Hilarious

“He asked: “But why we do need eight-inch or ten-inch kitchen knives with points?”

“Butchers and fishmongers do, but how often, if at all, does a domestic chef use the point of an eight-inch or ten-inch knife? Rarely, if at all.”

Does any of this sound familiar?  Why should anyone be in the position to dictate what other people “need”?

Starbucks owes me money!

Last February I was in Clearwater Florida on a combination business trip for my wife and to see family.   One night we were trying to find someplace for a late dinner, and while driving through the beach area, I was struck by an acute need for a bathroom.   So I got dropped off outside of Starbucks, ran inside, frantically ordered and paid for an iced tea before asking for the bathroom key.   At that point I availed myself of the pissoir, grabbed my tea, and left.  Needless to say I didn’t drink the tea, which I just spent about $4.50 on.   I clearly made the mistake of thinking that the most respectful way to ask to use the bathroom was to become a paying customer, I guess I’m an idiot.

FYI, any time I stop at a gas station just to use the bathroom, I buy something.    It just seems like the right way to operate.

Ok Dan

My original plan was to try to identify this "one question" you keep bitching that hasn't been answered, and put it in a separate post with an answer.  But, upon trying to untangle the convoluted mess of multiple versions of this "one question" and all the extraneous crap, I decide to do this instead.

You have one opportunity to ask this "one question" right here and right now.  I would hope that you could edit it down to something manageable and reasonably direct and specific.

But, unlike you, I refuse to engage in prior restraint. 

Your call.  I want you to have the chance to ask the question you want, not my attempt to tease it out of multiple off topic comments.

Dan is so scared to have his off topic comments get posted at his blog that he's imposed coment moderation to prevent the posting of his own words.

So, in the name of fighting fear, I'll post them here.

1. DAN  "And to be clear, Craig, I've never told you that you were evil for disagreeing with your opinions (although, I've certainly been told that by conservatives, probably including Marshall), so that IS something to laugh at.

What I HAVE done is say that it is evil to counsel someone, "You know, your choice about marriage will lead you to a longer, healthier and happier life... but you shouldn't do that. You should embrace the odds of a shorter, sicker, sadder life because I think it's what God wants you to do..."

If you're taking that sort of action, I'd call that evil. If you're not doing it, I'm not calling it evil.

See the difference?

Do you agree that someone - like Marshall, perhaps? - who would do this is going to be seen as advocating an evil, ugly, awful position?"

2.  DAN  " Craig, I steadfastly asked you this question directly about half a dozen times in a previous post. You just as steadfastly refused to answer the question directly.

Marshall DID answer the question in the probably typical fundamentalist/evangelical manner, stating that he'd counsel people to die younger and more miserable rather than marry and live longer and happier and healthier.

You can't really blame me for not knowing your position if, when asked repeatedly, you opted to not answer.

It's not fantasy, evangelicals like Marshall demonstrate that it's not an uncommon position to hold (I know many, many others. Hell, I would probably have been one to take that position in my more fundamentalist days!)

Further, I didn't SAY you counseled this. I merely noted that those who DO counsel such harmful behavior are not acting in a loving, moral, manner. (indeed, here is literally what I said:

"If you're taking that sort of action, I'd call that evil.
If you're not doing it, I'm not calling it evil."

Are you agreeing, then, that those who engage in such counseling ARE engaging in harmful, ugly... nay, even evil! ... manner?

Further, I use "evil" sometimes specifically with evangelicals/fundamentalists because it is their language, to try to help them understand how they are coming across.

So, seeing as I never even remotely SAID that you counseled people thusly (and indeed, in spite of your repeated refusal to make yourself clear, I literally directly specifically gave you an "out..."), I'm deeply amused by your nonsensical spin.

May 15, 2018 at 1:17 PM  

 

3.  ART  "No spin on our parts, Danny-boy. That's YOUR thing, as you now try to pretend I claimed I would counsel any to die younger. That's simply another blatant lie to add to your long list of lies. Indeed, my response demonstrates a far greater concern for the mortality for those whose sexual immorality you promote and celebrate, particularly given the FACT that your counsel does lead to premature death on average, even if it results in living longer than would what they are currently doing.

Again, you do them no favors by telling them to get only "so" drunk every day than the completely falling down and puking drunkenness to which they are accustomed. You do them no favors by counseling them to use clean needles when they shoot smack as opposed to using whatever is handy. But at least with the drunkard and addict there is no permanence attached and you could at least maintain that you're taking baby steps toward sobriety.

But what you're doing is counseling ongoing engagement in a behavior that all honest medical professionals attest is dangerous in a way heterosexual sex never is. You're delaying the inevitable to which the culmination of damage will result. I prefer the more medically intelligent and the totally Christian advice of abstaining from the harmful lifestyle and repent, replacing it with a truly and absolutely supported-by-Scripture moral existence.

Thus, by comparison, and in light of clearly obvious Scriptural teaching on the subject of sexual morality, you are most certainly and beyond any doubt evil for promoting, celebrating and counseling homosexuals toward a sinful immoral lifestyle. It is not hyperbole. It is fact.

Too many have left the lifestyle with Christ's help to suggest that my counseling is anything less than the most beneficial, as so many of them insist they live a happy and fulfilling life (and we know how self-reporting is regarded by you when it's homosexuals doing the reporting). And again, despite YOUR evil promoting advice possibly resulting in less risk, it is more than risk that continues to exist in continuing to engage in dangerous behavior. It's a given.

Let's assume two homosexuals are virgins, neither ever having engaged in ANY form of sexual behavior. They meet. They "fall in love". They deny themselves sexual pleasure until after committing fully to each other, forsaking all others. They have now begun a path that will lead to a shorter life than they would have had had they not chosen to "marry" and engage in homosexual behavior. This is the fact of things, and once more, no honest and honorable medical professional would say otherwise.

Thus, my answer was NOT "typical fundamentalist/evangelical manner", unless by that you mean THE TRUTH, in which case, thank you very much for noticing. And if you meant that, it also means it is pleasing to God to respond to the false choice you present in the manner I do. Yours is not, and is rebellion. You are advising sin. I am advising rejecting sin. That you dare try to pretend it is anything less means you are indeed evil.

If I'm a promiscuous normal person, whoring about bedding as many women as I please, and then I am counseled to marry and remain faithful to one woman, and then I do, I am now no longer sinning because the sexual behavior to which I now restrict myself is the one form of sexual behavior never prohibited and is faithful to God's plan for human sexuality (don't even think of demanding I provide the verse that requires "God's plan for human sexuality" in order for this to be true). But if I were a homosexual, and ceased my wild days for a lifelong monogamous life with only one man, I am still sinning, because God prohibits homosexual behavior with not so much as a hint that there is any context or scenario in which it would not still be sinful and an abomination. So not only are you counseling them to physical harm, but spiritual harm as well. Again, that's evil.

May 15, 2018 at 2:59 PM"

 

4. DAN "
Again, fellas, IF you would just answer directly questions put to you directly, then IF there was any confusion on my part, it would be on MY part. But when you give vague sort of answers or no answers, that leaves people to put together your position the best we can.

This is part of why people ask questions and reasonable people answer them, directly and clearly. To be understood.

I do not believe I have misstated anything Marshall or anyone else has said. But, IF you can say where I have, point to it directly and tell me how it is wrong, then you would be adding to clarity and I could apologize if I misspoke.

But vague general claims are pretty much worthless.

I would ask that you to be respectful and not knowingly post off topic comments on my blog. Thank you.

As to your concern about my "off topic" comments, I responded to Marshall's comment to clarify something that Marshall mistakenly said about me. You have not been all emotionally distraught about his off topic commentary, only mine.

Partisan, much?

Beyond that, I have been responding directly to YOUR words in YOUR post about false claims YOU made about what I have and haven't done. If you don't want me to respond to YOUR commentary in YOUR posts, then perhaps you shouldn't post false claims about me.

But you can't rationally do so and then complain that I responded to YOUR comments in the post.

So, just to be clear: Beyond the one response to clarify Marshall's mistake, I have not made a single comment that was not in response to your words in your post except when I followed up on YOUR comments you made.

Don't bear false witness, bubba"

 

5  DAN   "That lie was that I encouraged homosexusls considering "marriage" to instead remain in their single, unattached life and die sooner.

Again, if you never directly answer a question but give vague indirect comments about the question, do you understand how it is difficult to know what your position is. But here, make it clear:

Again

IF YOU KNEW

That the data said that gay folk who didn't marry (assuming they wanted to, for now) would
die younger, be sicker and less happy...

AND they wanted to marry...

WOULD YOU DISCOURAGE THEM FROM MARRYING?

Answer THAT question directly so I can know your position.

Also, please cite where I said this was your position?

I can find THIS one...

Do you agree that someone -
like Marshall, PERHAPS?
- who would do this is going to be seen as advocating an evil, ugly, awful position?

But that one is clearly STILL in the form of a question. Do you know WHY I asked it in the form of a question?

Because I do not know your position for sure because you have not answered the question directly. You have given vague indirect comments that made it sound like you'd still encourage people to NOT marry, even knowing that they'd be sicker, sadder and die younger, but I don't know. Because you haven't directly answered the question.

I guess I did say it here, in the context of having just ASKED it again...

Marshall DID answer the question in the probably typical fundamentalist/evangelical manner, stating that he'd counsel people to die younger and more miserable rather than marry and live longer and happier and healthier.

What I meant, no doubt, there, is that you DID SEEM to answer the question... so, there, I can clarify that. It SOUNDS like that's what you're saying. BUT YOU TELL ME. Answer the question.

How can I know your position in response to the question asked if you won't answer the question asked?

And, by the way, HERE is your answer that makes it sound a whole helluva lot like you are answering just as I said...

"IF you knew the data said that gay folk who married the person of their choice lived longer and with greater happiness and health than those gay folk who didn't, WOULD YOU counsel them to embrace the shorter and more miserable, sickly life?"

One needn't answer directly if the person asking had spent years supposedly reading the comments of the persons being asked.

WHAT?

The proper answer would be to encourage the homosexual to
reject his urges and desires for strange flesh altogether
and live a life according to Scripture

Is that NOT saying "Yes, I'd tell them not to marry?"

I don't think I got you wrong at all. But answer the question and we'll know."

May 15, 2018 at 8:23 PM

6.  DAN  "Again, I have not been off topic. Not any more than Marshall, anyway.

YOUR WORDS:

I’ve laughed as Dan has been telling me how “evil” I am for disagreeing with his political/social position

YOU brought up the topic of what I've said and not said about the "disagreeing with my political position..." These comments are all related to that and yours and Marshall's comments.

If I'M off topic, we're all off topic.

But by all means, cite something specific that I've said that hasn't been in response to YOUR comments.

You can't do it.

Perhaps it's not me that has a reading comprehension problem?"

 

7.   ART ""Again, if you never directly answer a question but give vague indirect comments about the question, do you understand how it is difficult to know what your position is. But here, make it clear:"

Again you lie. I was crystal clear in my response, which was that I would encourage them to reject homosexuality entirely and live a life that reflects Christian teaching with regard to human sexuality, which is that the ONLY moral expression of human sexuality is that which takes place between a husband (male) and his wife (female). That's basic stuff. If you don't see this response as direct, then you have no business asking questions.

"
Again

IF YOU KNEW

That the data said that gay folk who didn't marry (assuming they wanted to, for now) would
die younger, be sicker and less happy...

AND they wanted to marry...

WOULD YOU DISCOURAGE THEM FROM MARRYING?

Answer THAT question directly so I can know your position."

Though I just answer this, I wanted to make sure you got it: It doesn't matter what the data says. I'm not going to encourage someone to sin, which suggesting SSM is. If sinning makes you happy, less sick and likely to live longer, I'm still not going to recommend sinning. So, it's not that I discourage them from "marrying" (except to find someone of the opposite sex for the purpose), but that I discourage them from engaging in sinful and physically damaging sexual practices. Is this getting through to you at all, or is preaching a moral life that's pleasing to God offensive and evil to you?

"And, by the way, HERE is your answer that makes it sound a whole helluva lot like you are answering just as I said...

"IF you knew the data said that gay folk who married the person of their choice lived longer and with greater happiness and health than those gay folk who didn't, WOULD YOU counsel them to embrace the shorter and more miserable, sickly life?"

One needn't answer directly if the person asking had spent years supposedly reading the comments of the persons being asked.

WHAT?"

What's so unclear about this answer? The clear and unmistakable point is that if you've been paying attention at all to all I've ever said over the years on the subject of homosexuality, there's no way my position would need to be restated yet again to answer this ludicrous question. The answer should be easily imagined as what I've stated above. The choice is not between SSM or no SSM. The choice is between engaging in homosexual behavior or living a moral life according to God's clearly revealed Will for indulging our sexual urges. After all these years, only an idiot would wonder at what my answer might be. I sure know what yours would have been without you having told us.

"Is that NOT saying "Yes, I'd tell them not to marry?"

No. The answer is "I'd tell them to reject homosexual behavior." You can tell by the fact that according to my quote about which the above inquires, The proper answer would be to encourage the homosexual to reject his urges and desires for strange flesh altogether and live a life according to Scripture"

"I don't think I got you wrong at all. But answer the question and we'll know."

This is a lie as well, for yo udon't have me wrong. You simply choose to characterize encouraging sinners to repent and live according to God's Will to be evil. So, I definitely have YOU pegged. You believe God's Will, and the preaching of it, is evil. "

May 16, 2018 at 11:38 AM 

 

 8.  DAN"
So then, the charge that I was misrepresenting you is false. You WOULD encourage someone to die younger, sicker and less happy rather than marry, even if you knew that's what it meant. You'd do this because YOU think their being married and committing to one person in love is a "sin," but you'd encourage them to die younger and more miserably.

Do you recognize then, that I did not misrepresent you? And NO, Marshall, YOU have me wrong. I do NOT EVER IN ANY PLACE EVER characterize repenting and living according to God's will to be evil. I DISAGREE with your human opinions on the topic and thus, don't believe the human religious traditions and biases against gay folk that have resulted in them having certainly more miserable lives, observably and demonstrably so.

So, in summation: I DID correctly characterize your position (albeit tentatively) and you DID NOT characterize MY position correctly.

Delete on, Craig."

Weird liberal stuff on social media

1. An allegedly Christian pastor was stopped while driving his Benz in an upscale neighborhood in SC.   This “gentleman” is also the newly “elected” head of the local NAACP.   This “gentleman” was pulled over for failing to signal a turn.   He proceeded to light up social media with a lurid tale of DWB, overt racism, and general bad coppishness.    Until the body cam video was released which demonstrated that he was not only a liar, but a stupid liar.
2.  This is the second recent incident where the SJW made up racism out of whole cloth and got busted by a body cam.
3.  Apparently nobody finds the fact that this “pastor”, NAACP head, and SJW, was driving a Benz in a upscale neighborhood to be strange.  Mostly the fact that a "pastor" driving a Benz and living high on the hog seems a bit inconsistent.
4.  News that today celebrates the Nakba.   I saw one “pastor” talking about how she had to jettison so much of her upbringing to embrace the politically correct “Hamas is not a terrorist organization” so chic on the left. Apparently she also had to jettison this thing called history.

Love

What’s interesting in all this bleating about “gay marriage” this and “gay marriage” that; is that we’re not talking about “gay marriage”, we’re talking about people.  We’re talking about flawed, sinful humans who are created in the image of God.   We’re talking about individual people who share the same sorts of struggles with sin that we do.  

For years, my mom tried to convince my cousin to come tomorrow church with her, with no avail.  At the point a few years ago when my cousin came out, her immediate family didn’t react well, but my mom just continued to love her.  Mom never affirmed her lifestyle or agreed with her, and had no problem saying so, what she did was love her niece because God loves her.

That cousin and her “partner” were on one side of my mom’s deathbed crying inconsolably, while a friend who is an amazing gospel singer softly sang “Give Me Jesus”.    I’m not smart enough to know where my cousin is spiritually, what I do know is that the love my mom showed her, had a profound impact in her life.

That’s a really round about way of saying that I want to love people more than institutions and causes.  So, when an extremely good friend of mine (we became good friends before I knew, and remain good friends now) invited me to his wedding (to his boyfriend), I decided that I can’t show the love of Jesus to him by making my attendance at his wedding a religious/political statement.   He knows where I stand, and we disagree, yet he invited me and I accepted because our friendship and my desire to love others well, are more important than our disagreement.

I’ve laughed as Dan has been telling me how “evil” I am for disagreeing with his political/social position, while knowing where I’d be Saturday afternoon and evening.  

I may or may not be making the right decision, but I’m going to err on the side of living individual people, not on the side of using them to push an agenda.

Miracles

I see way too many self identified Christians who are satisfied with a God without either the ability, or the involvement in our lives, to intervene in miraculous ways.

Sure, we hear people say “It’s a miracle I got a good parking spot.”, or “It’s a miracle my kid got into the best pre school.”, but that’s not what I’m talking about.

No, I’m talking about a God who can and will intervene by suspending or modifying the laws of physics or who will work through the federal bureaucracy to protect someone.

I’m amazed that the God who spoke creation into existence, cares enough about my family to provide some miracles in a really hard time.

Quotes

“Marriage to the person of our choice is good.”

Quotes or the ability to copy/paste is one of the wonders of outr technology.   It completely eliminates the chance of a transcription or spelling error when quoting someone.  It even allows instant context.  What a great thing this is. 


“Otherwise, it is obviously good that we should be allowed to be self-determining. This is a overt obvious good. Marriage to the person of our choice is good.


In all seriousness, does anyone seriously believe that the above is True as stated?

Job

Y’all ever feel like Job?   Like, “How can I take one more hit?”.  

Right now, sure do.  

Despite that, I’m confident that God has a plan, and that He’s truly sovereign, and that I’m loved by Him and by my friends.  

I know that I’ll (we’ll) get through this and that whatever God’s plan is, it’ll be good.

But it still kind of stinks.

Healthy

If I wasn’t a doctor, and there were multiple, actual doctors who had done the research to demonstrate that certain behaviors were specifically linked to outcomes that were unhealthy, I’m not sure I’d be crowing about how healthy those things are.

I also don’t think I’d argue that sexual activity between a male and a female wasn’t heterosexual, but that’s just me.  Living in the real world.  Where words have definitions and people don’t delete others for disagreeing.   But, that’s just me.