Still More Sin Nature

 

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.

Where Last Time The Truth Was Dismissed Without The Truth Being Mentioned

 It's simply amazing to me how a leftist can be shown the facts, given the evidence and yet still cling to that which ignores what has been proven.  I refer of course to my previous post, in which I present a selection of verses which proves as false the claim that the principle that we are each born with a sin nature is not Biblical.  Merely citing the verses I chose should have done the trick.  They clearly come from Scripture and speak to man's nature being sinful.  There's no doubt about that.  Nonetheless, the assertion that it does not remains as if no evidence of any kind was brought forth.  It's not that the evidence wasn't direct in proving that "sin nature" is a Biblical concept, it's that the very fact of it is too troubling to accept for some reason not explained or even worthy to make mention.  It's just that the whining that "sin nature" is not a Biblical teaching must be accepted for reasons also not explained (that it's allegedly not Biblical is not a reason...it's a premise which must be supported but never was).

Rather than giving something akin to a reason why any of the rest were not the evidence demanded to support the premise the "sin nature" is a Biblical teaching (one or two weak attempts notwithstanding), tons of keystrokes were wasted trying to refute the very words of Jesus Himself, wherein He states plainly and without caveat that there is no one good but God alone.  This is a truth with which I have no personal trouble.  It worries me not.  And it was lost that the distinction is not at all a nuanced one to grasp:

First is the truth claim itself.  It was stated by Jesus directly, thus confirming He meant it to be taken as given.  If this is not so, there would've been some clarification given.  There's not even any hint that anyone who heard Him say this was dismayed by it in any way, nor did anyone even ask Jesus to explain what He meant by it.  Everything else in the story referred to the Rich Young Ruler's question, and clarification was asked about Jesus's response to what the RYR needed for salvation.  His response was the Good News we're told was intended for the materially poor primarily.  And it is there where the clarification for the truth stated in Mark 10:18 appears.  That is, why the statement was a statement of actual fact, and not hyperbole or metaphor or figurative speech.  More importantly, that actual fact relates to the rest of the list and why it was put together for the post.

What is it which makes God alone "good"?  Well, among all answers anyone might offer, primary of them, and that which is most relevant to the discussion of the previous post, is that He is without sin.  Sin is not in Him.  No solely human person can say that about themselves.  Jesus wasn't as much telling the Rich Young Dude to lighten his purse, but to follow Jesus, for Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life and no one comes to the Father but through Jesus, because Jesus came to pay the price...the wages of our sin.  His shedding of His Blood is the payment, and it washes away our sin and we are then redeemed.  

It is sin which separates us from God.  Not the specific sinful acts we commit, but sin itself...the sin which is our nature due to sin entering God's "very good" Creation when Adam ate of the forbidden fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.  It infected everything which God had said was "very good" when He was finished creating creation.  All the warm and fluffy, feel-good, Kumbaya, Pollyanaish talk of "Grace" of my interlocutor of the last post ignores what was required for us to receive that Grace, and it required something being done to pay the wages of sin...death...just as atonement for God's Chosen People required death for sin, either the sinner's life, or the life of as most perfect a sacrificial animal as could be found.   But they were insufficient both because they were not truly perfectly unblemished animals, but because they only atoned for specific sins committed.  It did not atone for the sin nature.  That's where the final sacrifice took care of that business.

But it's all "human tradition", you see.  But it's the human Christian tradition of accepting the clear and unambiguous teaching of Scripture, which is the teaching of God revealed to us by a plain reading of Scripture, written to be easily understood.  It's not cryptic or mysterious with "layers of meaning" such that multiple meanings can exist which are contradictory, were any secondary meaning actually be presented with evidence which withstands scrutiny.  

And that, of course was the point of the last post.  "Sin nature" was asserted as no more than personal opinion rather than a Biblical doctrine.  Challenged to back up the counter claim, I gathered verses which attest to the doctrine and counter-challenged that if the verses don't mean what is conveyed by a plain reading of them, then what do they REALLY mean, and what evidence can be brought forth to support the claim.  I was presented with nothing more than weak attempts to provide verses which don't do what they were claimed to do.  To counter "there are none good but God alone", I was presented two or three times with the same passage wherein Jesus speaks of what "a good man" does as if it proves there are "good" people aside from God.  The problem, of course, was that the verse doesn't name any specific person, but simply describes what a good person would look like, very much like the passage which contains "ye shall know them by their fruit" describes what a follower of Christ would look like.  I also was given the marxist, liberation theology "tradition" of the "context" from which the Mark 10:18 verse was drawn being about "oppression" of the Pharisees, as well as indicting the Rich Young Ruler as one of them simply because he's wealthy as if no wealthy people in Scripture are regarded as righteous in the eyes of God.  

But here's what it's really all about:  Universalism.  Marxist, liberation theology universalism.  Everybody gets a trophy!  It's about rejecting the purpose of Jesus having walked among us.  It's about rejecting the crucifixion as no more than "Some people did something", not as a willing act of self-sacrifice by Jesus.  This makes His resurrection worthless, as it shows His power over death, which is what sin has done for us since it first entered Creation in Eden.  

Furthermore, since God took on the flesh to be the Perfect sacrifice necessary to wash away all sin of those who believe in Jesus, it's pretty clear He takes sin rather seriously.  It's not merely a "misstep" or "missing the mark" and it's not about any specific sinful act which required this great sacrifice to save us from His wrath and justice.  It was the great Passover.  The Blood of Christ adorns our doorframes so that the Angel of Death knows we are not condemned by our sin nature.   This truth is rejected by the vile response that it denotes a "petty godling" who acts with caprice and evil intent.  "The Lamb of God Who takes away the sins of the world" is just a catchy title.  It doesn't mean He would be sacrificed as a Penal Substitute for our Atonement.  That would be petty.  

The Black Knight fancies himself the victor!

Then What Does It Mean?!

 Mark 10:18.  What does it mean?  From the NIV (the translation I'll be using throughout this post), it says, “Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone.  About whom is Jesus speaking when He says "No one is good"?  There's no indication that He's referring to any specific people or group of people.  He simply says, "NO ONE is good."  Indeed, the only exception He cites is "God alone".  That sounds like ONLY God and no one else anywhere.

And what is Jesus saying about no one being good?  He doesn't say in this passage, "No one does good", does He?  Doesn't look like it in any of the 46 translations I've reviewed at Bible Hub.  Each of them say distinctly, no one IS good.  This speaks to the condition of every person, or, as the Amplified Bible puts it, "No one is [essentially] good [by nature] except God alone."  BY NATURE???  (The parentheticals are from the Amplified Bible)  Oh, NO!  Could it be that the nature of mankind is the opposite of "good"???   Like maybe... bad?   Someone might say, "this is speaking of perfection, and being imperfect doesn't mean sinful".  But what makes Jesus "perfect" if not that He was born sinless...that He was without sin (2 Corinthians 5:21, John 8:46, Hebrews 4:15, 7:26, 1 Peter 2:22)?

So, if Mark 10:18 isn't contrasting a perfect, sinless God with man's imperfection by virtue of man's sin nature, then what does Jesus's statement, "No one is good" mean?

Jeremiah 17:9.  What does it mean?  It says, "The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?"  Who is the person who's heart is referenced here?  There's no specific person mentioned.  It is the heart of man which is deceitful and beyond cure.  If that doesn't reference a sin nature, what then does it mean?  Even in the context from which this verse is drawn we see it as the reason one's trust must be in God alone, and not in man or the flesh.   If it isn't speaking to our sin nature, what does it mean?

Psalm 51:5.  What does it mean?  It says, "Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me."  Sinful from conception?  How is that not an acknowledgement of the speaker's (David's) sin nature?  Is he saying he was exceptional in this way, and that only his nature is sinful?  How can one make that case?  Is he being hyperbolic?  Again, on what basis can anyone say this without merely expressing the hope that he is?   How is that even more likely than David simply stating that he is NOT unique among men, but rather that he is as sinful by nature as everyone else?  If this Psalm doesn't mean "sin nature", what does it mean?

Romans 7:18.  What does it mean?  It says, "For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out."  Here again we have a man, Paul, stating what is true about himself as an example for that which is common to us all.  He even goes as far as to name the problem specifically as his "sinful nature".  Are we to assume that like David, only Paul is so plagued?  How can one defend that position?  If Romans 7:18 isn't affirming the concept of man's sin nature, then what does it mean?

Romans 5:12-14.  What does it mean?  It says, " Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned— To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law.  Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come."  (emphasis mine)  The emboldened part indicates ALL are stained by Adam's sin, and indeed is a teaching repeated several times in Scripture.  It indicates ALL have a sin nature as a result.  If this is NOT what verse 14 is saying, what does it mean?

Ephesians 2:1-2.  What does this mean?  It says, "As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, 2 in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient."  Does this verse not speak to the condition of those who had come to Christ, contrasting them not only to their previous selves (pre-conversion), but to those still disobedient?   If it's not speaking to our sin nature, what does it mean?

Ephesians 2:3.  What does THIS mean?  It says, "All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our flesh[a] and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature deserving of wrath."  (emphasis mine)  If verses 1-3 aren't teaching about our sin nature, what do they mean?

Genesis 8:21.  What does this mean?  It says, "And when the Lord smelled the pleasing aroma, the Lord said in his heart, “I will never again curse[a] the ground because of man, for the intention of man's heart is evil from his youth. Neither will I ever again strike down every living creature as I have done." (emphasis mine)  "Youth"?  From what age specifically is this verse referencing?  How can one support the concept it doesn't mean "from birth"?  If the emboldened, italicized portion of this verse isn't also speaking of our sin nature, what does it mean?

Psalm 14:2–3.  What does this mean?  It says, "The Lord looks down from heaven on all mankind to see if there are any who understand,any who seek God.  All have turned away, all have become corrupt; there is no one who does good, not even one." (emphasis mine)  "All" means "everyone".  If this doesn't speak to mankind's sin nature, what does it mean?

Job 15:14-16.  What does this mean?  It says, “What are mortals, that they could be pure, or those born of woman, that they could be righteous?  If God places no trust in his holy ones, if even the heavens are not pure in his eyes, how much less mortals, who are vile and corrupt, who drink up evil like water!"  If this isn't denoting mankind's sin nature, what does it mean?

Ecclesiastes 9:3.  What does this mean?  It says, "This is the evil in everything that happens under the sun: The same destiny overtakes all. The hearts of people, moreover, are full of evil and there is madness in their hearts while they live, and afterward they join the dead." (emphasis mine)  Is this verse speaking of a specific people, or people in general when it says, "the hearts of people"?  The author of this book, thought to be King Solomon, is reflecting on life in general and thus on people in general.  If this is not what he means, what then does it mean?

On September 7, 2026 at 10:29 AM in comments under Dan Trabue's post "Love the "Sinner." Period." (8/29/26), Dan says this laugher:

"IF you want to take the more respectful, rational, humble approach and ask me to address a given text as it relates to your personal human theory, unproven as it is, then cite a passage - your best passage - and I'll offer my opinion about the passage in question as it relates to your human theory and explain (probably once again) why I don't think a given passage is at all proof of your theory/theories."

 
The citations in this post, as well as a veritable cornucopia of citations I've presented in many, many comments have all been invitations to Dan to provide for us meaning the verses themselves don't plainly convey.  That he dares offer to do so now, as if the invitation for such hasn't be an open one for years is typical Dan.  But, I'll make the challenge specific once again.  I don't want him to "explain" anything.  I want him to PROVE the verses I cite don't stand as evidence for the principles he doesn't want to believe are Biblical.  This means he needs to bring evidence that the verses I cite mean something entirely different than a plain reading of them so clearly suggests.  Without that, he's just blowing farts.  

Muslim Dan--Progressive Man*

 *"Man".  A word used very loosely in the title of this post.

There's a dude I've seen on YouTube named Dr. Zakir Naik.  This clown is considered to be among the top muslim apologists and lecturers on islam going today....at least I've seen videos of him where he's introduced as such.  He's arabic, speaks really fast, is condescending and arrogant, especially when responding to questions from students...especially female...and like so many muslims, always says "Peace be upon him" if he mentions the names of Jesus or Mohammad.  He likes to pose what he thinks is the ultimate "gotcha" question for his promotion and defense of islam, which goes something like this:

"Show me in the Gospels where it show unequivocally Jesus saying, 'I am God.  Worship me,' and if you can I'll become a Christian right now!"
 
Of whom are you reminded after reading this?  What this guy is saying is that Scripture MUST contain a verse in any of the Gospels where Jesus is saying exactly what Naik says it must in order for it to be true that Jesus is or has proclaimed Himself to be God.  Again, does this remind you of anyone you know?

Of course!  Dan Trabue, for whom nothing is true unless it is stated exactly the way Dan insists it must be.  We see this when the subject of Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA) is on the table.  Recently, he's again disputing the concept of the sin nature of each member of the human population.  As is common with Dan, Naik supposes that despite the several New Testament passages in which Jesus confirms His Deity, because He didn't say specifically, "I am God", Jesus therefore can't be regarded as God.  This is how both he and Dan operate.  Because Scripture doesn't mention PSA specifically, the concept is a false invention.  Doesn't matter how strongly Scripture teaches that very concept...how much the Epistle writers affirm the reality of our salvation and redemption being dependent upon Jesus's self-sacrifice on the cross.  It MUST say, "PSA" in order for Dan to accept that teaching, just as Naik must read "I am God, you must worship me" in order to affirm Christ is God.  

I haven't seen him take on Naik directly, but another YouTube "must watch" channel is that of a guy named Avery (last name still unknown to me), who can be found by tying in the KeyWords "Godlogic" or "GodLogic" or "God Logic" (not sure which is best).  This young man is an awesome witness and apologist for the faith and takes on muslms (mostly) but also Mormons and JWs.  He's referred to Naik by imitating him saying "If you can show me where in the Gospels Jesus (Peace be upon him) unequivocally says..." in an arabic accent.  He's really entertaining in how he does his thing.  But he's exposed similar Dan-like tactics in other muslims ("Dawah" people...those bringing others to a better understanding of the convoluted islam).  These include ignoring what was said as if it never had been, even though it was said mere minutes ago, equivocation and deflection, deletion (in the case of Avery and those he confronts, this happens by constantly talking over Avery and again, pretending a point wasn't already affirmed and confirmed).  They also like to pretend that Christians in general have corrupted Scripture...as Dan refers to one who cites exactly a verse or passage to have presented misinterpretation, or "your human tradition" or "your human opinion".

Dan's most recent post has in its comments section more comments of Dan quoting me out of context than there are comments of mine he didn't delete. All the tactics mentioned here are blatantly evident there.  There's even a response to Craig for a comment I don't see anywhere in the thread, nor in any of Craig's recent posts at his own blog. 

Anyway, it's the same old shit with that guy.  

NOTE:  At the time of this writing, I've been experiencing a problem getting my comments published at any "Blogger" blog, including my own.  Accepting that my old system is imposing issues upon me others aren't force to endure, I am wondering if others are having the same issue.  

NOTE:  So after posting this, I went over to YouTube to catch up on my Chicago baseball teams (they both won) and then I clicked on a GodLogic video, which I present below:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ieh2NDbgn1E

If someone is unable to see the Trabue in this muslim Avery debates, let me know.

Notice Anything Particularly Familiar Here?

 https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2026/08/the-big-secret-about-teen-takeovers/

The above link is an essay about the "teen takeovers" too common these days.  While it highlights a long-standing problem with "real" media of refusing to make any reference to the race of the bad actors, there's something else in the article which relates to something we've been discussing lately.  Who can identify it?

Sis Wins!

 So it seems that Lindsey Graham's little sister, Darlene, has won the special run-off election here in S. Carolina and will run...and most likely win...the November election to fill the seat come January, barring some wild error on her part.  She had secured the endorsements of both the sitting and outgoing governor, Henry McMaster, and Donald Trump.  So her win goes to the win column for Trump-endorsed candidates, which is still greatly favorable to his influence in that regard.  That's cool, but doesn't affect my own choices in the slightest.  It's nice to know when his picks align with mine, but never has any bearing on my choices in the slightest.

I find it a bit curious in a state considered red and thus conservative, that she would win over someone with a far better conservative ranking than her brother had.  I don't believe, from what I've gleaned thus far about her, that Darlene is even as conservative as Lindsey was.  Both Russel Fry, who didn't make the cut for the run-off Darlene just won, and Ralph Norman, who she defeated in the run-off, ranked in the mid to upper 90s in conservative ranking systems, like the American Conservative Union and Conservative Review's Liberty Score.  Graham only managed to be ranked somewhere in the 80s.  Norman didn't run against Lindsey in the original primary before Lindsey died.  He ran in the gubernatorial race and lost.  There was a run-off for that, too, and he wasn't a part of it.  (If I recall, he fared better than my personal choice who was an outsider)  I don't recall if Fry was among the original cast of candidates at that time.

Norman had the backing of gun rights organizations because he's always been a 2nd Amendment stalwart.  In surveys sent to candidates, Graham didn't respond, and she's said to have backed a state politician who opposed 2nd Amendment legislation in the state (I don't recall the specifics).  She's also been a rather D.E.I. supporter in her previous state position.  I hadn't seen her debate, so that's about as far as I can go in speaking on her conservative bona fides, which to me seem less than compelling.  Again, it doesn't mean she's not a conservative, but simply not as conservative as I believe she should be, given how desperately we need the most conservative people in the most solid majority we can muster for the sake of the nation.

I will of course cast my vote for her in the November midterm election.  "Mostly" conservative is always better than not conservative at all, and that's pretty much her opponent, Annie Andrews based on what I've learned of her so far.  It will be interesting to see how Graham performs throughout her six year term, and in the meantime, I hope a true conservative from our state rises up to challenge and replace her if she doesn't prove me wrong about her being only "mostly" conservative.  In the meantime, I'll be content if she proves to be no better than a rubber stamp for Trump and his successor (provided that person is a Republican), and a decided thorn in the side of the Democrat marxists.  

Arguments Are Less Legit Than I Thought!

I just came upon this Matt Walsh video which is centered on the Lindsay Clancy case, wherein she strangled her three children, admitted it, blamed it on post-partum depression, and now has hordes of people rising to her defense:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMP8iOUns5k

What provoked me to write another post is how it actually makes the argument of my last post even stronger than it already was.  Understanding that Walsh's response to the many defenses of this woman will be regarded as just another example of the misogynist and patriarchal ramblings of a privileged white guy rather than the righteous outrage of a decent man against the leftist disregard for the true victims of Clancy's most heinous actions. 

So how does it relate to my previous post?  Well, Walsh cites the many women who have allied themselves with Clancy, including crowdfunding donations to the tune of around $900K or more.  This is similar to support for Karmelo Anthony after he murdered a kid and for Luigi Mangione after he murdered.  (Women are notorious for fawning over violent criminals!  It's probably because they're historically abused and oppressed!)

This kind of hybristophilia or "empathy for the devil" or "moral disengagement" has already been found in those defending islam, including the most violent forms of it, from the stupidity of the "Light Bringer", Barry Obumble dismissing an islamist mass shooting by Maj. Nidal Hassan as mere "workplace violence", to all those morons stepping up to defend or minimize the Oct. 7, 2023 butchering, raping and murdering of  1200 Israelis (and Americans).  Indeed, some actually speak of the felling of the World Trade Center Twin Towers as "deserved"!   

Add to all this the routine release of violent criminals by mostly Democrat appointed judges (mostly women judges) and it's difficult to fathom that we should disregard the history and religious teachings of islam when it comes to whether or not we should allow them entry into our country.  Indeed, this insanity elevates the threat level to outlandish heights!

No.  People with absolute shit for brains, like Dan Trabue, can scold me all they like.  They can pretend the jackass on which they ride is the moral high horse.  But such people are as much a threat to this nation as would be the islamists they welcome with open arms, without any way to determine who will cut their heads off in front of their own families.  Hyperbole?   Don't be a dumbass!