I wasn't going to do a "Pride Month" post this year. But then, it seems always to be a good idea to speak out against such a perverse notion as celebrating how perverts prefer to have sex. Oh, I know...it's about being "gay" and unashamed. But that's like being a liar and unashamed and we don't see Dan promoting a "Lying Ass Pride Month". He'd probably bore us with tales of liars being "historically oppressed", as if that's any reason to support liars.
Clearly in the same way, there's no reason to promote pride in perversion. It really doesn't matter how "historically oppressed" "LGBT-ers" have been. For those of us who truly believe in equal rights for all humans, that's never been ignored as if meaningless. But to whatever degree they've indeed been oppressed, that oppression is the consequence of their choice to indulge that which they falsely claim is beyond their ability to transcend...which doesn't seem like something in which to take pride. "I can't change how badly I want to take stuff which doesn't belong to me, but I'm damned proud to be a thief!"
Oh, wait! I'm not supposed to compare the plight of the blessed pervs with others like thieves and liars because they've decided because they're compelled to whatever deviancy they fancy, then by golly it is indeed blessed!! ...because we say so!!! ...and Dan agrees!!
Over there at Dan's blog of lies, he dared to make a parallel to Pentecost. Good gosh there's no limit to his sacrilegious blatherings.
As to "historical oppression", we're told by the disturbed Dan about LGBT-ers being kicked out of homes, churches and jobs as well as by tales of beatings, killings and not finding bras that fit. (OK. I made up that last bit.) But here's the thing which they and their enablers don't get. While we who strive to be of better character do not abide beatings and killings of even the sexually immoral and disordered, allowing them to remain among us while they promote their vile cause is forcing us to be enablers, and that we WON'T abide. We don't tolerate such open rebellion, we won't champion it like "progressive" "Christians" do, because both God and science opposes their claims.
And to this day, I've yet to hear any testimonies from any of those horrid parents, pastors/congregations or employers who exiled the LGBT person from their presence. Not a single testimony. All we hear are tales of being cast out and we're to accept the tale of woe from those who insist on indulging their disordered compulsions; that they were treated badly while just trying to be themselves, boo-hoo.
Well, until I hear from any of those parents, pastors/congregations or employers, I don't want to hear about the whining. I don't really care.
At the same time, we DO hear both sides when the "Gaystapo" oppresses businesses with their fascistic demands. And what we hear are tales of assholes who aren't concerned with the concerns of people of faith and virtue who do not wish to associate with the sexually disordered and immoral. Where do they get off? It's clear they lied when they claimed they only wanted to be left alone to live their sordid lives as they saw fit in the privacy of their own dens of iniquity. No. They intend to destroy the culture and they've succeeded quite well with the aiding and abetting of those who should know better, likely do, but don't care enough about faith and virtue to stand against their bullshit claims of discrimination.
Pride In Perversion Month. Pride In Spitting In God's Face Month. Pride In Corrupting Children Month. Who else takes pride in such things but the perverse and disordered?
45 comments:
I would just ask you and anyone else to compare your "pride month" attack post with my Pentecost and Pride month post.
You attack, demean, demonize and dismiss oppression as if it didn't exist.
I point to the welcoming, loving, gracious church and beloved community, including the beloved gay community.
You make false accusations and speak as if you were a mental health expert, but without the expertise. You accuse people of speaking lies when you don't even know them. You protect the oppressors saying that you haven't heard THEM testify as to their oppression.
I point to Scripture, love, grace and decency.
You speak in vulgarities and exclusion and I/we speak in terms of grace, welcoming and love.
Just as the Early Church on Pentecost and the time around it were recognized by their love and grace and tending to the least of these... so to, we see this in the gay community and their allies do the same, and just as the early church won people over with their grace and inclusion, so too, the Pride Movement won people over with their love and grace.
You on the other hand, have resorted to accusations and attacks and further false demonizations.
Who, I ask you, will be known by their love of the beloved community? Whose post, I ask you, is more gracious and loving, pure and decent?
Who, in the Bible, was known as the accuser and who was identified by their love?
Open your eyes, brother. Look at your own words and try to recognize the hate and oppression and intolerance in them. Seriously, whose do you think the average person would find more decent and gracious: Your post or mine?
It's not too late.
Just today I was in a meeting with some LGBTQ colleagues - people who spend their lives working on behalf of the oppressed in the LGBTQ community and the overlooked and marginalized in the disability community. They were looking at intersectionalities and commonalities between people of color, people with disabilities and the LGBTQ community. They pointed to the great love and care, time invested in supporting people kicked out of churches and homes and demonized and mistreated. It was a beautiful testimony that would have fit perfectly in any loving church or faith community dedicated to grace.
Perhaps you don't know about the great love and care that LGBTQ people have given to one another and others precisely because they know what being marginalized and oppressed is like. It was so beautiful and loving, grace-full and Godly. I wish you could have heard the testimonies.
June 7, 2022 at 10:04 PM
"I would just ask you and anyone else to compare your "pride month" attack post with my Pentecost and Pride month post."
I did. Mine's better, more honest, more accurate in depicting about whom it references.
"You attack, demean, demonize and dismiss oppression as if it didn't exist."
Clearly untrue and thus just another intentional lie. I "attack, demean, demonize and dismiss" your portrayal of oppression as if it's more than it is. Most harm inflicted upon LGBT people these days is by other LGBT people. The rest of us are trying to pretend they don't exist despite their current "in your face" behaviors...as in "pride" months and parades and attacks on people of faith trying to live their lives without enabling the perversion of LGBT people.
"I point to the welcoming, loving, gracious church and beloved community, including the beloved gay community."
No. You point to a church you hope will one day be as universally corrupt as you are in referring to a community of sexually immoral people as "beloved" within a true Christian church. They were never any less welcomed and loved were they to repent as other sinners are expected to repent. No true Christian church welcomes...graciously or otherwise...sinners who promote their sinfulness as morally good or benign. You wouldn't know, since you aren't a member of a true Christian church.
"You make false accusations and speak as if you were a mental health expert, but without the expertise."
If you start waddling around, wearing feathers and talking with a lisp, would I need to have a PhD in psychology to know you're not Daffy Duck? You'd be dith-picable to insist I must.
"You accuse people of speaking lies when you don't even know them."
I don't need to know them if they're speaking lies. They say they're born that way. They say God made them that way. They say they can live that way and still be right with God. They say all sorts of things which aren't true, just as Joe Biden constantly does...just as you constantly do. My familiarity with a person doesn't affect my ability to recognize a blatant lie when I hear it.
"You protect the oppressors saying that you haven't heard THEM testify as to their oppression."
You confuse "protection" with allowing the accused to defend themselves. Your "beloved" make all manner of accusation regarding their parents, churches and employers. When do we get to hear the other side of the story? Their accusations are just accusations until the accused can be confirmed to be the bad guys. Given their moral turpitude, I reserve judgement regarding those they accuse. It's only fair. Some would call it "grace".
"I point to Scripture, love, grace and decency."
No you don't. You just like to pretend your corruption of Scripture is actual Scripture. Scripture clearly condemns the behavior your "beloved" promote as morally acceptable. Scripture condemns enabling bad behavior. Scripture warns against associating with sexually immoral people. And although you know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them...as do you. So you point away from Scripture, love, grace and decency.
"You speak in vulgarities and exclusion and I/we speak in terms of grace, welcoming and love."
I speak of the vulgarity of rebellion against God, for which HE will exclude those you enable, and like you as well for doing so. There can be no grace or love in welcoming sin or those who openly, willfully and routinely practice sin. There's no Scripture which affirms your corruption.
"Just as the Early Church on Pentecost and the time around it were recognized by their love and grace and tending to the least of these... so to, we see this in the gay community..."
Who is "we"?? Just other morally corrupt people. The "gay" community is nothing at all like those of the early church. The early church didn't engage in sexual immorality and then pretend they're right with God regardless. They may have supported those struggling with sinful desire, but you and your "beloved" "gay" community are supporting them in the indulgence of their sinful desire and daring to call them "blessed" for doing so. All you're doing is affirming what Christ said about even sinners loving their own. Not exactly a mark in your favor.
"...just as the early church won people over with their grace and inclusion, so too, the Pride Movement won people over with their love and grace."
The difference is the early church won people over to Christ. You and your prideful pervs are winning the weak to sin.
"You on the other hand, have resorted to accusations and attacks and further false demonizations."
Truthful accusations about demon-level sinfulness and definitely pride in immorality. In order to truly love, one must be willing to risk blow back from speaking the truth. That's what I do. You wouldn't know truth if it kicked you in your lady parts.
"Who, I ask you, will be known by their love of the beloved community? Whose post, I ask you, is more gracious and loving, pure and decent?"
You're already known as a lover of perversion and those who practice it...those you call "the beloved community". I, on the other hand, will be known for speaking the truth in a decidedly snarky manner. Yet speaking the truth is always more gracious, loving, pure and decent than promoting and enabling sexual immorality as if it is something good and beneficial to our nation, even if done in a snarky manner. Promoting sinfulness is never gracious, loving, pure (except purely sinful) or decent regardless of how nicely one does it. A lie told with a smile is still a lie. You're a liar.
"Who, in the Bible, was known as the accuser and who was identified by their love?"
The Christian is taught not to associate with the sexually immoral, to cast out the unbeliever. One at some point must accuse such people before one can decide to respond to them in such a manner. And those who are sexually immoral or unbelievers have demonstrated they are such things by their unrepentant manner and the Christian is just in refusing to any longer associate with them or in casting them out.
"Open your eyes, brother. Look at your own words and try to recognize the hate and oppression and intolerance in them."
It is YOUR eyes which are closed, and you ain't my brother, sister. Speaking the truth...GOD'S TRUTH...as I do is never hate, oppression or intolerance, except it naturally is opposed to the sin you embrace and enable. There's no sin in hating sin, or being intolerant of it or those who engage in or enable it. All who sin or commit crimes cry oppression when held to account. Not my problem.
"Seriously, whose do you think the average person would find more decent and gracious: Your post or mine?"
Depends on how well they know Scripture, the teachings of Christ, the Will of God, proven science, logic, reason and reality. The more one knows of such things, the more likely they'll find mine a reflection of truth and Christian teaching, and yours an absolute perversion.
Yet even for you, it's not too late. I've no confidence you'll ever choose God over the world. Since 2008, you've proven to whom your allegiance truly is. You seem more given over than ever. May God have mercy on you.
June 7, 2022 at 10:08 PM
"Just today I was in a meeting with some LGBTQ colleagues - people who spend their lives working on behalf of the oppressed in the LGBTQ community and the overlooked and marginalized in the disability community. They were looking at intersectionalities and commonalities between people of color, people with disabilities and the LGBTQ community."
No doubt. It's quite common for them to lie about being akin to others based on race or other things out of a person's control...unlike indulging perverse and immoral sexual desires. That would be like my indulging my desire to slap the crap out of you if we ever met face to face and you tried to run this bullshit after doing so. But like the urge to indulge in immoral sexual practices, the urge to strike you is a sinful desire I'm obliged to transcend. One can't be a good Christian without at least struggling to do so. Your "beloved" aren't struggling at all. They're diving right in and saying the water's fine. You enable sin.
"They pointed to the great love and care, time invested in supporting people kicked out of churches and homes and demonized and mistreated."
I've absolutely no doubt they do nothing but accept at face value every sob story from only the perspective of the sobbing perv, with not the least bit of concern for the other side of the story. It's their way. They accuse and convict without trial.
"It was a beautiful testimony that would have fit perfectly in any loving church or faith community dedicated to grace."
Only a morally bankrupt "church or faith community". A true Christian church or faith community would question the tales of woe and seek out the accused to hear their side of the story, and no doubt find the accusers were unconcerned for the concerns of the accused.
"Perhaps you don't know about the great love and care that LGBTQ people have given to one another and others precisely because they know what being marginalized and oppressed is like."
Sinners, especially those who all indulge in the same sin, will always defend each other. Note the "snitches get stitches" mentality among the criminal element, particularly gang-bangers. They're like family, but a family of criminals. Yours is a community of the sexually immoral who are in rebellion against the God you mock by pretending you give a flying rat's ass about His will where the sexually immoral are concerned.
"I wish you could have heard the testimonies."
Oh, so do I! Believe me! I would ask them, "How can I get in touch with those you accuse in order to hear their side of the story?" I have no doubt they would turn on me as if I was an HIV virus looking to infect them.
You're pathetic and an insult to the Christian faith and the Savior for Whom it takes its Name.
Here's an article that typifies what the Left -- including the "Christian" Left -- supports with all their heart, soul, mind, and strength as they rebel against Jesus and his created order: https://summit.news/2022/06/08/monkeypox-patient-says-he-caught-virus-after-having-gay-sex-with-around-10-new-partners/
Yes, they think it is "homophobic" to encourage people not to have butt-s*x with 10 strangers over a short period of time. They confuse "homophobic" with "disgust" and "common sense."
The "Christian" Left long ago rationalized away any scriptures they disagree with (step one of creating a god in your own image), but these are still 100% true. The pervs AND their allies will answer to God. Hopefully, they repent and believe while there is still time, but I have more hope for the gays than the "Christian" Leftists. It is very rare for the latter Satan-worshipers to do so.
Romans 1:26–27 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
Romans 1:32 Though they know God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.
"Your "beloved" aren't struggling at all. They're diving right in and saying the water's fine. You enable sin."
Not sure of the complete context, as I don't read Dan's comments, but in the Bible, only believers are referred to as beloved. And they are explicitly told to abstain from the passions of the flesh!
1 Peter 2:11 Beloved, I urge you as sojourners and exiles to abstain from the passions of the flesh, which wage war against your soul.
Also, note Jude's references to the beloved being kept for Jesus Christ. and note how ungodly people pervert the grace of God into sensuality. The whole letter is about exposing the "Christian" Left and their denial of Jesus. They rely on biblical ignorance to make their case, as even an atheist could see what these words mean.
Jude 1–4 Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and brother of James, To those who are called, beloved in God the Father and kept for Jesus Christ: May mercy, peace, and love be multiplied to you. Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints. For certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.
Neil,
You would be called out for your criticisms of "progressive" "Christians" as stated. They will counter that they do not believe in multiple sex partners, but a "loving, monogamous" relationship akin to normal marriage (despite marriage being by definition the union of one man and one woman). See? That makes it all better.
I also made reference to the Romans passage as well! Perfectly appropriate here.
As to "beloved", I've no doubt Dan uses the term as he feels best pushes his warped notions. He believes the more he speaks in Biblical terms, the more true to Biblical teaching his warped notions are. In this case, I believe he uses to the term because he regards his sexually immoral friends to be beloved by him, his equally mistaken congregation AND God, as the case may be.
I would insist as well that God's "beloved" are those who live a life on God's terms, not those of their crotches.
"For certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ."
This is clearly a reference to those of Dan's ilk and any who think they can live a life in rebellion to God and pretend they're in alignment with His Will. And how much worse that they preach a gospel not delivered unto us by God through His prophets and apostles!
While we who strive to be of better character do not abide beatings and killings of even the sexually immoral and disordered, allowing them to remain among us while they promote their vile cause is forcing us to be enablers, and that we WON'T abide.
Except for this Christian pastor who wants to line up gay people and shoot them in the back of the head. https://www.alternet.org/2022/06/rightwing-preacher-execute-lgbtq-americans/
We don't tolerate such open rebellion, we won't champion it like "progressive" "Christians" do, because both God and science opposes their claims.
As an agnostic, I am not going to seek moral guidance from a God who would order the stoning of thirteen-year-old girls, but I am curious about your interpretation of “science.” What scientific research are you referring to and which claims does it oppose?
"Except for this Christian pastor who wants to line up gay people and shoot them in the back of the head. https://www.alternet.org/2022/06/rightwing-preacher-execute-lgbtq-americans/"
As with Dan, you seem to think finding a wackjob allows you to present him as typical? I guess that SOP for leftists these days. I thought it was only Dan and his troll.
"As an agnostic, I am not going to seek moral guidance from a God who would order the stoning of thirteen-year-old girls,"
Really, Vinny? Still with this nonsense? Still you insist on misrepresenting this passage? That's called "lying", Vinny. Don't be a Dan.
"but I am curious about your interpretation of “science.” What scientific research are you referring to and which claims does it oppose?"
I'm not sure I feel like providing for you what I've provided many times in discussions past. Why not just look through my posts. You're sure to find mentions. Maybe later, when I've nothing to do, I'll come back here and repost a couple of things, and then you can Dan-up and dismiss it because it doesn't support the agenda. Here's an example:
https://dnascience.plos.org/2019/08/29/retiring-the-single-gay-gene-hypothesis/
The rest is up to you.
re: "dnascience.plos.org..." and the author "Ricki Lewis..."
I can find no reliable information about this person as an author or scientist. Looks very sketchy and I suspect this may be a Russian spam put out to fool useful idiots.
Not that this matters to you, I'm sure. As long as they say what you want them to say, you're glad to cite them.
I have family members who are actual scientists and even though are young and haven't published much, I can still google them and find their scientific and educational bona fides.
Don't be a useful idiot.
Sources DO matter, no matter how little you may care. Reliability and credentials and credibility DO matter. Having a strange website with "science" in the name doesn't mean it's real. You ARE aware of fake websites put out there to fool useful idiots, right?
I suspect Russia thanks you very much.
Speaking of useful idiots and perversion, Neil said...
"in the Bible, only believers are referred to as beloved. And they are explicitly told to abstain from the passions of the flesh!
1 Peter 2:11 Beloved, I urge you as sojourners and exiles to abstain from the passions of the flesh, which wage war against your soul.
Also, note Jude's references to the beloved being kept for Jesus Christ. and note how ungodly people pervert the grace of God into sensuality."
Well, the people I'm speaking of ARE believers and they do not pursue "passions of the flesh," in any unhealthy or ungodly manner. But I do know some conservatives who passionately and factlessly attack and demonize people that dare to disagree with them or their human traditions about what THEY think God thinks. That sort of "passion of the flesh" is perverse and unhealthy, to be sure.
June 9, 2022 at 8:36 AM
"I can find no reliable information about this person as an author or scientist. Looks very sketchy and I suspect this may be a Russian spam put out to fool useful idiots."
For a pathetic fake Christian "progressive" liar, you're really a tool. It took me literally ten seconds to find multiple links related to Ricki Lewis PhD. Given your propensity to denigrate anything conflicting with your perversions, and your desperate hope that you can bullshit God into accepting you as a sincere follower, you no doubt are again qualifying "reliable" as that which conforms to your deviancy.
But the worst part here is you again attack the messenger for bringing the message. The study about which Lewis reports is just as easily found through the same WK post. It is there your fake concern should be focused, not on Lewis.
"I have family members who are actual scientists and even though are young and haven't published much, I can still google them and find their scientific and educational bona fides."
I feel sorry for your family members they have a vile scumbag like you among them. Your inability or unwillingness to locate anyone else with google means absolutely nothing. It's just another pro-perv dodge to relieve you of having to face reality.
"You ARE aware of fake websites put out there to fool useful idiots, right?"
More problematic are lying fake "Christians" who dare to condescend to better people and believe themselves superior by citing known corrupt sources, like the NYT, WaPo, NPR, CNN, and on and on. How pathetic. Either the study is legit or it's not, Danny-girl. Prove it isn't or don't bother with these lame attacks which indict you further as a liar. I suspect the Father of Lies thanks you very much.
June 9, 2022 at 8:42 AM
"Well, the people I'm speaking of ARE believers and they do not pursue "passions of the flesh," in any unhealthy or ungodly manner."
They're no more believers in the One True God than you are! Where does the passages cited by Neil mention "in any unhealthy or ungodly manner" as a qualifier? Their passions are ungodly by definition and Scriptural evidence.
"But I do know some conservatives who passionately and factlessly attack and demonize people that dare to disagree with them or their human traditions about what THEY think God thinks. That sort of "passion of the flesh" is perverse and unhealthy, to be sure."
The irony here as you are clearly attacking us is plain for all to see. This "human traditions" crap is stale as hell. It's Dan-speak for "I can't figure out a better way to defend perversion". To call the clearly revealed Word of God "human traditions" and the presenting of it to sinners like you "perverse and unhealthy" is some world-class rebellion against the living God. You're clearly given over to your corruption, and you clearly seem to love being so. I hope you'll love the heat just as much. I pray God will save any who are unfortunate to be within your sphere of influence, because you're one vile child of hell.
s related to Ricki Lewis PhD...:
And yet, here we are and you haven't provided a link for that to show you could find something. For what it's worth, I spent probably 3 to 5 minutes searching. I found a lot of links that mention this name but nothing that looked like any real link to a source showing their credentials. Several of the links that clicked on, I received Spam warnings and didn't go into them.
Given the reality of Russian Spam, only a fool would accept just any link and consider it trustworthy.
"The irony here as you are clearly attacking us is plain for all to see. This "human traditions" crap is stale as hell."
The difference is, when I say you're attacking people it's because you're attacking people, when I note that you're calling them perverts for no good reason, it's because you're calling the perverts for no good reason. And when I say you are following human traditions, it's literally because you are following human traditions. On each and every point, I'm just making factually correct correct statements.
Me observing factual reality about what you literally said is not an attack. You calling whole swaths of people you don't even know "perverts," is not reality-based.
Understand?
June 9, 2022 at 1:41 PM
"And yet, here we are and you haven't provided a link for that to show you could find something."
The link I provided contained that which formed the basis of my position regarding lack of evidence for the "born that way" lie. You chose to once again side step the point to focus on the messenger rather than the message, like liars like you so often do.
"For what it's worth, I spent probably 3 to 5 minutes searching."
It's worth absolutely nothing. Your incompetence doesn't prove a thing other than you're incompetent as well as a liar.
"Given the reality of Russian Spam, only a fool would accept just any link and consider it trustworthy."
Given the reality of your stupidity and dishonesty, only a fool would take your word for anything.
June 9, 2022 at 1:55 PM
"The difference is, when I say you're attacking people it's because you're attacking people..."
Not at all. It's because in order to defend the indefensible, you choose to assert telling the truth is an unjust attack on people. Being not just a liar, but a not very good one, you simply think anyone will buy your crap about those like me attacking people. Now, if you say I'm attacking YOU, I wouldn't even try to deny it. You're an asshat.
"...when I note that you're calling them perverts for no good reason, it's because you're calling the perverts for no good reason."
When you note you're calling pervs pervs for no good reason, you're lying. They're perverts because they're perverting the function of their genitalia for sexual gratification. YOU'RE a pervert for perverting Scripture to defend perversion.
Understand?
"And when I say you are following human traditions, it's literally because you are following human traditions."
"Human traditions" based directly on the clearly revealed Word of God. That's how they became traditionally understood and followed. Because it's informed by the Word of God without any alteration or equivocation.
YOUR human traditions, on the other hand, are based solely on perverse and dysfunctional human desire, urges and compulsions in direct contradiction to the clearly revealed Will of God as recorded in Scripture.
Understand?
"On each and every point, I'm just making factually correct correct statements."
On each and every point, you're lying like you're getting paid.
Understand?
"Me observing factual reality about what you literally said is not an attack."
But after observing factual reality, you're lying about it rather than acknowledging the truth being told. That's literally an attack.
Understand?
"You calling whole swaths of people you don't even know "perverts," is not reality-based."
It's based on the reality they're indulging in perverted sex acts driven by perverse urges and desires. Thus, calling them "perverts" accurately reflects reality.
Understand?
"Understand?"
I understand that your deviant, vulgar, white-man-power-centric human traditions have made you a bad, bad person, unable to celebrate decency and honor. I understand that your allegiance to your set of human traditions have made you unable to see anything outside of your own little circles and it's made you a lesser person, a vulgar and oppressive person in a community of vulgar and oppressive humans unable to understand reason or justice or morality.
June 10, 2022 at 8:24 AM
"I understand that your deviant, vulgar, white-man-power-centric human traditions have made you a bad, bad person, unable to celebrate decency and honor."
"Deviant" and "vulgar" are far more accurately descriptive of anyone who defends moral deviancy as you do. "Vulgar" describes a lying "progressive" "Christian" who suggests a racial component to opposition to the moral depravity he defends and dares to say is blessed by God. "Deviant" and "vulgar" is the celebration of vulgar moral deviancy as "decent" and "honorable".
I understand that your allegiance to your set of morally bankrupt human traditions have made you unable to see anything outside of your own little circles of depravity and perversion and it's exposed you as the lesser person you've long been, a vulgar and oppressive person in a community of vulgar and morally deviant humans unable to understand reason or justice or morality.
Understand?
As with Dan, you seem to think finding a wackjob allows you to present him as typical? I guess that SOP for leftists these days. I thought it was only Dan and his troll.
I didn't present him as “typical, You made a broad claim about people like you “who strive to be of better character,” and I offered him as a counter-example of a Christian pastor who does “abide beatings and killings.”
Really, Vinny? Still with this nonsense? Still you insist on misrepresenting this passage? That's called "lying", Vinny. Don't be a Dan.
That you do not like the fact that the rule provides for the stoning of brides-to-be, who in those days would have usually have been twelve or thirteen, does not make my statement a misrepresentation.
I'm not sure I feel like providing for you what I've provided many times in discussions past. Why not just look through my posts. You're sure to find mentions. Maybe later, when I've nothing to do, I'll come back here and repost a couple of things, and then you can Dan-up and dismiss it because it doesn't support the agenda. Here's an example:
https://dnascience.plos.org/2019/08/29/retiring-the-single-gay-gene-hypothesis/
You didn't say what claim you think this study opposes, but my guess is you didn't actually read the article since it affirms the influence of genetics on sexual orientation. The problem isn't that the study doesn't support some agenda: the problem is that it doesn't say what you seem to think it says.
Marshal...
"On each and every point, you're lying like you're getting paid."
And yet, you can't point to ONE single lie I've made and support it with hard, objective data. Disagreeing with Marshal's religious biases and human traditions is not lying. It's just not.
Vinny,
"I didn't present him as “typical, You made a broad claim about people like you “who strive to be of better character,” and I offered him as a counter-example of a Christian pastor who does “abide beatings and killings.”"
That's far worse. When I reference "people like me", you purposely chose to find someone calling himself "Christian" who is nothing like me, and suggest we're the same. Why not just point to a bigger fraud like Dan for that purpose?
"That you do not like the fact that the rule provides for the stoning of brides-to-be, who in those days would have usually have been twelve or thirteen, does not make my statement a misrepresentation."
You have no obligation to be as Dan-like as possible. Pretty soon you'll be accusing people of raping puppies. You ignore the point of the passage to presume it spoke of 13 yr old girls in order to make God's Will sound as bad as you need it to sound to justify your rebellion against Him. It makes no reference to age, nor does it make a reference to anyone other than adulterous females. Thus, you are intentionally misrepresenting the passage.
"You didn't say what claim you think this study opposes, but my guess is you didn't actually read the article since it affirms the influence of genetics on sexual orientation."
There's a distinct difference between specific genes vs genetic influence. What's more, pretty much no one discounts some biological influence in every single urge and compulsion possible. A specific "gay" gene is an entirely different story. This link disputes that premise.
But my actual point in providing that link was simply to point out I've indeed providing actual science on many occasions to support my positions and that particular link was just one example. But you go ahead and pretend again you "got" me. I'm sure it will help you to sleep better.
""On each and every point, you're lying like you're getting paid."
And yet, you can't point to ONE single lie I've made and support it with hard, objective data."
Here's what you said, broken down to each and every point:
"The difference is, when I say you're attacking people it's because you're attacking people,..."
Speaking the truth is not attacking people. Where's your proof I attacked anyone? Calling a thief a thief?
"...when I note that you're calling them perverts for no good reason, it's because you're calling the perverts for no good reason."
Of course the first reason is because they are indeed perverts. The "good" reason is that they compromise their salvation by persisting subordinating God's Will to their perverse and urges. The "god" reason also includes the damage they do themselves and their partners as listed for you many times with references to legitimate medical sources.
"And when I say you are following human traditions, it's literally because you are following human traditions."
A double lie. First because I follow the teachings of the Holy Bible and accept the science about which you claim to have more regard than those like myself.
"On each and every point, I'm just making factually correct correct statements."
On each and every point you've said nothing true at all. Let's see...how many "points" were in your comment above? Counting the initial quote of yours, that's five lies. What's more, you're presenting truth claims...what you would call "stupidly false and unsupportable claims" ...you'd delete if they were put forth by me about you. Take a hike, liar.
Pretty soon you'll be accusing people of raping puppies.
I'm not aware of any puppy raping in the Old Testament, but I don't consider dashing babies against rocks to be a reason for happiness.
There's a distinct difference between specific genes vs genetic influence. What's more, pretty much no one discounts some biological influence in every single urge and compulsion possible. A specific "gay" gene is an entirely different story. This link disputes that premise.
To me the issue is whether sexual orientation is innate, so whether it's a single gene or a combination of genetic effects isn't particularly significant.
BTW, I am aware of the tendency of LGBTQ activists to claim that science has proved something when the best that can be said is that some scientific research points in that direction.
"I'm not aware of any puppy raping in the Old Testament, but I don't consider dashing babies against rocks to be a reason for happiness."
Apparently, you also don't consider the passage worthy of deep study either for understanding and enlightenment. No. You'd prefer to use these passages to indict the faith and those who abide it. You're a helluva guy.
"To me the issue is whether sexual orientation is innate, so whether it's a single gene or a combination of genetic effects isn't particularly significant."
You want it to be innate? You assume it to be innate? To what end? Be careful with your answer.
Orientation IS innate. You never chose to be heterosexual (I'm assuming). It was just something that was in you. Same for me. Same for right handed people not choosing to be right handed (or left handed). It is innate. Natural. If you believe in a God who makes us as we are, it's God-given.
There is no evidence that it's not innate. Period.
Marshal...
"Speaking the truth is not attacking people. Where's your proof I attacked anyone? Calling a thief a thief?"
No. In calling a homosexual a "pervert." You have no evidence, proof or anything but your human traditions to support the claim.
You PRESUME that it's the "truth" that LGBTQ people are "perverts," but you have no data to support the claim. Not everyone agrees with your bigotry and we are not obliged to concede the point to you and your human traditions.
Do you understand that?
And consider all the saintly, wonderful, giving, loving, nurturing and Godly people out there who also happen to be LGBTQ. Heck, just consider the transgender folk out there. What have they done that is perverted? Pursued being who they know themselves to be and doing so in a way that does not affect your life one single bit and doesn't hurt anyone? THAT is perverted? God never told you that, just your religious human traditions. Is that why you think this?
June 11, 2022 at 9:17 PM
"Orientation IS innate. You never chose to be heterosexual (I'm assuming). It was just something that was in you. Same for me. Same for right handed people not choosing to be right handed (or left handed). It is innate. Natural. If you believe in a God who makes us as we are, it's God-given."
"Innate" is a false premise. It's not a matter of choosing to feel one way or the other about one's self. It's a matter of how we respond to reality regardless of personal feelings.
Normal people don't "choose" to be heterosexual because that's how we're meant to be. Born a man, I'm made to unite with a woman. My sexual organs provide evidence for that as well as does other aspects of my physiology. Given my physiology is male, to not be attracted sexually to a female would indicate dysfunction. Thus, "hetersexyak" is a word indicating normal function, and "homosexual" is a word indicating dysfunction. It's a simple concept even the simpleminded such as yourself should grasp easily.
I don't believe God "makes us as we are". I believe God makes us to be what He wants us to be. To that end, we each have manifestations of our sin natures to negotiate and overcome...or at least strive to overcome if we expect to be taken seriously when we say we are Christians. Our failures to that end are covered by our acceptance of Christ as our Savior due to His having died in our place. But they aren't if we dare suggest our sinful desires aren't sinful without any hint of that possibility presented to us in Scripture, for which there is absolutely no such loophole for homosexual behavior. But you know this, or you would have produced Scriptural evidence to the contrary long ago. You never have. You've only offered laughable invention based on corrupting the meaning of various verses (you never have the graciousness to cite) for the purpose.
"There is no evidence that it's not innate. Period."
There's far less to suggest it is. Indeed, what is used for the purpose justifies every compulsion under the sun and all attendant manifestations of them. If there's some biological excuse to indulge in that perversion without the least effort to resist the compulsion, then we can say the same for every compulsion to any behavior even asshats like you would regard as untoward. Are you willing to defend pedophilia? I won't put it past you. You'll be on board as soon as your party gives it the OK and some nice congregant at Jeff St. is exposed as a child molester.
June 11, 2022 at 9:24 PM
"No. In calling a homosexual a "pervert." You have no evidence, proof or anything but your human traditions to support the claim."
Of course I do. As do you, but you're a liar. Biology tells us the purpose of our sexual organs. For example, we know the purpose of the anus. To use one's penis to penetrate the anus of another is a perversion of both the penis and the anus, and yes...that includes penetrating the anus of one's wife or girlfriend. But let's stick to the issue here. This isn't "human tradition" unless by "human tradition" you mean the human tradition of using things for the purpose intended by their design. Whether that or God's Will, there's no "human tradition" as you intend the term...which is just you lying. Your pro-lesbian traditions are human, are they not? Cut the crap with that bullshit term. You only further indict yourself as a liar by trying to pretend it's any more meaningful.
"You PRESUME that it's the "truth" that LGBTQ people are "perverts," but you have no data to support the claim."
I just gave a fact-based, science-based, biology-based explanation for why how they achieve sexual gratification by perverting the normal function of their genitalia. People who pervert the proper, normal, designed function of any thing are thus by definition "perverts". You're so intent on portraying the truth of this as some form of pejorative. But nothing is more insulting to them than what they themselves choose to do. I'm just using accurate terms. Thus, there's no presumption on my part. There's only the desperation on your part that I am.
"Not everyone agrees with your bigotry and we are not obliged to concede the point to you and your human traditions."
Speaking the truth...scientifically, biologically and most definitely as regards the Truth of Scripture, is not "bigotry". But calling such as myself bigots for doing so is definitely bearing false witness and hateful. You're not obliged to do anything, including abiding God's Will. There's a place for you one way or the other. Your rejecting God's Will means more room for the rest of us.
I know you understand that, but since you reject truth for perversion...
"And consider all the saintly, wonderful, giving, loving, nurturing and Godly people out there who also happen to be LGBTQ."
Yeah...you keep trying to run this scam as if helping an old lady across the street means it's OK to cop a feel whenever it suits you. So long as you (or your saintly lesbian friends) continue to push a sinful behavior as moral in direct contradiction to God's clearly revealed Will, all those good deeds are for naught. You're still in full rebellion. And don't give me that "I could be mistaken" crap. There's no doubt in your mind. You're just blatantly lying to yourself as you lie so blatantly all the time.
"Heck, just consider the transgender folk out there. What have they done that is perverted?"
Presented themselves as members of the opposite sex, with some going so far as to mutilate perfectly functioning bodies for the purpose. That's even more perverse than being a lesbian, and obviously so!
"Pursued being who they know themselves to be..."
This is a lie. It's what they wrongly/falsely believe themselves to be due to mental or emotional dysfunction. Enabling the sick is heinous, but oh so Trabue.
"...doing so in a way that does not affect your life one single bit and doesn't hurt anyone?"
...is wholly irrelevant to the fact they are mentally/emotionally dysfunctional. That argument is an incredibly weak as well as dishonest one, but oh so Trabue!
"God never told you that, just your religious human traditions. Is that why you think this?"
Another intentionally dishonest argument which might work with other "progressives" who are morally bankrupt, but not with people who don't play games with truth, facts, reality OR the Will of God. And I don't "think" what is clearly a fact, as if I might be wrong but it seems to me to be true. My position is solidly fact-based, science-based and in clear alignment with clear Biblical teaching. Your position is total bullshit but nicely aligned with radical leftist ideology which you hope becomes "human traditions" you find more pleasing despite science, facts and worse, God's Will. Good luck with that.
You're familiar with broken English, I assume. Where someone speaks a language a little bit, knows SOME words, but is not at all fluent, right? "I car-store went to going for feed eats. Home." Like that.
You're engaging in broken science. You're using some science-related words/terms/ideas, but using them in a broken and inconsistent manner that doesn't make sense rationally or scientifically.
You're assuming that because poop comes out our butts that any other use/treatment of the anus is "unnatural," but science doesn't say that. Body parts can and are naturally used for a variety of reasons/purposes and none of them are innately unnatural. Beyond that, your "anus argument" breaks down for lesbians since oftentimes, there'd be no anal play involved.
It's like you're saying, "Hands were created and evolved for work, so people can pick things up, plant seeds, shovel and harvest. To use hands to pick up an instrument and make MUSIC??? That's unnatural and against the created order!"
Says who? Science does not say any of that.
The reality is that you hold your positions because of human religious traditions that have nothing to do with science and we aren't obliged to concede you your religious bigoted points because reason does not stand with you.
Apparently, you also don't consider the passage worthy of deep study either for understanding and enlightenment. No. You'd prefer to use these passages to indict the faith and those who abide it. You're a helluva guy.
I think that ancient mythology is a fascinating topic and certainly worthy of study. Unfortunately, there aren't enough hours in the day to study everything I would like to study.
You want it to be innate? You assume it to be innate? To what end? Be careful with your answer.
It's not a question of whether I want it to be innate. I want to know where the scientific evidence points. There is no end.
Marshal...
"Speaking the truth...scientifically, biologically and most definitely as regards the Truth of Scripture, is not "bigotry". But calling such as myself bigots for doing so is definitely bearing false witness."
1. Science and biology do not agree with you. You do not speak for science. You're misinterpreting science and yes and attributing it to science. That's mistake number one.
2. As to what The Bible does and does not say, that is certainly your opinion about it, But it is an opinion that arises out of your religious traditions. You religious biases... And in the case of beliefs that hurt people, your religious bigotry.
3. Thus, if you have these human traditions and religious biases you hold that cause harm to others, it is bigotry. By definition.
Bigotry definition:
obstinate or intolerant devotion to one's own opinions and prejudices
Science does not support your opinions about perversion. Reason does not support your opinion about it. You obstinately and intolerantly are devoted to your opinions and prejudices not because of data, but because of your religious biases and bigotries, informed by human traditions about what some humans think their god or godling thinks. By definition, bigotry.
June 12, 2022 at 10:06 AM
"You're engaging in broken science. You're using some science-related words/terms/ideas, but using them in a broken and inconsistent manner that doesn't make sense rationally or scientifically."
Such as...?? You're engaging in vapid sophistry. I just love it when a moron thinks he can condescend to me.
"You're assuming that because poop comes out our butts that any other use/treatment of the anus is "unnatural," but science doesn't say that."
I don't assume what science clearly states regarding the purpose of body parts and organs. I just repeat the facts as I do so well with Scripture. You find the truth inconvenient so you make up this crap about not making sense or speaking in "broken science". You'll have to work harder, Dan, to lie in a more convincing manner.
" Body parts can and are naturally used for a variety of reasons/purposes and none of them are innately unnatural."
This is just what your perverse human traditions tell you, but it's not true, particularly for the sexual organs.
"Beyond that, your "anus argument" breaks down for lesbians since oftentimes, there'd be no anal play involved."
Even if lesbians never used their sex toys for that purpose, it doesn't in any way mitigate anything I've said. "Oftentimes" doesn't mean never, so there's no breakdown of my argument. I'd say nice try, but I leave the lying to you.
"It's like you're saying, "Hands were created and evolved for work, so people can pick things up, plant seeds, shovel and harvest. To use hands to pick up an instrument and make MUSIC??? That's unnatural and against the created order!""
Gosh...just think...if only I had said something like that, you wouldn't sound so stupid trying to argue against facts and truth. But I didn't say anything like that, nor would I ever because of how moronic an attempt it was. Those are not functions of the hand. Those are various manifestations of the function of the hand in accomplishing specific goals.
"Says who? Science does not say any of that."
And neither did I. I only refer to what science does say and point out how what you need it to say is crap.
"The reality is that you hold your positions because of human religious traditions that have nothing to do with science and we aren't obliged to concede you your religious bigoted points because reason does not stand with you."
I hold my positions because the facts support them. That Christianity aligns with the truth of the natural world is just another thing in favor of the positions I hold. Your perversion-centered human traditions cannot exist in the face of truth and thus your disregard it in favor of crap. You have no idea what "reason" even means.
Broken English, indeed.
June 12, 2022 at 2:29 PM
"1. Science and biology do not agree with you."
They both absolutely do.
"You do not speak for science."
Speaking the truth is speaking for me and our God. Yet as badly as you need to believe it, I don't speak a thing which science or God doesn't say or indicate.
"You're misinterpreting science and yes and attributing it to science. That's mistake number one."
No, that would be you. That's lie number one.
"2. As to what The Bible does and does not say, that is certainly your opinion about it, But it is an opinion that arises out of your religious traditions."
My "religious traditions" arise out of a clear reading of the clearly revealed truth of Scripture. Your perverse traditions arise out of your devotion to the perverse rather than any influence of Scripture. You're of the world. I'm only in it.
"You religious biases... And in the case of beliefs that hurt people, your religious bigotry."
My beliefs are truths revealed in Scripture. Scriptural truths hurt no one. The sexually immoral people you champion hurt themselves by ignoring and rejecting God's truth which is so clearly revealed to us in Scripture. What's more, your tradition of enabling perverse immorality rather than leading them to right living on God's terms hurts them as well. In that, the truth hurts. But I will continue to speak and defend the truth, while you do the opposite and then lie about it.
"3. Thus, if you have these human traditions and religious biases you hold that cause harm to others, it is bigotry. By definition."
Not at all. That is, unless you're referring to prejudice against sin. I'm down with that just as our Lord is. He hates sexual immorality and thus, so do I...even in those times I've succumbed to its lure. Writing off the Will of God as "human traditions"...a deceitful condescension based on your devotion to the perverted...is not gonna win you any Heavenly Brownie Points.
June 12, 2022 at 2:47 PM
"Bigotry definition:
obstinate or intolerant devotion to one's own opinions and prejudices"
Clearly describes you in your obstinate, intolerant devotion to your own defense, celebration, promotion and enabling of sexual immorality, as well as your prejudice against those who revere God and His Will regarding matters of human sexuality.
"Science does not support your opinions about perversion."
It does and I've provided a cornucopia of evidence over the years to back it up.
"Reason does not support your opinion about it."
You've proven you've no understanding of "reason", so you wouldn't know.
"You obstinately and intolerantly are devoted to your opinions and prejudices not because of data, but because of your religious biases and bigotries, informed by human traditions about what some humans think their god or godling thinks. By definition, bigotry."
Yeah, I'm obstinate about the truth and intolerant of liars. I'm devoted to the Lord God and prejudiced against those who are in stark and blatant rebellion against Him...people like you. I'm firm because all the data informs my positions on various subjects we debate. None if sides with you as I've demonstrated so easily and comprehensively over the years, your routine "Nyuh uhs" notwithstanding. I don't "think" our Lord says this or that. I KNOW He does because He doesn't speak in riddles so that stupid people like you can understand if you care to know. It's all quite clear to honest people, which is why you struggle so.
By definition, you're an abject liar bigoted against God and those who follow Him. You prove it with every comment you post.
Vinny,
"I think that ancient mythology is a fascinating topic and certainly worthy of study. Unfortunately, there aren't enough hours in the day to study everything I would like to study."
I'm not talking about mythology. I'm talking about the Word of our God. There's nothing else under the sun more important than learning and understanding the Word of God. Until you choose to make the time you should've made decades ago, you're probably better off not trying to pretend you know it better than me, because you don't and given my own laziness in study, that's not good.
"It's not a question of whether I want it to be innate. I want to know where the scientific evidence points. There is no end."
Where it doesn't point is toward a direction justifying the notion the behavior is beyond one's capacity to resist and overcome. Science tells us the brain is malleable. It can be forced to learn and understand. Sometimes, it happens abruptly...what some refer to as a "paradigm shift". I've often told the tale of a woman with whom I became obsessed. I would have insisted I couldn't help my feelings for her. Then I actually listened to the lyrics of the Michael McDonald and Kenny Loggins song, "What A Fool Believes" and it all stopped. I no longer had feelings for the woman because I realized I was like the character about whom the title refers. How did that happen exactly? One moment I felt one way as if I had no control. The next, I felt nothing for her from that moment on (though she was still a fox!). For most, such a change in heart comes more gradually, but it always follows a belief of one's self one cannot see being any different.
Such is the case with the sexually immoral. Their self-perceptions are not innate as if born that way. There's no science to support the premise. They simply choose to carry on as if they are.
It may be helpful, Marshal, if you made clear what it is you think "science" agrees about in your anti-LGBTQ position? Science does not agree that gay men/lesbian women shouldn't get married. Science doesn't agree that homosexuality or transgender folks are "wrong" or "immoral." Science does not agree that one can't rub/have one's butthole rubbed, etc if they find it pleasurable. Science does not agree that oral sex is "wrong" or an abuse of natural order.
What SPECIFICALLY do you think Science agrees to about your bigotry? And then, where are the scientists who support that (ie, support your claim with data, not just brainless empty claims)?
Also, as to my list of things in the first paragraph that science does not agree with, do you recognize the rather obvious reality that I'm not mistaken?
And while it's not an area of personal expertise but I can use google and, did you know that, scientifically speaking, many mammals find stimulating the prostate to be pleasurable? There are "pleasure sensors" within the butt-al area, and so, scientifically speaking, it can be pleasurable to have that stimulated. So, once again, science has taken no position against anal stimulation (with the caveat that some research says that it can be taken too far and harm can be caused if done the wrong way or too often). I'm informing you because you seem to have such an interest.
If and when you don't provide any support/data/research that "science agrees with" your religious bigotry, will you be adult enough to admit it?
June 13, 2022 at 9:13 AM
"It may be helpful, Marshal, if you made clear what it is you think "science" agrees about in your anti-LGBTQ position?"
Once again, I'm face with the great conundrum: Does this question indicate Dan's dishonesty or Dan's stupidity. Well, one can say Dan is stupid to believe he can be duplicitous and regarded as sincere. But given I've been quite clear for some time what I mean by science agreeing with me...providing evidence for the truth...one would have to be stupid or a liar to ask the question. I lean toward dishonesty in the asking since there's no way Dan has a sincere desire to learn or understand, since again, I've been clear all along. No. Dan seeks ammo to attack the truth and those who defend it. What follows is evidence of Dan's dishonesty/stupidity:
"Science does not agree that gay men/lesbian women shouldn't get married. Science doesn't agree that homosexuality or transgender folks are "wrong" or "immoral." Science does not agree that one can't rub/have one's butthole rubbed, etc if they find it pleasurable. Science does not agree that oral sex is "wrong" or an abuse of natural order."
None of the above are claims I've EVER made, suggested or at which I've so much as hinted. No. They're purposeful distortions of what was made clear. No honest person of even moderate intelligence would pretend the rhetorical expression "science agrees" implies idiotic claims Dan wants to attribute to me. It does, however, give him the opportunity to speak of abusing the anus for sexual gratification. Clearly, he's turned on by that.
"Also, as to my list of things in the first paragraph that science does not agree with, do you recognize the rather obvious reality that I'm not mistaken?"
You're mistaken in presuming you've supported any intelligent point or perspective with those stupid statements. Did you know that science doesn't agree mammals enjoy hip-hop? Thus, you're totally mistaken in believing you've moved your corruption forward by taking the time to type them out.
"And while it's not an area of personal expertise" (yeah...sure) "but I can use google" (only if you think it serves your immoral purposes to do so) "and, did you know that, scientifically speaking, many mammals find stimulating the prostate to be pleasurable?"
Which ones, and how does what animals do serve to rationalize human perversion? I've no doubt you found this info from a pro-homo source, which likely says all sorts of things to rationalize their perversions and deviant human traditions.
"There are "pleasure sensors" within the butt-al area..."
Hard to argue against your claim given your head is always up your butt-al area. But can you actually see them in the dark, or do you shove a flashlight up there, too?
"...and so, scientifically speaking, it can be pleasurable to have that stimulated."
Again...which animals do you suggest are so equipped? Back rubs are pleasurable. That doesn't indicate "pleasure sensors" in one's back. That pervs find a practice pleasurable does not indicate the function of the body part abused for the purpose is to provide pleasure. You purposely confuse intention of a person to abuse a body part with the function of that body part. Again...dishonesty or stupidity? Always a tough call with you.
"science has taken no position against anal stimulation (with the caveat that some research says that it can be taken too far and harm can be caused if done the wrong way or too often)."
"Science", in the sense of those who are professionals in a scientific field, most definitely state the designed purpose of body parts and sexual organs. If some pro-homo "expert" provides insights into how to safely abused a body part to reduce risk, that "expert" has at the same time confirmed the body part is being used in a manner inconsistent with its function. Responsible experts in gastroenterology strongly advise against inserting anything up one's backside.
"I'm informing you because you seem to have such an interest."
My interest is in warning against the risk spiritual and physical harm caused by sexual immorality. You seem to derive pleasure from speaking graphically about deviant sexual behavior.
"If and when you don't provide any support/data/research that "science agrees with" your religious bigotry, will you be adult enough to admit it?"
There's nothing whatsoever "adult" in continually referring to those who adhere to the clearly revealed Word of God as a "bigot". Rather, it's the human tradition of the morally bankrupt fake Christian. In the meantime, science absolutely supports my position and aligns nicely with God's Will when not perverted by perverts seeking to defend, promote, celebrate and enable perversion. I've provided science to support my position many times over the years. Your demand that I do so again once more suggests both dishonesty and stupidity on your part.
You say science agrees and yet provide not one iota of support. That is your testimony. You have nothing. Period. End of discussion.
By your own testimony and absence of data, you have nothing. Let that sink in.
Once again, Perverse Liar...I'm not obliged to continually provide again information provided many times in past discussions, just because you demand I do. If anything legitimately ends the discussion, it's those past presentations for which you've demonstrated an gold medal level level of inability to counter or rebut any of it. What's more, "evidence" you've presented have been easily shredded to the point your fallback "Nyuh uh" response and deletions come into play (except on the blogs of others where you just say "Nyuh uh" and leave).
Case in point, the link I provided earlier in the thread.
I'm talking about the Word of our God. There's nothing else under the sun more important than learning and understanding the Word of God. Until you choose to make the time you should've made decades ago, you're probably better off not trying to pretend you know it better than me, because you don't and given my own laziness in study, that's not good.
You are talking about your holy book. The Muslims think that nothing is more important than learning and understanding the Koran. The Mormons think that nothing is more important than learning and understanding the Book of Mormon. The Hindus think that it's important to learn and understand their various holy books. The Scientologists think that I should learn and understand Dianetics. The Urantia Brotherhood thinks that I should learn and understand the Urantia Book. I can go on YouTube and find countless videos from people claiming to get messages from God that I need to understand. Unfortunately, I have no objective basis for choosing to believe that one religion's holy book is any truer than any other religion's holy book. Moreover, even if I choose one particular religion's holy book, I have no basis for determining which sect within that religion is correctly interpreting their holy book.
All that matters is not who says what, but what has been said which is true. In the case of Christianity, there is tons of archaeological evidence, testimonies from those not among the followers and arguments supporting the truth claims of Scripture. All the other traditions you've mentioned have nothing. That's point #1.
Point #2 is that you have no basis for believing the various denominations are distinguished by doctrine and the essentials. No. They're separated by polity and preferences regarding how to run a worship service, and other things not essential to Christian belief. This is the case for the vast majority of Christendom. So that would narrow your choices considerably insofar as which religion should draw your attention. Then, once you've actually gotten through a sufficient amount of time to understand Scripture, you can visit a handful of local options to determine which actually follows Scripture, and which are like Dan's heretical waste of time.
All that matters is not who says what, but what has been said which is true. In the case of Christianity, there is tons of archaeological evidence, testimonies from those not among the followers and arguments supporting the truth claims of Scripture. All the other traditions you've mentioned have nothing. That's point #1.
Utter nonsense. You need to quit listening to lying apologists.
Post a Comment