The 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!

No Legit Argument Against Muslim Ban

I never really expect that Dan will ever change his spots...that his character will ever improve and he will behave toward others as he demands they behave for him.  That would be foolish.  But now and then, especially when lacking better things to do or the motivation to find them, I do visit his Blog of Lies and Perversions to see what Lies and Perversions he's chosen to spew since my last visit.  Often, the visit is compelled by his having visited other blogs without getting satisfaction for his nonsensical hunches, opinions and human traditions.  (He'd have to visit a lefty blog for that!)

Anyway, there's a post referenced in one of my recent posts which is tied to recent discussions where he embarrasses himself as usual.  A point of contention is his penchant for responding to intelligent, truthful and factual expressions about groups he favors with reference to alleged "past abuses and oppression".  I say "alleged" because he's never specific about what he means.  That doesn't matter as his true intention is to stifle or censor that which he cannot overcome.  Thus, he seeks to appeal to his opponent by reminding his opponent of these unnamed "past abuses and oppression", as if past abuse is relative in any way to the point raised and defended by his opponent.  Indeed, any and every criticism, regardless of  its merit, ist verboten because the group meriting that criticism was abused and/or oppressed in the past.  More so, the criticism itself is regarded by Dan as abuse and oppression, too!  

Yeah.  I know.  He's a real freaking moron.

So, as I was clarifying my position, and doing so in the most "respectful, adult" manner, he nonetheless chose to delete my comments and do his bit where he responds to out of context snippets.  He doesn't make his position any stronger by doing so, nor is he honest in the attempt because the context is missing due to his having deleted it.  Naturally, my first inclination is to again provide clarity to that which he's corrupted to posture as "morally and rationally superior", as well as to condescend and disparage.  In this case, after bouncing from one "abused and oppressed" group to another depending upon how difficult it was for him to counter the truths, facts and logic of my arguments, he fell upon islam and my position that all immigration of muslims to our nation should be suspended (and most muslims already here deported).  

In supposing that there's actually something wrong with a Christian expecting his government to deny entry to the most violent and oppressive group of people in the world, with almost 1400 years of history to back up that charge and numerous examples in the here and now around the world, Dan pretends he's the rational one for supposing we must judge each muslim individually as if his "religion" doesn't encourage the very violence and oppression I expect my government to spare us.  How does he do this?  By citing an article about who is more violent:  Christians or muslims.  He expects me to "educate" myself with this:

https://www.christiancentury.org/article/2010-04/body-counts

As we all know by now, Dan merely grabs whatever he thinks supports his position based on the title of the piece alone, never actually studying what he offers or vetting it for error or accuracy.  One would think at this point he'd know that I will indeed check out what he presents.  So I did.  Here is how I responded:

Once again you prove no intellectual curiosity to support your claims or objections to mine. Your "Christian Century" link does not provide such evidentiary support, and no 37-page pamphlet it references could. As is your habit, you grabbed the first piece you found which only seems to support your position without actually reviewing and researching it for accuracy. Here's what I've found:

""Body Count: A Quantitative Review of Political Violence Across World Civilizations" is highly flawed

That criticism is well-founded. The work appears to have serious methodological problems that make its headline comparisons unreliable:

---Category error: It assigns deaths to broad religious or civilizational identities, even though wars are usually driven by states, regimes, political movements, nationalism, economic interests, or strategic calculations—not simply religion.
---Problematic attribution: Counting all deaths in a war against the religion of the ruling society treats affiliation as causation. That can make ordinary civilians, opponents, and even victims appear part of a religion’s “body count.”
---Unclear definitions: “Political violence,” “religious violence,” “civilization,” and “atheist” need precise operational definitions. Especially problematic is treating ostensibly secular communist regimes as an “atheist” category while classifying other regimes by their majority religion.
---Questionable aggregation: Combining estimates across thousands of years is highly sensitive to missing records, changing population sizes, disputed casualty figures, and inconsistent historical evidence.
---Weak documentation: The bibliographic information identifies it as a short, 37-page 2009 publication, and available descriptions indicate that its estimates are rough. Public reader critiques also point to inadequate sourcing and a lack of a proper reference list—but those reviews are not themselves peer-reviewed evidence.
---Selection and confirmation bias: A framework that produces a ranked list of religions or civilizations risks beginning with the conclusion it wants to demonstrate and then fitting ambiguous cases into it.

The strongest objection is not that every number must be wrong; it is that the categories do not support the causal conclusions. At most, the study might estimate deaths occurring under governments or populations associated with particular civilizational labels. It cannot validly establish that Christianity, Islam, atheism, or any other identity “killed” a given number of people without a defensible causal model.

A better study would code specific actors and mechanisms, distinguish combatant from civilian deaths, report uncertainty ranges, preserve competing scholarly estimates, normalize by population and time period, and avoid assigning collective guilt to entire religions or civilizations."

It's you who's lacking in education, while totally devoid of sense, honesty, or Christian character.  

It's like responding to the lefty's typical pro-"gay" parenting studies!  It's just the conclusion which matters to those like Dan.  Not how the author/researcher came to it. 

But I stand by my position regarding muslims.  It's too bad that some truly good people might be denied what our country has to offer.  I don't know how we can be assured that this next muslim isn't the next guy who'll fly a plane into a building with hundreds of people in it for "allah!"  We can't be assured that a person who's faith teaches lying to further the goals of the "faith" is truly the good dude he might appear to be.  Why risk it?  My people are more important to me than any foreigner, particularly those who come from muslim majority nations.  Here's a little something which makes the point well:

https://theimaginativeconservative.org/2017/02/know-nothings-catholic-muslim-immigration-william-kilpatrick.html

ALREADY AN UPDATE!!!! 

Wow!  I've been watching this guy a few times in recent days.  Harris Sultan, a "former" muslim, who's out of Australia, I believe, but seems to be enamored with that country as well as the U.S.A. and the U.K.  He understands what Dan pretends isn't true and isn't a concern.  He has a notion of what constitutes a "good" muslim and it's pretty much a "former" muslim.  He opposes immigration of muslims because they do not hide what they want to see happen on a global scale:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9QLybBXk6s

Dan Lies Yet Again

 What follows are comments I submitted at Dan's Blog Of Lies And Perversions under his post of Aug 9 (https://throughthesewoods.blogspot.com/2026/08/a-curse-to-fourth-generation.html).  I don't know if he responded to them, or if he just did his typical deletion thing and then lied about what I said.  I never scrolled down to the comments total to see if there's any change in that number one way or the other.  When I finished submitting my comments, I just copied them to a file in anticipation of his eventual deletion of them (the probability of deletion is always extremely high, as it's easier for him than confronting that which he deletes), and now I've chosen to post them here.  Refer to the link above to find out what nonsense provoked my response, or just pour through Craig's blog post and the subsequent comments there (https://jsmmds.blogspot.com/2026/08/monkey-see.html).

I should also mention an earlier post at Dan's Blog Of Lies And Perversions (https://throughthesewoods.blogspot.com/2026/06/happy-pride-to-beloved-community.html) which is referenced both at Craig's blog and Dan's linked post of pompous poop above.  So here we go:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 You start right off with lies and fasehoods:

"As always, I'm engaged with conversations with conservatives who believe the best of the white privileged male protesters on days of infamy like the January 6th uprising or nearly every Pride Parade,..."

First is another example of your self-loathing, white-guilted racism against white people, as every white dude who expresses an opposing opinion must be "privileged" to dare speak at all. There's not a person who is born of this nation who is not privileged, some more than others in various ways, but none so much that they deserve the arrogant condescension inherent in every instance whereby liars like you label them "privileged white guys". Worse is that you can't even, nor even so much as make the slightest attempt to connect their skin color to their expressed opinion, as if ONLY white people feel as do those you attack without just cause.

There was no "uprising" on January 6, but only the concerns of decent Americans who were treated badly for daring to express their concerns. Indeed, video evidence proves that from the start, the most vitriolic among them...few in number...were rebuked by those decent people (see Ray Epps, clips of people seeking to restrain the more destructive among them...also few in number), and it got out of hand after the Pelosi people began lobbing tear gas and flash bangs into peaceful crowds of marchers.

Those who protest at "Pride" events are more often than not peaceful in their protests against the participants, particularly given the often lurid behaviors of pro-LGBTQ participants. They almost never (I'm being generous here in suggesting they might ever) get violent with anyone.

"...and one thing that I believe these people are missing is the context of oppressor and oppressed."

Not at all. You just need to believe this. What's missing is the relevance of past oppression having any bearing on the expressed positions of those who disagree with your kind, as it has absolutely no relevance at all.

"In one recent conversation, the conservative posted a video where there was a white guy protesting against abortion rights and health rights for women. In that example, the white anti-abortionist (in THAT example) remained fairly calm and low-key."

Again with the racism! What possible difference does it make what race the protester is? Answer this question for a change!

The lie here is that he wasn't protesting against "abortion rights and health rights for women." He was protesting against the unnecessary murder of people in utero, as there is no medical reason for ever having to do that. He was advocating for life in ways you never do, and in this case, seek to suppress his most righteous message on the basis of the fictitious "right to abortion" and the equally fallacious "health rights for women".

What's more, he didn't "remain" "fairly calm and low-key". He came calm and had no reason to elevate his emotions because his cause is just and those attacking him have no argument rationalizing their doing so.

"In another example, I had offered the story of the interaction (cited in a previous recent post here) of the six white nationalist men protesting at this year's Louisville Gay Pride Day."

And no where in that previous post, nor in your pearl clutching comments at Craig's blog and not in this post either, have you offered any evidence that these six were "nationalists" in any way, but only that because they were white and righteously opposing those at the "Pride" event, they then must be.

"In one, we're talking about rights for women, in the other, we're talking about equal rights and opportunities for LGBTQ folks and their allies"

No. That's what you're trying to make them both to be. The reality is the promotion, defense, celebration and enabling of infanticide and sexual immorality.

"In each of those cases it is vital to remember that we are talking about
groups who have been historically abused,
oppressed,
maligned,
demonized,
harmed, and
killed
on the one hand and the oppressors on the other."

This is a lie. Again, you're trying to make it about that in order to abdicate your obligation to address that actual protests and objections to the things like the sexual immorality and infanticide you promote, celebrate, defend and enable.

"...if the oppressed and their allies were to get loud and yell, we must remember there is a historic memory of abuses towards women and denying the rights to women."

This is abjectly stupid and deceitful! Again, what relevance does past oppression have to the objections of those who protest against you privileged groups? And yes, those you defend are privileged. If you hit me with rocks last year, does that mean you're not allowed to deny me the ability to park my car on your lawn. Because you must remember there is a historic memory of abuses by you against me. How absurd you argument is! It's a dodge and nothing more.

"That makes it a charged situation for those on the side of the oppressed."

But of course, they're not even oppressed! You continue to assert that because some of them had been, then they must be accommodated in all things. That no one must ever oppose any demand for accommodation for even those things unrelated to having been oppressed.

"Trauma is a real thing caused by the real world history of abusive oppressors."

Any and every current "trauma" they experience/endure is totally self-inflicted.

"And in each of these cases, the oppression is not ancient history. It's still a fresh, recent thing, in our lifetimes only - and truly into our children's lifetimes - has it started to get a little bit better."

Yet, to whatever extent that's true at all, it's still wildly irrelevant. Public displays of celebration and lobbying by your "oppressed" people are demands for more privileges akin to the demand for reparations for slavery. There's no justification for it and past offenses aren't justifications. And it's not gotten "a little better"! It's gotten wildly insane and unjustified!

"If LGBTQ folks and their allies or women or others get their ire up and respond a bit frantically in the face of oppression rising back up, that's understandable."

No, it's not. But it is typical. Leftists always want to get violent when told their demands are the nonsense they are. And opposing their demands is not oppression at all, unless you can provide an example of any policy of oppression being proposed and in what way anyone would be truly "oppressed".

"We're talking about human rights and people are rightly, strongly and righteously emotionally defending human rights and warning against returning to days of oppression."

Another willful, intentionally told lie. It's not a matter of human rights at risk, nor about any "oppression" on the rise simply because your "oppressed" might not get yet another accommodation for which they are truly undeserving.

And the lies keep coming!

"In other words, even if the supporters of historic oppression remain relatively calm (and often, they don't), that's not to their credit. It doesn't win them any points."

Who are these "supporters of historic oppression" to whom you refer? You're now lying about those who oppose sexual immorality and infanticide as "supporters of historic oppression"??? What a slander! This is you demonizing better people again to defend those who aren't oppressed at all. What's more, those who oppose infanticide and sexual immorality aren't known for acting in any way other than calm. After all, they're typically not leftists/progressives!

"Picture Jesus pulling together a whip to drive out the money changers from the temple."

Another corruption of Scripture to defend immorality and murder! It's what we've come to expect from you. Here's a better analogy:

Imagine Jesus being crucified for preaching the Word of God against sexual immorality and infanticide. That's what YOU'RE doing by disparaging those who oppose what you celebrate, defend, enable and support. You're "crucifying" followers of Jesus who are defending and promoting HIS teachings. You're "martyring" His followers for the crime of telling the Truth. You seek to oppress them by lying about them and their message and intentions.

"Righteous burning active anger against oppression."

Another lie. It's UNrighteous burning anger against the truth and the fear that all others will wake up to it and accept it as the truth it is. Yet, none of that awakening seeks to oppress, but rather to end oppression...the oppression of sinful sexual desires and compulsions and more so, the oppression of the your kind against those in utero.

"God and reasonable people are rightfully outraged at oppression."

God has no truck with those you defend, celebrate, support and enable, nor with you for doing so. He and truly reasonable people are rightfully outraged at how badly your kind has brought moral decay to our culture.
"There was and continues to be active harm, ongoing harm caused by that oppression and it doesn't go away in a day."

None that you've ever identified, while at the same time you ignore true oppression, particularly the oppression of the unborn.

"Likewise the trauma experienced by all these other groups: women, LGBTQ folks, those with disabilities, immigrants."

Once again, you purposely place into your list those who do not belong...the disabled, as what they experience is not the result of anything unrelated to their disability. Women, "immigrants" (the lie that there's no distinguishing between those who come here according to our laws versus those who don't) and of course your beloved "LGBTQ" people. That's lying. It's like the fruit put on a list of vegetables with full knowledge it's not a vegetable.

"Those who would downplay the trauma from that oppression need to understand what they're asking when they're asking people to be calm in the face of oppression rising back up."

When you can identify specific examples of "oppression rising back up", that'll be the day. And yes, when decent and righteous people of character speak out against that what you falsely support as worthy of concern...speaking out against that which has no relation to any oppression, real or imagined....attacking them as "oppressors", "white privileged people" or worse, you expose yourself as the liar you are.

Now you'll delete some or all of my comments on the basis of your standard lies of disrespectful comments, when simply it's just because I shred your lies. You won't support your lies, or I would have addressed that support. Instead, you just lie, because that's how you roll.