesus. We are very serious followers of the literal teachings from Jesus and have much less use for the human traditions that you all have built around Jesus, where you choose to emphasize the perversion of Paul's words or perversion of Old Testament teachings. You esteem and take Jesus' literal teachings less seriously than we do.
At some level I think you know that and it gets you all riled up emotionally and you strike out with words like "heretic," which makes no sense since, once again, Jesus literally does not affirm your human traditions in his literal teachings.
Once again Jesus literally does not demand an inerrant Bible, and Jesus does not demand a literal Genesis, and Jesus does not demand some kind of atonement theory of the sort that you all hold, and Jesus does not demand opposition to LGBTQ folks, and Jesus does not demand an affirmation of a virgin birth, and on and on and on. Y'all hold all these theories, which are sometimes just meaningless nothing and sometimes blasphemous to the notion of a loving and just God, but Jesus does not affirm your teachings, your human traditions.
Dan
"This mythical "sin nature" theory that you all posit based on bad readings of biblical texts and reading INTO the text something that isn't there is part of a larger set of weird, graceless, immoral theories. It's a stepping stone in your bloodthirsty god theories."
This Dan says after having supplied him with several Scriptural citations which demonstrate that the "theory"...as he pretends it is...is directly drawn FROM Scripture, not READ INTO it, and for which he's done absolutely nothing more to provide an alternative interpretation of what those verses mean except to say "Nyuh uh". So being scum, you prefer to regard God as "bloodthirsty" and ignore all Scripture says about sin and the wages of it being death. God doesn't "require" death. Death is "just the way it is" since sin entered the world through Adam's sin.
"That's ghastly enough, grotesque and evil on the face of it!"
Explain how, and use Scripture to do it.
"..there is a "god" who is PERFECT and above all of humanity and can't put up with "sin" or "sin nature." "
No. There is only God who IS perfect and above all of humanity Who DOESN'T put up with sin or your sin nature. I would suggest that sin cannot endure being in the presence of God. YOU don't put up with bad behavior, but by YOUR law, God MUST.
You then go on to again conflate sin with sinful actions, which are manifestations of sin...like, for example, your hatred for Donald Trump and your god-worship of MLK Jr who is the very degree of sexual predator of which you accuse Trump of being. That's the result of YOUR sin nature.
Overall, you accurately lay out the truth of Christian teaching but mock it as you do, because your fictional god is more pleasing to you. How dare God be God!!
We do acknowledge creation is imperfect. We also acknowledge why it is. You reject the Truth, because it interferes with your fictional alternative beliefs and leaves you guilty of enabling sins explicitly forbidden to all.
Craig, still missing the point. ..
"Why would I magically believe that you've chosen one small element of this "myth" that you've decided is objectively True?"
Because I've been abundantly clear and consistent over the years. This creation, this world, this planet is good and very good because it's observably good. It's beautiful and delightful. It feeds humanity, it is self-sustaining and recyclable and nurturing so long as we don't mess that up. Without a healthy Earth, humanity is screwed. To the degree that humanity is messing up a healthy Earth, we are screwing ourselves.
Creation is good and very good not because there is a line in the Bible. It's good and very good because it's objectively observable, given common sense understandings of good.
Did you truly not know that would be my answer to this suggestion? If so, once again perhaps y'all are overconfident in your capacity for reading comprehension.
Dan
Craig kindly of, sort of opined a little bit....
"Yet, the Creation account (where things were "good/very good") and the texts that speak of the "new creation" would seem to suggest that your "what it is" is not what it always was or what it will be."
That's a cute little mythical-sounding theory you've got there. But it's just a guess on your part. There is no data to support that kind of nonsense, do you recognize that?
On the other hand when I say the Earth is good and very good, it's because it's pleasing aesthetically. It's because it's nurturing. It's because we can live comfortably in this place if we live responsibly within it. It's observably good for a million reasons. Are you trying to take the position that the Earth is not good?
Regardless, you're welcome to embrace whatever myths you might want but without any kind of proof you can't expect people to take you seriously when there's no data to support such a guess.
Dan
Did you not read my response regarding the word perfect? I do love it when you find one thing by one "ultra conservative" person and grab onto it as if they couldn't possibly be wrong.
I can't believe that you actually read the whole article.
1. The only thing actually quoted from Hanagraff is “Paradise lost will be Paradise restored.”.
2. Hanagraff didn't write the article.
3. The author of the article didn't disagree with Hanagraff's quote above.
4. Other than this one semantic nit, I can't believe that there is one single thing in the article that you agree with.
Given Art's comment on the meaning of "good/very good", the article makes sense. I'll say this, my use of the term perfect was not necessarily to suggest that Creation was perfect as YHWH is perfect, but more to suggest that Creation was formed exactly as YHWH had intended it.
But, by all means continue these pointless diversions.
Arrogant and prideful much? Your ignorance of how a 1st century Jew would have viewed the Torah is showing.
Yes, I knew that your answer would involve asserting that X is True because you say that it is and that your answer would point to you instead of to YHWH.
I also knew that you would likely assert that something was "objectively observable" as long as one agrees with your subjective definition of a word.
Art's comments which delve into the Hebrew meanings of the words "good" and "very good" in the context are particularly helpful. Your assertions with no proof are less so. That you want to impose your subjective definition of "good" onto the text, seems both arrogant and problematic.
Dan...you keep playing this game about what Scripture or Jesus or the Father does or doesn't say, does or doesn't insist about what to take seriously or literally. "The Bible doesn't call itself a 'rulings' book, so I don't have to obey any of Its rules I don't like." "Jesus never said Adam and Eve are actual people, so I can pretend they aren't and Jesus meant something different He never explains." Without an evidence-based (from Scripture) alternative understanding, it's just you rejecting the plain reading. That doesn't fly here. If you say "it doesn't mean that", you're insisting it means something else for which you provide nothing but your opinion. Opinions presented require evidence to support holding the opinion.
If Jesus speaks of anything in the OT, one must assume He's presenting it as fact...as it is written.. It's not enough to say "Jesus didn't mean for us to take it as literal fact" without providing evidence which supports the notion. "He didn't mean..." is a truth claim. Back it up.
And yes, you are a heretic because by your ridicule of the Creation story as mere myth, you necessarily replace Scripture and He Who inspired it with an idol of your own invention. This is compounded by your refusal...out of inability...to provide a better explanation for the Creation story than the story itself as recorded for us in Genesis. You speak of "rational" and "reasonable" but offer neither, and only your standard "Nyuh uh" and condescending for daring to believe God is actually "Almighty".
"There is no data to support that kind of nonsense, do you recognize that?"
Yeah, because somehow the Scriptures which don't align with your subjective human hunches, magically cease to be "data". While your proof text snippets are objective proof.
Again, feel free to make yourself and your limited abilities of observation the standard of what is objectively good.
You demand that people take you seriously despite a complete lack or (or attempt at) proof, yet your hubris and arrogance leads yo your double standard.
What all of these are missing is an explanation of what the practical, functional, difference in human behavior is whether or not the "not good" actions are from imperfection, or Sin nature. The end result is the same, people do "not good" things. If it makes you feel all tingly to call it imperfection and play semantic games, go right ahead.
One last thought on the article you didn't read.
"How then could the Scriptures be saying that animals eating animals is the result of the Fall when on the other hand it says that this is the way God designed things? In other words, what we have romantically assumed as being “perfect” (a world with no decay or death of any kind) may not have been what was actually originally created! Natural Laws, such as gravity and decay, may have been instituted by God before the Fall. Certain organisms have a life-cycle of just a few hours. In that time they are birthed, matured, reproduce, then die. For the Christian who rightly rejects the explanation of naturalistic evolution as the explanation for how life began, yet maintains that there was no death at all prior to the Fall of Man, this presents a problem. Either, that organism is doing exactly what it was designed by God to do or it was formed after the Fall. Since God rested from creating on the sixth day, we cannot claim that God created these organisms after the Fall. This is just one example of how reasonable it is to accept that there was death of non-humans before the Fall of Man."
What you blithely ascribe to "just the way things are" the article ascribes to the design of things as intended by YHWH. No one is arguing that the laws of nature (which in your world probably didn't have a lawgiver), seasonal changes, or weather is a sign of imperfection.
Again, to reference Art's comments, I'd suggest that much like an artist might say that a finished work of art is "perfect", that's how to view Creation. That Creation was completed perfectly as YHWH intended it to be. Even the most accomplished artist, and their best art, is not perfect. Yet how often do we refer to art as perfect? Because the art perfectly reflects the intention of the artist, despite the fact that it might not actually be perfect.
This whole pedantic, semantic, thing you do is freaking annoying from someone who regularly insists on subjective definitions of terms or words and who regularly mid defines terms.
I want to take a moment to point out the obvious:
From the time I posted an exchange between Dan and myself which took place at his Blog of Lies and Perversions, this thread has gone off on a tangent. While it is still does relate the fact of man's sin nature, I have no problem with it.
What's most notable, however, is the fact that it has taken place at all and taken place unencumbered by self-serving restrictions, prohibitions and "house rules" so common when trying to engage in truly "respectful, adult, good faith discourse" at Dan's Blog of Lies and Perversions. He can't in any way claim comments of his were, on the false charges that his comments were "vulgar", "disrespectful" or any of the other allegations routinely applied to mine, deleted or altered or redacted or denied publication only to have snippets and portions published out of context in order that I might more easily address them to my advantage. No. His comments appear totally unmolested in any way because if I was to use a term such as "embrace grace", my methods here would seem to align more closely with what that phrase implies than with anything one sees at Dan's Blog of Lies and Perversions.
I suffer and endure...and expose others to suffer and endure as well...Dan's arrogance, condescension (neither of which have the slightest justification), blasphemies and heresies in order to allow the conversation to reach whatever conclusion it might, because that's what true "good faith" discourse looks like. But then, we know that the meanings of words and terms like "good faith", "embrace grace", "reasonable", "rational", "reality" and a host of others are to Dan fluid and malleable depending subjectively upon how it serves him and gives him advantage. No one else operates in this manner, yet here he is...allowed all liberty to express his notions, opinions and unsupported positions to his black heart's content. I have no desire to protect Dan from exposing himself as the fake Christian and heretic he is.
Craig...
"What all of these are missing is an explanation of what the practical, functional, difference in human behavior is whether or not the "not good" actions are from imperfection, or Sin nature. The end result is the same, people do "not good" things."
You are correct insofar as you take it. The problem is your "sin nature" myth, for the true believers who affirm it, results in most of humanity being tortured for eternity. Of course, since hell doesn't exist except in your myths, that's not a problem. The way that they treat others and the arrogance in their presumptions and actions towards others because of these myths they hold on to, that causes real problems in the real world. Perhaps we should treat the religionists who affirm these sorts of threatening behaviors/myths the same way that you want to treat all Muslims.
Dan
Craig, missing the point ...
"I knew that your answer would involve asserting that X is True because you say that it is and that your answer would point to you instead of to YHWH."
Not because I say it is, but because it's objectively observable. This is a good Earth with good, beautiful, healthy, wholesome, delightful life-affirming attributes. Are you saying you disagree with this observable reality?
And if you disagree with it, are you just pointing to your own personal human opinions based on your own little personal human traditions instead of God or reality? If so, no thanks, I'll pass.
Dan
"Marshal makes a pathetic attempt to defend his "Genesis as History" theory."
What "theory"? I didn't create the Creation story. I simply find no reason to reject it as an accurate record of the events of creation. You simply haven't provided any reason at all for me to consider rejecting it for alternatives you haven't objectively proven, and your snarky ridicule of the Biblical record does nothing to compel me to join you in that ridicule. Rather than default to "science"...which has no proofs...I put my faith in God and His Word revealed to us in Scripture...here as recorded by His prophet Moses, who according to you was a liar and teller of fairy tales, not actually having had forty years to take dictation about the events from the Creator Himself who spoke with Moses as any two people speak to each other, revealing to him what He wanted to reveal in the manner He chose to reveal it. I guess Moses should've told Him, "But Dan won't like that You're not giving details around which he can wrap his fake Christian mind!", but that would likely to have been recorded as well.
(Oh, wait! You probably don't believe Moses penned (or "quilled") the Torah, do you?)
I pretty much accept also what is said in Deuteronomy 29:29, which should answer that the Bible, Jesus or the Father doesn't provide as you demand it should be in order to be acceptable to Christ/God followers. You're perfectly free to reject the 20% you haven't rejected if you like. You won't be less a non-Christian than you already are by doing so.
I would also add that I found a number of articles from Hanagraff which doesn't at all suggest he rejects the notion of the pre-Fall Eden being perfect. His position seems to align more with mine.
As to the quote from the article in your October 7, 2026 at 1:19 PM, I think it omits another possible option, which is that there was not reproduction necessary, no need to kill to eat. An organism might have been behaving just as it was intended to behave before the Fall, and then was corrupted by sin like everything else in Creation, and began acting in a manner which is within its design, and now that design is necessary for the species to survive. No organisms needed to be created after the Fall. They all began to behave in a manner distinct from their behavior before the Fall due to sin having entered Creation. This also falls under the heading of "“The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may follow all the words of this law” and we can speculate all we like about how the details worked, but failing to find a satisfactory answer doesn't negate that Genesis is an actual record of Creation.
Perhaps you can help me understand your position. Are you suggesting that before "Adam" was deceived by "a walking serpent/satan" and "a sin nature" entered into humanity, before those theoretical myths happened, are you saying you think that the earth was without death or hurricanes or rainy days, that lions/bears/dragons wouldn't have attacked people given an opportunity?
If so, forget how silly that sounds from a rational and observable point of view, do you recognize that the Bible does not insist upon anything like this?
Dan
Let’s start with the obvious, that you’ve agreed that there is no practical, functional, noticeable difference between behavior from a sin nature and mere imperfection. It seems reasonable to conclude that you acknowledge that the human nature inevitably leads towards bad behavior (whether you call it sin or not) and you’ve just given that reality a name that doesn’t offend you.
How interesting, your hunch doesn’t result in sin being punished at all.
By all means, prove your claim, I’ll wait.
I’d prefer to treat all Muslims with much more grace than Islam has for a Kafir like me.
I’m impressed with your ability to make claims about me even if you’re always wrong.
But, let’s talk about heaven and hell in Islam…
As always I await the proof of your claims.
C
Yeah, you continue to assert yourself as the one who determines these things.
Because you can’t objectively prove your claims, you hide behind your arrogant insistence that you’re little, personal, human hunches represent reality.
C
Dan, Jesus doesn't invite the rich to join with the poor. He invites all of us, rich and poor alike, to join with Him, to place our faith in Him, and to abide in Him. Marxism with a Christian veneer is no substitute for the actual gospel.
Maybe you should practice some humility yourself. It's possible we understand you quite well -- that we always have despite your obfuscation -- but we reject your positions. "We disagree" isn't proof that we don't understand, and understanding doesn't necessarily lead to agreement.
No, I’m not saying that at all. Which you’d have known had you bothered to read my responses to your big “gotcha” article which you mistakenly attributed to Hanagtaff.
C
Hank Hanegraff was never, EVER "ultra-conservative." He disagreed with a lot of basic Bible theology and ended up joining the Eastern Orthodox Church which, like Rome, is full of heretical teachings.
Art,
I think that Dan has a problem when he finds something that he thinks makes his point, when it doesn’t.
In this case Hanagtaff’s contribution is an out of context quote.
I think that the actual position the author puts forth doesn’t conflict with anything we’ve said. I have no doubt that Hanagraff has much more to say on the topic. But Dan is too lazy to look for it.
Creation was a perfect execution of exactly what YHWH wanted it to be.
C
Craig, dodging reasonable questions, falsely claimed ...
"you continue to assert yourself as the one who determines these things."
The thing about stupidly false claims written down in public is that anybody can see it's a stupidly false claim and that I've never said anything like that. Rather I asked you: do you actually not think that this Earth is good, the creation, the woods, the seas, the oceans, the mountains? That they're not very good? Please answer so I at least can know what you're basing this upon. Are you basing it on your own odd opinion that the Earth is NOT good? ?
If you want to try to make that case, go for it, Lucky. But it's a rather odd claim to make, given reality and all. It's an especially odd claim for a Christian to make. Most Christians I know, even conservative ones, greatly praise God for this good creation we have on this earth.
Dan
"It is literally written in a mythic style at a time in history where stories like this were routinely told as myths."
Typical Trabue Tripe, told as if it's supposed to have any weight or merit. To refer to other creation stories as "stories like this"...as in, as true as the true Creation story as recorded in Genesis...is to compare the truth of Scripture as no more or less true than any other none Biblical tome. What possible difference does it make that other creation stories "seem" to you to be written in a similar style? Does that make them more or less likely to be true simply due to this superficial similarity? It's a stupid argument from someone too fearful of ridicule by his peers, and instead you choose to ridicule Scripture and those who pay it proper reverence and respect due to He Who inspired it and dictated it to Moses.
"Deciding what genre a text is written in is a starting point to understanding a given text."
This isn't "a given text". It's Scripture. You use "genre" as a loophole to reject that which displeases you.
"People of good faith can disagree on a given text's genre type without it being called "heretical.""
You're not a person of good faith. You've proven that long ago. You're not disagreeing with the genre. You're disagreeing with what is recorded in Genesis regarding the Creation events. You're disparaging the Creator by presuming that He didn't Create in the manner revealed.
"You're hyperventilating and phariseeing on a difference of opinion."
"Phariseeing"??? You're making up words now?? You're the only one who resembles a Pharisee here as you add and substract to your personal pleasure and satisfaction:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scripture explicitly warns against adding to or subtracting from God's word, presenting it as a serious violation of divine authority.
Key Bible Passages
• Deuteronomy 4:2: Moses warns the Israelites not to add to or take away from the commands given by God, so they can properly obey Him. This is repeated in Deuteronomy 12:32.
• Proverbs 30:5-6: Notes that every word of God is flawless and warns that if you add to His words, He will rebuke you and prove you a liar.
• Revelation 22:18-19: Gives a final warning regarding the prophecy of that book, stating that God will add the plagues described in the book to anyone who adds to the words, and take away their share in the tree of life and the holy city if anyone takes words away.
What It Means
• Complete Authority: These warnings emphasize that God's message is complete, perfect, and sufficient.
• Distortion vs. Canon: While the verses in Deuteronomy and Revelation specifically target the immediate context of their respective books, theologians broadly apply them as a principle against twisting, falsifying, or compromising the message of the entire Bible.
• Human Tradition: Altering Scripture includes replacing God's commands with human traditions, legalism, or dismissing clear teachings to suit personal or cultural preferences.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"2. Nowhere in the text of the Bible do the various biblical authors insist..."
Nowhere in the text of the Bible are the various biblical authors required to insist anything in order to satisfy the lies of you, for nowhere in all of Scripture is there any suggestion that what is written is up to the reader to decide whether it is meant literally or not. When Jesus speaks in parables, He tells us. Nothing in Genesis suggests it is conveying a myth. Everything about the ministry of Jesus is predicated upon the first sin of Adam, as 3:15 speaks of Christ.
"3. Likewise, nowhere in Jesus' teaching does he insist that Genesis=literal history is an essential element of his teachings."
Likewise, nowhere in Jesus's teaching does He so much as hint that Genesis isn't literal history. Nowhere in Jesus's teaching does He show the slightest apprehension of correcting any corrupted or misunderstood Scripture in conveying whatever message He wanted His listeners to understand. For that matter, no reference to Adam by any Epistle writer suggests Adam was allegorical or mythical, but was instead an actual person.
Charges of your heresy are the result of your own words and positions which totally conflict with Scripture to which you've added that which Scripture nowhere says in any way. Own it.
Anyone to the right of Dan is “ultra conservative “
C
You’re the one that offers your subjective hunches as the “proof” of your hunches. I’m just pointing that out.
What specific questions have I dodged?
Of course I’ve still got multiple comments in moderation because you’re dodging the one simple thing I asked you do.
So maybe de log your own eye first.
Bubba mistakenly claimed...
"Jesus doesn't invite the rich to join with the poor. He invites all of us, rich and poor alike, to join with Him..."
Jesus literally invited the rich man, who asked what he must do to be saved, to literally sell his shit, give it to the poor, and come follow him. That is, come follow Jesus, who was bringing good news to the poor and marginalized. Jesus, who said, "What you did for the least of these, the poor and marginalized, you literally were doing to and for and with him."
Jesus invited the rich man to sell his shit and join them. You're just factually wrong as far as what Jesus is saying here in the gospel stories. We can read the texts.
Now I get that y'all might want to read something different INTO the text but if you're talking about reading the actual text, that's what it says.
Over and over and over and over. Look it up. See for yourselves. It's right there in the literal words of Jesus. Unlike your little human theories of sin natures, utterly depraved humanity, inerrant Bible verses or an angry godling who creates humans specifically for eternal torture and other horror stories that some humans have invented over the millennia.
Dan
Bubba...
"We disagree" isn't proof that we don't understand, and understanding doesn't necessarily lead to agreement."
No, of course not. But that's not what I said, is it? Saying, "Dan! You believe X and I hate that and I disagree with that!!!" when I did not say that I believe X, THAT'S not understanding.
Understand?
Dan
"If y'all can't read my words and understand what I'm saying - and failing to understand so consistently - then maybe you should be a bit more humble..."
Maybe you should learn how to more accurately express yourself so that you don't have to back-track and adjust your words to cover up the clear implications of them. Being an arrogant shit, you constantly pretend the fault always lies in us. Where's the humility in that?
Henceforth, every time you whine about our "human traditions", we'll know you mean our accurate presentation of Christian teaching. It can mean nothing else, as no better understanding of what you so label is ever provided by you to us. In a similar way, when we see you speaking of a "beloved community", we'll know you're promoting again the marxist liberation theology of your god, MLK Jr, who popularized the term.
We understand your corrupted version of the faith quite well.
"Look let me try to explain again. I am a follower of Jesus"
Not really. You're a follower of your cartoon Jesus, not the Jesus of Scripture.
"2. He said he came to bring literal good news to all of humanity."
This is a blatant departure from your typical liberation theology position, wherein you harp on Luke 4:18-19 being about the "poor and marginalized".
"4. Jesus is also consistently in disputes and fights with the rich oppressors, perhaps best exemplified by the Pharisees."
Not because of their material wealth, but they were the opposite of the poor in spirit. They already saw themselves as favored and on the fast track.
"There's more but in a short nutshell, that is the gospel of Jesus as literally recorded in the four gospel books."
That's the gospel of Dan Trabue.
"5. At the same time Jesus does not at all, in any way, dwell on human theories of atonement"
No. He focuses on the Father's "theory of atonement" being He was the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. THAT is the "Good News" He brought to the poor in spirit, regardless of how materially rich or poor they were. I've backed this up countless times with Scripture, including Christ's own words and you ignore, dismiss and reject the clear message of Scripture to push your marxism. The actual message of the Gospels is crystal clear, and you ain't got it.
"I think part of the problem y'all have, and maybe what stirs up all the emotional discomfort in your souls, is that people like me are the ones who hold the higher view of the teachings of Jesus."
BWAHHHHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
You hold a higher view of your liberation theology and marxism. You exploit the Name of Jesus Christ to promote that heretical theology. I've never perverted a single word of Scripture, while your entire "theology" is perversion.
You don't "rile me up", little girl. You simply disgust me. At best you sadden me with your insistence on your perversions dressed up as "Christianity". No. Jesus doesn't affirm His own teachings to which I adhere. He simply preaches it. He doesn't need to "demand an inerrant Bible". He simply regards it as such. He doesn't demand a literal Genesis. He simply speaks of it as such. He doesn't demand the "atonement theory" we hold. He lived it. He doesn't demand opposition to ANY sinners, even you homosexuals. He just expects that you repent, as He expects us all to repent for our own sins. He doesn't dwell on His virgin birth, but never refers to any Father but God the Father....does He? In fact, the canonical Gospels contain no record of Jesus ever referring to or addressing Joseph as His father.
The only blasphemer here is you. What you insultingly belittle and disparage as our "theories" and "human traditions" are the teachings of Scripture, supported as such in ways you've to begin as regards your liberation theology.
“We can read the texts”
The problem is that we can read all of the texts, not just the two or three that you use as proof texts. We don’t need you to limit the texts we can read.
Craig...
"What specific questions have I dodged?"
Dan...
Rather I asked you: do you actually not think that this Earth is good, the creation, the woods, the seas, the oceans, the mountains?
That they're not very good?
Please answer so I at least can know what you're basing this upon.
Are you basing it on your own odd opinion that the Earth is NOT good?
There is no data to support that kind of nonsense, do you recognize that?
For just the most recent.
Dan
I can't find it but think I asked it, but regardless:
Craig, I would add that the implied questions that my other questions raise would be helpful for you all to answer, so as to not sound so bitterly irrational and nonsensical:
How do you even define Good? Bad? Evil?
Do you think it is possible for a bear to be "bad" and, if so, in what sense?
I'd suggest that you all not only have a biblical problem, but you have a dictionary problem. You abandon typical meanings of words to assign you human religion tradition-accepted meanings of words, as if you all not only control the Bible, but also the dictionary. Young Glenn and Marshal, there, are both griping because meanings of words evolve, as if they want to seize control of the dictionary and claim it as their own like your deviant tried to do with the capitol on Jan 6.
The Bible and the dictionary and God are not yours to control and cage in. It's a silly thing to try.
Not that you all would frame it that way, but what IS rejecting the current meanings of words in favor of your own meaning if not an attempt to control the language? What ARE your human traditions (where even conservatives like Hannegraf are also "heretics..." Where EVERYONE who dares to disagree with your little opinions is a heretic and a blasphemer!) if not an attempt to box in and control God?
More questions.
Craig, ironically...
"The problem is that we can read all of the texts, not just the two or three that you use as proof texts. "
Precisely my point. When rational people not infected by partisan allegations to their human traditions read ALL the words of Jesus, we see a clear and constant set of messages and NONE of the clear teachings of Jesus are actively promoting a human sin nature theory, a human atonement theory or human traditions associated with inerrancy or literal Genesis theories.
Go. Look at the words of Jesus. The constant messages are of love, acceptance, welcome and good news for the poor and marginalized... that AND the constant battles with the rich and powerful, the arrogance of legalistic oppressors.
It's right there in the texts ONCE one removes the blinders of their human traditions.
Dan
Oh, I deeply apologize, I thought these were rhetorical questions.
"Rather I asked you: do you actually not think that this Earth is good, the creation, the woods, the seas, the oceans, the mountains?"
Sure, in my opinion, the earth is good. Did I say somewhere that I thought that the earth was not good? Certainly the Creation account describes the all of Creation as good and humans as very good (see Art's well done explanation of the terms), why would I possibly disagree?
"That they're not very good?"
In the Creation account, very good is only used to describe humans, so in that sense my answer would be no. As an expression of my subjective opinion, yes. Although some parts are better than others.
"Please answer so I at least can know what you're basing this upon.
Are you basing it on your own odd opinion that the Earth is NOT good? "
No. Have I said that the earth is "NOT good"?
"There is no data to support that kind of nonsense, do you recognize that?"
Again, have I said that the earth is "NOT good"? If so where? I not why would you be asking these idiotic questions?
Again, my apologies for my horrible mistake. It's too bad that you can't claim that your failure to clarify at my blog is a mistake. I guess I'll have to abort your comments that are currently in moderation because you choose to be obtuse instead of clear.
Here's another question to deal with or hide from...
Just objectively, observably, pound for pound, word for word, do you acknowledge that there are vastly more words and a vastly more consistent message of love and welcome for all, including and especially the poor and marginalized, as compared to any promotion of atonement theories or even anything remotely like it?
I haven't done a word count or anything but surely we could agree (just objectively looking at the literal words in the red letters of Jesus) that there are hundreds, if not thousands, of words that are part of passages that are dealing with the good news for the poor and marginalized in one way or another.
On the other hand if you squint your eyes and really stretch the meaning, do you think you could even reach two dozen words that're MAYBE dealing with something approaching atonement? Maybe. If you really stretch.
Beyond that, the passages on Jesus' concern for the poor and marginalized are ever-present and consistent and abundantly clear whereas any passages that might one might try to connect to human theories of atonement are not at all directly or clearly promoting that. Indeed even though Jesus talks about him and the disciples repeatedly preaching the good news during his lifetime, we don't see ANY sermons that even begin to do that.
And I could go on and talk about a literal Genesis or an inerrant Bible or a Virgin Mary but I think people of good faith can agree that, just based on a word count of passages related to good news for the poor and marginalized in the welcoming realm of God, those human theories are just not very supported by Jesus' actual words.
And if we throw in the ongoing and many attacks and passages and words about Jesus and his conflict with the legalism of the Pharisees, which is tangential and part and parcel of the constant message of good news for the poor and marginalized, that adds even more hundreds of words to my side of the ledger.
Given all of that, can you see and acknowledge: if someone were just reading Jesus' words for the first time, and they were not infected by any partisan opinions about religion, and were not even familiar with these human traditions you or I may speak of, they're going to read the words of Jesus and come away with a message: Jesus had good news for the poor and marginalized and he had conflicts with the legalistic and arrogant Pharisees in their oppressive ways. That is the clear and constant message through Jesus' teachings that an unbiased reader would come away with. Can you concede that?
At the same time they're not going to come away with an atonement theory or an inerrant Bible theory just from reading the words of Jesus. Can you acknowledge that?
Dan
I'm very wary of AI, but for simple word counts, it can be helpful. Put this into your Googles and push your buttons...
"Word for word Jesus had way more to say about the oppressive legalism of the Pharisees and the love and welcome for the poor and marginalized as compared to theories of atonement, an inerrant Bible, or a literal Genesis. Can you quantify that?"
Google's answer supports what my educated guess (as a lover and reader of the words of the Bible and especially the words of Jesus) was: Literally thousands of words dealing with grace and love and welcome and acceptance for the poor and marginalized in opposition to the oppression of the rich, legalists, and oppressors. AND, only 150 words for your human theories of atonement, inerrancy, and a historical genesis.
Now I'm not asking you to agree that that's important; I'm just asking you: Can you now acknowledge that reality? Can you acknowledge that someone reading that with fresh eyes and no biases would find that consistent message of love and welcome for the poor and marginalized versus strong opposition to the rich oppressors and the legalists... and that they would not find your human theories evident at all, just on the words of Jesus..?
Dan
Indeed, Dan once again places his preference over the truth revealed in Scripture. It's not what words mean to us now...how we define them now...it's how the words were used and understood at the time they were written/revealed to use then. I provided evidence of how "good" and "very good" were used in Genesis. Genesis uses those terms to describe creation before Adam's sin, after which the soil itself became cursed. How is that which is cursed remain "good" or "very good"? The earth is not good because it's aesthetically pleasing to Dan Trabue. That's a moronic measure indeed.
"On the other hand when I say the Earth is good and very good, it's because it's pleasing aesthetically. It's because it's nurturing. It's because we can live comfortably in this place if we live responsibly within it. It's observably good for a million reasons. Are you trying to take the position that the Earth is not good?"
Once again, because the earth is aesthetically pleasing to you personally, that isn't evidence that the earth is "good", as the word was used in Genesis. While I find there's no other planet on which I would prefer to live, the fact that it is this one which is designed by God to support life isn't the measure of "good" or "very good" as the words were used in the Genesis account. You're just being obstinate and accusatory. We can look at the beauty of creation and ignore the many egregious dangers of life on earth and still say to ourselves it's a good place. But that's a very subjective regard indeed. Most porn stars are aesthetically pleasing to the eyes of most men. Does that mean they're "good"? Goodness as it is used in Genesis is not a matter of aesthetics.
So, you're annoyed with me because I didn't answer a question that you can't find, or that I failed to answer your "implied questions" that you didn't actually ask. I've always suspected that your "you don't answer any of my questions ever" shtick was just a way to divert attention from you choosing not to answer questions. Thank you for confirming this. You probably don't even understand how absurd it is for you to bitch about my not answering questions that you didn't ask or can't find as if I'm supposed to read your mind or some idiotic bullshit.
But, since you've come up with some entirely new questions to ask because you can't find any that I haven't answered, here goes.
"How do you even define Good? Bad? Evil?"
Good: (common English uses) The word good primarily means being of high quality, morally right, or pleasant. Good, as it applies to YHWH and HIs character would probably be best summed up a holy or perfect. Good as used in the Creation account has been well defined by Art and you can reference his comments.
Bad: generally means falling below an acceptable standard, or being unwanted, unpleasant, harmful, or morally wrong. Except when it is used to mean good.
Evil: profound immorality, wickedness, and actions or intentions that cause deliberate harm, pain, or suffering to others.
Obviously, none of these definitions are exhaustive, as English tends to use these words to refer to many different and varied things or degrees of things.
As the Hebrew and Greek definitions of these words are readily available I see no reason to waste time digging them up. I'll note that the Biblical authors chose different words to convey different things, despite the fact that the English might translate these various words as "good, bad, evil". So it is probably a mistake to retroactively apply common English definitions of these words to their uses in Scripture.
"Do you think it is possible for a bear to be "bad" and, if so, in what sense?"
No.
"You abandon typical meanings of words to assign you human religion tradition-accepted meanings of words, as if you all not only control the Bible, but also the dictionary."
Prove this claim, with specific examples (quotes and links to the examples required for me to take you seriously).
Who is "Young Glenn"?
"both griping because meanings of words evolve,"
1. Prove this claim.
2. The fact that meanings of words evolve, doesn't mean that we can retroactively apply a 21st century meaning of a word to the meaning intended by the Hebrew, Greek, or other language word translated into English.
3, I suspect that you may be troubled by the fact that we are trying to seek out the actual meaning of the original author, not impose a 21st century (progressive) meaning to ancient writings.
"The Bible and the dictionary and God are not yours to control and cage in. It's a silly thing to try."
Where, specifically, have any of us done this? Again the only acceptable response will include specific quotes, and links to those quotes?
"Not that you all would frame it that way, but what IS rejecting the current meanings of words in favor of your own meaning if not an attempt to control the language?"
You'll need to demonstrate where this is happening, with specifics, before I can answer this question. I believe that I've addressed it already, but if you have a specific example maybe I can better answer your question.
What you seem to be saying is that if we take the line "gay, happy meetings" from the Christmas song that we must define the word gay as it has evolved (meaning homosexual) rather than how the original author intended the word to be understood. You seem to be applying this to Scripture as well. Yet, it seems to me that using the term as it was originally meant to be understood is the best possible way to understand anything from the past. Do you disagree and thing that we should retroactively apply the evolved definition of terms to uses of those terms from the past? Do you think that we should ignore the specific term in the original language and it's specific meaning in that language in favor of the modern definition of the English translation?
"What ARE your human traditions (where even conservatives like Hannegraf are also "heretics..." Where EVERYONE who dares to disagree with your little opinions is a heretic and a blasphemer!) if not an attempt to box in and control God?"
1. Your passionate defense of Hannagraff (a person with whom you probably disagree on virtually everything) is touching. Your inability to acknowledge your error in asserting that Hank wrote the article you linked is disturbing.
2. While I do not agree with many of the tenets of Orthodoxy (Greek or otherwise) I personally disagree with the automatic labeling of anyone who is Orthodox as a heretic. Your lack of accuracy with these wild claims is also disturbing.
3. Where has anyone claimed that "anyone who disagrees with..." is a "heretic and a blasphemer"? (Quotes and links if you want to be taken seriously in your wild claims)
4. No.
Yeah, I get that you use your BS "you don't answer my questions" shtick to simply pile more questions on and demand that I answer those as well.
It's pointless to note that you tried the BS at my blog, and won't demonstrate what specific question I hadn't answered in a simple, direct, and sourced way. It's also pointless to note that the likelihood of you answering any of the questions you've been asked, before this comment, is virtually zero.
"I can't find it but think I asked it, but regardless:"
In the context of you bitching about me not answering your questions and how hysterical you are about it, do you not realize how incredibly arrogant, stupid, and narcissistic you sound botching that I haven't answered questions that apparently don't freaking exist?
The "problem" is your arrogant rejection as "myth" of clear Biblical teaching regarding man's sin nature, as my list of citations verify. You don't get to blow off Scripture in this manner without providing HARD DATA/OBJECTIVE PROOF to justify doing so.
"...results in most of humanity being tortured for eternity."
A most avoidable consequence as everyone who's truly "seriously and prayerfully" studied Scripture well knows.
"Of course, since hell doesn't exist except in your myths, that's not a problem."
Of course, since Jesus frequently warned about hell, I'll take His Word for it over your corruption of Scripture every time.
"The way that they treat others and the arrogance in their presumptions and actions towards others because of these myths they hold on to, that causes real problems in the real world."
Who is "they" and what actions by "they" do you find objectionable? Could it be their encouragement to repent of sin? How does that cause "real problems" in the real world the real sins against which "they" warn do not?
"Perhaps we should treat the religionists who affirm these sorts of threatening behaviors/myths the same way that you want to treat all Muslims."
Perhaps you should repent yourself. Perhaps you should be better yourself. Perhaps you should stop condescending to true Christ-followers as "religionists" because they accept Scripture in Its entirety instead of rejecting that which they find personally displeasing as you do as SOP.
Indeed. Reality, as always, is what Dan insists it is as measured by Dan's subjectivity. This is sin nature at work.
Art, you are correct. This is Dan trying to impose a 21st century progressive definition of the word translated as good, on an ancient text written in a different language with a different vocabulary.
By the definition Dan imposes, sure he's not wrong by his standards.
Your porn star example is apt because not everything that is aesthetically pleasing is automatically, intrinsically, good. In fact, some things that are aesthetically pleasing are actually bad for you.
Pride is one of the seven deadly sins.
How bizarre. The notion that warning someone that a particular behavior might be sinful, and that there might be negative consequences for continuing that behavior, but that Jesus offers them forgiveness and salvation is somehow harmful seems at odds with reality.
This "treat Muslims" BS is one more example of Dan making up BS and refusing to deal with it when his BS is pointed out.
If we treated Muslims as Muslims treat Christians, Jews, and all other non Muslims, maybe he'd have a point.
Your insistence that your are "rational" and that anyone who does not agree with your hunches is not "rational" is quite the example of hubris, pride, and arrogance. That you don't see how this is no different from your complaints about calling people who disagree heretics, is hilarious. You just hide behind your illusion that you represent "rational" (which is hilarious as "rational" is subjective) as your reason to demonize those who disagree. What's even more hilarious is that you are imposing your own set of blinders based on your own human tradition on the text.
This comment is simply insane. The dismissal of anyone who disagrees with your 21st century progressive views on Jesus and Scripture as not "rational" is, itself, not rational.
I do look at all of the "words of Jesus", but I also look at the rest of Scripture, and the remarkably consistent messages that run through it. I just try as hard as possible to connect with the meanings that the authors intended, and rely on the Holy Spirit for guidance rather than trust in myself. I try to take advantage of the accumulated knowledge regarding the original languages of scripture and the problems that have crept into how many things are translated (for example Reed Sea is a much more accurate translation than Red Sea).
"Just objectively, observably, pound for pound, word for word, do you acknowledge that there are vastly more words and a vastly more consistent message of love and welcome for all, including and especially the poor and marginalized, as compared to any promotion of atonement theories or even anything remotely like it?"
Without actually looking at what you are specifically referring to, no I cannot agree with something that you've clearly made up out of thin air and labeled as objective. The problem I'd have with your hunch is that you've artificially limited your inquiry to only words. While Jesus' words to the disciples between during the final week of His life might not have been extensive in quantity, when combined with His actions, a different picture emerges. My final problem with this theoretical exercise is that it relies on how you choose to interpret what Jesus says, the context that He says it in, and to exclude any alternative that you don't like.
But, by all means, do the work. Build a case with data and specifics. Lay it out in a logical and dispassionate manner. Don't just make a wild, unfounded claim, and demand that your claim be accepted as objective.
Dan...
"I can't find it but think I asked it, but regardless:"
Craig...
"In the context of you bitching about me not answering your questions and how hysterical you are about it, do you not realize how incredibly arrogant, stupid, and narcissistic you sound botching that I haven't answered questions that apparently don't freaking exist?"
??
Once again, Dan...
"I CAN'T FIND IT BUT THINK I ASKED IT, BUT REGARDLESS:"
There are no complaints, rushing, or bitching in that, simply asking you another question that I may or may not have already asked. These people read but fail to understand.
Dan
"I haven't done a word count or anything but surely we could agree (just objectively looking at the literal words in the red letters of Jesus) that there are hundreds, if not thousands, of words that are part of passages that are dealing with the good news for the poor and marginalized in one way or another."
My point exactly, you haven't done the work, pulled this out of your ass and expect others to agree with your unsupported hunch. No thank you. Especially if you insist that the word "poor" must always and exclusively be interpreted to mean the materially poor and that any alternative must automatically be excluded.
"On the other hand if you squint your eyes and really stretch the meaning, do you think you could even reach two dozen words that're MAYBE dealing with something approaching atonement? "
You have this bizarre notion that word count somehow magically determines the Truth of things. That's not a real hermenutic approach. It's a simplistic, childish, surface approach.
"we don't see ANY sermons that even begin to do that."
Ahhhhhhhhhhh, the "we must artificially limit which words of Jesus really count" gambit. That's just you doing what you accuse us of doing.
"Beyond that,..." Dan has hunches and nothing else.
"And I could go on..."
Please don't if all you are going to do is misrepresent stuff, and spew your hunches. It's a waste of everyone's time.
"just based on a word count..."
1. "Word count" is not how Biblical interpretation works.
2. "Jesus actual words" (as interpreted by you) and limited only to what you consider His "sermons" is also not how Biblical interpretation works.
3. The problem with your "word count" hunch is that it ignored the fact that Jesus was an observant Jew who would have accepted the Torah (and the rest of Hebrew Scripture) as Scripture. Given that, He didn't spend a lot of time discussing Hebrew Scriptures with His (mostly) Jewish or Jewish adjacent audience. Jesus didn't need to specifically affirm (for example) Torah law as "His words" because He was speaking to an audience where the authority of the Torah/Hebrew Scriptures was understood. Jesus' Jewish listeners (as well as those nearby like the Samaritans) would have taken for granted the Torah teachings on atonement, sacrifice, Sin, and propitiation. Jesus didn't need to repeat that to His primary audience, and Paul (etc) based The Gospel firmly in Jewish Scripture even when he spoke to gentiles. This is the problem with your "Jesus' sermons" and "word count" nonsense. It simply leave out too much context and information.
"And if we throw in..."
Because we must agree with Dan about what should be included and excluded in our evaluation.
"Given all of that,..."
A rational person wouldn't simply make a bunch of unsupported claims based on opinions, "word counts" and "sermons" and announce that their unsupported claims were magically a "Given".
However, if I wanted to play your game and accept your vague and non specific rules for eisegesus, than I might agree with your hunches. Fortunately, I don't think you should define or limit me and what the Holy Spirit leads me to find in Scripture.
No.
One thing that has become increasingly acknowledged about AI is that it looks at the way the question is asked and all available information about the one asking the question, and tailors it's answer to give the questioner what they want to hear.
Back in the day they called that GIGO.
"I'm just asking you: Can you now acknowledge that reality?"
As you have not presented any objective reality to acknowledge, no I cannot acknowledge that the AI response to your leading question represents a singular reality.
"Can you acknowledge that someone reading that with fresh eyes and no biases would find that consistent message of love and welcome for the poor and marginalized versus strong opposition to the rich oppressors and the legalists... and that they would not find your human theories evident at all, just on the words of Jesus..?"
No. Because I have the ability to recognize that not everyone will agree with me and I can allow for the possibility that your hypothetical person might not agree with your forced reading, and might not limit themselves as you have. Because I'm not that prideful, narcissistic, and arrogant.
3 comments, more questions, zero answers. Pretty much as expected.
Not only zero answers to the questions asked here, but zero attempt to unveil the magical mystery question I allegedly didn't answer at my blog, the alleged lack of an answer to the magical mystery question was Dan's excuse to avoid and dodge questions in that thread. Wonder what his excuse will be in this thread.
FWIW and kind of irrelevant but I generally assume that actions labeled "good, bad, evil" are partially defined by intention. Which is why I wouldn't label the actions of a non sentient being as "good, bad, evil". Further, I don't get as hung up as Dan on labeling people "good, bad, evil". I think it makes more sense to look at someone's actions and label their actions thus. That's why we can see the same person engage in actions that could be labeled "good, bad, evil" at various times. Their essence didn't change.
This gets a little more complicated when we see the story of Joseph and how YHWH took the "bad/evil" actions of his brothers, and used that "bad,evil" action to bring about a much larger "good".
Good people/bad people/evil people is just too simplistic and lacking in nuance. Trump has a long and well documented history of doing good things to people, usually without any fanfare or publicity. So it seems simplistic to simply label him a "bad,evil" person because those actions seem to belie that characterization. David was a "man after YHWHs own heart" yet did many "bad" things. I'd rather not label someone as a "good, bad, evil" person.
Post a Comment