It's been mentioned many times that I'm wasting my time with the likes of a piece of shit like Dan, to whom I just refer as the Son of the Father of Lies. Dan supports every vile, non-Christian position which results in the most harm to humans everywhere. He clings to those positions as if they were somehow reflective of the Christian faith to which he only pays lip service. He exploits the label of "Christian" to serve his most unChristian agenda items.
I have to admit. I think I've about run out of patience. While on the one hand, I enjoy so easily exposing him for the piece of shit he is, I also regard him as representative of all which is bad in this nation and its culture. He's truly vile, truly a liar and truly a mockery of actual Christian principle.
Punching the fuck out of Dan is a fantasy with true appeal. Of course, that's not possible for one who truly strives to abide the Will of God. This fantasy no doubt serves as support for the encouragement to shake the dust from my sandals...to no longer cast peals before this incredible swine of an alleged human being.
I stand opposed to the vile practice of abortion, confident as are so many with more knowledge than I that it is NEVER necessary.
I stand opposed to the physical oppression of the immoral in our society despite my firm belief they have no Constitutional right to demand their perversions be respected, accepted or tolerated in any way.
I stand opposed to cruel and unusual punishment of the worst of our culture and society, despite a desire they be punished when justly brought to account.
But I have no opposition to the likes of a Dan Trabue to suffer in any way for his crimes against God and righteousness.
Dan is vermin of the worst kind. He gets no sympathy from me for any suffering he may endure, and there's a part of me which sees suffering by him to be justice from Above. But it would be my bad luck to come upon him in such suffering and by my God be compelled to render aid. I would withhold it for a time and be cursed for enjoying his torment, but I can't help but believe he has it coming.
So am I done with his sorry ass as so many encourage I should be?
Perhaps. While I needn't direct my posts and comments to him, he does represent all that's wrong with our culture. He still stands as a source for content here at this blog, as he is so naturally predisposed to express counter-Christian views.
He sickens me. He is vile and cretinous. There's no truth in him and no desire to embrace truth, while he pretends to "embrace grace". That's what liars do. That's what Dan is. Right at this moment, I can't handle his falseness, his mockery of God, his devotion to death.
God spare me.
159 comments:
Good thoughts. I gave up on him about 12 years ago and never regretted it. Doing a PSA to warn others about him, as I used to do with false teacher Chuck Currie, is good. But sadly, "Christian" Leftists are very rare to repent and believe. There is the law of diminishing returns, and you don't want to encourage them.
There are hundreds of stories of how fraudulent the guy is, but one that stuck out to me was on the blog of a pagan lady who was clearly hurting and searching. I offered her the gospel, but Dan just affirmed her in what she was already doing. Truly satanic, and all you need to know about that "Christian" phony. He is Satan's Cabana Boy.
The concept of being "given over" to his corruption seems apt in his case, which suggests his fate may be unfortunately sealed. Thus at this point, hoping to win him over isn't even on the table anymore. Good luck to him and I hope he likes the heat. He'll remain a source for content here simply because he embodies pretty much every failure and folly of the modern progressive. While not every progressive pushes every harmful policy Dan embraces, Dan certainly seems to embrace every harmful progressive policy.
P.S. I forgot about the time he found out what church I went to and then contacted my pastor under the guise of a Matthew 18 issue. But that assumed that (1) he was a brother in Christ (LOL) and (2) that banning him from my blog was a sin on my part. And even then, who would do such a ridiculous thing? Wow, what a creepy guy that Blog-stalker Dan is! My pastor laughed him off, of course.
And isn’t he the sisssy-boy who is such a pacifist that he’d just sit their and watch if his family was attacked? Correct me if I’m wrong, as I’m going from memory. He has enough flaws to address without adding one that isn’t true.
I recall that story about contacting your pastor. In the meantime, I have no desire whatsoever to contact his. Given how he refers to his people as being like him, how could I possibly profit in doing so?
As to his pacifism, I'm not sure I'd say he'd do nothing in the face of an actual physical attack on his family. At the same time, the things he supports makes such an attack more likely. May it never happen. But we see stupid people becoming victims as a result of their voting choices already.
Interestingly enough, he's recently backed off of his pacifism in order to support Biden and his proxy war in Ukraine. He also seemed very supportive of the violent rioters who caused so much destruction in 2020.
Hundreds of stories of him being fraudulent? Dan actually stalked Neil?!?!?
Craig,
Seems to me that with regard to Ukraine, a self-styled pacifist like Dan would be pushing hard for a diplomatic solution through peace talks. It's something I've stated should have been the only position of the US since the whole thing started, but instead, this administration...with help from GOP morons like Lindsey Graham, have jumped for joy at the thought of defeating a Putin who was no great threat. This stupidity has made him more dangerous while supporting a different corrupt regime in the process. But that's how the modern progressive rolls, isn't it?
Jesse,
Yes. Hundreds. This blog began in 2008. Prior to that, I'd been posting comments on other blogs for at least a year. In all that time, I've been dealing with Dan and until he cut Dan off, so was Neil, Glenn, Stan and others to one extent or another, who had had their fill of his crap long ago.
Art,
I'll be honest that I've changed my stance on Ukraine. At first I was at lest somewhat supportive of supporting them, although I've moved away from that as things have gone further. I guess that sending material support instead of troops is the better option, but it's becoming clearer that this plan of throwing money away in a proxy war is not the best option.
It is interesting to watch Dan move from a strict pacifism, to this outspoken support for a war. I suspect that if Trump was doing everything that Biden is doing, that Dan would be vehemently against the policies he now supports.
I guess that this could be looked at in the same way as Regan spending the Soviet Union into collapse, but I'm not sure it's analogous.
Hi Jesse — Yep. I banned Dan from my blog after 400+ comments. His agenda was obvious. He had no interest in the truth. Then Dan, in some sort of warped and creepy Ned Flanders way, contacted my pastor, as if I had sinned against Dan and he had to go to my church leader to address my “sin.” Keep in mind that Dan is in Kentucky and I was in another state. Again, my pastor was sound and we had a good laugh over Dan’s claims. But it was so telling about Dan’s character. Who does something like that?!
He’s still the creepiest guy I’ve interacted with on the Internet. It is symptomatic of his whole wolf in sheep’s clothing persona.
Jesse, I didn't stalk Neil. His church affiliation was public knowledge.
The Bible LITERALLY says that if a brother has a problem with another brother, you should take it to "the elders," the pastor and their associates. I pointed this out to Neil and reached out to his pastor... I figured that Neil would appreciate the biblical literalism. When he didn't appreciate it, I apologized. It IS creepy, and I apologized for acting in a literally creepy manner by literally doing what the Bible literally says, but I was trying to do literally what the Bible says to do. And Neil et al never point out the apology, for what it's worth. They don't accept the apology.
They cut me off/end the conversations - not me - because they don't like that I disagree with them. They say I'm not a brother, while I still accept them as brothers.
And of course, the false claim that there are "hundreds" of stories of me being fraudulent is, itself, fraudulent. I am entirely capable of being mistaken and certainly have been over the years. But they can't point to ONE story of me being fraudulent. They can't point to ONE story/instance of me knowingly make a false claim. So far as I know, I've never made a false claim to them, not knowingly.
There ENTIRE case is built upon, "Dan disagrees with conservative Christians and thus, he must disagree with God..." which is a bit presumptuous on their part.
You'd think that IF there were "hundreds" of instances of me being fraudulent, they could point to at least one.
They won't. And they won't because they can't. And they can't because it simply hasn't happened.
But again, the claim itself is fraudulent, so I can easily point to at least one instance where they are being fraudulent.
Fraudulent: obtained, done by, or involving deception, especially criminal deception.
Fraudulent: characterized by, based on, or done by deceit;
Watch. They won't even try to support it because it's a stupidly false claim. Their inability/unwillingness/inability to even TRY to support the claim will testify against them.
Anyone will be able to see.
Craig,
Yeah...my position has been a diplomatic one from the beginning. One was on the table initially, ostensibly amenable to both sides. The worst part for me is the notion of taking sides between either bad actor, especially since we had no obligation to involve ourselves as we might if Ukraine was a NATO member...which they're not. But hey...Biden needed to protect a cash cow.
It's fraudulent for Dan to posture as some sort of victim.
It's fraudulent for Dan to pretend he engages in "good faith" discourse with equal treatment towards those who oppose his heresies.
It's fraudulent for Dan to hide behind various dodges, such as having "not knowingly" made a false claim when so many of his claims have been proven false repeatedly, comprehensively and without any evidence in support of the contrary.
It's fraudulent for Dan to claim an opponent hasn't provided evidence in support of a stated position when the opponent has provided far more then Dan thought could be brought to bear.
It's fraudulent for Dan to claim he's supported a claim when what for him passes for "proof" or "evidence" in no way comes close to the strict standards for proofs and evidence he demands of his opponents. That is, were the roles reversed, he'd never accept the same level and quality of support. Then, he'll fraudulently suggest the opponent isn't capable of understanding his evidence.
It's fraudulent for Dan to regard a fact provided by an opponent as "opinion" or "hunch", and then demand this high standard of proofs and evidence, while conversely hiding behind "opinion" for his own truth claims as if they absolves him of the obligation to provide support to back the opinion.
It's fraudulent for Dan to pretend there's any possibility God might bless a homosexual union despite absolutely no Scriptural backing for such an absurd notion.
It's fraudulent for Dan to question any verse or passage as poorly interpreted when cited to prove Dan's position is in error, while never offering how to otherwise interpret the same verse or passage, much less provide evidence it should be considered possible.
It's fraudulent for Dan to speak of "historically oppressed people" when confronted with inconvenient truths about those people, as if any history of being oppressed has any relevance whatsoever to the legitimate criticisms of those peoples currently.
It's fraudulent for Dan to exclude children...both born or about to be...in any reference to "historically oppressed people", or with regard to his routine reference to "the least of these", as if any group has been more oppressed throughout history than has children of every race, nationality or ethnicity.
It's fraudulent for Dan to claim to have at one time been a conservative when he routinely fails to demonstrate the least understanding of what that is or means.
It's fraudulent for Dan to elevate the character of leftists like Biden (and there are so many more) while constantly lying about Donald Trump, who is clearly a far better man despite his known character flaws.
It's fraudulent for Dan to pretend Trump is a conman and unfit for the presidency while having praised Biden as honest and decent and capable of being the better choice (a clear example of profound stupidity or hell-spawned deceit).
It's fraudulent for Dan to claim to be a Christian when he pushes various heinous heresies which mock our Lord.
I don't remember the details of the conflict between Dan and Neil, but I do know that it entailed many of the above fraudulent practices. These practices have resulted in many fine bloggers and commenters shaking the dust from their sandals and never allowing him to soil their towels again. A good example of Dan's fraudulence is on display at his blog under a post referencing his favorite women. Should anyone care to take a peak, it must be understood that many comments of mine have been deleted by Dan, so the entirety of my arguments can't be perused. What remains is evidence enough for my position there, yet he refuses to accept any of it honestly and pretends it doesn't satisfy his demands. He says I'm done. I'm not. I've more for him and it's only a matter of whether or not he'll man up and deal with any of it (he hasn't dealt with jack so far) or just be his usual cowardly self and delete new comments as if I haven't complied with his little girl petulance. We'll see.
Your list of "fraudulent" accusations against me is just that: An unsupported and obviously wrong list that is, itself, fraudulent.
Let's just take an easy one. You falsely claim:
It's fraudulent for Dan to claim to have at one time been a conservative when he routinely fails to demonstrate the least understanding of what that is or means.
1. As a point of observable, demonstrable fact in the real world, I was raised in Victory Memorial Baptist Church in Louisville, KY. It was a conservative, traditionalist Southern Baptist church that didn't believe in women pastors or that gay folks should get married, who believed in an inerrant Bible, who believed in the Penal Substitutionary Theory of Atonement, etc, etc. It was objectively a conservative, traditional SB church.
2. I was a believer in all they taught me, that women shouldn't preach, that homosexual practices were outside the will of God, that the Bible was inerrant, that abortion was always wrong, etc, etc. You can ask anyone who knew me then and they'll tell you. The extent of my "wild liberal" ways was believing that guitar and even electric guitar could be played in church. I believed that playing cards (Spades, Canasta, etc) was an okay thing to do (which was quite frowned upon at the time)... I was cautiously agnostic about dancing. The point was, I was literally a believer in conservative tenets and policies. As a point of measurable fact.
3. At 18, I proudly registered as a Republican and tended to vote (always? I don't remember for sure) for the Republican those first few years of adulthood. I was too young to vote in the Carter/Reagan election - I supported Carter because he was a clearly Christian man... but I believe I would have voted for Reagan because he was the Republican and that's what conservatives did back then. I believe I DID vote for Reagan in his second term (although that was about the time I was beginning to move away from conservatism, thanks in large part to Reagan and his policies which struck that conservative young adult as problematic in Central America.
4. From the time I was 19 until the age of 30, I played and traveled the southeast in a (very bad) contemporary Christian band called Remembrance. We began all our practice sessions with prayer and Bible study and if those went long, we abandoned band practice to focus on spiritual practice and we spoke against abortion, homosexuality and the "homosexual agenda," and against "liberal politics," amongst ourselves and in our concerts, at least to some degree. Again, this is measurable, verifiable. Ask anyone who knew us. We were conservative boys. Our song titles included, "Sinner Man," "Running Blind," "Jesus, Jesus, Jesus" (the hymn), etc. One song was called "Double Talk" and the lyrics included...
"Bobby was a preacher, said he had a plan
to share with every creature, about the brotherhood of man
He said, 'it's okay to sin, just do the best and you're okay...'
You're saying one thing but you live the other way, double talk is all you say!"
(Again, not great song-writing... but you can see us tackling the problems of "liberal ideology.")
cont'd...
I can and have explained to you about conservative Christian doctrines and about Kirk's Tenets of Conservatism.
It's just demonstrably false to say I was not a conservative - clearly I was. And it's false to say that I don't understand what conservatives say. I explain it all the time.
Your false accusation didn't even TRY to produce a quote of mine to support your nonsense fraudulent claim. You are exposing yourself as a fraud while trying to accuse me of the same, and doing so unsuccessfully. Once again: Empty claims are NOT objective proof. That you may THINK that I was not conservative doesn't change the demonstrable fact that I was conservative by any rational measure.
By all means, support your claim. WHAT needs to be in place to prove I was not a conservative or didn't/don't understand conservative ideals?
You won't prove it because you simply can't because it's just false.
What remains is evidence enough for my position there, yet he refuses to accept any of it honestly and pretends it doesn't satisfy his demands.
What I've done is point out that your claims are not objective proof that God doesn't want women to be preachers. You've offered many opinions and a handful of verses that, according to the way YOU interpret them mean, TO YOU, that God doesn't want women preachers. But that is literally a subjective opinion, not an objectively proven fact.
You proceed to cite other humans who hold human opinions that align with your opinions, but a compilation of subjective opinions does not equal an objectively proven fact.
And I DO note that my unproven opinions ARE subjective opinions and that they can't be proven. I can no more prove God DOES want women to be preachers than you can prove that God doesn't. I consider my opinion to be a reasonable opinion, based on basic notions of human rights and decent behavior and the Golden Rule, but it is, nonetheless, a subjective (if supremely rational) position to take. Likewise, you believe in your subjective opinion and that's fine. It's when you say that your subjective opinion is an objectively proven fact that you make your error.
I note subjective opinions ARE subjective opinions not as any kind of dodge, but just from rational honesty. They are what they are.
It's amusing to see Dan acting like he's shocked when he gets cut off from people's blogs as if he doesn't have a practice of deleting comments wholesale, and then falsely characterizing the deleted comments.
I banned Dan long, long ago because he has proven himself to be non-Christian, a rank leftist, a rank hypocrite and an abject liar.
He refuses to hear truth and is unteachable.
Just like a true Christian will never turn his back on Christ, a true conservative will never turn into a LEFTIST.
Glenn promotes Marxism seriously why?!?!?
Glenn...
I banned Dan long, long ago because he has proven himself to be non-Christian, a rank leftist, a rank hypocrite and an abject liar.
He refuses to hear truth and is unteachable.
So, here's one example of the difference between the Glenns, Neils and Stans who have banned me vs me deleting individual comments because they were either vulgar, misogynistic, racist or just because they didn't answer a question I wanted them to answer:
1. Everyone is free to make a comment on my blog. I have no gateway, I don't review them first. Anyone right now who goes to my blog and makes a comment, it shows up.
2. IF it's an on-topic comment that isn't over the top vulgar, offensive, hateful, it stays.
3. IF I've already asked them "Before you say anything else, answer THIS question..." and they don't, I might delete it.
4. They're not banned, they can still come back. I'm just expecting respectful, decent conversation.
5. Glenn, on the other hand, has banned me because, he says, I "proved" myself to not be a Christian, that I'm a rank "leftist, hypocrite and an abject liar..." and yet, he doesn't support those claims.
6. I've made clear that I'm a Christian because I'm a believer in Jesus and follow the teachings of Jesus the best I understand them.
7. Additionally, I've done all the things that typical calvinists/conservative Christians say need to be done:
a. I believe in God and God's son, Jesus.
b. I believe in Jesus being an actual human who lived here on earth, was killed and raised from the dead.
c. I believe that we should confess our sins and repent for what we've done wrong and I've done so where I know I've sinned and done wrong.
d. I've "asked Jesus to be the Lord of my life" and have dedicated myself, by God's grace, to follow God and Jesus, the son of God.
8. In spite of all of this, Glenn says I'm not a Christian, NOT because I haven't done the things that evangelicals/conservative Christians say to do in order to be saved, but because I disagree with Glenn's and other conservative's opinions on how best to understand God and Jesus' teachings. I disagree with their opinions about what God would want on topics like LGBTQ concerns, abortion, war and peace and wealth and poverty.
9. Which begs the question: Do they really believe in salvation by God's grace, period, OR do we have to intellectually affirm conservative Christian doctrine ALSO in order to be saved?
10. Additionally, no one has been banned from my blog for any reason, and certainly not because they are a "rank conservative, hypocrite" or for telling lies.
11. Additionally, they - none of them - can cite any lies/deliberately false claims that I have made (or at least, that if there WERE one, that I didn't acknowledge the mistake and apologize) because, for all my imperfections and lack of perfect knowledge, I simply don't make deliberately false claims any time, ever. Why would I? I'm interested in honest conversations, and making deliberately false claims doesn't help that, does it?
So, anyway, all of that to point out the vast difference between the conservatives who ban vs my deleting specific comments for reasonable cause.
Glenn...
has proven himself to be non-Christian, a rank leftist, a rank hypocrite and an abject liar.
He refuses to hear truth and is unteachable.
Marshall...
So am I done with his sorry ass as so many encourage I should be? Perhaps. While I needn't direct my posts and comments to him, he does represent all that's wrong with our culture. He still stands as a source for content here at this blog, as he is so naturally predisposed to express counter-Christian views.
He sickens me.
He is vile and cretinous.
There's no truth in him and no desire to embrace truth,
while he pretends to "embrace grace".
That's what liars do. That's what Dan is.
Right at this moment, I can't handle his falseness,
his mockery of God, his devotion to death.
So, why not explore the over-the-top hate they have for me and their rejection of my Christianity which forms the basis for much of their contempt/reviling of me and my poor human opinions.
Here's what the ultra-conservative/traditional Christians at Ligonier Ministries say about how to be saved:
In order to be saved,
you need to repent and believe in the Lord Jesus Christ.
That’s the great message of Scripture.
Jesus is the Savior.
He has come to do all that needs doing for sinners to be reconciled with God.
We have to trust Him,
rest in Him, and
have confidence in Him—that is faith.
Then,
we need to turn from the life of sinfulness,
by the power of His Spirit, to serve Him.
It is faith in Jesus that reconciles us to God.
It’s the Spirit of Jesus that will lead us to repentance and to a life of service.
cont'd...
So, I DO believe in Jesus and have for all my life.
I DO recognize the fallen and imperfect nature of humanity and our need for grace and salvation.
I HAVE repented of my sin - in accepting Jesus as my Lord at the age of ten and being baptized and in the years since, still confessing and repenting of known sin (that which I recognize as "sin").
I have, by the power of God's Spirit, led a life of service, however imperfectly. My jobs over the years have been helping jobs, working as a mental health worker, a teacher, an environmentalist, working with those with disabilities.
I've been the faithful husband of one wife, the caring father of two children and imperfect mentor to other children/adults.
I've been a Sunday School teacher, deacon, music leader and congregational leader faithfully in church for all my adult (and late teen) years. I'm a lover and reader of the Bible and I prayerfully seek to follow in the steps of Jesus, again, however imperfectly I may do so.
For my part, I do not reject Glenn, Neil, Marshal, Craig, Stan, et al as "not Christian," but love them and count them as brothers - who I strongly disagree with at times, but then, I don't think they need to agree with me to "prove" their Christianity. I engage in conversations with conservatives to try to find some common ground or at least try to explain what I believe, as compared to what they mistakenly think I believe sometimes.
This, as with Paul, is not to boast, but just to be clear that I'm not living some life of wanton hedonism and indecency and irrational hatred. Rather, I try to live a life of love and grace, starting with siding with the poor and marginalized, and that, I do, in an effort to follow in the steps of Jesus, my Lord.
Yes, yes, yes. I strongly disagree with some of their views. I denounce strongly words that, at least to me, are harmful to LGBTQ folks, to women, to people of color, to immigrants, to the free media and even towards conservatives who are not conservative enough for their tastes. But do I reject them as "abject liars," as evil and vile? No. I object to specific ideas, specific words WHILE recognizing that of God, in them. They, like me, are imperfect human beings and I get that we all make mistakes. Indeed, if I thought they were truly intent on evil with no capability of compromise or change, I wouldn't try to engage in conversations with them.
So, why the overt hostility against me and people like me who make the grievous error of disagreeing with their opinions?
Just to deal with this distraction:
It is interesting to watch Dan move from a strict pacifism, to this outspoken support for a war.
I've always said that I lean towards pacifism and that I'm a just peacemaker, wanting to seek just, non-violent ways of finding solutions.
I've also been clear that, in cases of unprovoked attacks and wars against a nation or a people (and that would include Contras attacking Sandinistas, the US warring in Central America unprovoked AND Ukraine defending themselves against an unprovoked invasion), that I do not object to people defending themselves.
The line has always been drawn by me between self-defense measures as we see in Ukraine and attacks against the PEOPLE (not the invaders) of another nation. The more a nation starts doing attacks that results in innocent civilians dying, the less likely it could be considered a just defense.
I get that the nuance may be difficult for those who are not familiar with Just Peacemaking concepts, but there is a distinction and I've been consistent on it.
Dan worships a false Christ and a false God, because he believes they are "social justice" gods who approve of the whole LGBT+ nonsense, including same-sex fake marriage. That right there, without any other topic, proves he is not a true Christian. No matter what your beliefs are, if you believe in a false Christ and false god, you are unsaved.
I ban people like him because I don't want their false teachings in my comment sections, especially when they refuse to be corrected due to being unteachable. I have better things to do with my time that debating the likes of him.
My response to the likes of Dan and his ilk:
Titus 3:10-11
2 John 10-11: My blog is my "house."
Romans 16:17-18
Contrary to Dan's display of victimhood, I don't think anyone hates him or his ilk. We hate what they stand for, which is everything ungodly.
You, Marshall, being a musician, may or may not appreciate this. It's band practice for my CCM band, Remembrance, back in 1991. At that point, I and my comrades were very much still self-identifying as quite conservative (and my comrades remain that way). But still, you can see how our identification with the Gospel of Christ and its emphasis on the "least of these" fits into many of our songs.
I am what I am because of the teachings of conservatives and their extreme emphasis on taking Jesus seriously!
Snippets from 1991...
https://youtu.be/VZxgQP-R6jc
FYI: I had been in that band in that video for ~9 years when one of our main guys and our bass player left and the Fred in the video (the black guitarist) was new to us and we were learning each other's songs and finding ways to plug ourselves into them. So this was very much a raw practice video.
As is so often the case....TOO often, actually...I had to step away in the middle of a response. From that point, more comments were submitted and I've posted them, but will simply carry on from where I left off. Even at that, I had not addressed what came before it, but intend to do so, so my responses are pretty much "out of sequence", as it were. That's another good reason to post the date and time of the comment being addressed...so that some semblance of understanding might be achieved.
August 12, 2023 at 8:09 AM
This response to Glenn is yet another example of Dan's falseness. I'll now address his points:
1. To be "free" to comment means to speak freely without restriction, without having to jump through hoops which are always moving. Dan's rules are akin to the typical modern progressive who regards the US Constitution as a "living document", and like those idiots, only Dan gets to alter the rules...not his visitors, and never visitors who are center-right. This lie will be exposed more as we move along.
Dan does not seem to have comment moderation turned on at his blog, but when he's deleting one's comments for whatever lame reason he falsely puts forth as justification, what's the difference? He does have some limitation enacted, however which seems to prohibit attempts to post comments after a period of time with no attempts put forth. He claims its due to spam, but who knows? This belies the "free to comment" claim given one isn't free forever.
I use comment moderation, as do Craig, Stan and Glenn, for legit reasons. Mine are because Dan's troll "feodor" posted the same BS statement literally a thousand times. And while the creep pretends I'm scared to engage with him, he's just a punk who is no longer welcome because of his childish behavior and unjustified condescension and arrogance. What's more, he breaks a cardinal rule here of not abusing my guests. If he attacked Dan, I'd be pissed.
So Dan's not the welcoming blog host he's wants folks to believe.
2. As Craig can attest, Dan's famous for off-topic comments. (feo is as well, but who cares about him...or her...I don't know how feo identifies) But worse is his whining about "vulgar, offensive, hateful" comments. But this is truly crap, as he uses that excuse when it isn't the case. That's not to say I'm above referring to him as, say, a "pussy", because he is one. But then he'll pretend it's misogynistic and thus offensive on that basis, as if the word isn't most commonly used these days to refer to the lack of spine or manhood of someone like Dan. That is to say, he's a pussy whether I call him that or not and if I chose a different expression to convey that truth, he'd still delete the comment in which it appeared. He's done it so many times I could never hazard and estimate for how many.
The thing is, it's Dan's own dishonest style which provokes, and then he dares take offense when one responds in a less than Christian manner. Crude language is not any more insulting than Dan's dishonesty.
3. The problem with this tactic is how it appears every time Dan fails to account for something over which he's been criticized. His double-standard arrogance absolves him in his mind from having to actually engage in the manner he demands of his betters. That is to say, there are usually lots of things said which Dan will never address after making this demand, which will lead to additional obfuscations and needless whining about that which doesn't matter. Thus, it becomes even more difficult to remain on point as it is Dan who takes the conversation on tangents which are off topic. Personally, I have no need, feel no compulsion and am given no impetus for going off topic. It's the topic I submit comments to address.
4. All responses to Dan's post begin quite respectful and "decent" (assuming I'm understanding whatever the hell he means by this). Things deteriorate due to Dan's corruption of the conversation, his petulance, his irrational and unreasonable demands to abide that which is fluid based on how he's faring within the conversation. It's clear Dan seeks to "win", whereas I seek only to defend what is true and that which I regard as true remains so until someone can provide a compelling fact-based, evidence-supported reason to reconsider. Dan never provides. Then he blows off his opponent by disparaging the opponent's ability to "understand" his weak arguments. Hard to be civil at that point.
5. Glenn is not hardly the only person who's acknowledged the fact Dan's claim to being a Christian is fallacious. And indeed the evidence abounds. I've often asked how far astray from God's Word can one push the envelope before one is no longer worshiping the One True God. To many of us, Dan has more than crossed that line. The line is no loner in view.
6. Superficial declarations fail to persuade. They're superficial due to all which is not Christian but defended by the likes of Dan. Rote recitations of what a Christian believes is not good enough. How Dan lives out his life...according to what he proclaims on social media...are not the stuff of true Christian understanding. Not even close. As an extreme example of what I mean, I can call myself a true believer, yet steal and murder with abandon. Am I truly a Christian? I'd say, "No". Not by a long shot, because Christians don't steal and murder. Dan supports sexual immorality and the murder of innocent people in utero...among other unChristian practices. But he'll point to that which can be said to flow from Christian understanding. I've said it before, that criminals will engage in charitable acts also. Does that mean their criminal acts can be overlooked? No. They are not good people because they do some good things while doing terribly awful things. Such is Dan.
7. This is Dan doing exactly as I've said he does...rote recitation of Christian principles. But how are those things manifested in Dan's world? Among other very unChristian acts, by defending sexual immorality and the murder of innocents in utero. "'I believe in Jesus', I said, as I beat him to death with a hammer for talking to my woman." It doesn't work that way.
8. Disagreement is one thing. As anyone can see who reads all blogs I visit, as well as at times here at mine, I've gotten into debates with Craig, Glenn and Stan on various issues of the faith. But Dan's positions on particularly egregious issues are not those he actually defends or supports with Scripture. And in those cases where he's tried to cite Scripture, he's proven himself far more guilty of inserting meaning into his citations than any of us have EVER done. His abuse of Scripture to defend his positions can easily be seen on the subjects of "gay marriage" and economics.
9. This concept of "God's grace" is a dodge when an issue such as homosexuality arises in discourse. It's a meaningless phrase typical of the modern progressive meant to evoke an emotional response...intended to provoke compliance. It's akin to "the war on women" or accusations of racism. Worse, it does nothing to clarify just how someone like Dan can abide the positions he does. It's not evidence. It's not a defense. It's a platitude.
Again, no one on this side of the divide abides any works based salvation. But to reject that doesn't provide one the liberty to do what one likes. It's one thing to love a sinner, for example, but we don't attack the sinner but focus on the behavior which affirms their sinfulness...like homosexual behavior or aborting a child endowed by God with the unalienable right to life. St. Paul did not reject the law, but only that abiding the law is not what saves us. Dan ignores the law where it suits him to do so. Then, he does nothing to support that rejection.
10. I believe the accusation is focused on Dan's constant deleting of comments for whatever reasons he pretends is legit in order to do so. Dan's been banned by several hosts...very likely more than we know.
11. I've pointed out multiple lies, some of which he continues to spew. Most recently, I've taken to pointing them out as they happen and then explaining why they're lies. Dan lies more than Joe Biden, who beyond any honest doubt lies more than Trump, who doesn't lie like either one of them (that is, saying falsehoods which actually matter or have any true negative impact on anything). And his final statement at the end of that comment is an example:
"So, anyway, all of that to point out the vast difference between the conservatives who ban vs my deleting specific comments for reasonable cause."
There is indeed a vast difference between conservatives who ban Dan and Dan's deleting of comments. My responses clarify that difference in a truthful, reality-based manner. Dan's banned for legitimate misbehaviors. Dan deletes because he's losing the debate. That's the bottom line.
I'm going to respond to more of Dan's comments very soon. I would appreciate everyone holding off on jumping in until I get up to date. I'll be very specific when anyone who wants to can post again.
Now we need to bring Jesse Albrect into this discussion by raising the question of why he deleted Dan's comments with only a little interaction? Why isn't Glenn or anyone else calling him out for this abuse?
"Now we need to bring Jesse Albrect into this discussion by raising the question of why he deleted Dan's comments with only a little interaction?"
No "we" don't. Don't see how you have liberty to include yourself in "we" when you can't even identify yourself with at least a unique moniker which won't change.
What's more, it's far more abusive...one's readers... to allow Dan or his troll...and those who post under "anonymous"...to appear on one's blog.
"... repenting of known sin (that which I recognize as "sin")."
This short phrase says so very much about Dan and how he views sin.
What you say doesn't make sense. Who the hell is "Dan's troll?"
Calling yourself "center-right" is too decent a description of yourself. It's more like "far-right" to anyone who has common sense. You are too ignorant and uncivil to be considered center anything. Anyone who has moderation in their views would view you for what you are: nutcase.
Anonymous said...
Glenn promotes Marxism seriously why?!?!?
August 11, 2023 at 11:37 AM
Mr. Anonymous is a coward to not ID himself when he tells such an egregious lie. No evidence at all, just a cowardly anonymous claim.
While waiting for Marshal to have time to deal with questions/comments...
Marshal (I think...)
So Dan's not the welcoming blog host he's wants folks to believe.
Also Marshal...
That's not to say I'm above referring to him as, say, a "pussy", because he is one. But then he'll pretend it's misogynistic and thus offensive on that basis, as if the word isn't most commonly used these days to refer to the lack of spine or manhood of someone like Dan. That is to say, he's a pussy whether I call him that or not
As Marshal freely admits, he regularly attacks those he disagrees with by calling them "pussy" or "nutless..." (eye roll! OH so middle school, fella. Grow up) and IN HIS MIND, he doesn't think this is vulgar or offensive, but here's the thing: Marshal doesn't get to decide that. On my blog, I do.
You can almost bet that such vulgar, offensive language would not get posted on his fellow conservatives' blogs, right?
And here's the thing: I'm not "offended" because he called me these vulgar names for my sake. Rather, many rational adults - women and their faithful allies - recognize this middle school vulgarity as an assault on women, as if suggesting having a vagina or lacking a scrotum would make one less adult, less in control, less rational. It's vulgar and misogynistic. It is an attack on women, whatever Marshall's intentions are.
That he fails to see how vulgar or misogynistic such attacks are doesn't make him right. It just makes him ignorant.
The white racist who refers to black folks as "n" words may not think he's being vulgar or racist, either. And yet, he is.
Put another way, it is not the haters who get to define what is vulgar and offensive. It is the oppressed group's right and burden to have to point out the hatred in such vulgar and middle-school boy words.
Craig attempted to lamely attack me with his oh so common vague innuendo...
This short phrase says so very much about Dan and how he views sin.
No. It says very much about how I view the ignorant. There are, in fact, ignorant racists who think that it's not wrong to use the N word to refer to people of color. There are, in fact, ignorant misogynists who don't think it's wrong to use the P or C words. I recognize the reality that not everyone recognizes the sin that they do. The racist may very well think he is being righteous. It doesn't mean he IS righteous.
And so, the person who sins in ignorance, believing his racism or sexism or homophobia are NOT great evils... are such people condemned for their ignorance?
You see, this is NOT about how I view sin. It's about how I view grace.
For you all, grace appears to be something for the perfect Pharisee types, the ones who "rightly" (in your opinions) recognize the "right" sins as "sins..."
So Craig, I would just ask you to be clear: For those who truly believe that it is Godly and gracious and beautiful and glorious and good to celebrate gay marriages... IF they are wrong, are they condemned for the "sin" of being sincerely wrong? Is being supportive of the LGBTQ community a "sign" that someone is not saved...? OR, do you think/affirm that people can be genuinely mistaken in good faith and not condemned for their honest mistake?
Another question to go unanswered.
August 12, 2023 at 8:56 AM
"So, why not explore the over-the-top hate they have for me and their rejection of my Christianity which forms the basis for much of their contempt/reviling of me and my poor human opinions. "
"over-the-top hate". Hmm. This is the type of thing about which I speak when describing the contemptible nature of Dan and his manner. The one thing he nails is the description of his opinions as "poor". They're poor because they're not based on anything substantive. As I mentioned, he hides behind "that's my opinion" as if that should end any criticism or expectation of justification for his positions. Opinions do not exist without some basis. That basis requires some factual evidence, without which the opinion is worthless...wholly without merit. It's like saying, "Dan's an asshat!!" "Prove it!" "It's just my opinion, so I don't have to prove it." Who would accept such an argument as valid, mature or adult-like?
So, we've attempted to "explore" that which results in bad feelings toward Dan, but Dan's not forthcoming with the necessary evidence to support his wacky notions and heresies. In the meantime, we're not to take another step without hauling in a tractor-trailer load of evidence to support our positions. Somehow, we're to deal with this blatant and routine double-standard as if Dan's truly dealing in good faith. Where's the good faith in such duplicity? Dan often speaks of finding common ground, but he's unwilling to act in a manner which can ever possibly result in such (not that I actually believe there is such a thing where he's concerned, so far astray from sense and reason he is).
August 12, 2023 at 8:56 AM
Here's a typical defense Dan offers...a list of "good deeds" meant to convey his piety while he promotes, defends, celebrates and enables so much evil. I've often made reference to Al Capone's soup kitchens. Do they make Al a great guy? Or is Al an asshole who does some good things?
This tactic also reminds me of Matt 7:21-23
The areas of dispute which we've debated for eons continues in the same manner. Dan insists he's a believe, while engaging in that which is clearly and blatantly rebellion against God. We provide the proof. He rejects it and demands we prove we're "understanding" the evidence we present, that we're "interpreting" it correctly while he never manages to provide anything substantive to contradict the least bit of it.
I do not pretend there can exist a case or two where one might believe one is acting in accord with God's Will, while in reality doing that which is actually in contradiction to It. If one is not given a reason to reconsider, one may live one's life in the wrong and if such a person truly believes no wrong is being committed, such a person likely will not have it held against him.
But this is not at all the case with Dan. He sins openly as our many years of providing evidence of the Truth attests, yet he rejects it all as if we're the ones lacking understanding. The fact is, neither side is lacking. But Dan is unwilling to stand up for what is right because of his far greater devotion to the world. There's no other explanation one can see after the many years of debate on these truly plain issues.
"I'm a lover and reader of the Bible and I prayerfully seek to follow in the steps of Jesus, again, however imperfectly I may do so."
If this was true, he would not enable sexual immorality and the murder of innocents and then write it off as "following Jesus imperfectly". There's no nuance or ambiguity in the Word which rationalizes this level of crap.
"For my part, I do not reject Glenn, Neil, Marshal, Craig, Stan, et al as "not Christian," but love them and count them as brothers - who I strongly disagree with at times, but then, I don't think they need to agree with me to "prove" their Christianity. I engage in conversations with conservatives to try to find some common ground or at least try to explain what I believe, as compared to what they mistakenly think I believe sometimes."
First, we're not "brothers". I can't and won't be brothers with someone who so blatantly mocks God with the clearly sinful positions you take on the issues we debate so often. He questions and criticizes my understanding of Scripture but never identifies where I'm in error. He simply says I am. It's the "Nyuh uh" response.
I have a very old and dear friend who lives in Arizona. When his mother was still alive, he'd come to town on family business. We'd get together, have dinner, go into Chicago...to Buddy Guy's or some place to catch some good music, then spend hours at Denny's debating back and forth on a variety of issues. As tight as we are, we're very different in our politics and religion...he's a lefty atheist. But unlike Dan, this guy would actually have substance to his arguments. He would never simply say "I disagree" and that was it. We'd each be given something on which to chew, and true understanding...if not agreement...would result. No animosity, because the give-and-take was equal. It wasn't just one side required to provide while the other got to simply reject without responding in kind.
That's never how it goes with Dan. Ever.
"I denounce strongly words that, at least to me, are harmful to LGBTQ folks, to women, to people of color, to immigrants, to the free media and even towards conservatives who are not conservative enough for their tastes."
This is ludicrous. Dan will say whatever he likes...even dropping F-bombs and other such words, and rationalize it with citations of Christ, no less! Yet, he will whine like a bitch about the words used, not because honest people of character would take great offense (he's referring to the weakest of modern progressive "LGBT folks", women, POCs, immigrants and the like. People with spines don't whine when confronting the words Dan chooses to regard as worse than "goddamn". And who gives a flying rat's ass about the leftist media except leftists who swallow their slop like gluttonous pigs?? The "free media" Dan defends are lying leftists as well. And the conservatives Dan likes to cite are those who aren't nearly as conservative as Dan wants them regarded.
I denounce his denouncing because his doing so is another form of lying.
"So, why the overt hostility against me and people like me who make the grievous error of disagreeing with their opinions?"
This question was answered in the post, and now in this thread of comments. If Dan's still not getting it, it's because he doesn't want to get it.
August 12, 2023 at 8:57 PM
Always happy to review someone's music. Enjoyed also the younger Dan. As you said, sound quality left something to be desired, and due to that, only endured snippets. Yet I doubt that sitting through the entirety would prove anything about what you thought you were back then. Again, as always, you do little to impress that you have any understanding of conservatism, be it theologically or politically. I stand by this even conceding you might truly believe you're doing your best to honor God. But you aren't for the many reasons stated ad nauseum over the years. You refuse to honestly consider arguments against you, apparently believing you've actually come to a better conclusion which precludes any reconsideration. That's folly given the blasphemy of your current state of mind. So long as you regard the Truth as hatred, nothing will ever change and your eternal destination likely requires plenty of sunscreen.
"I am what I am because of the teachings of conservatives and their extreme emphasis on taking Jesus seriously!"
I know nothing of these "conservatives" you cite in defending your rejection of a point of view of which you have no understanding. Perhaps those people are as stupid as you are. A better strategy would be to actually cite truths and evidence and facts and dispense with these references to people we'll never meet. We're forced to take your word for such things and your word is crap.
August 14, 2023 at 10:23 AM
Anonymous Anonymous said...
"What you say doesn't make sense."
Can you be specific? What have I said that's beyond your understanding?
" Who the hell is "Dan's troll?""
Might be you. Or, you're a free agent troll. So long as you refuse to adopt a unique name so that you can be distinguished from any other "anonymous" person, I don't see the need to go out of my way to explain inside things to you.
August 14, 2023 at 12:38 PM
"Mike said...
Calling yourself "center-right" is too decent a description of yourself. It's more like "far-right" to anyone who has common sense. You are too ignorant and uncivil to be considered center anything. Anyone who has moderation in their views would view you for what you are: nutcase."
Hi, Mike!! Who the hell are you??
I don't believe I've described myself as merely "center-right". I use the term to speak of all who are anywhere from the center of the political spectrum toward the right of it. It includes the mildest milquetoast of a right-winger to the most hard-core conservative. I'm far more the latter than the former, and don't make that mistake again. "Far right" is as the term suggests: "Right" far more often than wrong and I can defend that until you run away crying. No one is more uncivil than the left in this day and age, and I'm not always up for treating them as my Lord would prefer. They're far too destructive as all evidence proves today.
Anyone who has "moderation" is likely spineless and the term is deceitfully used to denote "reasonableness". But the issues of the day can't abide the "moderate" who won't pull up his Pampers and act like a man in the face of all which is destroying our nation and corrupting our children.
Is that too "uncivil" for you? Cry me a river.
As to "ignorant"...in what way? Be specific and prepared to defend the charge. I'm here for ya!
August 15, 2023 at 10:09 PM
"As Marshal freely admits, he regularly attacks those he disagrees with by calling them "pussy" or "nutless...""
That's not at all accurate. I regularly attack you as a nutless pussy, not for merely disagreeing, but because you don't do more than disagree and at the same time, demand tons of evidence to support my positions while you refuse to do likewise. Nutless pussies do that. Men make their case as strongly as they can and face the consequences. When you do that, I will laud you for the effort, despite the high likelihood your attempts will still fail. Until then..."nutless pussy".
"IN HIS MIND, he doesn't think this is vulgar or offensive,"
In my mind, I don't care if you choose to regard it as vulgar or offensive. Regardless of who might think so, it's still true.
"You can almost bet that such vulgar, offensive language would not get posted on his fellow conservatives' blogs, right?"
Given that conservatives aren't known for acting like nutless pussies, I can't see any reason for using such terminology to describe them as such. Pretty obvious. Indeed, in such a case they'd be far more justified in deleting me for using such words, but should it occur to them, they'd like copy-paste my comment with only the offending terms deleted....sort of like men would do.
"eye roll! OH so middle school, fella. Grow up"
I regard as "middle school" (actually kindergarten) your typical and routine "Nyuh uh" response to facts and evidence demanded by you without an in kind counter argument. Thus, act like a pussy, or a coward, or a namby-pamby, or a wimp, or a spineless putz (all the same thing) and "pussy" is apropos.
"Rather, many rational adults - women and their faithful allies - recognize this middle school vulgarity as an assault on women, as if suggesting having a vagina or lacking a scrotum would make one less adult, less in control, less rational."
"Rational adults" don't think this way, even if they object to the use of such terms. No rational adult regards "pussy" as a pejorative as an assault on women. Furthermore, they don't regard the use of this term as suggesting the "victim" is possessed of a vagina or literally lacking a scrotum. Only a lying modern progressive would dare try to make such a laughable case. You tried to make this case over the use of the terms "slut" or "whore". I've yet to find a woman who gets the vapors over hearing these terms used as they most commonly are. They only object to being called those terms (most of them, anyway...the most carnal proudly regard themselves as such). So Dan is lying once again in trying to make this case, OR, he's merely going by what moronic modern progressive women dictate to effeminate men like him.
"That he fails to see how vulgar or misogynistic such attacks are doesn't make him right. It just makes him ignorant."
That's funny...the suggestion that I don't know I'm using vulgar terms when I do. But using them doesn't make me the least bit misogynistic just because Dan needs to assert it does. There's not a woman I know who regards me as misogynistic. Why? Because they're not pussies.
"The white racist who refers to black folks as "n" words may not think he's being vulgar or racist, either."
Ah!...so I'm a "misogynist" because I use the term "pussy" which is most commonly understood to mean a wimpy guy like you. Strong women don't regard the term as misogynistic. Why? Because they're not pussies. And that's allowing that they might not like the term. But rational people don't automatically make the connections to the use of such terms as you so desperately need people to make. Rational people see the intention behind your objection to the word and that intention is simply to demonize someone who holds you in contempt for...among so many other things... bullshit tactics like this.
And not to let it go, there's no comparison between a racist using the dreaded "N-WORD" and anyone referring to you as the pussy you are. In typical Dan fashion, rather than address the reasons why one might call you a pussy, you dodge that in favor of focusing on the use of the term "pussy".
So forget that word, Dan. Let's go with "wimp-ass". Different word, same Dan. Now what?
"Put another way, it is not the haters who get to define what is vulgar and offensive."
And yet, here you are.
No rational adult regards "pussy" as a pejorative as an assault on women.
This, as always, is merely an empty assertion. ALL men and adults are not like you and the "locker room" boy crowd you appear to associate with. NO good conservative man or woman I grew up with in my childhood church would consider such language as acceptable and would find it demeaning to women.
Just because you associate with a crowd with the mentality of a boy doesn't mean all adults think as you do.
Yes, I am well-aware that many vulgar men have a "locker room" approach to such language. That doesn't make it okay. My mother would have washed your mouth out with soap if you had used such language around her - whether you were her son or not.
I'm guessing maybe at least one or two of your comrades here would object to such vulgarity, too.
Consider: what are the ways we can assess moral questions? Is it immoral to drink alcohol and drive? Is it immoral to capture women/girls in war time and force them to marry you? Is it immoral to have 3 wives? 3 husbands?
How does one define a moral answer to such questions?
One possible answer is to ask, what does God say?
But God hasn't given directly to us any direct answer to us.
We could ask, what do biblical stories have to say?
Well, nothing about drinking and driving but on the other two, we see instances of God "giving" people multiple wives and saying it's okay to kidnap women in war and we'd them, even against their will (as long as, if the kidnapped women STILL don't like it after a time, they could be released after a time (divorced?)
So, do we look at those examples and say, well, it must be acceptable for us to do this today!
But almost certainly, you all would object to such crimes, right?
But why? The Bible never condemns it, why would you?
Is it the case you're using your moral reasoning to explain why that can't possibly be acceptable? That just because forced marriages and polygamy were a moral option THEN, we're in a different context now?
And what of drinking and driving?
How do you assess such questions of morality?
Do you use your reasoning?
Are your human-reasoned positions objectively factual and proven? How?
Dan
"It is the oppressed group's right and burden to have to point out the hatred in such vulgar and middle-school boy words."
Almost missed this bit of nonsense. Their "right and burden", huh? Not at all. What we see is those who revel in victimhood declaring words "hate speech" because that's the only way they can defend their bad behaviors, or deflect attention away from it and redirect that attention to those who point out their bad behaviors. That is to say, those "oppressed groups" are not oppressed at all. The modern progressive lies about that, too.
And as to what words one uses, it's pretty easy to home in on particular words while at the same time demonizing, disparaging and otherwise insulting people with false charges and accusations. Attacking people with words not on Dan's list of "vulgar and middle-school boy" words is still an attack and when that attack is dependent upon lies as is common from the modern progressive, I don't know that one can be more insulted by one method than the other. The difference is that referring to the modern progressive like Dan with coarse words is truth told crudely. Dan's references to his opponents are the coarseness of lies and falsehood. Dan whines because he can't escape the truth behind the "vulgarities". Just like he avoids addressing other points of contention against him, he avoids in this case by whining about words.
August 15, 2023 at 10:14 PM
Regarding Dan's response to Craig, while he's more than capable of doing so himself, there's a note or two to which I will also address:
"There are, in fact, ignorant racists who think that it's not wrong to use the N word to refer to people of color. There are, in fact, ignorant misogynists who don't think it's wrong to use the P or C words."
There are no racists or misogynists here who aren't named Dan Trabue or feo. You continue to prove you're obsessed with race and you prove you're no friend to the fairer sex.
"And so, the person who sins in ignorance, believing his racism or sexism or homophobia are NOT great evils"
First of all, "homophobia" is no great evil. It's not even a small one. It's a condition from which those like you suffer because you're scared like hell to speak truthfully about the sinfulness of homosexuality. What's more, there's true evil in disparaging those who acknowledge that fact. But leave it to the modern progressive to call evil good and good evil.
Art,
This notion that people "sin in ignorance" is an interesting one. It seems to place the burden/responsibility of sin on the knowledge of the person who might be sinning.
For example. If someone was to murder someone when they were completely ignorant of murder being a sin, by this standard they would be completely innocent of the sin of murder. It's rare to hear someone actually making the argument that ignorance of the law is an excuse.
Also, the notion that "love" or "grace" would encourage someone to engage in sinful behavior seems contrary to the Biblical constructs of love and grace. It's all very focused on encouraging people to follow their desires in an attempt to find happiness, which makes the self the center.
I doubt Dan really cares all that much about women.
"Right" far more often than wrong and I can defend that until you run away crying."
Trust me, few, if any at all, would run away from some obnoxious fool like yourself crying. They might walk away from somebody like you because you may appear unhinged to normal people and they simply don't have the time of day to argue with you.
"No one is more uncivil than the left in this day and age, and I'm not always up for treating them as my Lord would prefer. They're far too destructive as all evidence proves today."
You're not much different in that respect than progressives. Most people are not that way. You should get out into the world more than constantly shove your face up the asses of various sensationalist right wing talking heads. There's more to life than that. Much more.
"Anyone who has "moderation" is likely spineless and the term is deceitfully used to denote "reasonableness". But the issues of the day can't abide the "moderate" who won't pull up his Pampers and act like a man in the face of all which is destroying our nation and corrupting our children."
Moderation means exactly that, reasonableness. That is something which you're not. You're partially to blame for the way our culture is going, I am sure.
"Is that too "uncivil" for you? Cry me a river."
This proves my point.
"As to "ignorant"...in what way? Be specific and prepared to defend the charge. I'm here for ya!"
I don't have to, since you're likely to prove my description of you again and again and again by your own words. It would not matter if I contradicted your claims with scholarly citations and logical arguments because you'll just make up crap and treat it as "proof" anyway.
Craig:
the notion that "love" or "grace" would encourage someone to engage in sinful behavior seems contrary to the Biblical constructs of love and grace. It's all very focused on encouraging people to follow their desires in an attempt to find happiness, which makes the self the center.
Of course, from our perspective, we are absolutely NOT encouraging people to engage in sinful behavior. Indeed, quite the opposite. We're encouraging, for instance, our more conservative friends not to engage in behavior that belittles or dehumanizes LGBTQ folks - that's a CLEAR contradiction of Biblical constructs of loving one another. And we DO encourage the beloved community to be the best, most wholesome, loving selves they can be - as long as they're not causing harm to others. So, if two lesbians want to get married because they love, honor and cherish one another, well for heaven's sake, OF COURSE, we'd want to encourage that sort of behavior. Because, against such things there IS NO LAW.
We're NOT encouraging "making the self the center" in some selfish, greedy, hateful, harmful manner. We're encouraging folks to love and love and love and embrace grace because, again, against such things there is no law.
But if some gay or straight person was thinking they would be most fulfilled and made whole by abusing a child, for instance, well, NO, because that is not loving and grace-filled. It's hateful and harming. Against such things there IS a law.
So, whatever you may personally think, do you recognize that we are NOT encouraging people to do something contrary to love and grace?
If someone was to murder someone when they were completely ignorant of murder being a sin, by this standard they would be completely innocent of the sin of murder.
Not in any legal sense, but in a rational, moral sense (and to some degree, even a legal sense), OF COURSE, if someone doesn't understand the concept of murder and that it causes harm, then that is a completely different scenario than someone who chooses to take actions that cause harm. Do you disagree?
The person born with limited capacity for moral reasoning IS often not charged with murder because if they accidentally kill someone due to not understanding that a certain behavior would cause harm, then it's a great tragedy, but it's not murder in the normally understood sense of the word. There would and should be consequences (greater care to prevent them from causing harm in the future), but charging them with murder would not be reasonably righteous. It would just be adding tragedy to tragedy.
Do you disagree?
This notion that people "sin in ignorance" is an interesting one. It seems to place the burden/responsibility of sin on the knowledge of the person who might be sinning.
Not sure what you mean. Please elaborate.
IF Behavior X is considered Wrong/Immoral by some one/some group/some God and Person 1 doesn't know that Behavior X is wrong, why would they be accountable for something they didn't know?
August 16, 2023 at 7:02 AM
"This, as always, is merely an empty assertion. ALL men and adults are not like you and the "locker room" boy crowd you appear to associate with."
Fewer are effeminate modern progressives like you attempting to project their false piety and sanctimony as legit. I associate with all sorts of people. I don't associate with fakes like you.
"NO good conservative man or woman I grew up with in my childhood church would consider such language as acceptable and would find it demeaning to women."
How would you know? You have no concept of what a conservative is, much less a "good" one. Honest people, including honest women, regard as demeaning to women only that speech which is intended to demean women. They don't assert their notions of civility on anyone in order to demonize, as you're doing here. The fact of the matter is that many "good" men are what not as Emily Post as you'd insist they must be in their day-to-day lives, too often in the habit of using foul language as a matter of course. They tend to apologize when their language gets away from them in mixed company, but while regarded with a "tsk-tsk" response, are NOT regarded as "demeaning" because of it. Simply uncouth at worst. But as effeminate modern progressive "men" like you are under the thumb of modern progressive feminists, you wouldn't know that.
"Just because you associate with a crowd with the mentality of a boy doesn't mean all adults think as you do."
I associate with real men and women...not whiny modern progessives who regard themselves as morally superior while willfully enabling, supporting, celebrating and defending immoral, cruel and destructive behaviors and policies. Good gosh...even the Dem voting women I know aren't such sensitive and defensive whiners!!
"Yes, I am well-aware that many vulgar men have a "locker room" approach to such language. That doesn't make it okay."
It's not a matter of whether or not it's "OK", as I don't pretend to be proud of my bad habits of any kind. It's a matter of posturing as having authority to demean on the pretense that others are demeaning to women simply because you need to believe it's true. Far more women have suffered because of the likes of you and your kind than will ever suffer because of those like me. That's a fact.
"I'm guessing maybe at least one or two of your comrades here would object to such vulgarity, too."
Perhaps. Good on them. I doubt any of them would disagree with the truth about you conveyed by it.
August 16, 2023 at 7:44 AM
"Consider: what are the ways we can assess moral questions? Is it immoral to drink alcohol and drive? Is it immoral to capture women/girls in war time and force them to marry you? Is it immoral to have 3 wives? 3 husbands?
How does one define a moral answer to such questions?
One possible answer is to ask, what does God say?"
One "possible" answer??? That's the first source for determining what is moral because it is God who proclaims what is moral and immoral!
"But God hasn't given directly to us any direct answer to us."
Uh...yes He has.
"We could ask, what do biblical stories have to say?"
Don't ask if you're not serious about following what Scripture instructs...which you're clearly not given how much you reject.
"Well, nothing about drinking and driving..."
This from the guy who claims to be a "serious and prayerful" student of Scripture. It isn't possible to be one and not come away with a clear understanding of the sinfulness of "drunkeness". To then wonder whether or not it is sinful to drink and drive, given the implication of one ability to drive safely being impaired by alcohol requires one to be as stupidly dishonest as a modern progressive. Now, I might be able to down a quart of Jack and still operate my vehicle in a perfectly safe manner, but the vast majority of people can't. Standard laws regulating the maximum blood alcohol level was somewhat arbitrarily set after studies examining what level is safest for the average human being. To exceed that level is sinful for ignoring the law of one's state, but the act is not sinful if one has the capability. Yet, if one is actually drunk, there's no denying one's capability is lessened and thus a risk to the safety of one's self and others. But the sinfulness of the act begins with what Scripture says against drinking to excess.
"...but on the other two, we see instances of God "giving" people multiple wives..."
You say this as if Scripture teaches God's cool with polygamy. It doesn't. And anyone confused on the issue is not actually studying Scripture for what the truth is, or is incapable of understanding what is clearly revealed therein. That's were truly serious and prayerful students of Scripture can help...unless they're modern progressives who study to find loopholes they can exploit, rather than the Will of God to abide even if at one's own expense.
"...and saying it's okay to kidnap women in war and we'd(sic) them, even against their will (as long as, if the kidnapped women STILL don't like it after a time, they could be released after a time (divorced?)..."
Dan has been schooled on this issue many times. He continues to suggest that God is approving of forcing women to marry, which is untrue. I've provided many commentaries, such as can be seen here, here and here. IF Dan wants to suggest some might misunderstand what Scripture says on these subjects, a truly serious and prayerful student of Scripture should easily disabuse such a person of such misunderstandings. Thus, the following question would never arise in the mind of a truly serious and prayerful student of Scripture:
"So, do we look at those examples and say, well, it must be acceptable for us to do this today!"
...but only in the dark heart of a modern progressive looking to inject ambiguity and confusion in Scripture in order to carve out liberties to indulge or defend that which is not true.
"But almost certainly, you all would object to such crimes, right?
But why? The Bible never condemns it, why would you?"
Clearly this is untrue, as my offerings attest so clearly. How could a "serious and prayerful" student of Scripture get so wrong what is so obvious?
"Is it the case you're using your moral reasoning to explain why that can't possibly be acceptable? That just because forced marriages and polygamy were a moral option THEN, we're in a different context now?"
Neither were ever "moral" options, even back then. God's tolerance for certain immoral behaviors didn't make the moral...only tolerated while He guided them to His Ultimate Plan.
"And what of drinking and driving?
How do you assess such questions of morality?
Do you use your reasoning?
Are your human-reasoned positions objectively factual and proven? How?"
This is Dan once again pretending morality exists apart from God. He ignores that his understanding of moral/immoral is based on his incredibly poor Biblical scholarship, but more on having been raised in a culture impacted for a few thousand years by Judeo-Christian influence. But it's corrupted by the demands of those who worship themselves more than God.
Without God, it's not immoral to murder someone. We may not want ourselves or our friends and family to be murdered because of or fondness for them and other reasons, but that doesn't make murder immoral. God prohibiting it does. Without God's prohibition, murder can provide advantages for a person, provided he's willing to face other consequences, such as revenge by a government which outlaws it, or by the survivors of the victim. The survivors of the murder victim might regard the murderer as evil, but others might consider how the murderer benefited and regard him as prudent or practical. But immoral? Without God, that word might be applied to minimize murder among the people, but it's not immoral otherwise. Even with God we see how often murder takes place and in most cases it's likely rationalized by the murderer, who then can say the act perpetrated isn't "technically" murder, but possibly "justifiable homicide".
But Dan uses these lame arguments to legitimize all the evil he perpetrates by his defense, enabling, celebrating and support of it. Then he wonders how anyone can balk at his posturing as "reasonable" or "rational" and prohibits his presence on their blogs.
August 16, 2023 at 12:50 PM
Mike said...
"Trust me, few, if any at all, would run away from some obnoxious fool like yourself crying. They might walk away from somebody like you because you may appear unhinged to normal people and they simply don't have the time of day to argue with you."
That was rhetorical, Mikey. Lighten up. But to regard me as "unhinged" would suggest that one has the means by which they can support that assessment. Go ahead. Give it a shot.
"You're not much different in that respect than progressives. Most people are not that way."
This indicates you're totally new to this relationship between those of us on the right and Dan. This has been going on since 2008 with no movement on Dan's part to demonstrate a true desire to abide truth. When one has dealt with the likes of Dan for such a period of time, one will find three common outcomes:
1. Dan is banished from a blog, never to darken its towels again.
2. Dan continues to be confronted on his many heresies in hopes he isn't as truly given over by God to his corruption as it appears he is.
3. One wishes to engage with leftists and Dan is pretty much a manifestation of every vile leftist trope. It's good exercise for dealing with leftists who may be truly reasonable and open to a different POV.
"You should get out into the world more than constantly shove your face up the asses of various sensationalist right wing talking heads."
This from the guy who refers to me as "obnoxious". Must be a lefty.
"Moderation means exactly that, reasonableness. That is something which you're not."
It's a word that is meant to suggest reasonableness by those who are unreasonable. It's a lie modern progressives care about being reasonable. They're the same with other words like "compromise" and "good faith" discourse.
"You're partially to blame for the way our culture is going, I am sure."
I'm sure you desperately need to believe that, but you couldn't possibly make that case if I helped you try. The only way that could possibly be true is if one regards the animus and violent outbursts of the left on the conservatives who won't compromise on truth, facts and morality. But then, why should we when to even supposedly finding "common ground" means to move the culture more toward the immorality and selfishness inherent in the modern progressive.
"This proves my point."
Sure it does.
I asked, "As to "ignorant"...in what way? Be specific and prepared to defend the charge. I'm here for ya!"
...to which Mike responded:
"I don't have to, since you're likely to prove my description of you again and again and again by your own words. It would not matter if I contradicted your claims with scholarly citations and logical arguments because you'll just make up crap and treat it as "proof" anyway."
Nice dodge. Why not give it a shot and see what happens? I don't "make up crap"...I rebut it. So stop the clucking and man up. It won't hurt.
August 16, 2023 at 12:56 PM
"Of course, from our perspective, we are absolutely NOT encouraging people to engage in sinful behavior."
You'll tell yourselves anything rather than to acknowledge your immorality.
"We're encouraging, for instance, our more conservative friends not to engage in behavior that belittles or dehumanizes LGBTQ folks - that's a CLEAR contradiction of Biblical constructs of loving one another."
If "LGBTQ folks" feel belittled or dehumanized when the Truth of God is preached to them, that seems a person problem on their part. There's no such intention in standing firmly on the Will of God. There's only the lie that conservatives are acting in "CLEAR contradiction of Biblical constructs of loving one another" by doing so.
" And we DO encourage the beloved community to be the best, most wholesome, loving selves they can be - as long as they're not causing harm to others."
But they ARE harming others, particularly each other and themselves, both physically as medical professionals attest (I'm not up for providing that scientific proof yet again at this time), and more importantly spiritually, as Scripture clearly informs us. And by pretending those like you "might be mistaken" when you have failed miserably to contradict all which has been brought forth to show there's no way you aren't, you are complicit in the harm and the eventual outcomes they will surely suffer if they choose to continue ignoring the clear and unambiguous Will of God regarding their chosen behaviors. Sin is never "wholesome" or "loving". Sin is death.
"So, if two lesbians want to get married because they love, honor and cherish one another, well for heaven's sake, OF COURSE, we'd want to encourage that sort of behavior. Because, against such things there IS NO LAW."
Except of course the Law of God. Moral law is still in effect, as Paul tells us the Law is how we know what sin looks like. Modern progressives ignore the law when it's inconvenient. True Christians never encourage "that sort of behavior" when "that sort of behavior" is a manifestation of prohibited sexual immorality...which homosexuality (or its sister, lesbianism) so clearly and unequivocally is.
"We're NOT encouraging "making the self the center" in some selfish, greedy, hateful, harmful manner."
That's EXACTLY what you're doing by enabling clearly immoral behaviors. There's absolutely no doubt about God's prohibition of homosexuality and no hint there's a context or scenario in which it is possibly tolerated by Him. None. You've never cited such an example, but have perverted other parts of Scripture to pretend there is. It's called "lying", and it's what you do. You make your Joe Biden seem like an amateur.
"So, whatever you may personally think, do you recognize that we are NOT encouraging people to do something contrary to love and grace?"
No honest person could, given that it's exactly contrary to love and grace to encourage people in their sins. You really need to stop doing that.
"Not in any legal sense, but in a rational, moral sense (and to some degree, even a legal sense), OF COURSE, if someone doesn't understand the concept of murder and that it causes harm, then that is a completely different scenario than someone who chooses to take actions that cause harm. Do you disagree?
The person born with limited capacity for moral reasoning IS often not charged with murder because if they accidentally kill someone due to not understanding that a certain behavior would cause harm, then it's a great tragedy, but it's not murder in the normally understood sense of the word."
This is a perversion of Craig's point. He's not talking about a mental deficient. He's referring to one who doesn't regard murder as a sin, or is somehow unaware that it's a sin. That's worse than those like you who pretend homosexual behavior can be indulged and not be a sin.
What follows is a couple of columns from my inbox which address this point as if the author(s) had Dan in mind:
https://disntr.com/2022/05/17/sincerity-does-not-equal-fidelity/
This one is especially illustrative of Dan's corruption, as he seeks to convince people he sincerely believes the heresies he espouses and promotes. It's one of the main, if not THE main reason Dan is banished from so many blogs. I sincerely believe he doesn't sincerely believe the crap he pushes, yet he pushes it anyway, and that leads to banishment.
https://disntr.com/2023/08/15/hypocrite-pastors-who-complain-about-trump-but-refuse-to-complain-about-democrats/
This one speaks to another routine behavior of Dan's, this time as regards Trump in particular, but conservatives in general. It's a one way street for the modern progressives and it goes to Dan's famous manifestations of the double-standard strategy.
He's not talking about a mental deficient.
Your words are offensive and piggish. You're too old to not recognize how demeaning and oppressive such language is. Be a better man. It's hard to take your concerns about morality seriously when you use abusive language like this.
He's referring to one who doesn't regard murder as a sin, or is somehow unaware that it's a sin.
There are all manner of people who do things in ignorance that they don't recognize as sinful. YOU YOURSELF just engaged in such behavior ("ment*** d*******"). I'm going to chalk it up to an impossible amount of stupid ignorance but fear it may be more about you not caring, which is even worse. Regardless, people engage in harmful, demeaning and abusive behavior all the time (what I would regard as sin or wrong/immoral behavior) and probably much of the time, they just don't know that their actions are harmful and wrong. I certainly don't support my LGBTQ friends and loved ones in spite of thinking their behavior is wrong. I disagree with people like you (and me, once upon a time), who think in your heads something as lovely as getting married is "wrong." I don't support women and immigrants and those with disabilities thinking that their behavior is wrong. I do it because I genuinely think it's the most righteous, Godly thing to do.
Do you understand that much?
And look, I GREW UP in conservative church land. I know the arguments, it's not that I'm unaware of the arguments (against LGBTQ folks, against womens rights, against immigrants, etc). I simply do not find them to be rational, moral, biblical or Godly. So don't go off with something like, "But I've already EXPLAINED to you why it's wrong..." as if you having an opinion means you're factually right on the topic, or that you REALLY believe what you believe means everyone should agree with you. We find your arguments lacking in basic reason and decency, and for reasons that I've explained in great detail over the years. You simply can't rationally deny that I don't have my reasons for disagreeing with your opinions and that I haven't made my case and that there's no REASON for me to believe what I believe. In spite of the vacuous accusation, I'm not merely saying "nyuh uh" when I disagree with your personal human opinions and doctrines.
So, reality: People DO believe things genuinely and in good faith that you disagree with, and vice versa.
Given that reality, do you think being mistaken is a reason to say "He isn't saved..."? If so, on which points can one NOT be mistaken and be saved and WHERE do you get your list of "No Mistakes Allowed" and on what authority should anyone care about that opinion?
I had said...
"Of course, from our perspective, we are absolutely NOT encouraging people to engage in sinful behavior."
You responded...
You'll tell yourselves anything rather than to acknowledge your immorality.
No, I won't. That's a false claim that you don't even try to support because you can't because it's just stupidly false. I always acknowledge "my immorality," ie, any wrongdoing I might do when I do it, or certainly strive to. I would hope you do, as well. I suspect that most of us do that (although, admittedly, it can be hard to do sometimes).
But if I or you don't think, for instance, that having a savings account with money in it (stored up treasure) and someone accuses us of "storing up our treasures on earth" and of therefore, being greedy, we (you or I) wouldn't repent or "acknowledge our immorality," because we don't think it's immoral. We're going with our best understanding of what is and isn't moral and I don't, presumably you don't, think it's immoral to have a savings account.
That I disagree with your opinions doesn't mean that I secretly agree with and acknowledge them, and KNOW in my heart that gay folks marrying is "wrong," and just won't admit it. I honestly recognize it as an obvious moral good and wonderful and Godly thing. Now, could I be wrong? Could you and I be wrong about having a savings account? Sure, it's possible. But we do not THINK we are and therefore, we're operating on our best understanding of what is and isn't moral or immoral.
Do you acknowledge that reality?
Then, to the point that was being made, does being sincerely mistaken about some topic or some number of topics mean that we aren't saved? MUST we have something like a perfect knowledge on some undefined set of moral behaviors in order to be saved?
Is THAT what you're saying?
OR can we be mistaken and God somehow, by magic (or Grace) can still forgive us of what we do in ignorance? Because grace wouldn't be grace if it depended on perfection, would it?
These conversations are always weird, to me, because it's like you never acknowledge or maybe understand the point being made and the problem with the works-based "salvation plan" you appear to be advocating which is, of course, contrary to traditional evangelical beliefs in a salvation by God's grace.
Marshal...
This has been going on since 2008 with no movement on Dan's part to demonstrate a true desire to abide truth.
You mean, you haven't convinced me that you're right and so, I haven't changed my opinion and vice versa. If you're saying that an unwillingness to change opinions is a sign that one isn't "desiring to abide Truth," then by that measure, you aren't desiring to abide Truth.
If you're saying one has to agree with you specifically, doesn't that seem a bit grandiloquent?
If you're saying one has to agree with you and the human traditions you believe in to be sincerely seeking Truth, why? Who died and made you all God?
Isn't it just reasonable and recognizable that people disagree. That I don't agree with you is no more significant than you not agreeing with me... UNLESS you conflate your human opinions with God's Word, but there we are back to unhealthy levels of egotism, aren't we?
For my part, I've never said that you all disagreeing with me is a sign of anything other than you all disagree with me. I do truly believe that some of the things you advocate for - your anti-LGBTQ positions, your anti-women, anti-immigrant positions, are rationally and morally problematic and may lead or contribute to oppression of historically oppressed people, and that's a problem from a human rights point of view, but there you go.
Marshal...
Dan has been schooled on this issue many times. He continues to suggest that God is approving of forcing women to marry, which is untrue. I've provided many commentaries, such as can be seen here, here and here.
The text is clear. Foreign women in a battle had their loved ones killed and they were literally taken - if the soldiers who had killed her family saw a "beautiful woman," they could take her as a bride - as a bride, they were literally taking the "beautiful women" captive to become their brides.
Here's the text. Look at what it literally says!
When you go to war against your enemies and the Lord your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives,
if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her,
you may take her as your wife.
Bring her into your home and have her shave her head,
trim her nails and
put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured.
After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month,
then you may go to her and be her husband and
she shall be your wife.
If you are not pleased with her, [UGH. Rapists and their defenders are the worst!! -Dan]
let her go wherever she wishes.
You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her.
What your little links do is try to justify that this is not as bad as it sounds. These forced brides who weren't killed along with their families WEREN'T killed, so that's nice.
They had their heads shaved, nails trimmed and their clothes were taken away. Thanks.
The captors had to wait a full 30 days before wedding and bedding her;
And IF the "husbands" [rapists] were "displeased" with her, they couldn't sell her off, they had to let her go where she wanted.
So, yes, as far as it goes, there were SOME protections for these rape victims, but it's not like that makes it all right.
If YOU had a loved one who was treated this way in times of war, you would (let's hope) be outraged, and righteously so. THIS IS WAR CRIME, not some nice dating ritual.
Do you agree that this would be considered a war crime today?
Do you agree that we would be RIGHT to prosecute rapists like this today?
Good God! The things you defend.
August 17, 2023 at 9:11 AM
"Your words are offensive and piggish. You're too old to not recognize how demeaning and oppressive such language is. Be a better man. It's hard to take your concerns about morality seriously when you use abusive language like this."
It's hard to take your concerns about morality serious when you support the murder of innocent people in utero and your celebration, defense, support for and enabling of sexual immorality. How is "mental deficient" "offensive" or "piggish" words. It was you who chose to respond to Craig's comments as if he was speaking of such. He wasn't. He simply referred hypothetically to a person who doesn't regard a given behavior as sinful...not that the person was somehow mentally incapable of regarding it in such a manner as your response demanded.
And in what way is one allowed to speak of the mentally deficient without posturing modern progressives accusing them of "oppressive, piggish" language? This is a case where you need to go pound sand and not expect rational, honest and moral people take you seriously.
"He's referring to one who doesn't regard murder as a sin, or is somehow unaware that it's a sin."
And you insist one must be mentally unable to understand murder is sinful. But...and he can correct me if I'm mistaken...I'm certain he wasn't referring to those lacking in mental comprehension. There are any number of examples of those who murder and regard the act in a manner which doesn't imply immorality. And while you choose to attack me personally for lack of a legitimate reason, you dodge the issue as is your routine.
"There are all manner of people who do things in ignorance that they don't recognize as sinful."
You're not one of them. You celebrate, defend, support and enable all manner of sinful behavior as if the behaviors aren't sinful. It's not "ignorance" in your case. It's outright, willful rebellion against God framed as some unexplained alternative understanding of God's Will.
"YOU YOURSELF just engaged in such behavior ("ment*** d*******")."
There's nothing in any way immoral or sinful in the use of that expression applied to the mentally deficient. Are you really suggesting there exists no one who is mentally deficient in any number of ways? Or are you pretending there's something specifically sinful with my choice of terms to describe mentally deficient people? No need to answer as the latter is the truth. You choose to attack me on fallacious grounds for lack of an adult, intelligent and reasonable counter argument to Craig's point and mine.
"I'm going to chalk it up to an impossible amount of stupid ignorance but fear it may be more about you not caring, which is even worse."
Chalk it up any way you like. You're a lying moron and your perspective ain't worth crap. What's more, it relies upon lies and deceit to even express it.
"Regardless, people engage in harmful, demeaning and abusive behavior all the time (what I would regard as sin or wrong/immoral behavior) and probably much of the time, they just don't know that their actions are harmful and wrong."
This is just you insisting your subjective and self-satisfying code of morality has any merit or about which is worth anyone giving two shits. It isn't until you can provide some evidence it has any value universally. I won't hold my breath that you'll even make the attempt, much less succeed in the endeavor.
"I certainly don't support my LGBTQ friends and loved ones in spite of thinking their behavior is wrong."
Yes you do. You blatantly, willfully and knowingly support them in spite of the clear and unequivocal prohibition of God in the engagement of such behavior.
"I disagree with people like you (and me, once upon a time), who think in your heads something as lovely as getting married is "wrong.""
This is just you lying, as if "people marrying" is an honest defense of rank perversion when your lie is that "marry" means something more or other than the union of one man and one woman. You have no Scriptural basis for accepting "gay" "marriage" as cool or something God would ever bless or regard as consistent with His Will. No. You have nothing but your heresies.
"I don't support women and immigrants and those with disabilities thinking that their behavior is wrong. I do it because I genuinely think it's the most righteous, Godly thing to do."
WTF is this? You don't support women at all, except in the manner your feminist overlords demand you do. Real support of women does not result in all the many harms inflicted upon them modern progressive fake Christians like you allow by your shit-for-brains, Christ-hating positions.
Rational, honest people don't oppose immigrants who enter via existing protocols. Only dumbshit modern progressives like you think borders should be ignored and the swarms should be allowed to just flood in as if it couldn't possibly have a negative impact on the nation. It's not a matter of supporting or failing to support legal immigrants. It's that rational, honest people of good will oppose asshole modern progressives who don't give a flying rat's ass about their fellow Americans.
No one opposes people with disabilities because they have disabilities. This is just a bullshit modern progressive trope.
"Do you understand that much?"
I understand you're a liar who understands very little.
"And look, I GREW UP in conservative church land."
Oh, THIS shit again!
"I know the arguments, it's not that I'm unaware of the arguments (against LGBTQ folks, against womens rights, against immigrants, etc). I simply do not find them to be rational, moral, biblical or Godly."
The fact is you don't have a true understanding of any of those issues, and as far as the abomination of "LGBTQ" folks, you think God's a homophobic asshole.
"So don't go off with something like, "But I've already EXPLAINED to you why it's wrong..." as if you having an opinion means you're factually right on the topic, or that you REALLY believe what you believe means everyone should agree with you."
What I believe is informed by actual facts and evidence. Thus, if someone disagrees with me, they are ignoring or rejecting those facts and that evidence without any effort to provide more compelling counter evidence and facts. That's you in a nutshell. You've got nothing, never provided anything by which honest and intelligent people might be compelled and basically are just promoting crap because you like the smell.
"We find your arguments lacking in basic reason and decency, and for reasons that I've explained in great detail over the years."
Bullshit and lies. Your "reasoning" is no better than "Nyuh uh" and you can't cite a single attempt you've made which would compel any rational, honest person...Christian or otherwise...to change course.
"You simply can't rationally deny that I don't have my reasons for disagreeing with your opinions and that I haven't made my case and that there's no REASON for me to believe what I believe."
Laughable! You have no rational reasoning for a damned thing. You have no evidence or facts which render my position less meritorious. You believe what you believe because it has personal appeal for one as morally corrupt as you, and for no other reason.
"In spite of the vacuous accusation, I'm not merely saying "nyuh uh" when I disagree with your personal human opinions and doctrines."
What precedes this comment is exactly a great big "NYUH UH" and nothing of any greater value and merit than that.
"So, reality: People DO believe things genuinely and in good faith that you disagree with, and vice versa."
Sure. But you and those like you aren't among them.
"Given that reality, do you think being mistaken is a reason to say "He isn't saved..."?"
Ah...back to the "being mistaken" defense. But as you regard as reality that which isn't, you have yet to answer the question posed to you so many times: How far astray from the Will of God can one be and still be "worshiping" the One True God as opposed to a god of one's own making? Maybe I'll do what you do and delete everything you try to post until you've answered this question to my satisfaction.
"If so, on which points can one NOT be mistaken and be saved and WHERE do you get your list of "No Mistakes Allowed" and on what authority should anyone care about that opinion?"
That's easy! If you're defending, enabling, celebrating and supporting that which is in direct conflict with the easily understood, unequivocal Will of God as so plainly presented in Scripture...indeed specifically those which are specifically cited therein as deserving of denying one salvation....then you're in big trouble. I get "my list" from Scripture...the only source for what is moral or not which matters to anyone daring to identify as a Christ follower and it's on God's authority that everyone should care, given my "opinion" is an accurate reflection of God's Will as presented to us in Scripture. If at any time you think you can rebut that truth, pull up your panties and get to work.
Note how everything above provides evidence in support of my criticism of Dan. I'm sure more will follow.
August 17, 2023 at 12:51 PM
"I had said...
"Of course, from our perspective, we are absolutely NOT encouraging people to engage in sinful behavior."
You responded...
You'll tell yourselves anything rather than to acknowledge your immorality.
No, I won't. That's a false claim that you don't even try to support because you can't because it's just stupidly false."
You most certainly do, and I've comprehensively supported that premise hundreds of times over the years. The sinful behavior you encourage is clearly prohibited and regarded as sinful by God in Scripture, without any possibility of suggesting it might be perpetrated in some context or scenario and not be sinful. If that was in any way possible, you'd have some evidence equally solid to mitigate the claim. You haven't any such evidence. You simply pretend there's the possibility that I'm misunderstanding something in Scripture which is really beyond misunderstanding. That is to say, you're a liar and an enabler of abomination and in doing so, you're complicit in the damnation of those who take the words of such as you as liberty to carry on in their sin. There's nothing false here except for you.
"I always acknowledge "my immorality," ie, any wrongdoing I might do when I do it, or certainly strive to."
No you don't. You rationalize your immorality and even go so far as to say it's consistent with Christian teaching, which is blasphemy. Keep in mind...you're not dealing with feo here. Don't try to run that lame crap here.
"But if I or you don't think, for instance, that having a savings account with money in it (stored up treasure) and someone accuses us of "storing up our treasures on earth" and of therefore, being greedy, we (you or I) wouldn't repent or "acknowledge our immorality," because we don't think it's immoral. We're going with our best understanding of what is and isn't moral and I don't, presumably you don't, think it's immoral to have a savings account."
What passes for your "best understanding" is crap. Having a savings account...providing for one's future is in no way contrary to anything Christ, God or Scripture teaches. I've corrected your marxist perversion of this concept many times before and you've done nothing to demonstrate my correction is in any way wrong or even flawed. You pervert Scripture routinely to support your unChristian preferences.
"That I disagree with your opinions doesn't mean that I secretly agree with and acknowledge them, and KNOW in my heart that gay folks marrying is "wrong," and just won't admit it."
Blah, blah, blah. What you don't do...what you can't do because there's no way to succeed in the endeavor, is to use Scripture to defend your position favorable to abomination.
"I honestly recognize it as an obvious moral good and wonderful and Godly thing."
Because you're morally corrupt and in rebellion against God.
"Now, could I be wrong?"
You ARE wrong, and there's no way for you to pretend you're not. It's a fact. It's reality. It's the Truth according to the Word of God so clearly revealed to us in Scripture. You're free to present a Scriptural argument to the contrary, but there is no such thing. There's only you in rebellion against God.
"Could you and I be wrong about having a savings account?"
I'm not, and you are. There's no Scriptural instruction opposing having a savings account. There's only the corruption of Scripture you perpetuate.
"But we do not THINK we are and therefore, we're operating on our best understanding of what is and isn't moral or immoral."
This might sound reasonable to anyone who hasn't spent years debating with the liar Dan Trabue. But the reality is that Dan Trabue is to given over to his corruption to accept truth and reality as regards what is and isn't moral.
"Do you acknowledge that reality?"
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. That's not precise. You use that word in an effort to force compliance with that which is in no way reality. That is, you're a liar.
This is a purposely fallacious argument posed to force compliance with a lie. It's really hard not to have "perfect" knowledge on the issues about which we are so often in conflict. There's really no mistaking what God's Will is on the topics, even when you try to create an example which might...but never really does...support your premise.
"Then, to the point that was being made, does being sincerely mistaken about some topic or some number of topics mean that we aren't saved? MUST we have something like a perfect knowledge on some undefined set of moral behaviors in order to be saved?
Is THAT what you're saying?"
Setting aside I don't for a moment believe you're "sincerely mistaken" on the issues on which you're clearly and unmistakably wrong, there's a good argument against the premise that "sincerity" makes much of a difference. And again, the notion demands an answer to the question you continue to pretend hasn't been asked a billion times: how far astray from the Will of God can one be before one is worshiping a false god of one's own making? Try answering that, you cowardly liar!
What's more, the sins you defend cannot be honestly described as some undefined set of moral behaviors. The behaviors you defend are specifically prohibited.
Note: Some of what precedes this alert is somewhat out of order. I don't feel like trying to put it right, and the righteous, truthful point I'm making is not lessened by it whatsoever.
"OR can we be mistaken and God somehow, by magic (or Grace) can still forgive us of what we do in ignorance? Because grace wouldn't be grace if it depended on perfection, would it?"
Setting aside your bullshit, self-serving understanding of grace, the pretense that you're simply "mistaken" as opposed to willfully and knowingly in rebellion is fallacious. You've been schooled too many times and too hard to use that lame angle any longer. In short, you're willfully and intentionally lying again.
Let's assume that you can't find a way to make Scripture intelligible to us rubes who know what you defend is clearly sinful and prohibited those who seek to please God. That alone should suggest to one who also claims such a desire to stop and default to rejecting the behavior being debated until such a way can be found. You don't. You simply say, "I don't care what Scripture says, and if it says something that suggests I'm wrong, I'll pretend it doesn't", and you leave it at that. How little you care about abiding the Will of God!!!
"These conversations are always weird, to me, because it's like you never acknowledge or maybe understand the point being made and the problem with the works-based "salvation plan" you appear to be advocating which is, of course, contrary to traditional evangelical beliefs in a salvation by God's grace."
Nice try. The truth is that I put forth what Scripture says, which is clear and beyond mistaking or confusion, and you expect me to acknowledge it suggests something the easily understood words on the page assert. There's no grace for liars. And lying is what is occurring here, until you can provide the Scriptural evidence which supports your position. After all these years, you haven't been able to do so. Yet you cling to the lie into which you expect and demand we buy. That shit might work at Jeff St. It doesn't work among honest people who put God above everything.
One more point...I do not advocate a works based salvation. What Dan is trying to do is suggest that's the case because he insists upon supporting, enabling, defending and celebrating sinful behaviors which are clearly anathema to Christian teaching and anything one could find in Scripture. Indeed, there's no "appearance" of such, but simply the assertion by a liar that I intend such a thing.
August 17, 2023 at 6:18 PM
"Marshal...
This has been going on since 2008 with no movement on Dan's part to demonstrate a true desire to abide truth.
You mean, you haven't convinced me that you're right and so, I haven't changed my opinion and vice versa. If you're saying that an unwillingness to change opinions is a sign that one isn't "desiring to abide Truth," then by that measure, you aren't desiring to abide Truth."
Bullshit. The truth is that I provide tons of evidence in support of my position, which is an accurate reflection of Biblical truths, and you simply reject it all out of hand because you prefer your self-serving, self-satisfying alternative to the truth of Scripture. You don't stand firmly due to a lack of evidence, facts and truth. You do so in spite of it. It's not that what I present isn't convincing, it's that you're so given over to your corruption that you reject convincing evidence and arguments out of hand.
Conversely, despite my openness to any potential evidence you're always free to present, you don't present jack shit which would compel a change of heart by the most pliable mind. You don't want Truth. You want what you want to be truth!
"If you're saying one has to agree with you specifically, doesn't that seem a bit grandiloquent?"
That would depend on what it is I'm insisting you abide. If I say you're on fire, and you're clothes are in flames, I don't think it's the least bit "grandiloquent". (You learned a new word, I see! You must be so proud!)
"If you're saying one has to agree with you and the human traditions you believe in to be sincerely seeking Truth, why? Who died and made you all God?"
Enough with this "human tradition" bullshit! It's meaningless. The point is whether or not you're confronted with truth and whether or not it's convenient for you to abide it. It's not a matter of agreeing with me, regardless of how desperately you need to attack me in that manner. The only thing of value is the point I relate and whether or not ITis true. You are incapable of proving it isn't, you've no intelligent argument which compels a rejection of it. You simply default to "Nyuh uh" and all this peripheral bullshit. Keep in mind: You're not dealing with a modern progressive here. You need facts and evidence.
"Isn't it just reasonable and recognizable that people disagree."
Irrelevant.
"That I don't agree with you is no more significant than you not agreeing with me... UNLESS you conflate your human opinions with God's Word, but there we are back to unhealthy levels of egotism, aren't we?"
So you like to tell yourself. But that's not really happening here, is it? No. What's happening is that you're confronted with the truth of Scripture and instead of providing any Scripture which contradicts what I present, you make all these crappy arguments about eog, conflating "opinion" with God's Word, etc. That's all Trabue-levil crap and lying. All that matters is you've got nothing with which to contend against the facts and evidence I present.
"For my part, I've never said that you all disagreeing with me is a sign of anything other than you all disagree with me."
Irrelevant, useless and who cares?
"I do truly believe that some of the things you advocate for - your anti-LGBTQ positions, your anti-women, anti-immigrant positions, are rationally and morally problematic and may lead or contribute to oppression of historically oppressed people, and that's a problem from a human rights point of view, but there you go."
First of all, you lie in conflating disparate positions. My "anti-LGBTQ" positions are matters of immoral behavior, which are clearly an unmistakably prohibited by God.
Secondly, nothing I've ever stated, advocated or supported are "anti-women" or "anti-immigrant". That's just typical lies of a modern progressive, because modern progressives rely on lying. Nothing I promote results in "oppression" of anyone, and your continued reference to "historically oppressed" people is a lie intended to deflect from specific, fact-based criticism of whomever it is you insist on lumping in with these "historically oppressed" peoples. But there you go. A modern progressive intentionally lying outright once again.
August 17, 2023 at 6:28 PM
"The text is clear. Foreign women in a battle had their loved ones killed and they were literally taken - if the soldiers who had killed her family saw a "beautiful woman," they could take her as a bride - as a bride, they were literally taking the "beautiful women" captive to become their brides.
Here's the text. Look at what it literally says!"
I'm well aware of what the text says. No scholar pretends it means what you need it to say. It doesn't suggest women being taken against their will. It doesn't mean women being abused by their captives. But you need it to mean what serves you best in order to allow you to pretend other passages can be dismissed as something less than clear instruction we must or ought to abide. I've provided tons of scholarly commentary which clarifies these texts and it doesn't serve you to concede the truth. You're a liar.
"What your little links do is try to justify that this is not as bad as it sounds."
What you're hoping to do is to cast aspersions on accurate understanding of these passages in order to pretend anyone's trying to mitigate something untoward. You're a liar.
"These forced brides who weren't killed along with their families WEREN'T killed, so that's nice."
These captives weren't force to do anything. Nothing in the text suggests any such thing.
"They had their heads shaved, nails trimmed and their clothes were taken away. Thanks.
The captors had to wait a full 30 days before wedding and bedding her;
And IF the "husbands" [rapists] were "displeased" with her, they couldn't sell her off, they had to let her go where she wanted."
You're purposely perverting the text to make your point, as if you have better knowledge and understanding of the text than actual expert theological scholars. As we've noted so many times, and has come to be understood as an unequivocal truth about you, you reject actual experts with no leftist agenda who do not push your farcical points of view.
"So, yes, as far as it goes, there were SOME protections for these rape victims, but it's not like that makes it all right."
Assuming wrong was done. You seem to need to believe there's no possibility any of these women couldn't possibly be down with the idea of being betrothed to someone from the army who kicked the ass of their countrymen.
It's clear to me you're enamored with the notion of captured women being made property by lecherous members of God's Chosen People.
"If YOU had a loved one who was treated this way in times of war, you would (let's hope) be outraged, and righteously so. THIS IS WAR CRIME, not some nice dating ritual."
Given the times, it was a vast improvement on how captured women were treated. It prevented outright rape. It prevented abuse of the women. It forced the men who were enamored to learn whether or not they really wanted the woman bad enough to go through all of the protocols the Will of God imposed upon them. And if they went that far and decided they were still enamored , and the women, too, were willing, how is this a war crime you sick and twisted son-of-a-bitch?
"Do you agree that this would be considered a war crime today?"
As laid out in Scripture, not at all.
"Do you agree that we would be RIGHT to prosecute rapists like this today?"
The protocols laid out in this passage protects the captive women against rape. Thus, referring to it as rape is a willful, intentional lie, or the Scriptural understanding of a complete and utter moron. I'm going with the latter. It just fits better.
"Good God! The things you defend."
Says the reprobate who defends the murder of innocent people in utero, perverse sexual immorality and the many harms inflicted upon women by the policies of the modern progressive (bowel) movement.
So as we can see from the back-and-forth above, everything I've said about the low character of Dan Trabue is accurate and factual. He's truly a piece of work and a piece of something else.
I do want to point out to Dan that not only does God call homosexual behavior an abomination, plain biology proves it is against nature! For men, especially, rectal sex is extremely harmful to the body!
Sexual intercourse is for two things:
Joining husband and wife as one.
Procreation.
Two people of the same sex cannot really join as one, nor can they procreate.
Homosexual behavior is against God and nature.
[rolls eyes]
One can't say I haven't given it a good faith and fairly respectful effort to communicate, at the very least.
I don't know how to help you fellas. Reality is NOT whatever it is Marshal defines it to be. I AM the one who knows what I've said and believe, not Marshal.
Good luck in life.
It doesn't suggest women being taken against their will. It doesn't mean women being abused by their captives...
These captives weren't force to do anything. Nothing in the text suggests any such thing.
So, the women willingly shaved their OWN heads and cut off their OWN fingernails and removed their OWN clothes? They were just so thankful to the brave soldiers who came in and killed their parents, their siblings, their friends that they just willingly threw themselves at these conquerors. They just needed 30 days to fall in love with them and then, they all willingly accepted a sweet marriage proposal and said YES to these men.
THAT is what the text says?
Come on.
You are correct that it was a different time and different world. Maybe moral conditions changed?
But I asked you about, TODAY, in OUR world.
If a band of conquerors defeated the people of the nation, killed off the children and parents and then took the women they found "attractive" home with them, shaved their heads, trimmed their nails and gave them the clothes the conquerors wanted them to wear... let them mourn their dead for a whole 30 days and then MARRIED them (nothing at all about consent in the text. NOTHING at all.)... you would not support holding such people accountable for war crimes TODAY?
If that is the case that this is what you think, then why would anyone care about your moral opinions, given how debased and misogynistic and straight up rape-fantasy-ish it is?
The difference between folks like you and those like me is that we see two lesbians, two gay guys who love each other, respect each other and want to spend their lives together supporting one another in a beautiful, life-giving marriage arrangement and we see an obviously wholesome, healthy, loving marriage.
On the other hand, you read a story about an army killing off parents and young siblings, but taking the "attractive" women back to become the brides of the conquerors as some sweet love story.
Do you even read and think about what you're promoting?
Set aside your own religious biases and human traditions and consider those two scenarios with a relatively open mind: Do you at least SEE how most folks recognize the gay marriage thing as wholesome and healthy and the rape fantasy thing sick and perverse? As, indeed, a rape fantasy?
Marshal...
No scholar pretends it means what you need it to say.
Reality:
Deuteronomy here gives the Israelites permission to keep the women and children of defeated enemies as slaves, a standard practice in the ancient world.
Later, Deuteronomy clarifies that if a soldier wishes to take one of these captive women as a wife, he may do so...
Becoming a “free” woman, the wife of a free Israelite, may be a step up from being a captive slave, but it is still a painful erasure of her previous identity. Deuteronomy recognizes that a woman in such a situation needs time to mourn her past.
https://www.thetorah.com/article/marrying-a-beautiful-captive-woman
and...
"The laws do not interdict sexual violence; rather they stipulate the terms under which a man may commit rape..."
If the city surrendered, the Torah's followers were permitted to take the people as captives. However, if the city did not surrender, the Israelites were permitted via Torah law to besiege it and, if they were successful, they were allowed to take the spoils of war, including rape of the women in conquered populations...
Similarly, a Hebrew verb such as עָנָה anah usually means 'to rape, to force/violate sexually', but in some non-sexual contexts is best translated as 'to oppress', 'to weaken', and so on. On the other hand, normally non-sexual words may sometimes describe something sexual; a verb such as עָשַׁק 'āšaq usually means 'to crush, to destroy, to oppress', but in one particular Bible verse (Isaiah 23:12) may actually mean 'to rape' in connection with the term 'virgin daughter', as the latter has a special sexual meaning.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_the_Hebrew_Bible
And I could go on and on.
Your claim about "no scholars..." is, of course - as with so much you say - objectively, demonstrably false. Not all scholars think these scenarios in the OT are describing loving, wholesome marriages. They are describing the world as it was then, where women were property and just didn't have a say, more often than not, in their own lives and destinies. It WAS common to just rape the surviving women in a conquered nation and it WAS common just to take them home as "booty" to "be used" as the Bible literally says. I think it is entirely fair to say that at least some of these biblical texts are efforts to mitigate the evil/harm/oppression being done - to try to prevent an overt rape and abandonment and, instead, offering a forced marriage where they can have a home with their captors if they want (and the captor doesn't grow tired of her!!)
Ugh.
Now, you may want to argue that, "It was a different world and culture..." and you're not wrong. But that doesn't make forced marriages or slavery acceptable or moral in any sense. And it's just a bit naive and pollyannaish and a shallow/grade school reading of serious texts to suggest this was a beautiful consensual marriage.
And all of that is just to address the one point of the forced marriages of women in the Bible. Now anyone can see what the texts say. And anyone can see that it's not an unreasonable understanding to recognize this as a forced marriage arrangement, as indeed, many scholars would say.
What one can NOT say reasonably is that those who disagree with your rather naive preferred interpretation/reimagining of the literal text are doing so because they hate the Bible or God or don't care about the facts of the story. Reasonable people and scholars DO disagree with your preferred interpretation/eisegesis (and yes, you literally are reading INTO the text what the text literally does NOT say - there is NO mention of consent and, given the reality of the time period, there would be no consent... that was just not culturally part of the process).
Same on so many points. You hold positions and interpretations and then suggest rather arrogantly that no reasonable people can disagree with your interpretations. We do, and do so in good faith.
It's there for any reasonable person to see.
And even though I haven't said this, let me go out of my way to be clear:
I am not saying that Marshal defends rape (or any of the others who might read this).
I am 100% certain that Marshal, just like me, just like any rational adult, hates rape and is violently opposed to it.
I'm not mistaken, am I, Marshal?
I'm also relatively confident Marshal's overtly vehement opposition to LGBTQ concerns is coming from that same place of being opposed to rape - you hate the idea of harmful "perversions," and that is probably why you are so strident in your tone about our dear LGBTQ beloved ones... because you conflate LGBTQ concerns with being something akin to rape.
Is that fair, Marshal?
So, I can commend you for being opposed to harm and I'm not saying you are intentionally actively seeking to harm anyone, generally speaking (other than perhaps me...??? - and I say that sort of as a joke).
So, when I say that these texts are very rape-y in nature, that they reflect a time and culture of great violence that was commonly accepted towards women and note that Marshal is defending those texts, I am NOT saying that I think Marshal wants to support rapists in any way.
Just to be clear.
If I'm right about all of that (or relatively so), then I would just note that were I and folks like me are coming from is ALSO in strong opposition to harmful, oppressive behavior - rape or ANY abuse of human rights. Because of course we are. We're not monsters, any more than Marshal is.
And I would just note that I think reason and morality and justice dictate understanding the world of difference between two gay folks marrying and protecting, loving one another in a married relation full of kindness and support is not anything like rape or any actual harmful, oppressive perversion. Because of course, it's not.
There may be those who DO consider rape and loving LGBTQ marriages equivalent, but I would just argue that this position is a harmful one - a denying of basic human rights - and that I'm certain that this is not what conservatives want to do... they just may not see it that way.
But again, I would just ask: Can you see the chasm of difference between the forced marriage of a captive woman without a right to say No and the loving commitment of an LGBTQ couple, committing to love, honor and cherish one another?
So, here's another example of ancient text that, on the face of it, permits forced sex for enslaved women:
"And all married women are forbidden unto you save those captives whom your right hand possess...
count all the people and animals that were captured. Divide the spoils (the "booty" in some translations) equally between the soldiers who took part in the battle and the rest of the community...
The plunder remaining from the spoils that the soldiers took was 675,000 sheep, 33 72,000 cattle, 34 61,000 donkeys 35 and
32,000 women who had never slept with a man.
And what were those virgin girls used for, do you suspect?
Or how about this one...
Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man...
Do you see how, at least on the face of it, that seems like the conquerors are being allowed to have sex with their "booty..." the "virgin girls," who had not "laid with a man..." or, at best, getting to "choose" them as their "brides..."?
You are incapable of proving it [ie, Marshal's opinions on certain topics] isn't
So, some of those topics include:
Where it is or isn't good for LGBTQ folks to marry and have basic human rights to live their authentic lives. You and yours hold the opinion that LGBTQ should not be encouraged to get married and/or you don't even acknowledge that it is a "real thing" for LGBTQ folks to be married. You don't believe in your head that it is moral for gay people to live married lives.
Am I correct?
But then, you have not proven that there is anything wrong with what is so obviously a good thing.
Do you recognize that reality?
You believe that God is opposed to gay folks getting married, right?
But then, you have not proven that there is anything wrong with what is so obviously a good thing.
You believe that the way we can "know" and "objectively know" if God is opposed to at least SOME actions is if you can find lines in the Bible that condemn it.
Is that a fair assessment of your belief on at least SOME behaviors/actions?
But then, you have not proven that this IS a/THE way to "objectively know" if God is opposed to something.
Do you recognize that reality?
You believe that the way we can "know and "objectively know" if God is opposed to women preachers is because you have found a few verses in the Bible that make you think this is the case.
But then, you have not proven that this IS a/THE way to "objectively know" if God is opposed to women preachers.
Not everyone believes the Bible is an authoritative source for moral codes and that, by finding a ruling or law against some version of a certain behavior, we have found "God's will" for that behavior and anything like it. Not everyone thinks that rules found in the Bible always equate to a universal moral rule.
That is a simple objectively reality that not everyone accepts your "method" of finding "moral rules," do you recognize that observable reality?
If so, then on what basis do you demand that everyone must "show you in the Bible" that something is right or wrong? What if the Bible ISN'T a rule book where one goes to find rulings on things like drunk driving, women preaching, marriage, slavery or any other action/behavior?
Do you recognize that simply demanding everyone treat moral discovery in the way you prefer to with the interpretations and eisegesis that you prefer is not in any way PROVING your human opinions and traditions?
These are reasonable questions, Marshal. Be a reasonable guy and address them directly.
IF you have objectively proven data that shows we MUST hold to the interpretations you hold about what you think the Bible is saying about what God thinks, then PROVE it. A claim is not a proof.
Until such time as you provide objective proof (not merely your subjective assertion), I'd say we're done here.
And my noting that you haven't proven your case objectively is not merely saying "nyuh uh..." it's noting the reality that you haven't proven your case objectively, as a point of reality.
And again, the notion demands an answer to the question you continue to pretend hasn't been asked a billion times: how far astray from the Will of God can one be before one is worshiping a false god of one's own making? Try answering that, you cowardly liar!
Well, when you request so elegantly and graciously... sure.
The facts are these:
1. We don't objectively know/don't have a "word from God" on "how wrong one can be and still be saved...?" God literally has not told us this anywhere. For those who think we need to find a biblical proof text to "prove" our points/beliefs, the Bible is silent on this topic.
Agreed?
2. That question seems to presume that it is our understanding and knowledge that would lead to our salvation (ie, if we, in our imperfect human nature, can JUST UNDERSTAND some segment of beliefs IN THE RIGHT WAY, then we can be saved...) But isn't that a version of salvation by works? That is, our salvation depends upon our being "right" on some intellectual questions about this tenet or that, which is not salvation by grace, but salvation DEPENDENT upon our understanding. Is it not?
If it's not, why not?
3. If there WAS some set list of "Things we can't be Mistaken About..." wouldn't that need to be made clear? Where is that list? Who created that list? Is it a reliable list? Is it from God??
4. Can you acknowledge that the Bible has not provided any such list? That, indeed, folks like you who seem to think such a list exists, have not provided any such list?
5. So, with those caveats, what is my guess about "How wrong can we be until we're worshiping a god of our own making...?"
AS noted, we can't answer that question. We don't have that data.
6. BUT, I will gladly allow that one can believe in stuff that is so far afield from the teachings of Jesus that we can say, "THAT is not in alignment with Jesus' teachings..."
7. However, does not successfully/correctly understanding the teachings of Jesus mean that we can't be/aren't saved by God's grace?
8. As a believer in salvation by Grace, I think it is clear and intuitive that, IF we understand grace is a gift given in patience, love and forgiveness - unmerited on the parts of the recipient - then the very definition of grace does not insist upon one being "right" on some certain number of moral and philosophical opinions.
Do you disagree?
Where do you find in your answer book ANY words where Jesus or some other speaker says, "salvation comes by my grace AS LONG AS you aren't mistaken about these five sins and that philosophical tenet..."?
Again, HOW would that be grace?
9. Perhaps it would help how YOU are defining grace.
As a prelude/assistance for you, what some Christian groups say about defining Grace:
God’s grace is usually defined as undeserved favor. Grace cannot be earned; it is something that is freely given;
in Christian theology, the spontaneous, unmerited gift of the divine favor in the salvation of sinners;
An accurate, common definition describes grace as the unmerited favor of God toward man. In the Old Testament, the term that most often is translated "grace, " is hen [ej]; in the New Testament, it is charis [cavri"];
Unmerited favor, a gift to the undeserving. WHERE in that understanding of Grace is there a caveat... "AS LONG AS you affirm these five beliefs..."?
Grace is the love of God shown to the unlovely, the peace of God given to the restless, the unmerited favor of God;
Dan writes a ton of garbage that takes a ton of time to respond to. The fallacies on his part are nothing short of mind-boggling. Can anyone get more lost spiritually?
August 19, 2023 at 8:54 AM
You're right, Jesse. Dan piles it on, doesn't he?
"One can't say I haven't given it a good faith and fairly respectful effort to communicate, at the very least."
Sure we can. "Good faith". That's funny. What we do see in this thread is Dan illustrating a point I've made about why he's been banished from so many blogs. Notable is his going off topic...something he claimed earlier justified his deletion of visitors' comments. Note also his comments remain.
"I don't know how to help you fellas."
Concentrate on helping yourself, Dan. You need it badly. We're all good here.
"Reality is NOT whatever it is Marshal defines it to be."
Another illustration, as Dan indulges in rank hypocrisy. I'm not going out on a limb in saying Craig can fully back me up with the following: Dan is constantly insisting we don't deal in reality, meaning he so routinely appropriates authority to define what reality is. And all he need do is to assert whatever favors his point at the time to rebut us as failing to grasp what he asserts is reality.
"I AM the one who knows what I've said and believe, not Marshal."
You're the one who makes claims about what you believe which contradict things you say. I merely point out the inconsistencies, falsehoods and fantasy of that which you say you believe.
August 19, 2023 at 9:04 AM
"So, the women willingly shaved their OWN heads and cut off their OWN fingernails and removed their OWN clothes? They were just so thankful to the brave soldiers who came in and killed their parents, their siblings, their friends that they just willingly threw themselves at these conquerors. They just needed 30 days to fall in love with them and then, they all willingly accepted a sweet marriage proposal and said YES to these men.
THAT is what the text says?
Come on."
This is Dan trying to posture as more mature and intellectually sophisticated with regard to this passage he perverts to make a case. Apparently, he believes God encouraged rape.
But I've provided commentaries on this before and I thought I posted the following somewhere in this thread, but might have at a different blog or post or thread. No matter. It brings clarity to the issue which won't work for Dan:
https://www.thetorah.com/article/the-captive-woman-at-the-intersection-of-war-and-family-laws
This commentary, which is quite detailed and draws on other commentaries from men AND women, as well as considering thousands of years of traditional understanding, doesn't support Dan's need to believe God crafted a "snag her and shag her" rule for taking captives. Rather, the rule seeks to protect taken women from the very behaviors Dan insists is being encouraged by this passage.
But Dan knows this as this info's been provided for him on more than one occasion over the years and while never explaining why he rejects these commentaries, he does so on lame-assed grounds because he needs the fiction he imposes on passages like this to provide grounds for presuming some parts of God's Will are not as honest people believe, and thus he can dismiss them when they conflict with his love and defense of perversions of all sorts.
"You are correct that it was a different time and different world. Maybe moral conditions changed?"
Yes they did. They changed from a world in which captive women were assaulted sexually to here, where they were treated very much like Israelite women were to be treated.
"But I asked you about, TODAY, in OUR world."
Yes you did. It was a stupid question meant to disparage the passage and reject it as the Will of God. We do not live in a theocracy of the type which existed when these laws were enacted for Israel. We are not prone toward acting as ancient people did before God laid down the Law.
But a more honest parallel would simply be to fancy a captive woman and attempt to woo her as one does any other woman and treat her as one does any other woman. However, in today's world, who is more likely to attempt to have sexual relations with a captive woman, regardless of her feelings about it...the modern progressive or the conservative? Honest people know the answer is "A" because the conservative is not likely to act on every carnal urge like the modern progressive does. What's more, Dan would defend the modern progressive's attempt to get jiggy.
"The difference between folks like you and those like me is that we see two lesbians, two gay guys who love each other, respect each other and want to spend their lives together supporting one another in a beautiful, life-giving marriage arrangement and we see an obviously wholesome, healthy, loving marriage."
The more important difference between us is that those like me don't rationalize abomination. "Love" between two intent on indulging in that which God forbids does not make the behavior any less an abomination. Indeed, "vowing" to "marry" each other, thus in effect promising to live the rest of one's life indulging abomination is far worse than simply shacking up in a one-night-stand scenario with another of the same sex. There's nothing "wholesome, healthy or loving" in a "marriage" which results in the perpetrating of abomination. Nice feelings about one's partner in crime doesn't mitigate the illegality of the crime. Except to modern progressives.
"On the other hand, you read a story about an army killing off parents and young siblings, but taking the "attractive" women back to become the brides of the conquerors as some sweet love story."f
That doesn't even come close to anything I've suggested when correcting your perversion of the passage. I sometimes think you're trying your damnedest to force me into banning you, too. Is that some sort of badge of honor? Piss off better people until they'll have nothing whatsoever to do with you so you can carry on in your deviancy and rebellion?
"Do you even read and think about what you're promoting?"
Yes. What I read is what I promote, which is the Will of God as so clearly revealed to us in Scripture (as well as other things which are non-religious parallels).
"Set aside your own religious biases and human traditions and consider those two scenarios with a relatively open mind: Do you at least SEE how most folks recognize the gay marriage thing as wholesome and healthy and the rape fantasy thing sick and perverse? As, indeed, a rape fantasy?"
I've no need to set aside that which you should also abide in order to see and know some assert "gay" "marriage" is wholesome, because they're as morally bankrupt as you are. And it is YOU who is reveling rape fantasies, not me. I've an objective and far more accurate understanding of the passage you're perverting to demean those who won't abide your pro-perv agenda.
Dan,
As Jesse rightly points out, you've puked out a ton of bile here. I intend to address your comments, as I always do unlike yourself, in a manner which leaves anyone interested in seeing the entirety of your vomit in its full context. But I've only just begun and as I have a life, it will take a bit of time to complete the task. So, don't bother trying to post anything. Go ahead and type out your comments elsewhere for later submission. But anything I see in the queue will be deleted.
Unless of course your point is to further illustrate why you get banned. In any case, if you want your comments posted, to submit them until I've addressed every comment you submitted already.
Thank you for your understanding and gracious compliance with this most reasonable request.
To others, you might want to hold off as well, but I make no promises if you don't.
August 19, 2023 at 9:26 AM
"Reality:
Deuteronomy here gives the Israelites permission to keep the women and children of defeated enemies as slaves, a standard practice in the ancient world.
Later, Deuteronomy clarifies that if a soldier wishes to take one of these captive women as a wife, he may do so...
Becoming a “free” woman, the wife of a free Israelite, may be a step up from being a captive slave, but it is still a painful erasure of her previous identity. Deuteronomy recognizes that a woman in such a situation needs time to mourn her past.
https://www.thetorah.com/article/marrying-a-beautiful-captive-woman"
The only "reality" here is that your link does what you're doing, implying evil was permitted or prescribed by God's Law. It was not, and your choice of "experts" fail in making the case.
It should be noted that we've both drawn from the same website, TheTorah.com, except that my link goes far deeper into the weeds and instead of pretending something was permitted and leave it at that, it describes how the law compels, if not forces, God's desired behavior. This is in addition to protecting captured women from rape. Making servants of survivors of conquests was, even in the worst of situations, a better outcome for them than killing them all along with their armies, leaving them to figure out how to survive with fewer family members, neighbors and no property and no housing. And even today, when nations are defeated in war, their people are allowed to live their lives, perhaps, but on the terms of the victor. In the harshest of situations, the people of defeated nations become refugees who must rely on the beneficence of the victors to survive.
So to pretend that captives put into servitude is somehow unChristian, even back at a time when less concern for captives was common, requires a level of dishonest intent only a modern progressive would express. And you do this routinely to defend your rejection of Scripture you find inconvenient. Most bloggers tire of such crap and ban you.
"and...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_the_Hebrew_Bible"
Dan chooses to cite Wiki as if it actually supports his position. But the site, while citing anti-Christian/anti-religion Thomas Paine and feminists, does nothing more than suggest translation problems. It does this after affirming what had been accepted for centuries. In short, it's an act of desperation to cite Wiki to defend modern progressive notions. When I cite Wiki, it's to use a lefty source to rebut lefty notions. I enjoy that.
"And I could go on and on."
Yeah, but not with anything which debunks my sources or rebuts my positions. And by going on and on, you illustrate another reason you get banned.
"Your claim about "no scholars..." is, of course - as with so much you say - objectively, demonstrably false."
Not that you demonstrated thus far, once again abusing the term "demonstrably" as if it more solidly validates your crap.
"Not all scholars think these scenarios in the OT are describing loving, wholesome marriages."
No scholars I've ever cited described these passages in any such way. Another illustration of behavior by you which leads to your banishment.
"They are describing the world as it was then, where women were property and just didn't have a say, more often than not, in their own lives and destinies. It WAS common to just rape the surviving women in a conquered nation and it WAS common just to take them home as "booty" to "be used" as the Bible literally says. I think it is entirely fair to say that at least some of these biblical texts are efforts to mitigate the evil/harm/oppression being done - to try to prevent an overt rape and abandonment and, instead, offering a forced marriage where they can have a home with their captors if they want (and the captor doesn't grow tired of her!!)
Ugh."
Once again, the passage does NOT suggest a "forced" marriage, no matter how badly you need it to do so. And it's not at issue God's Laws for Israel was to bring them to behave in a more "Christian" manner. What's more, there is no legit reason to pretend that actual rape was condoned in any way. This article is but one I could have referenced which explains there is no "permitting" rape in Scripture. But while it gives a good account for why rape isn't condoned, tolerated or mandated in any way, the author does a "Dan" by suggesting the possibility of God not being moral if He actually did permit rape. This is not unique to Dan, but Dan likes to pretend something is or isn't moral without any input from God, and God simply acknowledges morality as if He didn't "invent" it. This allows Dan to presume there is no objective source of morality, which is Scripture, or more accurately, God.
"Now, you may want to argue that, "It was a different world and culture..." and you're not wrong. But that doesn't make forced marriages or slavery acceptable or moral in any sense. And it's just a bit naive and pollyannaish and a shallow/grade school reading of serious texts to suggest this was a beautiful consensual marriage."
No such claims have been made. The problem is the self-serving nature of Dan as regards when he chooses to take something "literally", as opposed to when he ought. And once again, no one, and certainly none of the sources I cite, refers to "beautiful consensual marriages". They only clarify what the laws were regarding taking a captive girl as a wife. There's nothing in Scripture which describes the quality of the relationship between the two people. There's nothing in Scripture which even depicts a case of a soldier taking a captive chick as a wife. Thus, one can just as easily speculate that it never happened after the Law was handed down as one can suggest it did.
But like an atheist, Dan affirms the notion of rape being to some degree common among the Israelites after conquests, despite God's Law being handed down. This might be true during periods where they were in Dan-like rebellion against God, but not necessarily otherwise.
August 19, 2023 at 9:29 AM
This comment presents more illustrations of why Dan gets banned:
"And all of that is just to address the one point of the forced marriages of women in the Bible. Now anyone can see what the texts say. And anyone can see that it's not an unreasonable understanding to recognize this as a forced marriage arrangement, as indeed, many scholars would say."
Again, Dan's cited scholars don't speak of forced marriages (unless I somehow missed where they did, which I doubt), so it wouldn't be honest to say "many scholars" do. One would expect that if one believe "many scholars" say this or that, one would select from one of those scholars in presenting a link to make a point.
"What one can NOT say reasonably is that those who disagree with your rather naive preferred interpretation/reimagining of the literal text are doing so because they hate the Bible or God or don't care about the facts of the story."
When that's the case, one is not unreasonable in describing it. Also, Dan believes himself the authority to determine that the position of another is naive when it leads to conclusions about him Dan's own words and pronouncements indicate. And yet again, it's not the specific story or passage necessarily which is at issue. Dan brings up stories...like these rape fantasies of his...to bolster his more relevant position regarding behaviors he favors. If he can raise questions about other passages, he can pretend there's legitimate doubts about the truth of the passages which prohibit his favored behaviors. Yet, he fails in proving the questions he raises are reasonable, while pretending "reasonable" people agree with him.
"Reasonable people and scholars DO disagree with your preferred interpretation/eisegesis (and yes, you literally are reading INTO the text what the text literally does NOT say - there is NO mention of consent and, given the reality of the time period, there would be no consent... that was just not culturally part of the process)."
Here we see again Dan determining what is "reasonable" by the fact they support Dan's fraudulent position...either directly or implicitly. One will see this in a variety of discussions. "Credibility" is not proven, but asserted because some women accuse Trump of sexual misbehavior. That is, they are "credible" simply because they're accusing Trump, not because their stories have been confirmed or that they've proven themselves honest and credible people. Note: they could actually be honest and credible. The point is that Dan provides no evidence of any kind to support the notion. They're just credible because they bolster Dan's hatred of Trump. Scholars are "reasonable" because they support Dan's position. Indeed, we're to understand a given individual is of the highest quality of character and ability simply because they think the same way Dan thinks, and that's all one needs to know about it. Yeah. That's what "good faith" and "adult" discourse looks like!!
"Same on so many points. You hold positions and interpretations and then suggest rather arrogantly that no reasonable people can disagree with your interpretations. We do, and do so in good faith.
It's there for any reasonable person to see."
There are those words again! If I was to say that no "reasonable" person would disagree, it's because of the weight, quantity and quality of my supportive evidence precludes disagreement by reasonable, rational and/or intelligent people. Such disagreement would require evidence and arguments of similar quality and quantity. Do we ever get that from Dan? No. Never. He disputes this, but dispute isn't enough. Link to or cite again the evidence and let's review it. Dan will then attack his opponent's ability to understand his arguments and evidence, because it's never a problem with his evidence or his ability to present and explain it. It's always the opponent who is lacking in some way. "Good faith"??? "Adult" discourse??? There's no evidence of that coming from Dan, but he'll weep over his ultimate banishment.
At this point I must step away, so my recommendation one should withhold submission of comments to post remains in effect. It won't be long now! Hold your water! (Oh my gosh! Was that too misogynistic???)
What exactly do you mean by Dan's "ultimate banishment?"
Eddy,
Welcome.
I refer to Dan's ultimate banishment from so many blogs. He'll behave in the various ways illustrated thus far, and then weep over his ultimate banishment from those blogs once that banishment has taken place. That is to say, he's the reason he's ultimately banished from blogs, yet despite his behavior being criticized, and warnings given in one manner or another, he carries on until he's denied the right to have his comments posted. Clearly, I've not gone that route as yet, though the post describes my frustration with his bad behaviors.
Are you a friend of his?
August 19, 2023 at 10:03 AM
"And even though I haven't said this, let me go out of my way to be clear:
I am not saying that Marshal defends rape (or any of the others who might read this)."
Actually, Dan has many times. It's another case of pretending he's not at least implying something because he doesn't spell it plainly in particular words arranged in just the right way. So, he will make all sorts of accusations connecting what I say to rape and sexual abuses (there's no true connection there, he simply asserts there is) and in doing so is accusing me of supporting or defending rape. This is particularly true as regards certain figures...notable or in general. One can see this with regards Donald Trump, as Dan regards Trump as akin to a rapist. Dan also speaks in terms of things said as "rapey". Yet, he wants now to pretend he's not accusing me. This kind of double-speak also weighs heavily on his banishment from other blogs.
"I am 100% certain that Marshal, just like me, just like any rational adult, hates rape and is violently opposed to it.
I'm not mistaken, am I, Marshal?"
The very notion Dan feels a need to clarify this, to ask such a question, as if there's any reason to suspect otherwise is not only personally insulting, but typical of what passes for "good faith" in Dan's world. I won't again dignify such a question with a reply unless he can provide some legitimate reason to ask it. He can't because there is no such thing.
"I'm also relatively confident Marshal's overtly vehement opposition to LGBTQ concerns is coming from that same place of being opposed to rape"
Well, then you're a moron.
"- you hate the idea of harmful "perversions," and that is probably why you are so strident in your tone about our dear LGBTQ beloved ones... because you conflate LGBTQ concerns with being something akin to rape."
Is that fair, Marshal?"
Nothing so overtly stupid could ever be "fair". My opposition to the sexual perversion you celebrate, defend, enable and support is due to the fact that it is an abomination. We know this because God...the God you only pretend to honor, but actually don't...is very clear on the behavior being an abomination. There's no ambiguity in it.
My opposition is akin, rather, to other sexual sins such as fornication, incest, bestiality, adultery and the like. Rape is akin to murder, beating the crap out of someone, violent behavior for person gratification...rank cruelty.
So, your "dear beloved" perverts are in stark rebellion against God and His Will, as are you in your aiding and abetting of them.
"So, I can commend you for being opposed to harm and I'm not saying you are intentionally actively seeking to harm anyone, generally speaking (other than perhaps me...??? - and I say that sort of as a joke)."
You're freakin' Henny Youngman. I'll cherish your commendation forev....zzzzzzz! ��
"So, when I say that these texts are very rape-y in nature, that they reflect a time and culture of great violence that was commonly accepted towards women and note that Marshal is defending those texts, I am NOT saying that I think Marshal wants to support rapists in any way.
Just to be clear."
To be clear, your representation of this texts are bullshit as I've proven so many times despite your pretense I never have.
"If I'm right about all of that (or relatively so), then I would just note that were I and folks like me are coming from is ALSO in strong opposition to harmful, oppressive behavior - rape or ANY abuse of human rights. Because of course we are. We're not monsters, any more than Marshal is."
First, you and those like you are morons.
Second, never include me in any group which is comprised of you and morons like you.
"And I would just note that I think reason and morality and justice dictate understanding the world of difference between two gay folks marrying and protecting, loving one another in a married relation full of kindness and support is not anything like rape or any actual harmful, oppressive perversion. Because of course, it's not."
So nice of you to be clear about some crap at which no one else but you is so much as hinting. You continue to pretend abomination is just dandy because the abominable are nice to each other. It doesn't work that way. Adulterers are nice to each other. Fornicators are nice to each other. The incestuous are nice to each other. Any sexual behavior outside the lawful union of one man with one woman is immoral without any exception.
"There may be those who DO consider rape and loving LGBTQ marriages equivalent, but I would just argue that this position is a harmful one - a denying of basic human rights - and that I'm certain that this is not what conservatives want to do... they just may not see it that way."
It's not a case of human rights. Human rights for the immoral is a whole different ballgame than it is for those who seek to please God or to create a truly harmonious and beneficial culture. Pretending human rights is violated by refusing to recognize a perverse relationship as no different or as akin to that of a man and woman married to each other...or simply courting...is the stuff of liars. Conservatives understand this, while modern progressives pretend it isn't so, simply because they think aiding and abetting perversion makes them more noble and honorable. It in no way does, nor ever can.
"But again, I would just ask: Can you see the chasm of difference between the forced marriage of a captive woman without a right to say No and the loving commitment of an LGBTQ couple, committing to love, honor and cherish one another?"
Yes: The "forced marriage of a captive woman" is not established as true by your perversion of the Scriptural text, and the alleged "loving commitment of an LGBTQ couple committing to love, honor and cherish one another" is rank perversion, mental disorder and an affront to God. Thus, the difference is indeed stark...just not how perv defenders like you hope others will view it.
August 19, 2023 at 10:19 AM
"Do you see how, at least on the face of it, that seems like the conquerors are being allowed to have sex with their "booty..." the "virgin girls," who had not "laid with a man..." or, at best, getting to "choose" them as their "brides..."?"
How it seems "on the face of it" by those who don't care to dig more deeply into the passage is of no consequence. Those who claim to have spent their lives in "serious and prayerful study" of Scripture should be ready to step up and disabuse false understandings of such passages, atheist types and their modern progressive "Christian" allies pervert in the cause of perversions and immorality.
Scripture, even at that point in time, was very clear about sexual immorality. Thus, it makes no sense to view those passages as tolerant of it. I'll leave others to take it from there.
August 19, 2023 at 10:56 AM
"Where it is or isn't good for LGBTQ folks to marry and have basic human rights to live their authentic lives. You and yours hold the opinion that LGBTQ should not be encouraged to get married and/or you don't even acknowledge that it is a "real thing" for LGBTQ folks to be married. You don't believe in your head that it is moral for gay people to live married lives.
Am I correct?"
No. Those like me have not equivocated, have not been ambiguous and have not lacked integrity in reminding the morally bankrupt like Dan that we KNOW (not "believe") IN TRUTH (not "in our heads") that any homosexual behavior, of any kind, in any context or scenario, between two who "love" and commit to each other or just two or more who wish to appease their perverse sexual desires is abjectly immoral and affront to God. There's simply no way to make it OK, and there's simply no way to assert Scripture provides a perv defender evidence to make that argument.
Is this clear to you NOW?
"But then, you have not proven that there is anything wrong with what is so obviously a good thing.
Do you recognize that reality?"
It's not at all a reality (and you are far less one to insist what reality is than I'll ever be) and I've proven it beyond any doubt by citing the Will of God so clearly revealed to us in Scripture. It is absolutely ludicrous to assert that an abomination is not abominable because it takes place within a union based upon the desire to, or which results in the perpetrating of that abomination. Only a modern progressive would think such a thing is reasonable. God can't be mocked by such absurdity.
"You believe that God is opposed to gay folks getting married, right?"
No. Homosexuals and lesbians are encouraged to find partners of the opposite sex for that purpose in order to appease their lust.
Since God is so clearly opposed to homosexual behavior, without any hint of a context or scenario in which it might take place without still being a prohibited abomination, only a jackass would suppose God would be unopposed. They can't get married because there is also no hint anywhere in Scripture that "marriage" means anything other than the union of one man and one woman.
"But then, you have not proven that there is anything wrong with what is so obviously a good thing."
Lev 18:22 is all the proof any honest Christian needs. Find and honest Christian and ask him. Any union in which abominable behavior results is not in any way "a good thing". OBVIOUSLY!!
"You believe that the way we can "know" and "objectively know" if God is opposed to at least SOME actions is if you can find lines in the Bible that condemn it.
Is that a fair assessment of your belief on at least SOME behaviors/actions?"
On the subjects over which we've butted heads for so long, there is no doubt about God's opposition because Scripture is so clear on the issues we debate. You reject Scripture in order to continue defending that which God has clearly prohibited.
"But then, you have not proven that this IS a/THE way to "objectively know" if God is opposed to something.
Do you recognize that reality?"
Again with your unjustified assertion that what you need reality to be actually is. Scripture is the most reliable source to determine what pleases and displeases God.
It is absurd beyond description to suggest that God needs to spell out that when He says something is forbidden that He must list a ton of possible scenarios in which that something might take place wherein it is still forbidden. "Mom said no candy before dinner. She didn't say no cookies!"
"You believe that the way we can "know and "objectively know" if God is opposed to women preachers is because you have found a few verses in the Bible that make you think this is the case."
Real Christians, and those of us who strive to be counted among them, need only one verse. Those who put their own desires above the Will of God...the average modern progressive "Christian"...have no limit to how many verses are needed to compel them to honor God's Will.
"But then, you have not proven that this IS a/THE way to "objectively know" if God is opposed to women preachers."
But then, you have not provided the ultimate and all encompassing means by which one must prove whatever it is you don't want proven. This is yet another illustration of what leads to Dan's banishment. The constant demand for more when what's been given satisfies honest and honorable people.
Either one is a Christian or one isn't. A Christian, even if he has doubt, will deny himself to please God. If said Christian learns later that he denied himself for nothing, said Christian will be happy he bore even a cross he had no need to bear for the sake of God. The modern progressive will prefer "did God really say...?" and do whatever the hell please him.
"Not everyone believes the Bible is an authoritative source for moral codes and that, by finding a ruling or law against some version of a certain behavior, we have found "God's will" for that behavior and anything like it. Not everyone thinks that rules found in the Bible always equate to a universal moral rule."
Those are people like you who are more than willing to subordinate God's Will to your own fleshly desires. Good luck with that.
"That is a simple objectively reality that not everyone accepts your "method" of finding "moral rules," do you recognize that observable reality?"
This is a "reality" I can easily accept as true given how common it is...especially in this craven era of mankind.
"If so, then on what basis do you demand that everyone must "show you in the Bible" that something is right or wrong? What if the Bible ISN'T a rule book where one goes to find rulings on things like drunk driving, women preaching, marriage, slavery or any other action/behavior?"
Here's yet another example of Dan's dishonest notion of "good faith" dialogue. First, I don't demand "everyone" show me evidence from Scripture to support a notion of right vs wrong. I expect that "everyone" who dares claim to be a Christian have some Scriptural backing for their own personal notions of right vs wrong. I can deal with non-Christians and atheists some other time, but Dan claims to be a Christian. A laughable suggestion, I know. Nonetheless, it seems to me that there is no justification for deflecting to "everyone" when I'm dealing directly with him.
Secondly, there's really no behavior today which cannot be judged according to what Scripture does teach, given no behavior of today is any different from that which occurred in ancient times simply because modern inventions of machinery and beliefs might be different. Drunk driving, for example, is pretty much covered in the many verses which speak out against drunkenness. In what way can one separate that from one who drives drunk simply because automobiles didn't exist? Only a modern progressive makes these outlandish arguments as they seek to rationalize and legitimize that which is unambiguously and unequivocally prohibited in Scripture.
"Do you recognize that simply demanding everyone treat moral discovery in the way you prefer to with the interpretations and eisegesis that you prefer is not in any way PROVING your human opinions and traditions?"
What I recognize is how routine it is for Dan to say such stupid crap in lieu of any actual argument rebutting or refuting my positions, as well as offering nothing to support his own. What I expect, not "demand"...and quite reasonably...is honesty in discourse and the courage to deal directly with the points and issues on the table without all the equivocation, deflection, tap-dancing and lying so common as to be Rule 1 with Dan. I can easily handle being proven wrong. Dan doesn't even try to prove a damned thing. He simply defaults to "Nyuh uh" argumentation and expects ever rising bars of evidence and proofs one is demanded be cleared...as if successfully doing so will in any way make the least bit of difference to him.
"These are reasonable questions, Marshal. Be a reasonable guy and address them directly."
And yet again, Dan presumes he's qualified to determine reasonableness. He also lies by suggesting he must pull teeth to get direct responses from me. That's never been the case and that's taking into account his many bullshit questions. At the same time, he never delivers when asked direct questions.
"IF you have objectively proven data that shows we MUST hold to the interpretations you hold about what you think the Bible is saying about what God thinks, then PROVE it. A claim is not a proof."
Another bullshit demand by Dan, as if citations of Scripture does not qualify as "objectively proven data" in a debate between two who each claim devotion to Christ. I make no claims without providing Scriptural support. Upon receiving said support, Dan then demands I prove why anyone (meaning him) should acknowledge, accept and abide simply because he didn't expect to have Scripture provided to prove him wrong. As always, this type of objection is never followed with any counter evidence, any rational argument for why one shouldn't understand the verse or passage cited as presented. Only "Nyuh uh".
"Until such time as you provide objective proof (not merely your subjective assertion), I'd say we're done here."
And here we see Dan fleeing the field of battle when he knows he can't claim victory. Yet, like the Black Knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail, he pretends he's not totally and overwhelmingly beaten. It's very grade school stuff.
"And my noting that you haven't proven your case objectively is not merely saying "nyuh uh..." it's noting the reality that you haven't proven your case objectively, as a point of reality."
See this? It's "Nyuh uh" to pointing out how he relies on "Nyuh uh". And once again he demands proof for a case where he is incapable of finding fault. He simply doesn't like the truth. The ball's been in Dan's court for years. He refuses to pick it up and try to score.
August 19, 2023 at 12:09 PM
"1. We don't objectively know/don't have a "word from God" on "how wrong one can be and still be saved...?" God literally has not told us this anywhere. For those who think we need to find a biblical proof text to "prove" our points/beliefs, the Bible is silent on this topic."
That's odd...I was asking YOU, not God.
"2. That question seems to presume that it is our understanding and knowledge that would lead to our salvation (ie, if we, in our imperfect human nature, can JUST UNDERSTAND some segment of beliefs IN THE RIGHT WAY, then we can be saved...) But isn't that a version of salvation by works? That is, our salvation depends upon our being "right" on some intellectual questions about this tenet or that, which is not salvation by grace, but salvation DEPENDENT upon our understanding."
What the question "presumes" is that our salvation requires we're abiding the Will of God, not something with a superficial resemblance. If in your mind, "God" is the family goat out in the barn, then your devotion is unlikely to provide you salvation. You in particular are so far astray on so much which is not ambiguous, mysterious or in any way lacking in clarity that it's difficult to believe you're speaking of the God of Scripture.
"3. If there WAS some set list of "Things we can't be Mistaken About..." wouldn't that need to be made clear? Where is that list? Who created that list? Is it a reliable list? Is it from God??"
A typical cheap rationalization. And again, you're not "mistaken" on that which you denotes your rebellion. You refuse to abide what is clear by pretending it isn't, and thus you can carry on under the pretense of possibly being mistaken.
"4. Can you acknowledge that the Bible has not provided any such list? That, indeed, folks like you who seem to think such a list exists, have not provided any such list?"
To the extent one can say there is a list, I would submit it includes all those places where God has said, "Thou shalt not..." and consider the specific places where He said that and you reject Him outright. We need go no further than Lev 18:22. Or Deut 5:17 & 21. These are just three you ignore, but how many more can be ignored before one is no longer worshiping the One True God?
"5. So, with those caveats, what is my guess about "How wrong can we be until we're worshiping a god of our own making...?"
AS noted, we can't answer that question. We don't have that data."
Coward. The answer's far more obvious than you have the "God-given reason" to discern.
"6. BUT, I will gladly allow that one can believe in stuff that is so far afield from the teachings of Jesus that we can say, "THAT is not in alignment with Jesus' teachings...""
So, you don't know the answer, but feel qualified to dictate to another than their beliefs are outside of God's Will. Got it.
"7. However, does not successfully/correctly understanding the teachings of Jesus mean that we can't be/aren't saved by God's grace?"
What if there's not one teaching one will follow? Does that not indicate one is not truly a follower?
"8. As a believer in salvation by Grace, I think it is clear and intuitive that, IF we understand grace is a gift given in patience, love and forgiveness - unmerited on the parts of the recipient - then the very definition of grace does not insist upon one being "right" on some certain number of moral and philosophical opinions."
So you're saying Grace absolves one from ever following a single commandment? In your serious and prayerful studying of Scripture, did you never come across James 2:26?
"Where do you find in your answer book ANY words where Jesus or some other speaker says, "salvation comes by my grace AS LONG AS you aren't mistaken about these five sins and that philosophical tenet..."?"
Uh...James 2:26, for one. Then there's 1 John 3:24, John 14: 15-24...do you need more than this? Of course you do. You always do!
"9. Perhaps it would help how YOU are defining grace."
Perhaps it would help if you stop deflecting and answer the question. But then, you already have by your non-answer. You don't care about obedience to the Will of God, and you insist that obedience isn't necessary to receive His Grace. Got it.
"As a prelude/assistance for you, what some Christian groups say about defining Grace:
God’s grace is usually defined as undeserved favor. Grace cannot be earned; it is something that is freely given;
in Christian theology, the spontaneous, unmerited gift of the divine favor in the salvation of sinners;
An accurate, common definition describes grace as the unmerited favor of God toward man. In the Old Testament, the term that most often is translated "grace, " is hen [ej]; in the New Testament, it is charis [cavri"];
Unmerited favor, a gift to the undeserving. WHERE in that understanding of Grace is there a caveat... "AS LONG AS you affirm these five beliefs..."?
Grace is the love of God shown to the unlovely, the peace of God given to the restless, the unmerited favor of God;"
I actually skipped this condescension and instead insist you show me where Jesus offers grace coupled with a license to sin. Hint: It isn't in Jude 1:4.
OK. I believe I'm caught up. Let the desperate attempts to rationalize begin!
I asked Marshal a reasonable question:
"3. If there WAS some set list of "Things we can't be Mistaken About..." wouldn't that need to be made clear? Where is that list? Who created that list? Is it a reliable list? Is it from God??"
Marshal did not answer. Instead, he said...
A typical cheap rationalization.
He continued with the vague...
To the extent one can say there is a list, I would submit it includes all those places where God has said, "Thou shalt not..." and consider the specific places where He said that and you reject Him outright.
Okay. So Jesus CLEARLY said, "THOU SHALT NOT store up for yourself treasures here on earth." But YOU do not think that means we shouldn't, you know, store up treasures (ie, have savings, literally, treasures, stored up treasures). YOU think that, in spite of that clear, direct teaching directly from Jesus, that it's OKAY to store up treasures.
Does that mean you think you are not saved, because you failed to live up to your own vague, non-committal guideline?
No. You don't. You think there are reasons why that isn't an actual rule condemning savings. Which I'm fine with. The point being: YOU BELIEVE that some "thou shalt nots" can be explained away... that you can offer your human opinions about WHY that particular "thou shalt not" doesn't apply to you.
So, given that you apparently think it's okay to make exceptions, where is your list of exceptions and why and when it's okay to make exceptions?
You don't have it.
Indeed, YOU THINK that we need to use our reasoning to recognize why "Thou shalt not store up treasures" doesn't mean what it seems to say on the face of it.
Likewise, I think we need to use our reasoning to recognize why we don't need to assume "men shall not lie with men" is some kind of universal rule that would preclude homosexual folks from marrying.
I get that you don't understand the hole you've dug yourself into, but it's a real hole in your reasoning.
YOU HAVE NO AUTHORITATIVE RUBRIC, no set of rules, no authoritative guidelines about which rules can and can't be taken as universal rules.
Nothing you've said gets you out of that hole.
I actually skipped this condescension and instead insist you show me where Jesus offers grace coupled with a license to sin. Hint: It isn't in Jude 1:4.
What you're missing - entirely - is that IF we do not KNOW that behavior X is a sin, then we are NOT intentionally engaging in sin. We're just not.
IF you are wrong about your antagonism towards LGBTQ folks and you ARE regularly engaging in harmful sin, you are NOT doing so with the intention of rebelling against God, are you?
Are you saying that, IF it turns out you're wrong (you are), then you're doomed to hell, according to your graceless "angry god demanding blood!" theology? If not, why not?
Back to your suggestion of "begin with the 'thou shalt nots...'" GOD has not said Gay folks should not get married. God literally hasn't said that. It has not happened, not one place in the entire Bible. THAT is a human tradition, not something God has said.
I think you are mistaken in your graceless clinging to that human tradition. What if you're wrong? What if that IS one of the "rules" you "can't be mistaken about..."? Are you going to hell, brother?
I actually skipped this condescension and instead insist you show me where Jesus offers grace coupled with a license to sin.
I didn't say that Jesus offered "grace with a license to sin." I said, quite clearly, that
1. We are imperfect human creatures with an imperfect understanding of "sin."
DO you disagree?
2. That sometimes, we are quite likely to sin in ignorance.
Do you disagree?
Do you think that YOU never sin in ignorance?
3. I said that a grace that condemns those who sin in ignorance is not any kind of grace, is it? HOW IS IT POSSIBLY grace if you, for instance, are sinning in your hateful, harmful attitudes and actions towards LGBTQ people and it turns out that, of course, you were wrong to be so oppressive towards an oppressed people... that God condemns you to hell for something YOU DIDN'T EVEN UNDERSTAND?
??!!
That is the OPPOSITE of grace, isn't it?
Answer these reasonable questions, please.
, I would submit it includes all those places where God has said, "Thou shalt not..." and consider the specific places where He said that and you reject Him outright.
Where are the places where God said "Gay people can't marry?"
It doesn't exist.
Where are the places where God said, "One must affirm a young earth?"
It doesn't exist.
Where are the places where God said, "One must affirm something like Penal Substitutionary Atonement theory that some humans hold?"
It doesn't exist.
Where are the places where God insists that we should welcome the strangers, the foreigners, to treat them with love and welcome kindness?
ALL over the Bible. And yet, you don't think it applies to those you call "illegal immigrants..." do you?
Where are the places where God has said "one must affirm the Bible as some kind of rule book where at least some rules MUST be understood to be universal in nature..."?
NOWHERE.
On point after point, you have nothing but your human interpretations which you arrogantly insist can't be mistaken.
Is THAT Biblical? Godly? Rational?
I think not.
I asked Marshal the exceedingly reasonable question:
"9. Perhaps it would help how YOU are defining grace."
He opted not to answer, instead going with an irrational dodge.
Perhaps it would help if you stop deflecting and answer the question.
Define grace, you son of a pharisee. Does the reality that you REFUSE to even TRY to define grace however in the name of all that is holy you are mis-defining it not give you ANY pause that maybe you're on the path of the Pharisees?
Define grace.
Marshal also dodged...
What if there's not one teaching one will follow? Does that not indicate one is not truly a follower?
If one demands legalistic obedience to some set of undefined vague human-demanded "laws," perhaps. If one is a believer in grace and recognizing the human condition of imperfection, not so much.
The problem you still have is accounting for human imperfection. What if someone truly doesn't understand morality in ANY way at all (malignant narcissists like your pervert king, for instance)? Is their imperfect human condition somehow more powerful than the Grace of an Almighty perfectly loving, perfectly just God?
What sort of monster do you worship?
August 23, 2023 at 5:46 PM
What follows is Dan continuing on with his off topic tangent. He'll likely defend doing so by saying he's just responding to my comments, which of course were addressing his previous off topic comments. But it does serve to illustrate the points made in my post, so...
"I asked Marshal a reasonable question:
"3. If there WAS some set list of "Things we can't be Mistaken About..." wouldn't that need to be made clear? Where is that list? Who created that list? Is it a reliable list? Is it from God??""
Dan likes to pretend he understands "reasonable". But there's nothing reasonable about a question posed in lieu of an answer to a question put to him. And again, note how he continues with the "If one is mistaken", when his is not a case of being mistaken at all, but of being in stark rebellion against the Will of God as so clearly revealed and recorded in Scripture.
"Marshal did not answer. Instead, he said...
A typical cheap rationalization."
That's what your response was. It was not an answer. To say "God didn't say..." or "We don't know" is cheap because it is an abdication of responsibility. The question was posed directly to Dan and Dan alone...not asking what "God said" or what some ambiguous "We" believes or knows.
"He continued with the vague...
To the extent one can say there is a list, I would submit it includes all those places where God has said, "Thou shalt not..." and consider the specific places where He said that and you reject Him outright."
That's funny. Dan regards as "vague" that which includes specific examples in response to his lame question.
"Okay. So Jesus CLEARLY said, "THOU SHALT NOT store up for yourself treasures here on earth." But YOU do not think that means we shouldn't, you know, store up treasures (ie, have savings, literally, treasures, stored up treasures). YOU think that, in spite of that clear, direct teaching directly from Jesus, that it's OKAY to store up treasures."
Two main problems with this ongoing perversion of a clear teaching:
Jesus does NOT say "Thou shalt not". This is an important distinction. None of the Biblical versions I researched (over a dozen at least) presents any variation of "Thou shalt not" in relation to this passage. Yet when one looks at "Thou shalt not steal", for example, every version has some similar wording.
Jesus isn't giving a command against wealth accumulation, but instead is stressing the importance of subordinating all earthly desires to pleasing God.
So if honest students of Christianity wish to include this passage along with actual commands, it's helpful to focus on the point, which is not a prohibition against wealth creation. Dan loves to pervert this passage, as he does so many others, for the cause of marxism.
"Does that mean you think you are not saved, because you failed to live up to your own vague, non-committal guideline?"
Here Dan perverts the point. I do not refer to human imperfection in abiding God's Will, but on the perversion of what that Will is, as Dan does particularly in the enabling, celebrating, defending and supporting of sexual perversion. Dan outright rejects the clear prohibition against homosexual behavior, and thus the God to so prohibits it. He replaces that God with a god who does not prohibit it if it takes place in the context of a committed union...a committed union provoked by the desire to indulge prohibited behavior. It's like saying one's god is superficially like God, except one's God doesn't prohibit murder. That's not God, then, is it?
"No. You don't. You think there are reasons why that isn't an actual rule condemning savings."
No reasons are necessary since it's not in any way an actual rule condemning savings. It's a warning against subordinating God to one's earthly desires...such as Dan having sex with a dude.
"Which I'm fine with. The point being: YOU BELIEVE that some "thou shalt nots" can be explained away... that you can offer your human opinions about WHY that particular "thou shalt not" doesn't apply to you."
This is either a lie or abject stupidity since I've not done anything of the kind. I've not "explained away" any rule here. I've corrected Dan's crappy understanding of what the passage conveys. And Dan is "fine with" his corruption of my position because it serves to secure his adamant rejection of an unequivocal, unambiguous prohibition.
One can easily see how Dan's equivocating ways is off-putting to so many bloggers...and justly so.
"So, given that you apparently think it's okay to make exceptions, where is your list of exceptions and why and when it's okay to make exceptions?
You don't have it."
I've not made any "exceptions". I don't make any exceptions. You desperately but falsely assert I've made exceptions in order to protect your rejection of unequivocal, unambiguous commandments of the God you mock, by pretending you're "possibly mistaken".
"Indeed, YOU THINK that we need to use our reasoning to recognize why "Thou shalt not store up treasures" doesn't mean what it seems to say on the face of it."
As if the true meaning is somehow mysterious...but only because Dan needs it to be in order to bolster his incredibly weak argument. What's more, if a passage "seems to say" something, I would dig to find what it does say. Here, it is not prohibiting the accumulation of wealth in any way. That is not in any way the point of the passage.
"Likewise, I think we need to use our reasoning to recognize why we don't need to assume "men shall not lie with men" is some kind of universal rule that would preclude homosexual folks from marrying."
Using "our reasoning" would mean producing evidence that it doesn't mean what the plain reading of the verse so clearly indicates. So, by your incredibly fallacious logic, make your case that prohibitions against incestuous behaviors is not some kind of universal rule that would preclude you from marrying your mother, or your goat.
"I get that you don't understand the hole you've dug yourself into, but it's a real hole in your reasoning."
BWAH-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!!!!!!!
That's funny! The existence of this imaginary hole you believe you see is dependent upon your corruptions of Scripture, not any flaw in my reasoning or Biblical understanding.
"YOU HAVE NO AUTHORITATIVE RUBRIC, no set of rules, no authoritative guidelines about which rules can and can't be taken as universal rules."
Except for Scripture. And faced with that truth, you then seek to pretend there's no way to perfectly understand the obvious, when the truth is so inconvenient for you.
August 23, 2023 at 5:53 PM
"What you're missing - entirely - is that IF we do not KNOW that behavior X is a sin, then we are NOT intentionally engaging in sin. We're just not."
What you're missing...entirely...is that you're not "mistaken" on the sins you enable, celebrate, defend and support. What you're rejecting is the concept that one can believe and behave in ways 180 degrees opposite of God's Will and thus are not acknowledging the actual One True God of all things.
"IF you are wrong about your antagonism towards LGBTQ folks and you ARE regularly engaging in harmful sin, you are NOT doing so with the intention of rebelling against God, are you?"
You ask these absurd questions instead of making the case that I'm wrong defending God's Will on this issue, and you compound your sin by lying that defending that Truth is an act of antagonism. Indeed, how can I be rebelling against God by abiding His Will and acknowledging to others what that clearly revealed Will is? Answer: I'm not in rebellion at all. That would be you.
"Are you saying that, IF it turns out you're wrong (you are), then you're doomed to hell, according to your graceless "angry god demanding blood!" theology? If not, why not?"
First, I'm not at all wrong and you're completely helpless in trying to find a way to successfully pervert Truth in order to make me wrong.
Second, to be wrong because no indication exists for one who is wrong regarding in what way one is wrong is different than having been taught that lesson and pretending without better evidence that one who is wrong is actually not wrong. That is to say, you know you're lying about God's Will because you have no evidence to support that you're understanding is possibly correct. There is no such evidence or you would have produced it by now.
"Back to your suggestion of "begin with the 'thou shalt nots...'" GOD has not said Gay folks should not get married. God literally hasn't said that. It has not happened, not one place in the entire Bible. THAT is a human tradition, not something God has said."
This is a childishly dishonest defense of abominable behavior. And you've never....NEVER.... have provided a way to resolve a prohibited behavior being in any way condoned, blessed, tolerated, "OK'd" by virtue of a union in which that behavior would proliferate. It's absurd on its face and in reality. But you, in your petulant childishness, insist that God MUST say something specific on a specific manifestation of a prohibited behavior in order to accept that it, too, is prohibited and would obviously be as forbidden as the behavior itself. Again, total and obvious absurdity in defense of the abominable.
"I think you are mistaken in your graceless clinging to that human tradition."
I am NOT mistaken about my righteous defense of that clear prohibition by God. It is you who abide a "human" (such as they are) tradition established by the morally bankrupt. Nothing can be more graceless than the abuse of God's Grace. But then, you don't truly understand the concept of God's Grace anyway, given your poor applications of the word.
"What if you're wrong?"
But I'm not wrong. There's no argument which can hope to indict me as wrong. There's only the desperate claims of the immoral in hoping they can convince me of the absurd notion that I might somehow be. It's almost comical.
"What if that IS one of the "rules" you "can't be mistaken about..."?"
That's quite a fantasy.
"Are you going to hell, brother?"
I'm not your brother. I couldn't be a brother to someone who so mocks my Heavenly Father.
August 23, 2023 at 6:19 PM
"Answer these reasonable questions, please."
I don't see any, so I'll answer your nonsense infused questions instead.
"I didn't say that Jesus offered "grace with a license to sin.""
You do in your actions and in your defense of sinful behaviors.
" I said, quite clearly, that
1. We are imperfect human creatures with an imperfect understanding of "sin."
DO you disagree?"
No, except for the imperfect human bit...you having the least connection to perfection of imperfect humanity.
"2. That sometimes, we are quite likely to sin in ignorance.
Do you disagree?"
Irrelevant to issues where the sinfulness of a behavior is neither in question nor unknown as is the case of practicing LGBTQ people. But this is another dishonest tactic of yours...trying to couch willful transgressions as possibly ignorance in order to provide the liberty to carry on in those transgressions.
"Do you think that YOU never sin in ignorance?"
No.
"3. I said that a grace that condemns those who sin in ignorance is not any kind of grace, is it? HOW IS IT POSSIBLY grace if you, for instance, are sinning in your hateful, harmful attitudes and actions towards LGBTQ people and it turns out that, of course, you were wrong to be so oppressive towards an oppressed people... that God condemns you to hell for something YOU DIDN'T EVEN UNDERSTAND?"
This word salad seems very much the typical lie, that you're not aware of the sinful nature of LGBTQ behaviors and desires. I'm not in any way engaging in sinfulness by stating the truth about the sinfulness of the behaviors you champion as "not" sinful...which makes you heretic and blasphemer.
August 23, 2023 at 6:23 PM
"Where are the places where God said "Gay people can't marry?"
It doesn't exist."
A homosexual can marry any woman who will have him. A lesbian can marry any man who will have her. Why do you keep asking me this stupid question? As to a homosexual "marrying" a homosexual, God clearly and beyond any doubt outlaws the homosexual behavior. Given that "marriage" in Scripture is always a man/woman proposition, and given that God forbade the indulgence in homosexual behavior, there's no possibility any honest person would suppose that God would not oppose a union based upon the sinful nature of homosexual desire and practice. Only a lying modern progressive would even suggest such a thing...and that's where YOU come in.
"Where are the places where God said, "One must affirm a young earth?"
It doesn't exist."
Completely and stupidly irrelevant, particularly given there is no "Thou shalt not..." attached to the age of the earth in any way. That is, however, one of the more minor areas where you subordinate Scripture to what the world says.
"Where are the places where God said, "One must affirm something like Penal Substitutionary Atonement theory that some humans hold?"
It doesn't exist."
There's no need to demand affirmation to that which is obviously true and promoted by Christ and the prophets regarding His reason for being born. Thus, this is also an irrelevant distraction. Try staying on point.
"Where are the places where God insists that we should welcome the strangers, the foreigners, to treat them with love and welcome kindness?
ALL over the Bible. And yet, you don't think it applies to those you call "illegal immigrants..." do you?"
Aside from being irrelevant, and given you have no answer for the obvious criticism of your support for law breakers, where does God insist that we ignore the breaking of our laws to welcome those who break them? Where does Scripture speak of strangers and foreigners as lawbreaking invaders ignoring national sovereignty? No where in Scripture. You just pretend that what Scripture does say provides liberty to those who don't care about our home to respect it. But then, you're a liar about Scripture as well as a liar about welcoming illegals. Once again, when you allow people to enter and remain in your home without your approval, then you can pretend that expecting foreigners to abide our just immigration laws is somehow in conflict with Scripture.
"Where are the places where God has said "one must affirm the Bible as some kind of rule book where at least some rules MUST be understood to be universal in nature..."?
NOWHERE."
Everywhere the encouragement to obey God's/Christ's commandments is present. That's quite a few times as any truly serious and prayerful student of Scripture can easily affirm.
"On point after point, you have nothing but your human interpretations which you arrogantly insist can't be mistaken."
On point after point you prove your willingness to corrupt Scripture, to ignore Scripture or to outright reject Scripture when it serves you to do so. On those points which we've debated over the years, I'm not in any way mistaken, nor are you. You simply reject what is clear because it's inconvenient to your world-worshiping preferences.
There's little which is Biblical, Godly or rational about anything you say, promote or defend. There is, however, lots of heresy and blasphemy in what you say, promote and defend.
August 23, 2023 at 6:35 PM
"I asked Marshal the exceedingly reasonable question:
"9. Perhaps it would help how YOU are defining grace."
He opted not to answer, instead going with an irrational dodge.
Perhaps it would help if you stop deflecting and answer the question."
The question wasn't "reasonable" because Dan doesn't ask such. He simply labels his stupid questions as "reasonable" to make himself feel good. But I just checked and it turns out that , yes, this is my blog. As such, I determine what course the discussion takes and Dan's "grace tangent" is just another deflection. It's not a matter of definition. It's a matter of exploiting concepts like "grace" to force agreement about Dan's heresies. Indeed, the question is the dodge, not my refusal to answer it.
"Define grace, you son of a pharisee."
This is passes for "embracing grace" in Dan's world...projecting his own corruption onto those who defend truth. The Pharisees were at odds with Christ because Christ rejected rules they made up. I'm not making up any rules, but merely presenting truth as revealed to us in Scripture. Dan doesn't prove I'm wrong. He insists I provide a never ending stream of proofs and evidences which he'll never accept because it all results in the same sad ending for him.
"Does the reality that you REFUSE to even TRY to define grace however in the name of all that is holy you are mis-defining it not give you ANY pause that maybe you're on the path of the Pharisees?"
I refuse to state the obvious because it won't matter, because you've no standing to make demands and because you ask it to avoid the question you still haven't answered. There's no chance I'm on any "path of the Pharisees" when I'm not making up rules God has not mandated Himself. Merely restating God's Will as so clearly revealed in Scripture does not make me a Pharisee and is not the reason Christ rebuked Pharisees in His time. But then, a truly serious and prayerful student of Scripture knows this. But instead we have you.
"Define grace."
Pound sand.
"Marshal also dodged...
What if there's not one teaching one will follow? Does that not indicate one is not truly a follower?
If one demands legalistic obedience to some set of undefined vague human-demanded "laws," perhaps. If one is a believer in grace and recognizing the human condition of imperfection, not so much."
So Dan admits that one can ignore every single teaching, command and encouragement of God/Christ...can act totally opposite as if the opposite was God's Will...and somehow "grace" will render them saved??????????
"The problem you still have is accounting for human imperfection."
The problem YOU have...the problem you pretend is not the issue...is that this isn't about human imperfection. It's about your outright rebellion. So long as you have no way to argue against the clearly revealed Will of God, which has been referenced and explained and clarified for you in the most basic and grade school manner for your specific edification, then you're in rebellion.
"What if someone truly doesn't understand morality in ANY way at all (malignant narcissists like your pervert king, for instance)?"
Why do you insist on insulting my Lord and King, Jesus Christ? Or maybe you refer to Joe Biden or Barak Obama, neither of which I regard as a king, never mind how perverted they are. Then of course you haven't an adult understanding of morality, do you? There's really no way you can't, but instead you reject God's Will and pretend there might be some possibility you're "mistaken".
"Is their imperfect human condition somehow more powerful than the Grace of an Almighty perfectly loving, perfectly just God?"
Nice how you refuse to answer the question and try to turn it around on me. I'm not the one who is so keen to reject God's Will on any number of issues. Ultimately, it's up to God to determine just how devoted to His Will you've been, though I can't shake the feeling Christ will say on that day, "I never knew you."
"What sort of monster do you worship?"
I worship no monster, though atheists and modern progressives regard God in that way for not being properly inclusive. But I also don't, like you, worship a god I invented so that I can feel good about that which I choose to support despite how clearly it displeases the One True God.
Again....Good luck with that.
OK, Dan. I deleted the fake "Dan Trabue" comment...despite it being more intelligent than legit Dan Trabue comments...and any comment related to it by either you or me. This does not mean you can tell people I've deleted your comments in the same way you and feo have deleted mine at your blogs. After a time, I'll delete this one, too, without comment.
You STILL have a problem with human imperfection:
It's about your outright rebellion. So long as you have no way to argue against the clearly revealed Will of God
One "Rebels" when one believes X is good and right and refuses to acknowledge it and embrace anti-X. That literally is not what is happening here.
I disagree with YOUR PERSONAL HUMAN THEORIES about God and morality on some of these topics. It's not like I'm saying, "Oh God wants me to oppose gay folks getting married... I'm going to support it anyway, as an act of rebellion." I'm saying, "MARSHAL thinks that God is opposed to gay folks getting married, but I disagree with Marshal's human opinion. I think Marshal has it exactly wrong and his opposition is clearly, demonstrably causing harm to people and harming human rights. I am opposed to Marshal and in alignment with what I think God would want..."
If anything, I'm rebelling against Marshal and his tradition's opinions, but unless one conflates Marshal's opinion with God's Will (and I don't), then it literally isn't rebellion against God. IF it turns out I'm mistaken (doubtful on this point), then the worst sin I've done is to be mistaken.
The same is not quite true in reverse, however. If it turns out YOU were/are mistaken (I'm sure it will in this case), then you would have been mistaken AND you would have caused great harm and oppression, observably so.
You see, not everyone uses the "Is there a hint from God based upon a line in the Bible that I need to interpret correctly" approach to morality. Some of us use the more rational, more measurable, more observable: Are they causing harm? method. The Do Unto Others method.
That's the other point you're missing: Not everyone agrees with your vague, undefined, subjective in the extreme "rubric" of guessing what is and isn't moral. You can't demand people go by YOUR rubric just because you favor it.
August 24, 2023 at 8:33 AM
"You STILL have a problem with human imperfection:"
Not when you and your troll consistently expose yourselves as text book examples of it. In any case, the notion is wholly irrelevant here, given we're not discussing your imperfection, but your wanton disregard for that which is so incredibly obvious and beyond honest dispute.
"One "Rebels" when one believes X is good and right and refuses to acknowledge it and embrace anti-X. That literally is not what is happening here."
That's exactly what's happening here by virtue of the fact that I've supplied irrefutable evidence of the sinfulness of a behavior you enable, while you supply nothing more than your assertion that said sinful behavior is somehow legitimized by the consent of the two who engage in it and thus their unholy, sinful union can be legitimized in law and somehow become "beautiful". That's not only subjective opinion, it's opinion without legitimate basis.
"I disagree with YOUR PERSONAL HUMAN THEORIES about God and morality on some of these topics."
You disagree with the clear teaching of Scripture regarding God's prohibition against the indulgence of homosexual behavior and pretend without Scriptural basis there is some context or scenario in which said behavior is no longer abomination.
"It's not like I'm saying, "Oh God wants me to oppose gay folks getting married... I'm going to support it anyway, as an act of rebellion.""
It's absolutely and actually you saying, "God is strictly and undeniably opposed to, and thus has totally and completely prohibited, the indulgence in homosexual behavior, but without any legitimate, evidence-supported basis, I'm going to pretend there's a context or scenario in which said behavior can be indulged without being a clear act of rebellion against God's Will."
"I'm saying, "MARSHAL thinks that God is opposed to gay folks getting married, but I disagree with Marshal's human opinion."
Yeah. Your disagreement is not in question. Your reasoning...which requires evidence...is non-existent. You simply don't like God's Will on the subject and prefer the favor of your perverted friends and associates over that of God.
More importantly, I offer no opinion when the Will of God is so clear. I merely restate that Will while waiting for you to provide nothing to rationalize (because there is no justification) your rebellious rejection of it.
"I think Marshal has it exactly wrong and his opposition is clearly, demonstrably causing harm to people and harming human rights."
What you "think" is worthless without evidence to support clinging to the preferred belief. More to the point, you again use the word "demonstrable" with no effort to actually demonstrate how your personal, evidence-free opinion is in any way correct and reflective of any reality. No one is harmed by choosing to abide God's Will, be it the perverts and deviants you pretend are beautiful people because they do nice things while indulging perversion, or be it the normal person who denies himself the pleasure of bedding any woman who they believe will agree to his advances. Only a modern progressive would describe as "harm" the inability to appease one's lusts.
"I am opposed to Marshal and in alignment with what I think God would want...""
Given "Marshal" simply repeats the clear Will of God as obviously presented in Scripture, there's no possibility that a union of two people compelled by desires leading to abomination is somehow what God would want. That's just you making a baseless assertion because you know pervs and are keen to attract their favor.
"If anything, I'm rebelling against Marshal and his tradition's opinions, but unless one conflates Marshal's opinion with God's Will (and I don't), then it literally isn't rebellion against God."
You keep lying by citing this "tradition" crap. To the extent what I support is a "tradition", it's the "tradition" of abiding the clear and unmistakable Will of God. And thus, if I'm citing God's Will as so clearly presented in Scripture, there's no conflating of my opinion with God's Will.
God says, Thou shalt not commit adultery. Is it a "human tradition" to oppose adultery?
God says, Thou shalt not murder. Is it a "human tradition" to oppose murder?
A self-serving modern progressive can carve out scenarios in which perpetrating these sins would be considered morally permissible. An actual Christian wouldn't even dare try, given abiding the Will of God would preclude such an attempt. You're taking a clearly prohibited behavior and by virtue of personal desire pretend the behavior is permissible in scenarios YOU ASSERT ARE ACCEPTABLE and therefore is to God as well, with no legitimate Scriptural evidence which even so much as mistakenly hints at the possibility. It's a bold faced lie you perpetrate to appease the desires of the perverted and to be regarded favorably by them at the expense of God's favor. Good luck with that.
"IF it turns out I'm mistaken (doubtful on this point), then the worst sin I've done is to be mistaken."
No, Dan. You're not mistaken, but not because you're not in the wrong. You're not mistaken because you reject the clear teaching of Scripture and invent a scenario in which you demand
God must agree that scenario legitimizes that which He calls detestable. Good luck with that.
"The same is not quite true in reverse, however. If it turns out YOU were/are mistaken (I'm sure it will in this case), then you would have been mistaken AND you would have caused great harm and oppression, observably so."
Not only am I not mistaken...given the clear teaching on the subject in Scripture...but abiding, defending and preaching God's clearly revealed Will is not in any way the cause of any harm the rebellious pretend they suffer on account of it. So you're lying again.
"You see, not everyone uses the "Is there a hint from God based upon a line in the Bible that I need to interpret correctly" approach to morality."
More's the pity, because that's exactly what they should be doing if there's the least question regarding the morality of a behavior. There isn't any question with regard to homosexual behaviors. You think by saying God didn't prohibit "gay" marriage then there is no harm in two engaging in abomination taking vows of fidelity to each other to legitimize the abomination. But you have no way to argue that's in any way a possibility. You simply pretend it's true and demand others prove it's not, as if the honest need to do so to appease the dishonest.
"Some of us use the more rational, more measurable, more observable: Are they causing harm? method. The Do Unto Others method."
That's very convenient for the rebellious even if no harm was being perpetrated. The data certainly doesn't support that, and the harm to their salvation is clear given the teachings of Scripture. There's nothing "rational" than pretending physically damaging behavior isn't directly causing harm. They're definitely "doing unto others", but in the most sinful and damaging manner. You are, too, by enabling it, defending and supporting it and celebrating it as something good and beautiful simply because two pervs "marry" each other.
"That's the other point you're missing: Not everyone agrees with your vague, undefined, subjective in the extreme "rubric" of guessing what is and isn't moral."
There's no "guess work" involved. The behaviors you champion are sin beyond any doubt. You just assert doubt exists because you're so into that behavior.
"You can't demand people go by YOUR rubric just because you favor it."
I demand nothing but that liars like you at least put some real effort into providing evidence which either supports your position or debunks mine. Thus far, bupkis. All you offer is demands for an ever growing body of evidence to affirm Truth you reject regardless of the size and quality of that evidence...which at this point is huge and beyond your ability to counter.
I demand nothing but that liars like you at least put some real effort into providing evidence which either supports your position or debunks mine. Thus far, bupkis.
Point of fact:
I have posted thousands upon thousands of words explaining my reasoning why I take the quite rational step of believing that LGBTQ folks should be treated with respect and have basic human rights (of course! it's so ridiculous I have to even write that!) like something as basic of being able to date and marry the person of their choice without harassment legally or culturally.
You can see some of my many words making a great effort to explain my position and why I think it is the most moral and rational position to take.
https://throughthesewoods.blogspot.com/search?q=marriage+equity
https://throughthesewoods.blogspot.com/search?q=homosexuality
You may ultimately not agree with my conclusions that came from my efforts, but you simply can't say I didn't put real effort into that.
As a point of fact. How is all of that explanation and defense NOT a "real effort..."?
Define "real effort..."
A good part of that first link deals with me explaining "my journey" on the topic of marriage equity where I moved from a conservative traditional Christian opposed to all things "homosexual," to a person who affirms it strongly. I went through, step by step, how I read the Bible and reasoned my position AWAY from the conservative doctrine that I used to hold to the beliefs I hold now.
As a point of fact, that was a real effort.
Prove otherwise.
Them are some ugly pictures you got there in them articles, Dan.
Are they representative of Dan's ugly worldview?
Yes, Jesse. Dan wallows in ugliness and calls it "good". That's how his worldview is based. That is, it's base.
August 25, 2023 at 1:24 PM
"I have posted thousands upon thousands of words explaining my reasoning why I take the quite rational step of believing that LGBTQ folks should be treated with respect and have basic human rights (of course! it's so ridiculous I have to even write that!) like something as basic of being able to date and marry the person of their choice without harassment legally or culturally."
Your thousands upon thousands of words rely on falsehood and lies in order to make them appear to the stupid and the self-serving to be justification for indulging in abomination. You then dare to suggest that admonishing practitioners of abomination is somehow withholdng respect and "basic human rights", as if being a total pervert is somehow a Constitutionally protected right. Well....maybe a Constitutional scholar can make that case somehow, but apart from the fallacious notion that "rights" allow perversion, there is even less "right" to demand or expect respect for one's "right" to indulge in perverse sexual practices like homosexuality...even after dressing it up in a Constitutionally fraudulent "right to SSM". Do you have the "basic human right" to marry your mother, six-year-old daughter or goat? Don't give me bullshit objections based on your belief these things can't be indulged without causing harm. We know from a medical and psychological standpoint of the many harmful aspects of homosexuality and its practice and you ignore that totally.
"You can see some of my many words making a great effort to explain my position and why I think it is the most moral and rational position to take."
Your many words do nothing but rationalize abomination. None of those words justifies or legitimizes it from a moral standpoint in any way. And again, they rely on falsehood and invention to do so.
"https://throughthesewoods.blogspot.com/search?q=marriage+equity
https://throughthesewoods.blogspot.com/search?q=homosexuality"
Thanks for providing these links. It makes it so much easier than to dig through your archives to find proof of your cheap rationalizing you like to present as an "effort" to explain your support of perversion and blatant sinfulness. But it sickens me to read through it again to affirm that I already knew how twisted and tortured that attempt to rationalize moral degradation was.
"You may ultimately not agree with my conclusions that came from my efforts, but you simply can't say I didn't put real effort into that."
Yes I can, because that appears to be something you could have completed while taking a dump. It doesn't represent anything which appears to be a sincere search for truth. "Cheap" barely describes how crappy the exercise was, and thus the conclusions are more so.
"As a point of fact. How is all of that explanation and defense NOT a "real effort..."?"
Oh, it's an "effort". But it's not a sincere effort to understand truth. It's an effort to rationalize your pre-existing position.
"Define "real effort...""
For the purpose of this issue, it's the citation of Scriptural verses without the imposition of preferred meaning upon them, with the intention of understanding the truth. It would involve going through verses and passages and showing a direct connection between them and any conclusion they compel. There is no such organic flow from the verse to the "conclusion", which in reality existed first, rather than came into existence as a result of honest study. Honest study does not in any way lead one to assert "pagan religious rituals" was the point of Leviticus or Romans. That's patently absurd, but oh so Dan.
"A good part of that first link deals with me explaining "my journey" on the topic of marriage equity where I moved from a conservative traditional Christian opposed to all things "homosexual," to a person who affirms it strongly. I went through, step by step, how I read the Bible and reasoned my position AWAY from the conservative doctrine that I used to hold to the beliefs I hold now."
Well, you certainly moved from truth to modern progressive dogma, that's for sure. But you didn't need to pretend you got there due to Scriptural teaching, because you pervert Scripture as an essential necessity to complete your "journey" to where you want it to lead anyway. As I've said every time you've tried to run your shit, the notion that either Leviticus 18 or any Paulian teaching refers to "pagan rituals" is absolutely nowhere to be found in either! Only the clinically stupid or the modern progressive (very possibly the same thing) would buy such laughable absurdity. If it were not so, then Lev 18:7 denies you having sex with your mama unless you're in church. Is that the case at Jeff St.? I'm gonna go out on a limb and presume the answer is "no". (Please, God...let that be true!)
You didn't "reason" yourself away from truth. You rejected truth and abused your ability to reason (such as it is) to rationalize your acceptance of abomination. Worse, you arrogantly presume you somehow divined "truth" strangely missed by over two thousand years of theological scholarship! Not likely, Sparky!
"As a point of fact, that was a real effort."
As a point of fact, that was a majestic farce.
"Prove otherwise."
What?....AGAIN??? I've proven it just now as I have multiple times over the years. You just pretend it hasn't happened. I don't blame you. Being exposed as so moronic can't be comfortable for you.
Note to others: Dan's links above provide even more evidence which validates the many criticisms I expressed in the post...and does so in spades.
Dan keeps talking about how he "rationalizes" these things, but how can one rationalize same sex behavior when biology itself shows man was not designed to have sex with man nor woman with woman. How does he rationalize it being okay when God calls it an abomination.
Paul wrote: Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. "unnatural" and "shameful" yet Dan "rationalizes" away all these words.
Here's how he does so: The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.
Glenn,
I'm not sure where you saw Dan explaining that he's rationalizing his defense of perversion, even though he is. That is to say, throughout this debate, and the review of the tactics of Dan which has led to his banishment from blogs like yours, I have been quite clear that I regard his "arguments" (such as they are) as rationalizations...and clearly "cheap" rationalizations at that.
Glenn...
Dan keeps talking about how he "rationalizes" these things, but how can one rationalize same sex behavior when biology itself shows man was not designed to have sex with man nor woman with woman.
First of all, Glenn is just mistaken when he falsely claims that "biology itself shows man was not designed to have sex with man nor woman with woman."
As a point of fact in the real world - objective, demonstrable fact visible and clear to all - neither "biology" nor "God" have told Glenn this. It's his own hunch.
Biology WILL demonstrate that gay men or women engaging in sexual activity will not produce a child, but Glenn's presumptions and human hunches about what humans are "designed to do," as regards to sexual activity have nothing to do with science and a whole lot to do with religious bigotry.
How does he rationalize it being okay when God calls it an abomination.
The Bible has God saying that eating shrimp is an abomination. As a rational and moral adult, I'm not at all interested in lifting isolated verses out of the bible as "proof" that God thinks something.
Tell me true, Glenn, do you eat shrimp or lobster? Do you engage in what God has clearly called an "abomination..."?
Again, I do not live by your human tradition of finding moral rules by lifting verses from the Bible as if they "prove" a moral rule. YOU are welcome to do so, but I disagree and personally find it biblically offensive to treat the bible as some little rulings book... ESPECIALLY when one of the clear teachings of the bible are repeated warnings against the DEADLY practice of legalism.
https://bible.org/seriespage/lesson-57-why-jesus-hates-legalism-luke-1137-54
As to concerns that I'm using my reasoning ("rationalizing...") we ALL use our reason to assign meaning to the words of any text, including the Bible. You fellas are using your reasoning to reason into the biblical text that God has some set of rules found in the Bible that are universal rules. NO WHERE AT ALL IN THE WHOLE WIDE WORLD OR IN ANY PLACE IN THE BIBLE does God say any rules found in the Bible are universal in nature (and indeed, we can see how rules changed throughout the bible). But you all use your reasoning to reach that conclusion.
And that's okay. We all use our reasoning (unless we try to take each biblical word literally, but then again, THAT would be using your reasoning to assume you need to do such). There's nothing inherently wrong in using our reasoning and perhaps you all can agree on that point.
My explanations, Marshal, are my explanations. HOW did I move from someone very conservative opposed to gay folk marrying to my current position? I've explained that in great detail. I made clear to report the historical reality that I had no desire to change my opinion. I thought I was "biblically correct." And yet, eventually I DID change my position precisely because I no longer found it biblical or rationally correct or moral.
Now, you may disagree with my conclusion but you can't deny the reality that I moved from your position to my position because of my Bible studies and efforts to follow God. As a point of historical fact.
Oh, it's an "effort". But it's not a sincere effort to understand truth. It's an effort to rationalize your pre-existing position.
Again, as a point of historical fact, I was a conservative young man. I was OPPOSED to any and all efforts to normalize homosexuality or call it "not a sin," because I thought the bible was abundantly clear. That's reality.
Therefore, part of your historical fail is your nonsense claim that I was trying to rationalize my "pre-existing position." My pre-existing position was that homosexuality was always wrong. Period. Always. It was an "abomination," I thought.
THAT is the reality. It's demonstrable and observable insofar as you can ask any of the people who knew "Danny" from the time he was paying attention to such things at about age 15 until I changed my mind, at about the age of 33. For the first ~20 years of my moral reasoning days, I was vehemently opposed to homosexuality. Period. THAT is the simple observable reality.
Again, my "pre-existing position" was in opposition to calling homosexuality something that might be acceptable to God.
Thus, there was NO effort to defend homosexuality. At somewhere around 33, I began a more adult, serious, Christian, Biblical and reasoned research into the morality (which again, was not in dispute - it was wrong!!) of homosexuality. WHY did I do so?
Again, as my testimony illustrates, it was because I had met some people claiming to be Christians (who indeed, appeared to BE Christians) who disagreed with me on this point. AND SO, I began this more serious research and study into the morality of homosexuality in an effort to disprove those who said it wasn't a sin!!
THAT is the reality of it all. Objectively, demonstrably.
Can you recognize that you have no reason to dispute my testimony?
Can you acknowledge that if you asked my conservative friends who knew me back in the day, you'd certainly find them agreeing that I DID think homosexuality was wrong?
If so, then you can admit this is a ridiculous false claim on your part.
I'll wait.
Oh, it's an "effort". But it's not a sincere effort to understand truth.
And since you didn't know me then as a young 20-30's year old Dan - and really, you don't know me now, HOW could you possibly know this? Can you acknowledge the reality that you 100% can NOT prove that my efforts to understand the subject were not sincere?
Can you acknowledge the reality that you absolutely objectively can NOT support your slander and false claims about my efforts since you can't prove the were NOT coming from the place of a serious conservative young man trying to defend his conservative views, as is what happened in the real world?
This arrogance that some conservatives have - that THEY know best what 30 year old Dan (who they literally do not/did not know!) thought and his intentions, which are built almost exclusively on their GUESSES that no one could possibly abandon the conservative position on homosexuality, in spite of it regularly happening observably in the real world - that arrogance is simply something that would put the Pharisees to shame!
August 27, 2023 at 4:58 PM
"First of all, Glenn is just mistaken when he falsely claims that "biology itself shows man was not designed to have sex with man nor woman with woman.""
Uh...yes it does. One needn't go through a doctorate program to learn that the two sexes exist to unite with each other for the purpose of procreation, that our "sexual organs" are so named for the purpose of engaging in the sexual act of intercourse, that they are meant to either deliver or receive male gametes for the purpose of uniting with the female gametes in order to conceive a new being...in this case, a human child.
"As a point of fact in the real world - objective, demonstrable fact visible and clear to all - neither "biology" nor "God" have told Glenn this. It's his own hunch."
This is Dan lying about the biological purpose of the two sexes with regard to procreation and Glenn's affirmation of this well known fact as being merely "his own hunch". Dan needs it to be a hunch...he needs the biological fact Glenn presents to be an ambiguous uncertainty in order to lend credence to his baseless, fact-less, evidence free support for homosexuality.
"Biology WILL demonstrate that gay men or women engaging in sexual activity will not produce a child, but Glenn's presumptions and human hunches about what humans are "designed to do," as regards to sexual activity have nothing to do with science and a whole lot to do with religious bigotry."
This is Dan lying again for the sake of those who take a pass on their piece of heaven. There's no "bigotry" afoot except against liars like Dan who will say anything to pretend those who abide Truth are the bad guys and those who reject it are angelic. And it's yet another case of Dan insisting that without biology "telling us" something as if it can talk like a person, we can't know what's so screamingly obvious about the purpose of our sex.
The truth also is that Dan and his ilk use any loophole they can find or invent to reject Truth when it cramps their style. This particular rejection of this which is so blatantly clear is yet another example of Dan's "Nyuh uh" method of argument. As he has no intelligent, "good faith" argument to rebut this Truth, he simply asserts it's not true and that's the end of it. It's another case of "if you can't prove to me that fire is hot, then it isn't and I don't have to accept the truth". It's amazing he'd even deign to expose himself in such a poor light by running this crap.
"The Bible has God saying that eating shrimp is an abomination. As a rational and moral adult, I'm not at all interested in lifting isolated verses out of the bible as "proof" that God thinks something."
This from the liar who claims to have "seriously and prayerfully" studied the Bible. I wonder if Dan ever finished coloring all the pages in his "Bible"? But it's astonishing that anyone who claims to be intelligent or Christian would even dare try to ride this dead horse:
https://preachersinstitute.com/2019/06/19/shrimp-and-homosexuality/
In addition to the fine and comprehensive response to this lie of an argument, I would simply add a most obvious distinction between the prohibitions is that for homosexual behavior, God calls it an abomination, whereas with regard to the prohibited foods, He says the people were to regard it as abomination. The first IS and abomination, while the second IS TO BE TREATED AS an abomination. Perhaps this is covered by Robert Gagnon in his lecture series on the subject for which the above article has a link.
The fact of the matter is that Dan's not interested in any verse or passage which conflicts with his desire to be conformed to this world. The last Dan wants to know is what God thinks!!
That would be "the last thing Dan wants to know..."
"Tell me true, Glenn, do you eat shrimp or lobster? Do you engage in what God has clearly called an "abomination..."?"
Again, the "serious and prayerful" student of Scripture intentionally lies.
"Again, I do not live by your human tradition of finding moral rules by lifting verses from the Bible as if they "prove" a moral rule."
That Dan. He's no Berean, that's for sure. Once more, the LAST thing Dan wants is to find out God prohibits what Dan insists is moral.
"YOU are welcome to do so, but I disagree and personally find it biblically offensive to treat the bible as some little rulings book..."
Where God's rules for Christian living can easily be found. But actual Christians don't regard the Bible with such contempt and condescension. The reality is actual Christians treat the Bible as the source of our knowledge and understanding of God's Will and expectations for how live a life pleasing to Him.
"...ESPECIALLY when one of the clear teachings of the bible are repeated warnings against the DEADLY practice of legalism.
https://bible.org/seriespage/lesson-57-why-jesus-hates-legalism-luke-1137-54"
Clearly Dan did not read this link, or he would not have posted it. Why do I say this? Because early on it asserts that legalism is not abiding God's Will...that is, we are to obey His Will as presented in His Law.
But it's helpful to know that despite Dan's desperate need to assert those like Glenn and I are like the Pharisees (his troll loves this charge against us!), we are not doing anything more than pointing out Dan's clear rebellion against God's Will. We're not adding anything to it. We're not saying "God says 'Thou shalt not..'" while we ourselves shall if we so choose. This lie about legalism and acting like Pharisees is just a tactic to put us on the defensive when we're doing nothing which would compel us without Dan's lying about us. But I think I can speak for Glenn and the rest of our conservative blogger friends, that the likes of Dan can't use obvious lies and false comparisons to those far more like himself to force us to comply with his heresies...or to be silent in pointing them out publicly.
"As to concerns that I'm using my reasoning ("rationalizing...") we ALL use our reason to assign meaning to the words of any text, including the Bible."
Who's "we"? You and your head lice? Your troll and his crabs? We don't assign meaning to Scripture. That's YOUR thing, because you can't make Scripture tolerant of your heresies. We discover meaning, by investigating what might not seem clear. Most of it doesn't require deep investigation, such as Lev 18:22 which is crystal.
"You fellas are using your reasoning to reason into the biblical text that God has some set of rules found in the Bible that are universal rules."
Again with the blatant lies. We do not "reason into". We draw out of what is intended using standard techniques which have informed mankind since Scripture was written.
"NO WHERE AT ALL IN THE WHOLE WIDE WORLD OR IN ANY PLACE IN THE BIBLE does God say any rules found in the Bible are universal in nature (and indeed, we can see how rules changed throughout the bible)."
And yet again we see Dan insisting Scripture must say something specifically as Dan demands it must in order for anyone to insist it teaches something so obvious. But, as I mentioned above, in both Lev and in Romans 12 when Paul teaches us not to be conformed to this world, we can see that there are universal law. In Lev 18, it begins and ends with God saying not to do as they do in Egypt and Canaan. God's moral law absolutely is universal in nature, which is why you refuse to accept references to it, particularly when it interferes with your personal conforming to the world.
"But you all use your reasoning to reach that conclusion."
Our reasoning seeks the truth. Yours seeks loopholes and this is proven by how far from Scripture and how in conflict with Scripture your position is.
"My explanations, Marshal, are my explanations."
As I've said and proven, your "explanations" are cheap rationalizations invented to allow you to carry on in your rebellion while pretending you're right with God.
"HOW did I move from someone very conservative opposed to gay folk marrying to my current position?"
As your links above bear out, by perverting Scripture for the purpose. And again, opposing homosexuality doesn't prove conservatism. It only proves you opposed homosexuality. You were never conservative. You have no understanding of conservatism.
"I've explained that in great detail. I made clear to report the historical reality that I had no desire to change my opinion. I thought I was "biblically correct." And yet, eventually I DID change my position precisely because I no longer found it biblical or rationally correct or moral."
Your story doesn't prove any of this is true. It's just how you dress up your heresy. One can't study Scripture and come away with any pro-homosexual belief or agenda. It's just not possible because nothing in Scripture provides.
"Now, you may disagree with my conclusion but you can't deny the reality that I moved from your position to my position because of my Bible studies and efforts to follow God. As a point of historical fact."
Of course I can, because it's not true. You moved (assuming you actually opposed homosexuality in the first place) because of your willingness to corrupt Scripture for the purpose. It's so plain by reading your own "story" in your links above. You can say anything you like. You can get stupid people to buy it. But you can't bullshit honest people. Thus, we see you for the reprobate you are. We don't see that as a good thing or something to use to posture like the Pharisee in Lk 18:9-14.
August 27, 2023 at 5:09 PM
"Again, as a point of historical fact, I was a conservative young man."
No you weren't. You can say this a billion more times and it won't be any truer than it ever way.
"I was OPPOSED to any and all efforts to normalize homosexuality or call it "not a sin," because I thought the bible was abundantly clear. That's reality."
That doesn't make you conservative. It just makes you a different kind of hater than you are now.
"Therefore, part of your historical fail is your nonsense claim that I was trying to rationalize my "pre-existing position." My pre-existing position was that homosexuality was always wrong. Period. Always. It was an "abomination," I thought."
So you say. But given how your "transition" relies on such false corruptions of Scripture, and given how you promote the lies of the LGBTQ agenda across the board, and given how you lie about so many other things so routinely as if you're getting paid to do it, I have no motivation to believe your self-serving autobiography. It's not my fault you're untrustworthy.
"THAT is the reality. It's demonstrable and observable insofar as you can ask any of the people who knew "Danny" from the time he was paying attention to such things at about age 15 until I changed my mind, at about the age of 33. For the first ~20 years of my moral reasoning days, I was vehemently opposed to homosexuality. Period. THAT is the simple observable reality."
Still wouldn't convince me your version of events is accurate, nor can I be assured those who knew "Danny" had any more working brain cells than you. They might be worse liars than you, for all I know.
But none of this worthless crap matters. What matters is that your position now is heretical, your "journey" is laughable and fraught with logical errors in reasoning and outright lies and you crap on Scripture when its Truth is brought to bear against you.
"Again, my "pre-existing position" was in opposition to calling homosexuality something that might be acceptable to God."
So you say.
"At somewhere around 33, I began a more adult, serious, Christian, Biblical and reasoned research into the morality (which again, was not in dispute - it was wrong!!) of homosexuality."
You failed in that attempt, as your links prove perfectly. You still don't know what that looks like.
WHY did I do so?
Again, as my testimony illustrates, it was because I had met some people claiming to be Christians (who indeed, appeared to BE Christians) who disagreed with me on this point. AND SO, I began this more serious research and study into the morality of homosexuality in an effort to disprove those who said it wasn't a sin!!"
You never succeeded, but you now admit again you were compelled by other heretics (how many were homosexuals or lesbians?). Your "adult, serious, Christian, Biblical and reasoned research" indicates you bought into their crap as I suspected. Your links to your "journey" bear that out.
"THAT is the reality of it all. Objectively, demonstrably."
There's truly nothing "objective" about your fictitious autobiography, and it only demonstrates you like to make shit up. Your self-serving version of events proves nothing.
"Can you recognize that you have no reason to dispute my testimony?"
That's funny.
"Can you acknowledge that if you asked my conservative friends who knew me back in the day, you'd certainly find them agreeing that I DID think homosexuality was wrong?"
So you want me to believe.
I don't.
"If so, then you can admit this is a ridiculous false claim on your part."
This is just as fake a conclusion as your belief God doesn't oppose homosexual behavior in any context or scenario in which it might take place, including between two homosexuals who vow to remain in fidelity with each other forsaking all others. That vow does nothing to remove the fact of their abomination.
And I think of your "journey" and in calls to mind several movie critics who lampoon a movie because of illogical behaviors perpetrated by the actors because the script needed them to do what they did so that they can move toward a convenient resolution. As no one would ever act the way the script forced the characters to act, no one would ever pretend Scripture moved you toward your "eventual" devotion to abomination. Your lame attempt to bring up shellfish is just another example.
"I'll wait."
For what? To buy into your bullshit? That'll be the day!
August 27, 2023 at 5:27 PM
"'Oh, it's an "effort". But it's not a sincere effort to understand truth.'
And since you didn't know me then as a young 20-30's year old Dan - and really, you don't know me now, HOW could you possibly know this?"
By the poor quality of your "journey" story and the laughable examples of "reason" therein. That story doesn't do a thing to compel me to question my position in the slightest. A strong argument with actual evidence in defense of a false belief can indeed make one take pause. Yours only inspires laughter.
"Can you acknowledge the reality that you 100% can NOT prove that my efforts to understand the subject were not sincere?"
Well, I did the first time you posted that slop. Once again, your description doesn't logically lead to the conclusions you insist were compelled by what was described. You didn't do anything more logical than say, "...and because he sat on the rock, I could see that pig poop makes great spackle!" The arguments are far too weak to suggest sincerity.
"Can you acknowledge the reality that you absolutely objectively can NOT support your slander and false claims about my efforts since you can't prove the were NOT coming from the place of a serious conservative young man trying to defend his conservative views, as is what happened in the real world?"
Nope! That would be lying.
"This arrogance that some conservatives have - that THEY know best what 30 year old Dan (who they literally do not/did not know!) thought and his intentions, which are built almost exclusively on their GUESSES that no one could possibly abandon the conservative position on homosexuality, in spite of it regularly happening observably in the real world - that arrogance is simply something that would put the Pharisees to shame!"
This arrogance that Dan has...that he can say anything regardless of how stupid, far-fetched and provably false and others who point all that out are somehow arrogant, as if they're obliged to take a known liar like Dan at his word...that arrogance is simply something that would put Joe Biden to shame!!
But this is another deceptive tactic Dan uses often. Insist there exists someone who can back up his wild tales, and we're to accept it just on his say so, and failing that, he deigns to disparage us. But the story of affirming people from his past, from his circle of friends (none of whom ever visits even his blog, much less mine) does nothing to make his position tenable and aligned with God's Will. And he thinks that won't be noticed while we respond to his irrelevant crap. But I guess that's really our fault. We actually indulge his superfluous nonsense rather than force him to focus on the point.
Nonetheless, he has definitely proved the point of this post with his comments in this thread. He's pretty much employed all the dishonest tactics which have led to his banishment from so many blogs. Thus, it wasn't his opinion, or that he disagrees with a blog host. It's his dishonesty in defending his positions. "Good faith" is non-existent in Dan's defense of the indefensible.
{NOTE: I've taken the liberty of editing Glenn's comment. -MA}
Glenn E. Chatfield commented on "Leftist Shamefulness: Should I Bother?"
38 mins ago
Dan is hopeless case. If he thinks a man's ["backside"] is designed for sticking a ["male appendage"] into (I know some men do that with women, which is also against biology), which has been medically demonstrated to cause great harm, then his mind is too far perverted.
Notice he only mentioned the Bible's "abomination" but overlooked where is says homosexual behavior is unnatural and shameful.
{NOTE: You see Dan? That's how you deal with comments containing language you don't like, though Glenn was actually using clinically correct terms.}
"Clinically correct terms" which is why I didn't understand the edit.
A judgement call, Glenn. It could have been expressed in a less graphic manner, I thought. I'm not easily aghast as such language, but I thought it a good way to express to our mutual friend how to deal with such things in a less wussy and less dishonest manner.
So, any reasonable person can see how unusual it is for you to proclaim that YOU are the one who knows that young Southern Baptist, Republican, Bible loving, anti-abortion, anti-gay, inerrancy-confirming Danny was not conservative... but based upon what?
How is it rational that if I affirmed all those conservative bonafides to guess I wasn't conservative?
What do you think makes one a conservative if it's not affirming conservative ideals and beliefs?
Is there anyone here who can recognize how strange this is?
Dan
"...Danny was not conservative... but based upon what?"
On his current clear lack of understanding of conservatism. For example, not all lefties are truly down with queers and abortion. Does that mean they're conservative or just lefties who aren't down with queers and abortion?
And are you saying young Danny didn't reject so much of Scripture as today's Danny does? But by "loving" the Bible, how can we tell young Danny had any better ability than today's Danny to understand what it teaches? Are we to take the word of a known liar?
"How is it rational that if I affirmed all those conservative bonafides to guess I wasn't conservative?"
As one who lies so much, how is it rational to ever take your word for such a thing which cannot be proven to be true?
"What do you think makes one a conservative if it's not affirming conservative ideals and beliefs?"
Understanding conservatism, which you've never demonstrated you do.
"Is there anyone here who can recognize how strange this is?"
Is there anyone here who would take Dan's word for anything given how much he insists is true which isn't?
As one who lies so much, how is it rational to ever take your word for such a thing which cannot be proven to be true?
But the facts are the facts. It may not be easy for you, at this point, to find the people involved, but the reality is that I WAS a Southern Baptist, as conservative as they come. I WAS opposed to all normalization of homosexuality. I DID register and vote as GOP. I DID affirm conservative doctrine. I DID affirm a literal/inerrant interpretation of the Bible. I did only read conservative writers and the Bible and not much else. CS Lewis and Charles Sheldon were the "liberal" outliers in what I read. Otherwise, I read/listened to L Ravenhill, "Focus on the Family," Sproul, Torrey, Chuck Swindoll, etc, etc. That is what happened in the real world. Why would I make that up?
In the real world, I traveled around in the very conservative CCM Band, Remembrance, where we preached a very conservative, traditional view of Christianity, opposed to liberalism and the Democrats and supportive of Reagan and traditional Christian teaching. Anyone who knew me can attest to this. Why would I make that up?
Do you not see how irrational and arrogant it is for you to say that YOU, who didn't know me one lick as a young man, are the one who is best able to say what I did and didn't believe as a young man, and that I was not conservative IN SPITE of my affirming conservative belief/view after conservative belief/view.
DEFINE what it is you think makes one a conservative.
This is just crazy-sounding, little fellas.
Once again:
I believe in a literal, inerrant Bible.
Was that NOT a conservative view?
I believed and voted for the GOP, against abortion rights, against gay rights (I knew nothing of LBTQ at the time!).
Was that NOT a conservative view?
I believed that women should not be pastors.
Was that NOT a conservative view?
I believed that we were saved by God's grace through faith in Jesus and that to be saved we needed to confess with our mouths and believe in our hearts that Jesus was Lord and that Jesus paid for our sins with the blood he shed to pay the debt that our sins demanded.
Was that NOT a conservative view?
I believed that the earth was probably ~6000 years old or that maybe God had some explanation of why it appeared older than that, but that the "science" on the age of the earth was dubious and not to be trusted.
Was that NOT a conservative view?
What SPECIFICALLY did I have wrong in my conservative views that made me "not a conservative?"
That is what you've never even tried to answer.
Of course I've answered to all that often enough. Once again, rote repetition of what you want to say is the essence of conservatism is not the same as a true understanding.
So, I believed all those traditional conservative beliefs, but you say that doesn't make one a conservative? So, what DOES make one a conservative?
Dan
"rote repetition of what you want to say is the essence of conservatism is not the same as a true understanding."
Just to be clear, what specifically is the difference between conservative beliefs as I've mentioned them (anti-abortion, against gay rights, belief in inerrancy, atonement, etc) and your claim about "true understanding " of them...? What indicates to you I didn't have a true understanding?
It seems like your argument comes down to my moving away from those views is the "proof" you need that I didn't truly understand them... but that isn't proof that I didn't understand them, just that I grew to disagree with them.
This is not rational, brother.
Dan
You continue to say you "believed" these various points you claim as evidence of your alleged conservative past. I'm not too keen on once again going through all this so as to allow you to take this conversation farther from its point...though your attempt to do so actually further validates it.
Given the weak arguments you put forth in defending your "journey" to the dark side, only one dedicated to that position would insist the argument is a case made legitimately, rather than the childlike attempt to rationalize bad behavior it actually is. But one who is truly convicted in one's beliefs isn't so easily led from them, first by the influence of other evildoers...those "Christians" who disagreed with your positions at that time...and then by bad arguments which you so quickly embraced. Scripture itself can't lead one to your position, and you saying it did in your case is so far from convincing as to be more laughable than I described it. Indeed, it's a clear case of you having "exchanged the truth about God for a lie". It involves...indeed requires...ignoring so much of what is clear in Scripture, distorting so much which is undeniably the case in Scripture (what words mean) and injecting meanings where no such meaning can possibly be mistakenly understood to exist. All that to rationalize the change of heart. No conservative does such a thing. Indeed, in my own case, when confronting this evil within the denomination of which I was a member, I was encouraged to investigate the arguments of the immoral among us...not unlike what you claim to have done. Those arguments were every bit as appallingly tortured, weak and unconvincing as your "journey" is. Like you, they simply chose to pretend it was a truthful and sincere argument, while demonstrating how far from such a thing it was.
A "true understanding" cannot be shaken because it is grounded in truth. Yours was no more than a superficial understanding, not uncommon among the young. And because it was so weak and superficial, you jumped at the urging of the first argument you encountered. A true understanding would have led you to rebuke those "Christians" who held an opposing view of abomination because of the absence of truth underlying their view.
You often whine about my pointing to Scripture when supporting my positions (which more often than not are simply producing what Scripture says to that which you suggest, pretend or insist is not covered in Scripture)...the whine being that one can't simply pick out a verse or two to defend a position. But it seems clear that was your method as a young "conservative" and because you lacked understanding, that was the best you could do. An actual conservative only begins a rebuke in that way, but can go more deeply into why that one or two verses is not the end of the story, but also why it should be enough for anyone who claims devotion to God.
Now you do the reverse. You accept nothing regardless of how plentiful the evidence and strong the argument. You simply reject out of hand in your typical "Nyuh uh" manner. You offer as little to rebut a position as you obviously did to support it back in the day, and as you do now. As such, I could just as easily describe you as superficial in your current modern progressive posture. It just sounds nice to you and you enjoy the favor of other modern progressives. You favor conformity to the world. A conservative seeks not to be conformed to this world.
I suppose that an element of outrage could be added concerning Dan's claims of morphing from a conservative into a liberal in noting that he openly embraces pedophilia and thinks it should be legalized.
Jesse,
I can't say that I recall Dan actually saying that, but if you're simply referring to his defense of grooming and molestation by men posing as whorish women, that's bad enough.
I wanna have a chat with Glenn in a field. Why he does not want to discuss the presence of Jesus in his heart. Is he ashamed of the gospel?
Post a Comment