"You shall not bow down to them [false idols] or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God,
punishing the children for the sin of the parents
to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me,
but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments..."
As always, I'm engaged with conversations with conservatives who believe the best of the white privileged male protesters on days of infamy like the January 6th uprising or nearly every Pride Parade, and one
thing that I believe these people are missing is the context of
oppressor and oppressed.
If these conversations and protests were just between two privileged white guys who were very opinionated about their sports ball teams or favorite pizza and THAT conversation got heated and went back and forth, both from an equal footing position, no big deal. Team one, team two, you're wrong, you're right, okay, whatever.
If these conversations and protests were just between two privileged white guys who were very opinionated about their sports ball teams or favorite pizza and THAT conversation got heated and went back and forth, both from an equal footing position, no big deal. Team one, team two, you're wrong, you're right, okay, whatever.
This is not that.
In one recent conversation, the conservative posted a video where there was a white guy protesting against abortion rights and health rights
for women. In that example, the white anti-abortionist (in THAT example) remained fairly calm and low-key. In another example, I had offered the story of the interaction (cited in a previous recent post here) of the six white nationalist men protesting at this year's Louisville Gay Pride Day. In one, we're talking about rights for women, in the other, we're talking about equal rights and
opportunities for LGBTQ folks and their allies. In still other instances we
might be talking about the rights of folks with disabilities or the
rights of people of color or immigrants.
In
each of those cases it is vital to remember that we are talking about
groups who have been historically abused,
oppressed,
maligned,
demonized,
harmed, and
killed
on the one hand and the oppressors on the other. In such cases, even if an abortion opponent manages to be calm in delivering his message calmly in a public protest, and even if the oppressed and their allies were to get loud and yell, we must remember there is a historic memory of abuses towards women and denying the rights to women. That makes it a charged situation for those on the side of the oppressed. Trauma is a real thing caused by the real world history of abusive oppressors.
groups who have been historically abused,
oppressed,
maligned,
demonized,
harmed, and
killed
on the one hand and the oppressors on the other. In such cases, even if an abortion opponent manages to be calm in delivering his message calmly in a public protest, and even if the oppressed and their allies were to get loud and yell, we must remember there is a historic memory of abuses towards women and denying the rights to women. That makes it a charged situation for those on the side of the oppressed. Trauma is a real thing caused by the real world history of abusive oppressors.
And
in each of these cases, the oppression is not ancient history. It's
still a fresh, recent thing, in our lifetimes only - and truly into our
children's lifetimes - has it started to get a little bit better. If
LGBTQ folks and their allies or women or others get their ire up and
respond a bit frantically in the face of oppression rising back up,
that's understandable. We're talking about human rights and people are
rightly, strongly and righteously emotionally defending human rights and
warning against returning to days of oppression.
In other words, even if the supporters of historic oppression remain relatively calm (and often, they don't), that's not to their credit. It doesn't win them any points.
In other words, even if the supporters of historic oppression remain relatively calm (and often, they don't), that's not to their credit. It doesn't win them any points.
Picture
Jesus pulling together a whip to drive out the money changers from the
temple. Righteous burning active anger against oppression. God and
reasonable people are rightfully outraged at oppression.
And
so the trauma lives on, the curse from our repressive fathers into the
third and fourth and fifth generations. It's not like you can flip a switch and turn slavery off on one day, for instance, and say, "Okay you're free. All is forgiven.
Everybody's cool now." Oppression, harm and genocide don't just "go away" that way. There was and continues to be active harm,
ongoing harm caused by that oppression and it doesn't go away in a day.
Likewise
the trauma experienced by all these other groups: women, LGBTQ folks,
those with disabilities, immigrants. That trauma is a curse in their and
all of our lives, including the lives of the oppressors and their descendants. Those who would downplay the trauma from that
oppression need to understand what they're asking when they're asking
people to be calm in the face of oppression rising back up.
27 comments:
"You Americans, you are so naïve. You think evil is going to come into your houses wearing big black boots.
It doesn’t come like that.
Look at the language. It begins in the language."
—Joseph Brodsky
There's not an ounce of truth in this post. Some superficial references to past "oppression" which has absolutely no relevance of any kind to the post at Craig's where you ignored the point of the post in order to make these nonsensical arguments. Is there ever a point where truth and honesty carry any weight with you? There's certainly none here.
Marshal, move on. It's just a well-established fact of history that Black people, women, LGBTQ folks, immigrants, those with disabilities, these are all historically oppressed groups and that oppression has continued until today. It's gotten better but the oppression continues.
Additionally the trauma, physical abuse and harm, and economic impacts of oppression continue. Generational wealth for all these groups has declined today because of past practices. This is just objective reality so short of providing some sort of proof that reality isn't what it obviously is, just move on. Unsupported claims like these will be deleted.
Dan
Craig, Marshal, and Glenn would have killed the prophets. And like Saul before his conversion, Stan and Jesse hold the coats of those who do the stoning.
Those who witness to Christian faith that God is eternal love: eternally good, eternally true, eternally beautiful… are despised and rejected by our local Thugs,
Loving only a legal spirit contained on paper in ink - hating human hearts that are not as stonily composed of inorganic material as theirs are - our Thugs rejects the Spirit’s teaching in Acts 10, just like all those unnamed, demandingly vehement Judaizers that Paul contends with till the end of his days.
No one is unclean. Everyone is offered the way of grace and forgiveness, the resilient, even eternal, life of communion and love. It is we, who would make it exclusive, who have to change, like Peter, so much of what we think is Gospel.
Marshal and Jesse, as always, rational disagreements are welcome here. Empty-headed attacks and unsupported claims are not. If you want to comment, be respectful and make your case, for instance, as to WHY the very real history of actual abuse and oppression against all of these groups I've mentioned don't matter.
But don't even START with the suggestion that actual oppression is not part of our history. You can't dispute reality unless you can prove that reality as rational people understand it isn't reality, didn't really happen.
But you'd be the one making the outlier view. The onus is on you to prove objectively that LGBTQ people (and their allies) haven't experienced actual abuse and oppression, because reality shows otherwise. We see it still today, in your abusive, bigoted attacks.
Be better.
For instance, Marshal, rationally speaking, a white person can note the reality of actual racial, racist abuses and oppression thoughout our history in the US and beyond WITHOUT being a "self-loathing white person." Because of course, admitting reality is not hating the color of one's own skin. That's a rational failure right off the bat.
Be better. Given the reality of the oppression by the white male majority throughout our history of all these groups, idiotic nonsense will not remain here.
Be better than that. Or go away.
Marshal, in a now-deleted comment full of this sort of unsupported, irrational nonsense:
Public displays of celebration and lobbying by your "oppressed" people are demands for more privileges akin to the demand for reparations for slavery. There's no justification for it and past offenses aren't justifications. And it's not gotten "a little better"! It's gotten wildly insane and unjustified!
LGBTQ people just want to be able to exist, to live their lives in the open (not hiding who they are), to be able to marry, have jobs, have children and be productive members of society.
These are NOT "special or more privileges." It's just the same as anyone else has always had. Your problem is you see LGBTQ people out there, just living their lives and not bothering anyone except by being themselves and THAT is not enough for you. You want them gone, hidden, underground. You want "your America" back where you didn't have to "put up" with LGBTQ people just existing in the public life.
But that IS the lie, the oppression, the denial of human rights and moral decency. Shame on you. And shame on you for your apparent incapacity to understand this. Having the same human rights as you, as a white man have always had, is not "more rights."
Be better.
How many members of your loved ones are in the LGBTQ world? How many of them have been expelled from your life by your abusive, oppressive ideology?
Be better than that.
"Akin to reparations for slavery..."
You mean, it doesn't MATTER to you if generations of humans were enslaved and robbed of their rights and deprived of generational wealth that amounted to WAY more than "40 acres and a mule," you want to insist that abusers and thieves and enslavers can oppress who groups and families and family lines of people and when finally "caught" in their oppression, they don't have to pay back a single thing?
That's just not rationally or morally correct.
You all want to pretend you're "tough on crime" until it's the white oppressors who are expected to be held accountable and pay back their abuses.
Stop, just stop. Be better than that.
Now, if you want to say something like, "You know, I think there may be better and worse ways to think about how to make reparation for vast gross oppression and generational theft... I hope those involved (primarily the descendants of the abused, because, of course) in thinking this through try to think about the best ways to handle it..." That much is fine, as far as it goes. But to try to claw back any repayments due because it hurts your little white feelings, that's not okay.
Be better.
"You Americans, you are so naïve. You think evil is going to come into your houses wearing big black boots.
It doesn’t come like that.
Look at the language. It begins in the language."
—Joseph Brodsky
And Marshal has ALL the language.
I had said:
Empty-headed attacks and unsupported claims are not."
Marshal responded:
Your posts are examples of that. Not my responses to them.
And THEN, he gave NOT ONE bit of support for any of his claims. By way of example, Marshal responded to my comment by saying:
I did that when I said past abuses and oppression aren't relevant to the objections to your beloved in the here and now. Past abuse and oppression doesn't justify current demands for special privileges/accommodation, nor does it justify current bad behaviors.
"Nyuh-uh" is not a rational, supported response, Marshal. I GET that you are saying from your brain to the keyboard, "past abuses aren't relevant..." but THAT IS AN EMPTY, unsupported claim. "I don't HAVE to because I don't care about that point because, to me in my personal little head, I don't think for myself that it matters..." is NOT a supported argument. It is literally an empty claim.
WHY would any rational adult care what you personally think?
Provide some data, some proof, some evidence, some solid SOMETHING that says "Abuses and oppressions of people 50 years ago (20 years ago, 10 years ago...) do not matter today or impact anyone today because, according to THIS research..." and then, cite the research.
That YOU PERSONALLY don't think it matters literally doesn't matter one single bit. Your opinion in and of itself is not even a pimple on a sickly baby maggot. Do you understand that?
Look, one negative way past oppression continues to harm today is generational wealth deficits suffered by oppressed people. The research is there and it's really quite obvious to anyone without blinders on.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/08/14/magazine/racial-wealth-gap.html
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/black-wealth-is-increasing-but-so-is-the-racial-wealth-gap/
https://apps.urban.org/features/wealth-inequality-charts/
And for women...
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/how-does-gender-equality-affect-women-in-retirement/
...and I can go on and on about how past oppression causes real financial, physical, mental harm in the lives of historically oppressed groups today.
The data is there, the question is not up for debate. BUT here's the main point you need to understand: It's CERTAINLY not up for debate because you personally imagine in your head that the oppression didn't happen or doesn't matter. Your opinion is nothing without support.
That's what I'm talking about Marshal. IF you want to comment and disagree, that's fine, but do so with actual data, not a personal hunch.
Dan
Marshal:
Past abuse and oppression doesn't justify current demands for special privileges/accommodation, nor does it justify current bad behaviors.
It's NOT special privileges or accommodation to say, "I want to be free to make my own decisions and not suffer from your oppression and, indeed, I demand an end to your oppression of people because of the group they belong to." That's just human rights.
Your privilege has made you feel SO privileged and elite that you don't even recognize that oppressed groups merely asking for human rights is just normal, NOT a "special privilege."
Women are not demanding to check on your doctor's recommendations on how to deal with your hemorrhoids or to second guess as to whether or not tax payer or insurance dollars should be used to "support" your personal medical options. They just want you to back the hell out of their gynecologists' offices! Their pregnancies are literally NONE of your business. Same for trans people and their families or parents or supporters. You are FREE to make your own decisions about your very uptight, sick sexual preferences and gender dysphoria (truly, this male privilege so many of you all experience IS a serious gender dysphoria). They just want you to get the hell out of their medical concerns. It's quite explicitly factually literally none of your business.
That isn't a special right, it's just human rights... what YOU already experience.
Dan
Dan, about oppression still happening today:
We see it still today, in your abusive, bigoted attacks."
Marshal replied:
We don't see it today, unless you're referencing the muslim majority nations you pretend are "outliers" of islam. The bigger lie is to portray my opposition to your beloved
THIS is also an example of an attack. You continue to 1. Misrepresent what rational people are clearly saying (ie, we're not saying abusive/oppressive Muslim locations are "good" Muslims. We're noting that there are good and bad Muslims, just as there are good and bad Christians, as you demonstrate with this nonsense, unsupported bit of slander). 2. That you fight so hard against acknowledging good Muslims is precisely a way of oppressing the group for the wrongs of a portion of the group.
A rational, moral person says, "I love and ally with those Muslims (Baptists, Mormons, atheists, etc) who promote human rights and I'm opposed to those in any groups that act counter to human rights AND I do not blame the whole group for the wrong of a portion of the group, because that is literally the definition of bigotry.
Same for your endless, grade-school, graceless, empty brained attacks on the LGBTQ community.
You will NOT spread bigotry here. AND you won't make stupidly unsupported, obviously false claims here. You want to express your idiot bigotry? You are free to do so on your own blog, much to your shame. But you won't do so here.
Move on.
Dan
So let's review how this all began:
You made a lame claim that six "white guys" protesting at a "pride" event you attended were wrong to speak God's truth (and went on to make unsupported allegations about their affiliation and by extension, that of anyone who shows up to these events to speak God's truth...a truth you've NEVER shown has been altered in any way). Then, between that posting of yours here, and then references to it at Craig's blog in the comments section following his presentation of another man at another event speaking God's truth about infanticide (and doing so in a most peaceful and logical way without lashing out at the baby murderers hating on him openly), you raised the issue of "past abuses and oppression" to suppress and stifle such truthful expressions by what are likely REAL Christians rather than the nazis you need them to be or the type you only pretend to be. So in that comments section, you first made your nonsensical claim about "past abuses and oppression" justifying your objection to those righteous and truthful expressions against two very serious sins you champion as "rights". You mentioned a several groups who were victims of "past abuses and oppression" against whom it is somehow relevant to any discussion about that which each or any of those groups might lobby to achieve or acquire. On August 9, 2026 at 9:30 PM, I responded to that nonsense, citing each group individually. But to keep it simple, I'll simply state that you haven't, nor can you, explain how any "past abuses and oppression" justifies stifling a Christian's right to preach God's truth about the sinfulness of homosexual behavior, nor how and "past abuses and oppression" justifies a woman murdering her own child in utero, particularly since there is no medical reason which justifies terminating that life to treat the problem the pregnant woman might be having during her pregnancy. These are the two most obvious examples of how silly your referencing "past abuses and oppression" is when ANYONE, actual Christian or not, expresses truth and fact which conflicts with the intentions of any of those groups you listed at that time, and continue to pretend has relevance here.
Thus, while you pretend I'm required to present "data" or evidence to oppose this nonsensical notion of yours, you've done nothing to provide "actual data" which makes it make any sense.
Is this now clear to you, or are you still missing the truth of it? Whether you respond or delete will tell the tale.
Marshal, in a soon-to-be-deleted comment:
you fail to provide evidence to support the contention that any muslim is beyond scrutiny on the basis of the history of islam and the tenets of islam, and worse, assume that "the whole group" is not down with the actions of the few who do the damage
I have not contended that "any Muslim is beyond scrutiny" for any reason. Indeed, I am speaking directly of simply judging each person on their demonstrated character and goodwill (all the Muslims I personally know, for what it's worth), or lack thereof (you).
YOU are the one making the sweeping bigoted suggestion that "assumes that "the whole group" IS down with the actions of the few who do the damage" You're making that bigoted suggestion and doing so with NO proof that all or most Muslims are okay with the bad behavior of a portion of Muslim extremists.
THAT is why you can't comment here in this manner. 1. It's unsupported, and 2. It's bigoted, by definition and 3. It's slanderous and dangerously, stupidly so.
Along those lines, you just pile on the unsupported, dangerously stupid bigotry:
I'm not concerned with risking my fellow Americans by trying to ascertain which of the muslims who come here are truly "good" rather than just another awaiting the opportune time to convert, extort or murder all here who are not muslims.
That is what the bigots ALWAYS say. And, as with you, always without support. This is just dumb bigotry, Marshal. It's cowardly and intellectually stunted. But then, having a brain controlled in large part by fear IS part of the pathology of many conservatives.
Conservatives, Cowardice and Idiocy are your names.
Marshal:
your suggestion that there might be good as well as bad muslims requires defining what makes any of the good ones "good", as well as your defaulting to moral equivalency by comparing/contrasting muslims with Christians is a cheap attempt to posture as "reasonable" or "rational".
Good. Just good. I GET that you all are damaged by the fear and cowardice and intellectually stunted conservative upbringing you surround yourselves with and the awful human traditions you choose to embrace in spite of their irrationality and bigotry, but for people of good faith, it's just not that difficult to recognize the character of good people by their good lives. Indeed, that premise is exactly scriptural and Christ-ian, ie, Jesus TAUGHT us that.
Are they good neighbors, helping others, helping the poor, hard workers? Do they love and take care of their families and friends, are they kind towards people and the planet? THESE are good people who live their lives thusly. By their fruit you SHALL know them.
Are they hateful and bigoted, unkind and abusive? Are they uncaring and/or cruel towards the poor and marginalized? By their fruit you shall be known.
Move on, Marshal. Unsupported, cowardly, irrational and stupidly false claims will only be deleted, as will bigoted comments of the sort you continue to engage in and that, towards people you don't even know.
But again, that is part and parcel of bigotry.
Dan
Marshal, exposing both his bigotry and his ignorance of real world history:
Because of their own history and the tenets of their "faith", they can't be regarded as anything but a threat first without some way to confirm and guarantee they are not. There are no other "faiths" which operate in such a manner which puts so many at risk
Assuming "they" are monsters and a threat, first and THEN allowing that there "may" be "some exceptions" IS the definition of bigotry.
And the reality is that both Muslim majority nations and Christian majority nations have a piss poor record of human rights abuses. Both types of nations have engaged in policies that have killed innocent people by the mi llions and by choice.
author Naveed Sheikh concludes that “the Christian civilization emerges as the most violent and genocidal in the world history .”Compared to Islam, Christianity is a clear winner: 31.94 million deaths (by Muslims) to 177.94 million deaths (by Christians)...
But even if we slash the numbers on the Christian side and add some to the Muslim side, the scale of violence committed by Chris tians throughout history is mind-numbing.
https://www.christiancentury.org/article/2010-04/body-counts
Educate yourself.
Dan
I had said:
"A rational, moral person says, "I love and ally with those Muslims (Baptists, Mormons, atheists, etc) who promote human rights..."
Marshal responded:
Once again, you group yourself with a mythical, unidentified population and regard them as "rational and moral" by virtue of being in agreement with you.
Of course, reality is that I don't regard them as rational and moral by virtue of agreeing with me as you can see that I never said that. They are rational and moral in their refusal to embrace the bigotry of blaming whole groups of people for the misdeeds of some in that group. THAT bigotry is, itself, just observably irrational and unbiblical.
You do not blame the whole for the actions of some. It's a longstanding moral premise. Indeed, that notion is biblical. "Each person will be held accountable for their own actions." (or words to that effect). But beyond the Bible, it's just a reasonable position to take. WHY would you blame Ralph Q Whitey for his grandfather owning slaves? No rational person would. You might reasonably expect that Mr Whitey would have the common sense and decency to admit he has benefited from the misdeeds of Grandpa Whitey, but you don't blame Mr Whitey for his grandfather's crimes against humanity.
This is just moral common sense.
So, as you can see, it has NOTHING to do with agreeing with me and everything to do with holding a rational, moral set of principles.
Marshal:
You made a lame claim that six "white guys" protesting at a "pride" event you attended were wrong to speak God's truth
Yes, I DO think they were wrong because I DON'T think they had a single bit of thing to do with ANY of God's truth. I think there messages of intolerance and hate were directly in contrast with God's truth that God loves everyone.
I think that, while they have a right to be bigoted jerks, that they were wrong to be THERE specifically because it is a celebration and party day, a time of love and unity and grace.
a. EVEN IF you think "the gays" are wrong, this is not a smart way to win them over.
b. You're going to alienate people and make them recognize what hateful jerks you are, at best, and at worst, going to contribute to the notion held by some in the progressive/moderate/normal world that "god" and religion is NOT a safe place for LGBTQ folks to be anywhere near.
c. Thus, if the hope is to "win over" some who attend and see them "saved" to follow in their bigoted, oppressive jackboot steps, it's counterproductive to that message. I'd be willing to bet that such hate-styled attacks on days of celebration have never convinced EVEN ONE person to "get saved" to that hell-religion, AND that it has pushed people even further away from that human tradition. Again, counter productive, on the face of it, EVEN IF you believe in that sort of oppressive hate messaging.
Now, you've demonstrated you have no reason, decency, morality or data to support your hate claims and slander, just move on. Go away. Hate messages are not welcome here.
Marshal (in a now-deleted comment)...
especially as regards your beloved homosexuals and hatred toward actual Christians and conservatives
It's telling that you find it an apparent "Bad" that I have beloved homosexuals in my beloved community. I guess that means that you don't?
And do you think that's a good thing? (Hint: It's not.)
And I love all kinds of Christians and conservatives. That I disagree with people like you and my beloved conservative family members does not mean that I can't also love them and you, even.
It IS telling that you don't seem to find room for disagreeing (strongly, even) and still loving.
Marshal, in a now-deleted post because of his abusive attacks that are stupidly false without even an attempt to support them, said:
Why is it not a good thing if my congregation contains no homosexuals?
Because, of course, homosexuals, lesbians, CIS straight folks, trans folks... we are ALL beloved children of God. If your church is missing a whole group of people, that says something about your church... most likely, that your church is not a safe, welcoming place to be. To hell with that nonsense.
The real question is WHY would you need to ask this? The answer appears to be, because you've blinded yourself.
Marshal:
Should it contain people who openly defy God's Will?
I would guess that almost no LGBTQ folks are "openly defying God's will." Rather, they dare to disagree with your puny little mortal bigotries. But dear son, YOU are not God and your arms are not long enough to box with God.
Step down from your Unholy Throne and let God be God.
Daring to disagree with Marshal is no sin. Daring to disagree with Marshal when Marshal is CLEARLY taking an openly immoral, graceless and irrational-as-hell position is, indeed, called for.
Marshal asked in an abusive, disrespectful post if I was the one posting anonymously on his blog. No, it wasn't me. It doesn't read like me, that's not how I write.
Marshal, in an abusive, disrespectful bit of unsupported and stupidly false charges said:
If they're like your beloved homosexuals who refuse to abide God's Will
We're all God's beloved, Marshal. And my LGBTQ friends don't "refuse to abide God's will," they strive to do the right thing and the Christians amongst them absolutely want to comply with God's will. What they're doing, rather, is daring to disagree with Marshal's little human opinions. Disagreeing with Marshal is not disagreeing with God. We - none of us - are obliged to heed Marshal's abusive, oppressive demands and align our lives with Marshal's mortal will.
Now, the question YOU need to answer is:
Do you recognize that people of good faith who genuinely want to do the right thing DO sometimes disagree with Marshal on what God's will is on a wide variety of topics?
AND that we are under no moral or rational compulsion to bow down to Marshal's opinions?
They're simple questions with only ONE rationally correct answer. Answer them or move on. No more comments on this post unless you respectfully answer these questions, directly, clearly. IF you choose to make a fact claim in your response, that claim MUST be supported with objective proof.
Do yourself a favor: Move on. You've lost and are only digging a deeper hole for yourself.
Actually, it read quite like how you post comments, and certainly like your responses to me here, which why I wondered.
You continue to lie about me, and begin this comment with an intentional lie:
"Marshal, in an abusive, disrespectful bit of unsupported and stupidly false charges..."
Nothing I said was anything like this. You just need anyone who reads your blog to believe your false portrayal of me.
"And my LGBTQ friends don't "refuse to abide God's will,"..."
They absolutely do if they think they can remain "LGBTQ" and proclaim that behavior as not contrary to God's Will, which it absolutely is. It's not my "little human opinion" which is just you choosing hateful condescension over "respectful, adult discourse". It is an accurate reference to that which is clearly revealed in Scripture. To disagree with the truth I present is to disagree with He who first presented the Truth to us.
And even if you want to insist I'm presenting my "little human opinion", the fact remains that unlike your "little human opinion", mine is based on actual Scriptural verses to which I can point, while you contrary "little human opinion" is based on no verse of any kind.
" Do you recognize that people of good faith who genuinely want to do the right thing DO sometimes disagree with Marshal on what God's will is on a wide variety of topics? "
Yes. Do you know any "people of good faith"? You're not among them, nor are your beloved if they insist they're right with God while willfully clinging to that which God has called sinful.
"AND that we are under no moral or rational compulsion to bow down to Marshal's opinions?"
No one is, whether they be actually people of good faith or those like you. And you'll prove your not a person of good faith when you choose to regard my responses as disrespectful and again delete them on that always false charge.
I've not lost at all,. Black Knight. And you haven't come close to proving otherwise.
Marshal:
the fact remains that unlike your "little human opinion", mine is based on actual Scriptural verses to which I can point, while you contrary "little human opinion" is based on no verse of any kind.
1. You have yet to ever prove that one NEEDS to "point to a verse" to prove a theory about a moral position. Myself, I'm not that limited. I can point to ALL KINDS of bad and immoral behaviors without needing ONE BLESSED SINGLE LITTLE VERSE. You see, I'm not a bibliolater.
Is it wrong to drop bombs on little children? YES, of course, it is EVEN IF there is no verse in the bible that tells me so.
Is it wrong to drive drunk and at high speed in a school zone? YES, of course, it is, even if I don't have a verse I can point to.
See how easy it is?
2. Is it your personal human opinion that you personally are entirely impotent, incompetent and incapable of recognizing bad behavior if you don't have a verse to your name? If so, that doesn't speak well of your moral reasoning capacity, does it?
3. EVEN IF you find verses that embolden you to attack innocent people and condemn gay folk for, for instance, daring to date or marry, what of it? That YOU personally can read a verse and say, "You know, to me, personally, that verse makes me think it's wrong for gay guys to marry..." does not mean one single blessed thing.
Do you understand that?
I mean, the racists ALSO find verses that say (to them) black and white people shouldn't marry.
The enslavers ALSO find verses that say (to them) that enslaving humans is a moral option.
That human beings find verses that make them feel better about their personal bigotries and biases is not proof of anything but the power of hateful thinking to corrupt a human soul.
Let go of your hateful thinking.
Marshal...
while you contrary "little human opinion" is based on no verse of any kind.
1. First of all, as already demonstrated, I DO NOT NEED a Bible verse to reach moral conclusions. I'm not that limited. I am a child of an almighty God who made us in the image of God, complete with the capacity for moral reasoning without another adult or book needing to tell me what is and isn't moral.
2. Beyond that, of course, I can point to all kinds of biblical verses that make me support the notion of LGBTQ folks living their own lives, free from oppression. How is it possible that you've been reading me for two decades and missed that?
"Is it wrong to drop bombs on little children? YES, of course, it is EVEN IF there is no verse in the bible that tells me so."
Genesis 9:6, Exodus 23:7, Jeremiah 22:3, Proverbs 6:16-17
It's easy to oppose what God opposes and then say you'd oppose it even if He didn't. But how you pretend you care about innocent blood when you vote for those who take it annually is beyond resolving. Then of course if God didn't oppose it, it wouldn't be immoral or evil, nor would it be because Dan Trabue doesn't like it. The same goes for the next one:
"Is it wrong to drive drunk and at high speed in a school zone? YES, of course, it is, even if I don't have a verse I can point to."
Ephesians 5:18, Proverbs 23:20-21, Romans 13:13, Galatians 5:21
You seem to think you get to dictate what is sin or not regardless of what Scripture teaches, as if you have some authority OVER Scripture to think that your opinion on a behavior is somehow binding on humanity. It isn't. Only Scripture is.
As I said, you act as if without Scripture...or any personal knowledge of any deity at all...that you'd somehow magically have the same "morality" you claim to have now. But that's in no way falsifiable and your character isn't such that I would put money on it.
"2. Is it your personal human opinion that you personally are entirely impotent, incompetent and incapable of recognizing bad behavior if you don't have a verse to your name?"
How does this question qualify as "respectful and adult"? My position is that without God, bad behavior is a matter of what's fashionable. It's consensus opinion which isn't binding on anyone beyond any civil laws regulating a given behavior. Behavior made illegal isn't made immoral by such legislation. Without God, there's no such thing as morality. If you believe otherwise, that doesn't speak well of your "reasoning" capacity (*snicker*), does it?
"3. EVEN IF you find verses that embolden you to attack innocent people and condemn gay folk for, for instance, daring to date or marry, what of it? "
Again with the "disrespect and immature discourse"! Even if I wanted to attack anyone for being homosexual, and sought a verse to do so, there's only one I need and more than that. But I don't "attack" "gay" people. I "attack" immorality of all kinds and the falsehoods and corruptions used to promote and legitimize their behavior, which is a detriment to our culture.
"That YOU personally can read a verse and say, "You know, to me, personally, that verse makes me think it's wrong for gay guys to marry..." does not mean one single blessed thing."
I never argue in this manner. Unlike you, I use facts, reason, logic and truth...none of which are present in the promotion, celebration, defense and enabling of homosexuality in any form.
"I mean, the racists ALSO find verses that say (to them) black and white people shouldn't marry. The enslavers ALSO find verses that say (to them) that enslaving humans is a moral option."
Irrelevant. But they have no more basis in Scripture to support their position than you have in supporting yours. My position is absolutely supported by Biblical teaching.
"That human beings find verses that make them feel better about their personal bigotries and biases is not proof of anything but the power of hateful thinking to corrupt a human soul."
More "disrespectful and immature discourse". I'm not bigoted because I recognize specific behaviors as contrary to the Will of God...because He Himself clearly and unequivocally stated they are. How does aligning myself with God (which is how it works for true Christ-followers I aspire to be among) rather than what you're accusing me of doing...the complete opposite...suggest "hateful thinking" or a "corrupt human soul"??? Explain that. Scripture's crystal clear on the behavior in question, as I've maintained and proven time and time again, while you've failed miserably to suggest Scripture provides for your corrupt counter argument. Your bigotry and biases against true Christians has long been noted. Stop hating Christians. Stop hating Christ.
"1. First of all, as already demonstrated, I DO NOT NEED a Bible verse to reach moral conclusions."
There's no other way to do it, as morality is from God. If what you wish to call moral is contrary to His clearly revealed Will....which it so clearly is on the issues of SSM and abortion, for example, then you're only asserting those things are moral (or not "immoral") on the basis of personal subjective whim. You can't "reason" those behaviors into morality. You can only lie that they are.
"2. Beyond that, of course, I can point to all kinds of biblical verses that make me support the notion of LGBTQ folks living their own lives, free from oppression. How is it possible that you've been reading me for two decades and missed that?"
Because you've failed to actually accomplish that nefarious intention. You're not the intellectual you think you are, and your many laughable attempts to rationalize your support for that which God has called abomination are insipid and vacuous. Sorry, but that's a totally objective assessment. I doubt "gay" people would buy it.
Now, that's not to say that verses may exist to support the claim that people in general should be able to live lives free from oppression. But if you're going to try to pretend that it is referencing anyone other than truly obedient children of God...uh uh. It doesn't work that way. You have to first give evidence that ANY homosexual relationship can ever be seen as better than a sinful one, and no...NO verses related to marriage does that, given no Biblical references to marriage suggest anything other than one man/one woman.
So what I've seen over the last two decades is among the weakest attempts to rationalize bad behavior that isn't as bad as that of any child rationalizing tripping his little sister.
Post a Comment