https://winteryknight.com/2022/06/02/new-study-there-is-no-gay-gene-that-causes-homosexuality-3/
This is what happens when you follow the evidence where it leads instead of where you want it to lead, and have enough courage to publish your findings anyway.
This is what one of the leading proponents of Darwinsim/Materialism/Naturalism has to say about what's important, meaning, suffering, and evil.
“The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are slowly being devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst, and disease. It must be so. If there ever is a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in the population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored. In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.”
― River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life
60 comments:
Clearly those are outliers, Craig. Only experts who support the agenda are truly experts, because...you know...consensus, or something.
Once again, there is no left hand gene. Nonetheless, people actually are left handed and people actually are homosexual and lesbian and transgender. Do you agree with that reality? Just because we can't prove it in a lab doesn't mean that people aren't left handed or gay, right?
And just because left handed and gay people are not the norm does not mean there's anything unusual or wrong with them, right? It's just a natural innate reality, our handedness and our orientation. Agreed?
"Do you agree with that reality?"
Yes.
"Just because we can't prove it in a lab doesn't mean that people aren't left handed or gay, right?"
No, but it does mean that, despite years of claims, that there is currently no evidence of homosexuality being a genetic or biological trait. The good news is that now people won't abort babies who have a "gay gene". This also removes support from the gay=race crowd.
"And just because left handed and gay people are not the norm does not mean there's anything unusual or wrong with them, right?"
I guess it depends on how you define "unusual" doesn't it. I'd argue that something that is present in less than 5% of the population is "unusual".
"It's just a natural innate reality, our handedness and our orientation. Agreed?"
In a sense.
There's a vast difference between "unusual" and "immoral" or "perverse". "Lefthandedness" is merely unusual. Homosexuality is unusual, immoral and perverse.
Homosexuality (including lesbianism, although I don't know why we have to have different terms) may be a desire someone has for whatever genetic or other defect causes it, but NO ONE has to act on that desire. God calls the activity an abomination worthy of execution. Biology shows it is not normal sexual activity, etc, so real science is against homosexuality.
There is no such thing as "transgender." It's made up term allowing people with brain/emotional problems to pretend they are members of the opposite sex but, again, science/biology proves no one can change the sex/gender with which they were born.
It's interesting that in a worldview where some form of Darwinian theory/Materialism/Naturalism is the prevailing view of Science, that a form of behavior that does absolutely zero to preserve or propagate the existence of the species, is considered to be a good thing. It's literally an evolutionary dead end. Same sex couples are taking bodies and reproductive systems that COULD be used to increase the propagation of the species out of the service for which they evolved.
It's almost like they have to lay aside their commitment to the ideology that drives much of the Scientific community and make a commitment to a political ideology in it's place.
I could be wrong, but isn't taking something that was created or evolved to fulfill one specific purpose and using it for a different purpose pretty much the exact definition of perverting something?
No. It's literally not. You, on the other hand, by trying to make something beautiful perverted and not undesirable are literally being perverted. Understand now?
Also, your understanding of science is not any better than your understanding of words.
Look, I would just ask you all to think about this rationally, setting aside any bigotries and religious biases that arise from your human traditions. Open your minds and listen.
Here's a story of a lesbian school teacher who married lesbian Social worker. Church going people. Sunday school teachers. Sweet. Not people who act out sexually.
They love each other and committed to one another and and a wholesome, pure loving marriage relationship. They went on to adopt not one but FOUR siblings from a troubled home. Oftentimes in the adoption world, siblings are broke up because no 1 family can take on 4 children all at once.
But these two Godly, loving mothers adopted these 4 children at some good amount of expense and effort on their own part. They also tried to continue to help the mother who was losing the children. I can't emphasize enough how much these are good, wholesome, Pure, noble, godly, loving, loving, loving, gracious, self-sacrificing, compassionate people these sainted women are.
There is there is nothing - understand me literally and completely - NOTHING of perversion in them.
BUT there are people in the world like you all who would call this loving pure beautiful marriage an immoral perversion. Do you all see how very ugly and hateful and perverted that accusation is?
Have an open mind. Look at it dispassionately and rationally. There is nothing literally nothing perverted about their life. It is all good and godly and sweet and kind.
At the very least, can you see how someone could look at these women and how very good and holy they are, and then look at you all calling them perverts... can you understand how rational and decent people would consider you all to be the perverts and depraved ones?
Craig...
"I could be wrong, but isn't taking something that was created or evolved to fulfill one specific purpose..."
But weren't created for one purpose, nor do they evolve from one purpose. No one is saying that... or at least good, rational, moral and just people are not saying that. Science is certainly not saying that.
So again, you have a bad understanding of science.. Or perhaps more likely, you're trying to abuse science in a perverted way to fulfill your own perverse partisan and religious needs. Do you see the problem with that?
"No. It's literally not."
Really? The reproductive system in mammals isn't designed/evolved to fulfill a certain specific purpose? That's quite the claim.
"Look, I would just ask you all to think about this rationally, setting aside any bigotries and religious biases that arise from your human traditions."
Condescending much?
"There is there is nothing - understand me literally and completely - NOTHING of perversion in them."
Again, that's quite a claim. Where's the proof? Are you saying that you perfectly know everything about these people?
What an absurd anecdote, pretending to be proof.
"But weren't created for one purpose, nor do they evolve from one purpose. No one is saying that... or at least good, rational, moral and just people are not saying that. Science is certainly not saying that."
1. "Science" is literally saying that the highest "purpose" of the evolutionary process is propagating of the species. I could post the quotes again, but it's clearly not worth it.
2. The reproductive system is designed/evolved for one specific purpose. To reproduce and continue that species.
"Do you see the problem with that?"
I do see the problem in you attempting to draw conclusions and assign motive based on your prejudices and preconceptions.
"There is there is nothing - understand me literally and completely - NOTHING of perversion in them."
Well, they're lesbians, so there's that...
Once again we see Dan painting over the obvious with that which doesn't mitigate it whatsoever. I again refer to Al Capone's soup kitchens. A very nice gesture which fed many people. I guess that made him a beautiful guy.
But just like Al, these "godly" women choose to continue doing that which God has called "abomination", pretending like Dan does that there somehow was some change by the Lord which made the behavior morally good or benign, and did so in a manner by which only homosexuals were enlightened. Dan wants us to believe that because they're "nice", they are therefore "good" while engaging in detestable behavior. But being "nice", going to church, adopting kids (God help those poor kids who are being corrupted daily!!!)...none of that means jack if they are willfully, intentionally and eagerly engaging in behavior which is clearly and unmistakably sinful and forbidden by God as homosexual practice clearly is.
Dan once again fails to support his position with anything either Scriptural or scientific. He merely attacks those of us who favor both for informing our "human traditions" (as if that term suggests something negative in any way). In the meantime, his unChristian traditions of wallowing in sexual perversity he defends in the cheapest and most false and childish manner.
It doesn't matter what nice things a person does. What matters is the moral status of a given behavior in which that person engages. Nice guys can be drug dealers selling dope to consenting adults who are nice people who like a buzz now and then. They're still drug dealers engaged in illegal activity and thus immoral for doing so. So too is it true of Dan's "nice" lesbians. I will say this, though...if their lusts are their only sin, they're far more godly than Dan chooses to be.
Craig...
"The reproductive system in mammals isn't designed/evolved to fulfill a certain specific purpose? That's quite the claim."
No, it's literally not. They DO fulfill specific purposes - PLURAL - but not a specific God-Ordained, this and only this purpose and if the mammal isn't using that vagina or penis, ovary or gonad in that ONE manner, then it is "wrong..."
Read more biology and evolution science and understand them better. Once again, your failure to understand science, biology and words is not an indication that you are right.
But by all means, clarify. When you say...
"isn't taking something that was created or evolved to fulfill one specific purpose and using it for a different purpose"
What "thing" are you talking about that evolved for what "one specific purpose" and who or what is using it "for a different purpose...?
Can you find ANY actual scientist who says that a mammal that is not using their ovaries for producing more and more offspring that this mammal is "wrong..."? It's just not like that.
Craig...
" that's quite a claim. Where's the proof? Are you saying that you perfectly know everything about these people?
What an absurd anecdote, pretending to be proof."
First of all, between the two of us, I alone am the one in a better position to know these close friends. You don't know the first thing about them and I am the one who is telling you the factually correct points. GIVEN WHAT YOU KNOW about them (from me and I'm not making it up), WHAT IS PERVERTED?
Or, can you acknowledge that you are not in a place to call these complete strangers perverted?
Can you acknowledge that, indeed, it is incredibly oppressive and perverted and indecent for you to make such claims about people you don't know a thing about?
And beyond that, just answer ONE question ONE time? All this dodging and obfuscation is a perverted use of language. Answer questions. Directly, clearly.
At the very least, can you see how someone could look at these women and how very good and holy they are, and then look at you all calling them perverts... can you understand how rational and decent people would consider you all to be the perverts and depraved ones?
As to how well I know them, these are church friends of mine and I don't know about your church, but at my church, we get to actually know our fellow congregants and know about them and their lives. Do I know every single thing about them? Of course not, but neither do you. And what I DO know says that there's just no time in their lives for whatever orgiastic "perversions" you are thinking of in your fevered imagination about people you know nothing about.
Admit it: Given the data you DO have, you have NO REASON to presume that these people are perverse. That is the fact of it all, can you acknowledge that facts or are you determined to be factually perverted and a factual perverter, yourself?
I wonder what literally is in your fevered imagination that would make you think people like these two saints are perverts? What specifically is it you're imagining they do that makes them perverts?
When you suggest I don't know all about them, you must have some dirty little thoughts in your mind... do you think they live secret lives of dirty deeds that they keep hidden? Why would you think that of people you literally don't know?
I wonder what literally is in your fevered imagination that would make you think people like these two saints are perverts? What specifically is it you're imagining they do that makes them perverts?
When you suggest I don't know all about them, you must have some dirty little thoughts in your mind... do you think they live secret lives of dirty deeds that they keep hidden? Why would you think that of people you literally don't know?
I wonder what it is that causes you to pretend like your anecdotes are anything more than your biased, imperfect, opinions based on indirect or second hand observations. I further wonder why you felt like this inane comment needed to be posted twice.
The posting it twice is clearly a computer glitch.
The reason I asked the question is that this is the reality I suspect for most friends and allies of LGBTQ people. They see their LGBTQ friends and know them to be decent, moral, kind, compassionate, even Godly people. Then they look at comments like the ones from you all where you all call these very good people, "perverts."
I'm wondering if you can at least understand why people will consider YOU all the aggressors and the evil ones in that scenario? Why would you not answer the question?
The more you attack LGBTQ people and call them - these people that you don't even know - perverts and other other demonizing names, and the more you dodge questions, the more it is the reality that you look like the bad guys. The accuser, to use biblical language. Does that not concern you?
"Read more biology and evolution science and understand them better."
Based on your limited knowledge of what those steeped in Darwinian theory/Materialism/Naturalism actually say, I'm thinking that you might be the one who needs more study.
But this notion that the "reproductive system" isn't primarily intended for reproduction is pretty humorous.
"What "thing" are you talking about that evolved for what "one specific purpose" and who or what is using it "for a different purpose...?"
I'm literally talking about ANYTHNG that is created for a specific purpose. For example, using a hammer to screw in a lag bolt.
"Pervert, alter (something) from its original course, meaning, or state to a distortion or corruption of what was first intended."
If one accepts the standard definition of "pervert" (or perversion), it's clear that using ANYTHING in a way that doesn't fit the original purpose is to "pervert" it.
"Can you find ANY actual scientist who says that a mammal that is not using their ovaries for producing more and more offspring that this mammal is "wrong..."?"
Where exactly did I use the term "wrong" in this context? If you're asking if I can find someone who used those exact words, probably not.
I can definitely find examples of prominent scientists who will insist that the driving force of Evolution is to perpetuate the species (or genes, or similar). In fact I've done so many times already. Given the reality that ovaries serve no purpose other than their reproductive function, it would logically follow that a mammal failing to use their ovaries for the purpose of propagating their species was failing in their primary purpose. Further, given the reality of mammalian biology, female animals can't use their ovaries 24/7/365 for reproduction, it would be absurd to make such a vague generalized statement as your question supposes.
"https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/body/22999-ovaries"
According to the experts at the Cleveland Clinic (a nationally respected medical institution) ovaries have no purpose other than reproduction.
"First of all, between the two of us, I alone am the one in a better position to know these close friends. You don't know the first thing about them and I am the one who is telling you the factually correct points."
No, you are telling me your biased opinions based on your limited observation of these people. You can't assert that something is "factually True" without offering objective proof. "Because I said so" hardly constitutes objective proof of something being "factually True". You are right that I don't know these people, pert of the reason I know nothing objectively True about these people is that I only have your assertions of anecdotal impressions based on your biased observations of parts of their lives to go by.
"WHAT IS PERVERTED?"
I provided a definition of pervert earlier.
"Or, can you acknowledge that you are not in a place to call these complete strangers perverted?"
Where did I call them "perverted"? According to the definition, I could rationally argue that everyone is "perverted" in at least some area of their lives.
"Can you acknowledge that, indeed, it is incredibly oppressive and perverted and indecent for you to make such claims about people you don't know a thing about?"
Again, what specific claims are you referring to? I can't respond to some vague, generalized, non specific claim.
"And beyond that, just answer ONE question ONE time?
I've literally answered virtually every question you've asked.
"At the very least, can you see how someone could look at these women and how very good and holy they are, and then look at you all calling them perverts... can you understand how rational and decent people would consider you all to be the perverts and depraved ones?"
Yes, I can see how people might appear to be "good and holy" in the parts of their lives visible to others, and how those who observe those public parts of their lives might reach that conclusion. Since I admit to my depravity, and I'm sure that I have engaged in perversion of some sort during my life that sort of name calling doesn't really affect me. I acknowledge that I am a sinner saved by God's grace and Jesus actions, and that I'm not defined by my depravity and perversion, but I'm defined by my position as sinner saved by grace.
"As to how well I know them, these are church friends of mine and I don't know about your church, but at my church, we get to actually know our fellow congregants and know about them and their lives. Do I know every single thing about them? Of course not, but neither do you. And what I DO know says that there's just no time in their lives for whatever orgiastic "perversions" you are thinking of in your fevered imagination about people you know nothing about."
I'll give you this, as far as your usual attempts to derail the thread, this is pretty impressive. Your introduction of anecdotal stories with minimal details (likely cherry picked to provide the best possible impression of these people), as if these anecdotes were some sort of objective, factual, evidence, is absurd but creative. The point is that I don't give a shit about your anecdotal perfect friends. I have absolutely zero way to confirm or refute your unsupported claims, and no interest in doing so. At least you admit that your knowledge is incomplete. Again, well done in trying to turn this thread into a discussion of your anecdotal opinions about your unidentified, friends. Instead of doing something productive like dealing with the studies and data presented in the original post.
"Admit it: Given the data you DO have, you have NO REASON to presume that these people are perverse. That is the fact of it all, can you acknowledge that facts or are you determined to be factually perverted and a factual perverter, yourself?"
Since I have absolutely zero objective data, I have no reason to waste any more time on your simply repeating the same bullshit I've already responded to/answered.
FYI, I'm always going to answer your questions because doing so makes you look like the petty, childish, person that you appear to be, and because it simply points out your failure to answer questions when asked.
Because clearly everyone should know that you posting something twice was automatically a "computer glitch". Like you've never asked the same question multiple times in the same comment, or repeated yourself before.
"I'm wondering if you can at least understand why people will consider YOU all the aggressors and the evil ones in that scenario? Why would you not answer the question?"
1. I don;t really care what people of your ilk consider me. I don't arrange my life hoping for approval from people of your ilk.
2. I did answer the question.
"The more you attack LGBTQ people and call them - these people that you don't even know - perverts and other other demonizing names, and the more you dodge questions, the more it is the reality that you look like the bad guys. The accuser, to use biblical language. Does that not concern you?"
1. Where have I specifically called LGBTQ people "perverts"?
2. As per the definition of "pervert", I challenge you to find anyone who has not perverted anything in their entire life.
3. I've literally answered every question you've asked, or asked for specific clarification so that I can answer certain questions more appropriately.
4. Again, I don't arrange my life in order than people of your ilk approve of everything I do or say. For me to do so would mean violating my conscience, beliefs, and convictions. Why would I give those things up in order to gain the approval of some rando in the internet?
"GIVEN WHAT YOU KNOW about them (from me and I'm not making it up), WHAT IS PERVERTED?"
They're homosexuals, who are apparently, unless you can confirm otherwise which is unlikely, engaging in homosexual behavior. Can you, with your unique perspective into their personal lives, confirm not a single homosexual couple ever engages in any sexual behavior with each other? If so, there is still the question of their desire, which is also perverted. To desire sex with another of the same sex is a perverted desire based on one's biology. I know that sort of thing turns Dan on, but being turned on by anything doesn't make that thing normal or moral.
"Can you find ANY actual scientist who says that a mammal that is not using their ovaries for producing more and more offspring that this mammal is "wrong..."? "
Aside from people, which mammals "choose" to refrain from using their ovaries for producing more offspring? There is no moral angle to the instinctive functioning of any animal, nor of the dysfunction of that instinct. What a lame angle to play!
"And beyond that, just answer ONE question ONE time? All this dodging and obfuscation is a perverted use of language. Answer questions. Directly, clearly."
Dan pretending he's the forthcoming one. What a perverse liar he is!!
"At the very least, can you see how someone could look at these women and how very good and holy they are, and then look at you all calling them perverts... can you understand how rational and decent people would consider you all to be the perverts and depraved ones?"
I can see "progressives" regarding perverted women as "good and holy". I can't see honest and rational people doing so. I also can't see honest and rational and decent people ever considering as perverts and depraved those of us who speak truthfully about the perversion and depravity of, not only homosexuals and lesbians, but also and more accurately those who defend their behaviors and agenda. No one Dan likes will ever be considered by him to be wicked, evil, perverse or depraved, regardless of what is done by such a person. No one Dan hates will be considered anything less. Dan hates Trump so he amplifies Trump's character flaw of being a horn dog adulterer to be far greater than it is, while ignoring all the good works the guy's ever done in his life. In the meantime, Dan not only ignores the grievous sin his beloved lesbians perpetuate by highlighting (and overstating) their good works. A blind man can see the dishonesty of Dan's position. And this clear evil manifests in pretty much everything Dan promotes or opposes.
"Or, can you acknowledge that you are not in a place to call these complete strangers perverted?"
The only place we need to be is anywhere we are exposed to you identifying them as lesbians or homosexuals. Once you do that, we're merely stating abject fact. I didn't personally know George Floyd and I never needed to in order to accurately identify him as a thug and a drug abuser. Try a more intelligent ploy if you can find one.
"Can you acknowledge that, indeed, it is incredibly oppressive and perverted and indecent for you to make such claims about people you don't know a thing about?"
Acknowledge what you yourself have confirmed isn't true? How is stating the truth oppressive or perverted or indecent? It's not a "claim" unless you admit you have no idea if those women are truly lesbians. Are you gossiping about them, or are they indeed lesbians? If you're insisting they're lesbians, then we're only stating abject truth.
"And what I DO know says that there's just no time in their lives for whatever orgiastic "perversions" you are thinking of in your fevered imagination about people you know nothing about."
Ohhhhh. So they're lesbians, they're married to each other, but they're just so busy every minute of the day doing the Lord's work they're just too damned tired to manifest their lust for each other. Ohhhhh. I forgot how common it is for two people to marry without any intention of indulging any lust for each other.
"Given the data you DO have, you have NO REASON to presume that these people are perverse."
No "presumption" is taking place here. By your own testimony, they're lesbians. By definition, by honest reasoning based on both science and Scripture, they're perverse. The problem is you take it as a pejorative, while we're using it as an objective, fact-based reality...like calling water "wet".
Before I go further, I just want to say that when I say "we" in response to Dan's perversion and lies, I do so in the most general sense, as it is possible, if not likely, that Craig and I aren't identical in our personal beliefs. This is important due to the fact of how I get through the comments in a given thread. While I read them all, I don't read them all before commenting, and I may duplicate or even contradict something Craig says in a later comment to which I haven't gotten. An important caveat to which I felt compelled to draw attention.
"I wonder what literally is in your fevered imagination that would make you think people like these two saints are perverts?"
They're lesbians. Literally, by your own testimony.
"What specifically is it you're imagining they do that makes them perverts?"
No need to imagine anything. By your testimony, they're lesbians. Lesbians are women who are sexually attracted to women. How they express that perverse attraction is neither here nor there. Are you geeked to hear someone describe how lesbians indulge their lusts for each other? I recall you getting incensed when Mark Maness dared to offer an possible example. Or are you hoping for such in order to pretend you have more justification for demonizing our accurate representation of Biblical admonishment for women like these?...women for whom you care little by pretending for them they are just fine with God while intending to carry on with a perverse relationship?
"When you suggest I don't know all about them, you must have some dirty little thoughts in your mind... do you think they live secret lives of dirty deeds that they keep hidden?"
That's just how you want to spin it, because you're a liar defending perversion. What makes them lesbians...and that's how YOU describe them...is their lust for each other and how they respond to that lust. They married each other. You confirmed that. Unless you're looking to arouse yourself by hearing us describe common lesbian practices, your comments are intentional attempts to further attack us for speaking truthfully. Is that how you Jeff St. fakes relate to each other, or is that just something you do?
"Why would you think that of people you literally don't know?"
Another intentionally dishonest question. It really doesn't matter who the lesbian is. Lesbian behavior is immoral as any true Christian is well aware. It's immoral even if the lesbian died preventing the murder of another. If you wish to identify people you know as being lesbian, you've identified them as immoral. That's on you. Don't try to pretend we're doing anything wrong speaking factually about the behavior and those who engage in it.
"I'm wondering if you can at least understand why people will consider YOU all the aggressors and the evil ones in that scenario? Why would you not answer the question?"
The question is dishonest. Honest people won't attack us for our response to being told someone they love is acting immorally.
"Hey! My best friend is a hit man!"
"That means he's a murderer!"
"AGGRESSOR!!!"
Normal, rational and honest people don't act like you, Dan. As you're none of those three things (and certainly no Christian), you might find that hard to understand.
"The more you attack LGBTQ people and call them - these people that you don't even know - perverts and other other demonizing names, and the more you dodge questions, the more it is the reality that you look like the bad guys. The accuser, to use biblical language. Does that not concern you?"
No. And no perversion of Biblical concepts can make that true. Again:
The more you attack hitmen people and call them - these people that you don't even know - murderers and other other demonizing names, and the more you dodge questions, the more it is the reality that you look like the bad guys. Insisting that speaking the truth about a behavior and thus those who engage in that behavior is "an attack" is just you lying. A real attack on your beloved perverts would be that which we'd stand in front of them to prevent...assaults, attempted murder, etc. Saying, "your desires and the behaviors they compel are perversions" would only be an attack if it wasn't true. But it is true and no real Christian can ever deny that.
"If one accepts the standard definition of "pervert" (or perversion), it's clear that using ANYTHING in a way that doesn't fit the original purpose is to "pervert" it."
And that's the purposeful deceit, Craig. Dan needs to believe we're only using the term to "attack and oppress", when we're using it as it is defined and given what homosexuality is, the term is appropriate for use in describing homosexuals as perverts, their behavior as perversion and their desire to engage in it perverse. The same is true of the word "deviate" or "deviancy". Can I use the words as an epithet? Sure. "Hey, perv! You're a deviant! Stop being a pervert, you deviant!" Yet still, even in that context, it conveys a clear and undeniable truth even if meant to demonize...and Dan NEVER seeks to demonize truth tellers!
""Because I said so" hardly constitutes objective proof of something being "factually True"."
Oh, sure it does, Craig. But only for Dan. The rest of us must provide evidence and never express unsupported claims lest we be deleted and derided.
" I don;t really care what people of your ilk consider me. I don't arrange my life hoping for approval from people of your ilk."
It's a favorite ploy of Dan's to attempt to persuade by pretending his opponent is in the minority, as if numbers dictate morality.
In this world, people have used "perverted" as a demonizing and harmful attack word to describe truly awful, reprehensible, deviant people - people who are overtly and clearly evil.
Do you recognize that reality?
Craig... "1. Where have I specifically called LGBTQ people "perverts"?"
The point of your post was that some researchers have said there is no gay gene that can be determined. You were raising the topic of homosexuality. You KNOW amongst your conservative peers, there is a real history of considering homosexuality "perverted." I'd be willing to bet that YOU do. Is that NOT the reason you said...
"isn't taking something that was created or evolved to fulfill one specific purpose and using it for a different purpose pretty much the exact definition of perverting something?"
Are you NOT making the suggestion that homosexuality is perverted?
And is it not the case that you believe in your head that homosexuality IS perverted and a terrible sin?
Dan asked...
"I'm wondering if you can at least understand why people will consider YOU all the aggressors and the evil ones in that scenario? Why would you not answer the question?"
Craig responded...
"1. I don;t really care what people of your ilk consider me. I don't arrange my life hoping for approval from people of your ilk.
2. I did answer the question."
Those are literally NOT an answer to the question that was asked. Do you understand that reality? I did not ask you if you care what other people thought of you or approved of your understanding of homosexuality.
I asked if you can understand how people can and do look at people like my friends (and they are not an isolated incidence of truly good, saintly, Godly gay folk) and the accusations and innuendo made by people like you and your comrades (Aren't they perverted if they use their body in a way that I don't think it was intended to be used? They're perverts! They're an abomination that God thinks is worthy of death!, etc) and find YOU all to be the evil, oppressive ones, not these good, saintly women and other LGBTQ folk like them?
Use your mind: Can you UNDERSTAND that reality?
If you can, can you also understand that attitudes like modern conservative anti-LGBTQ people hold drives people away from God ("If THEY - THOSE ideas - represent God, I want nothing to do with that sort of evil!" you hear it all the time.) and from the church?
Try answering the questions I actually ask, not OTHER questions and then say that you answered my questions.
Craig... "I provided a definition of pervert earlier."
I was asking specifically about in the lives of the saintly women I mentioned earlier. Let's just assume there are no deep dark secrets and they are just what they appear to be: Two imperfect but beautiful, loving mothers, partners, adoptive parents, givers to the community, pouring out their lives sacrificially in love. Is there anything perverted in their lives (and the lives of people like them) that you know of? Do you have ANY reason to guess that maybe they have some deep dark evil secrets they're keeping hidden?
Part of the problem might be that this is the ultimate conclusion of those who buy into the human tradition of the "total depravity" of the human condition: You believe that ultimately, people are all generally deeply depraved and wholly evil and you have that as your starting presumption... is that right?
Let's suppose for a minute that people are just as I tend to think of them: Imperfect, flawed, to be sure, but that many people are basically very good people living lives of decency, loving their families, loving their community, loving people in their schools and neighborhoods and cities as best they can, given their imperfect nature. You don't think that's possible, do you? Is it the case that you think:
1. That people who appear saintly on the face of it, actually have some deep dark evil within them?
Or...
2. That 1. is true, but this deep dark evil can be simple imperfection: They don't love perfectly well in all instances and that they don't worship God perfectly well and this lack of perfection IS a deep dark evil?
Something close to either of those? Something else?
Craig...
"2. As per the definition of "pervert", I challenge you to find anyone who has not perverted anything in their entire life."
Why don't you define "perverted," and begin with how it's commonly used, or how you think it's commonly used?
Do you recognize that words like...
pervert/perversion
abomination
depravity/total depravity
enemies of God
...have often been used to literally demonize people. It is culturally a horrible, great evil thing to be any of those terms... Do you recognize that?
Your earlier definition of "pervert..."
"Pervert, alter (something) from its original course, meaning, or state to a distortion or corruption of what was first intended."
What was the "original course" of sexuality?
Craig...
"I could rationally argue that everyone is "perverted" in at least some area of their lives."
If EVERYONE is "perverted," then you've sort of made the term meaningless, haven't you? By perverted, do you mean simply imperfect and human?
I don't think that's the definition of Pervert. I think you're misunderstanding the science AND misunderstanding the dictionary.
Craig...
"3. I've literally answered every question you've asked, or asked for specific clarification so that I can answer certain questions more appropriately."
As I've shown, responding with words after I ask a question is not the same as actually answering the question that was asked. Answering another question is not the same as answering the question that was asked. I'm seriously wanting to know: Do you see the difference?
"Do you recognize that reality?"
Yes. Although in this specific case, we're not talking about some vague, generalized, group of "people". We're talking about this thread. this blog, these individuals. This notion that the specific individuals on this thread, on this blog are responsible for what some "people" (vague, generalized, undefined) did or might have done, is absurd. Do you recognize the reality that it's absurd to hold people responsible for things they haven't done?
"Are you NOT making the suggestion that homosexuality is perverted?"
No, I'm asking a question you idiot. Do you not know how questions work? FYI, it's just one of the questions you haven't answered.
"And is it not the case that you believe in your head that homosexuality IS perverted and a terrible sin?"
No.
I'll note that you didn't actually answer the question I asked, "Where have I specifically called LGBTQ people "perverts"?", you strung together some inferences and decided to bullshit your way around actually answering the question. Which likely means that you knew that the correct answer is that you can't do what I asked and rather than be honest, you chose bullshit.
"Those are literally NOT an answer to the question that was asked. Do you understand that reality? I did not ask you if you care what other people thought of you or approved of your understanding of homosexuality."
Yes, those are literally my answers to your question.
1. As framed, it's a hypothetical, and as such not grounded in any actual reality.
2. Even if someone actually called me those things, it's irrelevant. I know my mind, my intentions, and what I'm thinking. If someone wants to make shit up about me, I simply don't care and see no reason to argue about someone's imaginary bullshit.
3. Can I understand why some random, made up, person who knows virtually nothing about me would want to draw false conclusions about me, I guess so. I just think that anyone who would do so is ignorant, childish, and ill informed.
4. I did answer the question. You just didn't like my answer.
"I asked if you can understand how people can and do look at people like my friends (and they are not an isolated incidence of truly good, saintly, Godly gay folk) and the accusations and innuendo made by people like you and your comrades (Aren't they perverted if they use their body in a way that I don't think it was intended to be used?"
1. Where have you objectively proven that your friends are "godly" and "saintly"?
2. If you're going to misrepresent what I actually said, why should I waste my time answering questions based on your (willful?) misrepresentations?
"They're an abomination that God thinks is worthy of death!, etc) and find YOU all to be the evil, oppressive ones, not these good, saintly women and other LGBTQ folk like them?"
This isn't an actual question, it's a rant with a "?" at the end. It's also a misrepresentation of my position. If you can't accurately represent the positions of others, why should we take you seriously/
"Use your mind: Can you UNDERSTAND that reality?"
Given the reality that you've misrepresented me at least twice, haven't demonstrated that their are any actual people (other than you) that have actually interacted with anything I said, I think that it's a stretch to call your hypothetical, anecdotal, bullshit "reality".
I do understand how you've convinced yourself that your hypothetical IS reality, you just haven't demonstrated it to anyone else.
"I was asking specifically about in the lives of the saintly women I mentioned earlier. Let's just assume there are no deep dark secrets and they are just what they appear to be: Two imperfect but beautiful, loving mothers, partners, adoptive parents, givers to the community, pouring out their lives sacrificially in love."
I don't care. You have offered nothing to indicate that your subjective impressions of these people are 100% accurate, nor any possible way to verify your claims. You offer anecdotes and accept us to blindly accept them as if they were objective Truth.
"Is there anything perverted in their lives (and the lives of people like them) that you know of?"
No, but unless they are 100% sinless, it's reasonable to suspect that they (like all of us) have engaged in some sort of actions that have perverted something. Of course, I've never made any sort of specific claims about these specific people that your anecdote refers to.
"Do you have ANY reason to guess that maybe they have some deep dark evil secrets they're keeping hidden?"
Again, other than the reality that we all sin, we all keep don't publicly announce our worst sins, and no one is sinless, no. But this is a general observation about all of humanity, not a specific observation about these two anonymous, anecdotal, women.
"Part of the problem might be that this is the ultimate conclusion of those who buy into the human tradition of the "total depravity" of the human condition: You believe that ultimately, people are all generally deeply depraved and wholly evil and you have that as your starting presumption... is that right?"
No, that is incorrect.
"Let's suppose for a minute that people are just as I tend to think of them: Imperfect, flawed, to be sure, but that many people are basically very good people living lives of decency, loving their families, loving their community, loving people in their schools and neighborhoods and cities as best they can, given their imperfect nature. You don't think that's possible, do you?"
I think it's possible for people to live lives that appear to be all of those things, and might actually be some or all of those things.
"1. That people who appear saintly on the face of it, actually have some deep dark evil within them?"
No.
"2. That 1. is true, but this deep dark evil can be simple imperfection: They don't love perfectly well in all instances and that they don't worship God perfectly well and this lack of perfection IS a deep dark evil?"
No.
"Something close to either of those?"
Maybe, but your terms are so vague and extreme, that I can't really go deeper. Perhaps it's because you misunderstand that concept of Total Depravity and choose to cast it in the worst possible light.
"Something else?"
Yes.
Now we're done with this diversion. This post is about what Science has to say about how and why things evolved, or about what Christianity has to say about why and to what purpose things were created. Hypothetical anecdotes about people who you don;t know with 100% accuracy are off topic and will not elicit any further response from me. I suspect that you'll start bitching that I won't answer your questions regarding this diversion, even though I've informed you of that. Of course, you'll ask them anyway because you're either willfully stupid, or ignorant.
"Why don't you define "perverted," and begin with how it's commonly used, or how you think it's commonly used?"
I literally provided the dictionary definition in this very thread you moron, can you not read, or are you choosing ignorance?
"Do you recognize that?"
Yes. Are you literally suggesting that those terms be banned from all discourse for the rest of time, because some people misused them?
"Pervert, alter (something) from its original course, meaning, or state to a distortion or corruption of what was first intended."
Aha, you did see where I defined "pervert" earlier, but you thought it'd make you look more stupid to ask me to do something you knew I'd already done.
"What was the "original course" of sexuality?"
I apologize, but I'm not sure what your question is based on. You act as if "original course" is a quote, yet have removed it entirely from it's context. Since my comments about what "Science" thinks about these issues don't address "sexuality" as you tend to use it, I'm at a loss as to what your intended meaning is in this context. Perhaps you could reformulate your question in a way that gives some more context and definition to your terms.
"If EVERYONE is "perverted," then you've sort of made the term meaningless, haven't you?"
No. Of course, when you misrepresent what I said, it's hard to take your seriously.
"By perverted, do you mean simply imperfect and human?"
No, see the definition above for what I mean.
"I don't think that's the definition of Pervert. I think you're misunderstanding the science AND misunderstanding the dictionary."
1. I don't care what you think. Especially in the absence of any objective proof.
2. I literally copy/pasted the dictionary definition. Bitch at the dictionary folks, not me.
3. I'm pretty sure I'm understanding both reasonably well. Again, I don't care what you think. In our previous discussions about Evolution/Materialism/Naturalism, you haven't shown a great deal of knowledge about the subject, nor have you provide anything to contradict any of the quotes/links/etc to folks who are quite knowledgeable on the topic.
Again, I'm not going to re fight old battles in this thread. If you want, I'll find a previous thread and post any appropriate comments there.
"As I've shown, responding with words after I ask a question is not the same as actually answering the question that was asked. Answering another question is not the same as answering the question that was asked. I'm seriously wanting to know: Do you see the difference?"
1. You not liking my answer is not the same as me not answering.
2. You not addressing the instances where I asked for specific clarification so that I could better answer your questions, tells me that your more interested in pretending than in actually getting answers.
3. You'd have so much more credibility when you nit pick like this if you actually held yourself to the same standard you hold others to.
4. Yes. I see a difference between a simple direct answer, asking for clarification/more information/ and a response indicating that I consider the question to be stupid/ridiculous/unanswerable/a waste of time.
"1. You not liking my answer is not the same as me not answering."
The exact argument Dan himself has put forth when he goes out of his way to not answer a question, and now he uses it because he doesn't like the answer. Frankly, given the actual questions he asks are typically based on things unrelated to the topic being discussed...such as how people have used the word "pervert" in order to deny it's use going forward as well as to imply evil intent in it's appropriate and accurate use now...refusing to answer doesn't do anything to avoid that which in the discussion actually matters. Dan's questions, in other words, are too often dishonest because they're diversionary/deflective and/or leading.
"4. Yes. I see a difference between a simple direct answer, asking for clarification/more information/ and a response indicating that I consider the question to be stupid/ridiculous/unanswerable/a waste of time."
I suspect the same is true of Dan, but he isn't honest enough to admit it.
As to Dan's constant references to people we can't know, and likely he doesn't know as well as he'd have us believe, all questions related to these lesbians are an attempt to minimize the seriousness of their rejection of God's clearly revealed Will on the subject of homosexual behavior, as well as to deflect from the accurate and appropriate use of terms, such as "pervert/perverse/perversion" in relation to their "marital" status and likely behavior behind closed doors. One needn't know the details of any sexual behavior between them for those words to be accurately and appropriately applied.
Dan's constant reference to their alleged "godliness" depends on the dishonest claim one can't know lesbian behavior is sinful and prohibited by God as such. Once again, it's clearly revealed to the extent that one who claims to be a serious Christian who prayerfully and seriously studies Scripture can't honestly claim there's any ambiguity...that one can engage in the behavior and claim it might be OK because one's desire and affection is reciprocated by the person with whom one engages in the sinful behavior, or due to the person's various other Christian acts of good will. The practice is not less sinful because of any of that. It is no less a perversion of their sexuality and certainly of Christian teaching. Point to any other sinful behavior mentioned in Scripture and try to tell me such a person knowingly engaging in it can make it less sinful by doing other good things. Instead of being lesbians, imagine those two women being thieves while otherwise acting "godly" and "saintly" in other behaviors. It doesn't wash and Dan knows it. He and his lesbians are liars living in stark and intentional rebellion against God and nature.
Art,
That's why I keep repeating some version of "You need to hold yourself to the same standard you hold everyone else to.".
What's most amusing is the reality that he's literally there are multiple questions in this thread where he hasn't even responded to them in any way (as he bitches about me doing), let alone actually answered. Further, how should I respond to a question based on a false premise or a misrepresentation of my position. I think that to simply answer hose questions gives legitimacy to his false/mis representations. Yet, pointing out the fact that his question is premised on False/mis representation provokes the "Putting words after a question...". I'd argue that a question based on a fales/mis representation is invalid and unworthy of a response. But that's just me.
I think that it's all about what's easiest with Dan. It's easier to ignore than to respond or answer. It's easier to falsely or mis represent something than it is to do a little research before you spew crap. It's certainly easier to answer/respond to questions as they come up, in a format where the question and the answer/response are clearly formatted to indicate that they go together, yet how often to we hear that something happened to far back in the thread and should just be ignored.
Dan's insiatence that these people are "godly" or "saintly" is just hyperbole. God makes it
All true, Craig.
As to the saintly lesbians, I have no problem acknowledging the good works of anybody. A related and relevant example is my fondness of Elton John music, or my appreciation for Ellen DeGeneris stand-up bits (you can easily find her first appearance on the Late Show w/Johnny Carson---hilarious!). But in each of these examples, including the "saintly" lesbians, their sexual behavior is clearly and without question immoral. That's the point, not all the other stuff they do. When discussing such behavior...because the behavior is the topic...the only question is arguing for or against it in moral terms. Dan can't defend the behavior in any way, so as is common among the activists and enablers, they speak of other things so they can say, "See? They're just like us except for...!" as if those other things mitigate the sinfulness and immorality of the behavior in question. Imagine if it was reversed. Imagine if we responded by listing only those other unacceptable behaviors or beliefs they may also hold (assuming they exist, which given the nature of man isn't the least bit far fetched). Would doing so make their "gay" behavior more immoral? Of course not. So why bring up all this other crap and expect it to mitigate the detestable quality of homosexuality? It's absurd and desperate.
Art,
I have no problem acknolwedging the "good works" of anyone. But the fact that John is a talented musician, or DeGeneris makes people laugh doesn't equate to "godly or saintly". These ( so far as I know) hypothetical women might do all kinds of "good" things. They might be kind, and generous, and charitable, although we'll never know for sure. But it's not like someone can't put on an "good" act in public and be less than good in private. How many times are serial killers described in positive terms by those who knew them?
I'm not suggesting that these women are serial killers, just making the factual point that many serial killers present themselves to others in ways that make them appear "good". So just shut the hell up and don't waste my time.
Hell how many pastors/priests who's congregations would have called them "Godly and Saintly" people have been discovered to have engaged in all sorts of horrible behavior.
This notion that Dan knows these women well enough to make the claims he's making is absurd, unless he spends 24/7/365 with them and knows 100% of their thoughts and actions.
Obviously, he's trying to mitigate the homosexual activity angle, by balancing it with all the "good works" that they do. I might have missed the part where we're judged by our "good works". I guess that tells us about Dan's bar for what he considers god and saints to behave like.
Marshal...
"including the "saintly" lesbians, their sexual behavior is clearly and without question immoral. That's the point"
No, that's the QUESTION. Perverts like you think that two saintly women living in a faithful marriage relationship and being truly saintly, loving people (and you shall know they are Christians by their love), giving to the community and helping the least of these (such as those welcomed by Jesus)... perverts like you think that if two such saintly people also happen to engage in intimate acts in their marriage, YOUR type of pervert call that "immoral." GOD has not called it immoral. REASON does not support calling that immoral. That is purely from you and your perverted human traditions.
And while you are free to have these perverted, ugly, hateful and oppressive opinions in your own head, the rest of the decent, moral and just world have no obligation to give a damn what perverted, indecent human opinions you hold.
The rest of us have no problem recognizing saints when we see them. Jesus had no problem recognizing saints when he saw them. "When you did these things for the least of these, my children, you have done it to me. Enter into the realm of God, my beloved ones..."
Along those lines, Craig added to the attacks of the oppressed saying...
"This notion that Dan knows these women well enough to make the claims he's making is absurd, unless he spends 24/7/365 with them and knows 100% of their thoughts and actions."
There is ZERO evidence that these are not people who are anything but the Godly, loving, hard-fighting-for-Love-and-Justice saints they appear to be. Again, when Jesus saw people such as this, he said, "When you've done this to the least of these, you've done it to me. Enter my realm, my beloved."
Who am I going to believe? Jesus or perverts like you who feel a need to try to take a dump on very decent, good and Godly people? You all are the accusers of those you don't even know. You are trying to tear down, not build up.
And I'm not trying to "mitigate the homosexual angle" in any sense. The point is: I don't CARE what you all think about LGBTQ people. Your opinions and human traditions of bigotry have no bearing on what I should think. We are not obliged to heed your bigotries and biases built from your human traditions.
I have no doubt that probably most of my beloved LGBTQ friends in marriage relationships engage in acts of intimacy. Of course they probably do, just as my straight friends do. THIS IS A MORAL AND RATIONAL GOOD, helpful for healthy, wholesome married family life. If some people are bigoted against such people, wanting to tell them NOT to engage in a healthy life of intimacy in their marriage relationship, well, to hell with them. We don't care what bigots beholden to their dead and deadly human traditions think.
IF there were a person who disagreed with the notion of being pacifistic and they were good, Godly people who tended to/sided with the least of these and they were sincerely mistaken about war and they also supported the notion of Just War Theory AND, as it turned out, they were sincerely mistaken about that and were wrong, do I think they're hell-bound for their sincere mistake?
No. And why not? Because I believe in a Gospel of Grace, not perfect knowledge.
Do you think people who are sincerely mistaken on some point and wrong (on homosexuality, on war, etc) and yet, their "fruits..." (the love they have for the least of these and the grace-full, loving, justice-fighting actions on the behalf of God and the least of these) said clearly that they were saved... do you think their mistake leads to eternal damnation? Means that they weren't saved in the first place?
Do you see the problem with this grace-less approach to Christianity?
The John/DeGeneris example is apt, even though their talent doesn't equate to the moral quality of a behavior (immoral messages or jokes aside). They were simply the first to come to mind. I've used a more obvious example many times, that of Al Capone and the soup kitchens run by his criminal organization. Feeding the hungry is certainly a "saintly" act, but it's got nothing to do with Al being a murderer. This issue isn't a lesbian's track record of deeds. The issue is the lesbian being and living as a lesbian. Everything else is Dan deflecting and avoiding. The "gay" guy I knew best was a good guy in terms of every other aspect of how he lived his life. But he engaged in behavior God labeled "abomination/detestable" and if a discussion began on this person's homosexual behavior, it can only be regarded as does God. Period. We're also taught about the problem with calling good evil and evil good. That's what Dan and his lesbians and his so-called "Christian" community are doing with regard to this behavior and those who engage in it.
Instead of acknowledge the weakness in his anecdotal claims, Dan chooses to engage in ad hom attacks, lies, and name calling. As if those were a substitute for evidence. His whole anecdote fails because the only source of evidence we have is Dan, who is only providing his biased perceptions of these people based on his limited observations of parts of their lives. Instead of acknowledging the weakness an inadequacy of his anecdote, he continues to insist that his anecdote is 100% objectively True, while not providing enough unbiased evidence to actually prove his claims.
Art,
Your Capone example makes my point very well. First, by acknowledging the reality that one's public actions might look "godly and saintly", while one's private actions might be the opposite. Second, one can look at virtually any example of some horribly evil people who could be made to look "godly and saintly", if one only looks at selected parts of their public lives. I suspect that Dan has cherry picked this one couple (who might actually be reasonably good people), idealized what he sees of their public behavior, and assumed that they must be "godly and saintly" based on his limited and idealized observations. Said observations are likely colored further by his bias.
I'd argue that virtually every human who's ever lived has one sinful behavior that they just can't stop engaging in, maybe they've even convinced themselves that this sinful behavior really isn't sinful or they're just mistaken about it. I'd further argue that nothing else they they/we do can counteract that sin and that we are no made "godly or saintly" by our behavior. The very notion that our behavior is what makes us "godly or saintly", and that all we need is more "good" behavior than "bad" behavior is simply antithetical to Jesus teachings.
Craig...
"Dan chooses to engage in ad hom attacks, lies, and name calling."
? WHAT ad hom attacks? WHAT lies? WHAT name calling?
Are you objecting to me calling perverse what I truly believe is obvious perverse? That is, you all are calling these lesbian women and others you don't know "perverse," or "immoral" when ALL they're doing is living their lives. You do that because YOU BELIEVE that two men or two women who are married and intimate in that context are being immoral. But we don't accept your premise. We believe your premise if counter-factual, anti-biblical, anti-God, anti-grace and a blow against justice and human rights. We are not obliged to concede your bigoted point (ie, your unreasonable holding to a religious set of biases regardless of the evidence... literally bigotry).
Are you two engaging in name calling and character attacks by calling these women you don't know immoral or perverted?
And what lies? You all just throw out these attacks as if they were factual when you can't support them.
Craig...
"I'd argue that virtually every human who's ever lived has one sinful behavior that they just can't stop engaging in, maybe they've even convinced themselves that this sinful behavior really isn't sinful or they're just mistaken about it."
So, WHAT IF you two are the ones who've convinced yourselves that it is moral (as opposed to a great oppressive immoral set of acts and attitudes) to condemn homosexual folks in loving, faithful marriage relationships as "immoral and perverted..." WHAT IF you are wrong? Does that mean you're not a Christian? Does that mean you have lost your salvation (or never had it)? Does it mean that, once you found that out, you'd apologize and say, "You were RIGHT to call us perverse for calling these saints 'immoral perverts' for that truly was perverse of us and, Oh God have mercy, we're so sorry!"
more...
Craig...
"The very notion that our behavior is what makes us "godly or saintly", and that all we need is more "good" behavior than "bad" behavior is simply antithetical to Jesus teachings."
? Really? So Jesus DIDN'T commend those who'd sided with the least of these as beloved children FOR THEIR ACTIONS on behalf of/to Jesus?
Was Jesus mistaken to say, "By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”
Was Jesus mistaken to say that we'd be known by our fruit/good deeds/faithfulness to grace... "By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit."... did Jesus get that wrong?
Was James wrong to say, "In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead. But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds." Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do."?
Was John mistaken when he said we'd be known by our love? Did John get this wrong... "By this we know love, that he laid down his life for us, and we ought to lay down our lives for the brothers. But if anyone has the world's goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God's love abide in him? Little children, let us not love in word or talk but in deed and in truth."
Did Paul get it wrong in the book of Romans when he commended the deacon, Phoebe...
"I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon of the church in Cenchreae. I ask you to receive her in the Lord in a way worthy of his people [saints, in some translations] and to give her any help she may need from you, for she has been the benefactor of many people, including me."... was Paul wrong to note that her sainted-ness was tied to her extending kindness and assistance to others?
What makes us saintly, if not our faithfulness to Jesus' teachings/grace/love? Because we need to let Jesus and the apostles know they really got it wrong!
"? WHAT ad hom attacks? WHAT lies? WHAT name calling?"
Just two quick examples.
"perverts like you who feel a need to try to take a dump on very decent, good and Godly people? You all are the accusers of those you don't even know. You are trying to tear down, not build up."
" Perverts like you"
"Are you objecting to me calling perverse what I truly believe is obvious perverse?"
Not so much objecting to is because it's what I expect from you. Just pointing out that what you "truly believe" isn't actually proven objective fact. Your belief in something doesn't make it True, and you acting as if your hunches are True is simply one more example of your pride and hubris.
"That is, you all are calling these lesbian women and others you don't know "perverse," or "immoral" when ALL they're doing is living their lives. You do that because YOU BELIEVE that two men or two women who are married and intimate in that context are being immoral."
Actually, I believe that Scripture tells us that. I have no reason to suspect that those portions of scripture are wrong, or that there is some exception from those portions of scripture.
"But we don't accept your premise. We believe your premise if counter-factual, anti-biblical, anti-God, anti-grace and a blow against justice and human rights. We are not obliged to concede your bigoted point (ie, your unreasonable holding to a religious set of biases regardless of the evidence... literally bigotry)."
I don't care. Your acceptance of something is meaningless. Your acceptance of something does not make it objectively True, nor does it make the opposite position objectively false. By asserting that your acceptance of something is the primary test of the validity of the premise, you assert yourself as god.
"Are you two engaging in name calling and character attacks by calling these women you don't know immoral or perverted?"
Not if they are engaging is some sort of perverted behavior, or engaged in immorality. Are you suggesting that these women have never perverted anything or engaged in any immoral activity?
"WHAT IF you are wrong?"
Then I'll have to answer to God for that. Not to you. I'd much rather take my chances with taking scripture at face value and attempting to live by a higher standard, than the opposite. Either way, you're not the judge and jury. I may be wrong, but it's just as likely that you are.
"Does that mean you're not a Christian?"
Not my call, way above my pay grade.
"Does that mean you have lost your salvation (or never had it)?"
Don't know for sure, above my pay grade.
"Does it mean that, once you found that out, you'd apologize and say, "You were RIGHT to call us perverse for calling these saints 'immoral perverts' for that truly was perverse of us and, Oh God have mercy, we're so sorry!""
By all means, prove that my reading of scripture is 100% objectively wrong, and I'll gladly apologize.
Dan continues to sidestep the point regarding this particular immoral behavior. That he disagrees with the premise has long stopped being a point necessary to mention. We take it as a given, but simply wish he'd bring about actual, indisputable evidence from Scripture to support that disagreement. I point once again to his failure to do so regarding the truth of Lev 18:22.
Dan deflects and camouflages the unquestionably immoral behavior by pointing to that which has no bearing on the issue.
Thus, Paul didn't get anything wrong. But Dan gets wrong the notion that he can ignore the truth regarding the immorality of homosexuality, pretend it's no longer immoral without any Scriptural basis for doing so, and then insist one can be saved while in abject rebellion. He lies when he "admits" he "might be mistaken", because there is absolutely no mistaking his perversion of Scripture to enable and defend perverse sexual practices.
Thus, neither he nor his sainted lesbians are faithful to the teachings of Jesus. They're only faithful (assuming they're truly faithful at all) to those teachings which they find personally pleasing.
? Really? So Jesus DIDN'T commend those who'd sided with the least of these as beloved children FOR THEIR ACTIONS on behalf of/to Jesus?
Given the lack of context, I'm not sure what your point is. If you're using Matt 25 as an example, then I'd argue that Jesus wasn't making one's status as a sheep or goat on their actions. He was pointing out that sheep do x,y, and Z, because they are sheep, and that goats do x,y, and z, because they are goats. Nothing in that parable indicates righteousness is achieved by works.
"Was Jesus mistaken to say, "By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”
No. But again, He was simply identifying one RESULT of people becoming His disciples, not saying that loving His disciples automatically made you a disciple.
I'm not going to waste my time repeating the same thing for each of your examples. Suffice it to say that things like "good works" are the RESULT of following Jesus. Once you're "saved", then your life shows the external evidence of the internal rebirth in Jesus.
None of those texts tell us that the way to achieve "godliness and saintliness" is as a result of the "good works" that someone does. The notion that if someone does enough "good works" that they'll be "saved" isn't taught anywhere in the Bible.
I love this game Dan plays of "what if", as if playing along would make any difference to the fact that he's absolutely devoid of any Scriptural basis for his defense and enabling of abomination and his heresy that it isn't sinful if perpetuated in a particular circumstance of which he approves. There is no such scenario provided us in Scripture. So what if Dan finds out enslaving black people is required of us? Does it mean Dan would apologize for criticizing his family for having enslaved black people? I doubt it. But we're supposed to imagine we'd be fools not to apologize or being wrong about this issue, despite the fact there is no way we are given what Scripture actually teaches.
He won't prove you're wrong, Craig. He can't even prove there's a possibility. If he could, it would have happened years ago.
Of course, absolutely none of your anecdotal meanderings have anything to do with the actual topic of the post. But feel free to keep steering away from the topic and regaling us with your intimate knowledge of every single things these two hypothetical women do 24/7/365.
Craig...
"Actually, I believe that Scripture tells us that. I have no reason to suspect that those portions of scripture are wrong, or that there is some exception from those portions of scripture. "
I get that this is your "belief," but Scripture literally doesn't tell you this. As an objective demonstrable fact. It's your interpretations and opinions about it, based on a handful of verses that seem to be saying something about homosexuality, but NEVER addressing gay folks being married.
Just to be absolutely 100% factually correct and clear.
Craig...
" But again, He was simply identifying one RESULT of people becoming His disciples, not saying that loving His disciples automatically made you a disciple. "
But again, this is what YOU read into the verses, not what they literally say. He says literally "By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another." From that, you are GUESSING that Jesus was saying, WHEN YOU BECOME MY DISCIPLE, then you will start loving AS A RESULT of becoming my disciple..." as opposed to simply "everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another."
Craig...
"The notion that if someone does enough "good works" that they'll be "saved" isn't taught anywhere in the Bible. "
1. There are certainly passages that can be taken that way, but it's not what I believe. (When the rich young man asked Jesus what he needed to do to be saved, Jesus told him to follow the commandments and to give his stuff to the poor... there's certainly room for that argument and it would be factually mistaken to say it isn't taught anywhere in the Bible... just fyi)
2. That's not what I said.
I said that we can recognize Jesus' saints/followers BY THEIR LOVE, by their kindness and decency and we have no reason to say they're NOT Jesus' followers if that loving kindness is present, not according to the multiple passages and many more I've cited.
re: "Not my call, above my pay grade..."
Interesting that you seem to have no sense of security in your salvation. You seem to be allowing that you could be wrong and that would condemn you. Which seems to be a sort of faith in good deeds or, at least, right understanding. Seems a sad place to put one's faith if one is an imperfect human bound to get some things wrong.
Interesting.
Craig...
"Either way, you're not the judge and jury. I may be wrong, but it's just as likely that you are."
No, but just as you truly believe what you believe, that these people you don't know are immoral because they engage in intimacy presumably within the confines of their marriage AND you feel comfortable in calling that "immoral," again, even though you don't now them. But that must mean that you think it is a good and rational thing to call out immoral acts when you see them. That is what I'm doing in calling such an attitude towards clear saints a perversion. You may not agree with my conclusion, but you must agree with what I'm doing in calling out that mistake and using an apt word to describe it.
You calling them "immoral" is not any different than me calling your actions perverse, from a principled point, can you see that?
Craig... "anything to do with the actual topic of the post..."
What you said about your post:
"This is what happens when you follow the evidence where it leads instead of where you want it to lead,"
I'm following the evidence of the Bible in assessing that people like these women are saints because of the obvious loving kindness and Godliness in their lives. I didn't always WANT to believe that, but I followed the evidence and that is where it took me.
I also am following the evidence of the decency inherent in Jesus' teaching to side with/look out for the least of these and rebuking oppressors because that is where the biblical and rational evidence is taking me. Seems like I'm following your principle pretty clearly.
And even further on topic, I just acknowledge the evidence that homosexuality is innate, just as being left handed is innate and that there's no reason to presume "science" or some people's idea of "god" consider either of these things a bad thing. Because that's where the evidence is taking me.
And when you are presented with hard to dispute instances/evidence - even just conceptually (i.e., acknowledging that you don't know the lives of these two saints but just imagining that two - and more - such saints exist, even in theory) - you appear to fall back to a presumed evil-ness in people, in spite of evidence as found in saints like these. You seem to BEGIN with the hunch that people unknown to you, even those who appear by all evidence to be good, must have some secret evil in them that people like me are failing to see.
Such a brutal way of living. For you.
Craig...
"Not if they are engaging is some sort of perverted behavior, or engaged in immorality. Are you suggesting that these women have never perverted anything or engaged in any immoral activity?"
We're imperfect people. We've all made mistakes. But we imperfect humans can STILL rightly be called saints if our lives are saintly, Godly, full of love. I have no reason to presume most of my friends have engaged in anything highly corrosively immoral.
Stolen a cookie? Sure. But I'm not going to call someone who's stolen even 100 cookies !! over their lifetime "immoral" because of it. Such attitudes downplays the harm of actual evil and immoral perversions.
Had sex before marriage? Sure, I'm sure many of my friends have, just because many people do. But call them "immoral" over that, in spite of lives of loving grace? That waters down the meaning and strength of the notion of immorality.
None of my closest friends have ever used their power and privilege and wealth to get into the changing room of teenagers and then boasted and laughed about it. None of them have ever laughed about grabbing women by the crotch or otherwise sexually assaulting women. THAT is perverse and immoral.
Engaging in sexual activity before marriage? That may or may not be a bad idea, but it would be an abuse of language and the power of the church to call people "immoral" for it when they've lived lives of saints.
I think you probably have just a more cold-hearted and mean-spirited notion of humanity and our imperfections, thinking even our smallest cookie-stealing imperfections make us "immoral..." is that fair?
Dan: Was Jesus mistaken to say, "By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another." and other scripture-twisting to support perversion of human sexuality. (yes, PERVERSION)
I know he ignores--or explains aways-- all the biblical passages condemning homosexual behavior, but I still suggest Dan read Ephesians 5:11-12 (and many similar passage)
Craig...
" I'd much rather take my chances with taking scripture at face value and attempting to live by a higher standard, than the opposite."
Taken at face value, Scripture has not said ANYTHING about how to consider perfectly lovely people living in a committed marriage arrangement who happen to be gay, as it relates to being gay.
However, taken at face value, Scripture is abundantly clear to...
* As much as possible, live at peace with everyone;
* Accept those whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. One person’s faith allows them to eat anything, but another, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. The one who eats everything must not treat with contempt the one who does not, and the one who does not eat everything must not judge the one who does, for God has accepted them. Who are you to judge someone else’s servant?
* brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, think about [support, honor, value, etc] these things.
...for instance.
Seems like the "higher standard" and "face value" rules would have you embracing a bit of grace for people who have been traditionally marginalized and oppressed (ie, the least of these).
Another verse to keep in mind:
"for whatever you did NOT do for the least of these, my children, you did not do TO ME. DEPART FROM ME!"
Craig... "prove that my reading of scripture is 100% objectively wrong, and I'll gladly apologize."
Well, since neither of us can "prove 100%" that the other is mistaken in their understanding of the pertinent passages, we won't be able to do that. But can you imagine sitting before God one day and God saying
"Why did you oppress, harm and harass so many of my beloved children. I said, "What you do for the least of these, you've done for me..." didn't you get it!?? I never said it was wrong to commit to one another in love and respect - gay or straight... and I never condemned homosexuality at all! Why did you fall on the side of mean-spirited human traditions that demonstrably cause harm? At the very least, why didn't you just remain quiet on the topic, if you didn't know? What you did (oppress, harm, cause stress, duress and damage to) to these LGBTQ children of mine... YOU DID TO ME! Why?"
"Well, since neither of us can "prove 100%" that the other is mistaken in their understanding of the pertinent passages, we won't be able to do that."
Dan insists that he's right, and I'm wrong, yet clearly can't prove his claims. I guess this means I can ignore his claims.
"Taken at face value, Scripture has not said ANYTHING about how to consider perfectly lovely people living in a committed marriage arrangement who happen to be gay, as it relates to being gay."
And yet, scripture does say quite a bit about sex, marriage, obeying commands, and all sorts of things that bear on this situation. Of course, this doesn't mean that I wouldn't treat these people with love and respect.
Of course, none of this has any bearing on the topic (Science) of this post, and anecdotes still aren't proof.
"I'm following the evidence of the Bible in assessing that people like these women are saints because of the obvious loving kindness and Godliness in their lives."
1. You just said that the Bible says NOTHING about these women, what evidence are you following then?
2. The Bible is NOT a an exhaustive book of scientific evidence that covers these topic specifically from a scientific standpoint.
Therefore, while this anecdotal information is somewhat interesting, it's simply not on the topic.
Interesting that you insist that the Bible says nothing specific about this situation, yet you somehow find "evidence" in the silence. I think that's a logical fallacy that covers what you're doing.
FYI, given the title of the post, and the content, it's absurd for you to try to play semantic games with "evidence".
A whole comment dedicated to obfuscating the reality that your anecdotal friends have virtually certainly done something that perverts something at some point in their lives. As well as playing the moving the goalposts trick by substituting "immoral" for "pervert". A very creative gambit, if nonsensical and off topic.
"Who are you to judge someone else’s servant?"
Good question. Who are you to judge anyone? I freely admit that I have no desire, standing, or interest in judging anyone's eternal destiny. Pointing out that every single person in all of recorded history (excluding Jesus) sinned, and those of us who are alive continue to sin isn't judging. It's acknowledging reality, and not trying to sugar coat or minimize sin.
The notion that pointing out sin, with the hope of repentance and reconciliation with God is a bad thing is bizarre.
Gettin' a little judgy there skippy.
"I'm following the evidence of the Bible in assessing that people like these women are saints because of the obvious loving kindness and Godliness in their lives."
Dan's once again perverting the teachings of Scripture in order to portray those in rebellion against God, like him and his lesbians, as "saints" despite the fact that saints don't promote sinful behavior as "Godliness". This is some world-class heresy Dan loves to spew. What a clown!
Post a Comment