Mark is an interesting Gospel. There seems to be general agreement that it was the first Gospel written, and the the subsequent Gospels drew from it. So, what does Mark tell us about Jesus' early ministry?
" John appeared, baptizing in the wilderness and proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins."
"And a voice came from heaven, “You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased.”"
"The Spirit immediately drove him out into the wilderness. And he was in the wilderness forty days, being tempted by Satan. And he was with the wild animals, and the angels were ministering to him."
"Now after John was arrested, Jesus came into Galilee, proclaiming the gospel of God, and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.”"
"And Jesus said to them, “Follow me, and I will make you become fishers of men.”"
"And they went into Capernaum, and immediately on the Sabbath he entered the synagogue and was teaching. And they were astonished at his teaching, for he taught them as one who had authority, and not as the scribes."
"And immediately there was in their synagogue a man with an unclean spirit. And he cried out, “What have you to do with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are—the Holy One of God.” But Jesus rebuked him, saying, “Be silent, and come out of him!” And the unclean spirit, convulsing him and crying out with a loud voice, came out of him. And they were all amazed, so that they questioned among themselves, saying, “What is this? A new teaching with authority! He commands even the unclean spirits, and they obey him.” And at once his fame spread everywhere throughout all the surrounding region of Galilee."
"And immediately he left the synagogue and entered the house of Simon and Andrew, with James and John. Now Simon's mother-in-law lay ill with a fever, and immediately they told him about her. And he came and took her by the hand and lifted her up, and the fever left her, and she began to serve them.
That evening at sundown they brought to him all who were sick or oppressed by demons. And the whole city was gathered together at the door. And he healed many who were sick with various diseases, and cast out many demons. And he would not permit the demons to speak, because they knew him."
"And he said to them, “Let us go on to the next towns, that I may preach there also, for that is why I came out.” And he went throughout all Galilee, preaching in their synagogues and casting out demons."
"And a leper came to him, imploring him, and kneeling said to him, “If you will, you can make me clean.” Moved with pity, he stretched out his hand and touched him and said to him, “I will; be clean.” And immediately the leprosy left him, and he was made clean. And Jesus[ sternly charged him and sent him away at once, and said to him, “See that you say nothing to anyone, but go, show yourself to the priest and offer for your cleansing what Moses commanded, for a proof to them.”
"And when Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “Son, your sins are forgiven.” Now some of the scribes were sitting there, questioning in their hearts, “Why does this man speak like that? He is blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?” And immediately Jesus, perceiving in his spirit that they thus questioned within themselves, said to them, “Why do you question these things in your hearts? Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Rise, take up your bed and walk’? But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”—he said to the paralytic— 11 “I say to you, rise, pick up your bed, and go home.” And he rose and immediately picked up his bed and went out before them all, so that they were all amazed and glorified God, saying, “We never saw anything like this!”
" And the scribes of the Pharisees, when they saw that he was eating with sinners and tax collectors, said to his disciples, “Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners?” And when Jesus heard it, he said to them, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.”"
"And he said to them, “Have you never read what David did, when he was in need and was hungry, he and those who were with him: how he entered the house of God, in the time of[ biathar the high priest, and ate the bread of the Presence, which it is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and also gave it to those who were with him?” And he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. 28 So the Son of Man is lord even of the Sabbath.”"
"And they watched Jesus, to see whether he would heal him on the Sabbath, so that they might accuse him. 3 And he said to the man with the withered hand, “Come here.” And he said to them, “Is it lawful on the Sabbath to do good or to do harm, to save life or to kill?” But they were silent. And he looked around at them with anger, grieved at their hardness of heart, and said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” He stretched it out, and his hand was restored. The Pharisees went out and immediately held counsel with the Herodians against him, how to destroy him."
"And whenever the unclean spirits saw him, they fell down before him and cried out, “You are the Son of God.” And he strictly ordered them not to make him known."
"And he appointed twelve (whom he also named apostles) so that they might be with him and he might send them out to preach 15 and have authority to cast out demons. "
"And he called them to him and said to them in parables, “How can Satan cast out Satan? If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. And if a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand. And if Satan has risen up against himself and is divided, he cannot stand, but is coming to an end. But no one can enter a strong man's house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man. Then indeed he may plunder his house."
“Truly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the children of man, and whatever blasphemies they utter, but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin”— for they were saying, “He has an unclean spirit.”"
"And he answered them, “Who are my mother and my brothers?” And looking about at those who sat around him, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! For whoever does the will of God, he is my brother and sister and mother.”"
135 comments:
Amen.
On the one hand, I guess there’s no other response that makes sense. On the other hand, it’s strange.
Is there some specific reason for this post? It feels like you're in the process of trying to make a specific point, but stopped short. I can't believe it's to give Dan the opportunity to pretend he's a Christian.
Just wondering.
Yes. I'm actually making several points, albeit not directly at this juncture. I do think that there is value in examining the first part of the first Gospel and looking at what Jesus is recorded as saying and doing. I could be wrong, but I believe that this information could be valuable in assessing Jesus' ministry.
Dan is going to cosplay whatever he wants regardless of what you or I say or do.
Well, as you should know, if you read for understanding, I LOVE the teachings of Jesus. Here you have a post that is exclusively the teachings of Jesus as found in the first two chapters of Mark. Of course, I love those words, these teachings.
When you post good comments/words/ideas, I respond positively. Why wouldn't I?
Some of the bits that I especially like in Mark's telling of Jesus' start of his ministry:
1. It's clear that Jesus is literally out teaching the Good News of God, the Good News of the Realm of God, right from the beginning. We can glean understanding of Jesus' teachings and what Jesus considered to be good news from his actual words. Hallelujah!
2. We do not see ANY mention of later human theories of Penal Substitutionary Atonement here (or anywhere of note) in Jesus' teachings. That IS good news, given the bad news of that human theory. Hallelujah!
3. We see, right off the bat, that John the B is an outsider, not part of the mainstream religious movement. Same with recruiting a couple of fishermen and a tax collector! A trend that continues throughout all the gospels.
4. I love the imagery of Jesus (here and elsewhere) as a nature lover, someone who retreats to the wilderness regularly. And he was "with the wild animals and the angels attended Jesus!" So beautiful.
5. We see, right off the bat, that JtheB was put in prison. Being found "criminal" is often a result of preaching the good news to the poor and marginalized and of holding powerful oppressors accountable. This is no perfectly safe bit of good news! The powerful and privileged often strike back and we should expect that. We see this again in Chapter 2, where the religious elite have already started their opposition to Jesus.
6. We see Jesus, right from the start, bringing actual welcome and good news and support to the poor, the ill, the mentally ill. Jesus is our role model, in that regard. Indeed, good news to the poor and marginalized.
7. And we see at the end of 2, Jesus helping us wrap our mind around OT rules. The Sabbath - the "rules" are made for humanity's benefit and for concern for humanity, NOT that humans are slaves to the rules.
Amen, amen, and amen!
Preach on with the good news words from Jesus, man! You're on solid ground, there.
I am aware of your claims.
1. That is correct, although I'm not sure that Mark's account aligns with your hunches.
2. This is simply a stupid comment. I understand that you need filler to make yourself feel important, but stupidity just to all bullet points, is still stupidity.
3. That is one hunch. Although the fact that Jesus is explicit about teaching in synagogues and interacting with the Jewish leaders as well as insisting on following the law of Moses, seems to contradict your hunch.
4. By all means, impose your 21st century environmentalist worldview on the text, ignore or downplay the role of the Holy Spirit, the interaction with Satan, and the presence of mere "messengers". It's cute.
5. That's not exactly why John was imprisoned. Fortunately we actually know the details of what happened. Yes the Jewish leaders DID oppose Jesus because of His blasphemy.
6. What "mentally ill"? Are you claiming with 100% certainty that the "demons" referred to were really just "mental illness"? That Jesus rebuking them to stay silent about Him was just made up? Or did Jesus not understand the difference between demon possession and "mental illness"? Strangely enough, there is not one single mention of "the poor" and of Jesus specifically engaging with "the poor" in the first 3 chapters. But eisegete away.
7. I know that's one of your pet proof texts, and that you somehow think that the Sabbath wasn't a command from YHWH, and that this is Jesus revolting against the Jewish leaders, but without proof, I'll pass on your hunch. Perhaps that last line "The Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath." slipped your mind.
I'll give you credit, you've managed to take the simple, direct words from Jesus and add plenty of your won special sauce to pretend that Jesus' words align 100% with your hunches.
It's cute, I'll give you that.
Let the eisegesis begin.
1. I already included this in the post, without your hunches.
2. "So the Son of Man is lord even of the Sabbath.”. Jesus is clearly staking out the theological claim that He (not the Jewish leaders) has the authority (a term that is repeated regularly in Mark) to adjudicate what is "legal" on the Sabbath.
3. I'm confused. How exactly was the man's hand "restored"?
4. If one chooses not to read the entirety of the text, and approaches the text with preconceived notions from later Gospels, one could impose that hunch on the text. However, the text itself clearly does not contain what you've added.
5. There is an element of the "rules" aspect, it's also their refusal to acknowledge His authority. Their problem with Jesus was primarily theological, and secondarily their worry about losing power over the Jews religious life. But this wasn't some sort of political revolution against the state.
6. How exactly do you continue something that hasn't started?
It's hilarious to see someone who seems virtually incapable of actual extending the grace he demands of others, put on this pious act.
FYI, you know the rules about your condescending bullshit. Comment aborted.
Craig:
I am aware of your claims.
You're aware of much more than that. You're aware that I've been talking about Jesus WITH YOU for 20+ years. I'm clearly a huge fan of his words and teachings and stories and you can know this because of the sheer number of times we've talked about it.
You know that I have verses of Jesus that I am especially fond of.
If you have basic level of grace, you're aware that I've been a church goer and follower of Jesus for all my 60+ years.
You may disagree with my take on Jesus' teachings (just as I sometimes disagree with your personal takes on his teachings - and things you add to his teachings), but even if you disagree with my understanding, a good faith understanding of the conversation that we've had going for two decades would surely lead to reasonable person to conclude, "This man loves Jesus and his teachings - why else would he be such a faithful church-goer, church leader, and person who talks about Jesus SO MUCH if he didn't love those teachings?" I mean, that's my take on you. I think you clearly love Jesus and biblical teachings... I just think you are mistaken on your spin on many of them. But I don't deny you are sincere in your love of Jesus' teachings.
Since you chose to delete my comments, I certainly can't know how to answer your questions (from 1:23pm) that arose from my comments. So, that would be a consequence of your choices, sir.
To answer questions where I DO know what you're citing:
What "mentally ill"? Are you claiming with 100% certainty that the "demons" referred to were really just "mental illness"?
I'm noting the simple reality that, prior to mental health sciences, people with mental illnesses were regularly referred to as "demon possessed."
Do you deny that historical reality?
I'm noting the simple reality that beliefs in "demons" is a pre-science, ancient history belief of more primitive cultures. There is NO data-driven evidence that "demons" exist or that they "take possession" of humans.
Do you dispute that reality?
I'm just operating based on the best known data that we have. We don't accept that slavery or rape is sometimes acceptable, just because it's discussed in the Bible, nor do we accept that "demons" exist just because "demons" are mentioned in the Bible. I strive for a more mature, scholarly approach to reading the Bible. "The Bible" does not tell us to read the bible in a rationally immature manner.
And, before you go there, we have no reason to think that Jesus wouldn't speak in the parlance of the day, even if an everlasting, all-knowing God would know better. It's not demeaning Jesus to say, "He would have denounced slavery if it were really wrong!" or "he would have not used Adam or 'demons' if they didn't actually exist!"
That's a rather immature and disrespectful approach to Bible study.
That Jesus rebuking them to stay silent about Him was just made up? Or did Jesus not understand the difference between demon possession and "mental illness"?
I know as a point of fact that "mental illness" was not a known Thing in the first century. And just like Jesus didn't speak of cars, nuclear bombs or denounce slavery, he also didn't speak of mental illness, because, why would he? It would have been meaningless in the context. Jesus did not want too much to be said about his healing (whatever that was) in that context because the powers/the religious elite would have claimed HE was demon-possessed if they heard that. Which this passage literally demonstrates.
Strangely enough, there is not one single mention of "the poor" and of Jesus specifically engaging with "the poor" in the first 3 chapters
Those who were disabled and mentally ill WERE, by and large, poor and marginalized in the context of the times. Understand the context of the texts, sir. IF you hope to have an understanding of the text.
Craig:
By all means, impose your 21st century environmentalist worldview on the text,
Funny. I find it plausible that God create a majestic, beautiful world, and that God found this natural beauty "Good." I don't consider love of, respect for God's good creation to be a 21st century environmentalist idea. Funny that you do. It's quite telling.
Do you suspect that Jesus did NOT love this beautiful creation of God's? That Jesus did not find nature beautiful and wondrous and attesting to God's good love and grace? That God's Holy Spirit does not move amongst and within this beautiful beating heart of Creation?
If so, that IS an interesting little human theory you have. Seems rather disrespectful of God and the biblical witness, though.
Craig said:
you've managed to take the simple, direct words from Jesus and add plenty of your won special sauce to pretend that Jesus' words align 100% with your hunches.
Ironic, coming from someone who espouses an "angry god," "totally depraved humanity," "sinful babies," and "blood payment" "atonement" set of human theories.
I think, to an outsider unfamiliar with your human theories and traditions, who read the Bible without that baggage, they would likely find my understanding to be quite biblically consistent. But then, that's probably difficult for you to see, given how immersed you are in your human worldview.
I have no problem with the consequences of your choice.
Yeah, it’s crazy that I acknowledge and agree with doctrines help throughout Christian history.
No, no, no.
Any “biblical theory” would be something you made up and imposed on what I’ve said. But feel free to make things up if it makes you feel special.
Yes, I’m aware of your claims and you repeating them isn’t helpful in the least.
As you haven’t demonstrated the “historical reality” that Jesus was incapable of distinguishing between demon possession and “mental illness”, I see no reason to blindly accept your hunch.
You can mske up all of the unproven hunches you like, but that doesn’t mean anyone has to blindly accept them as “reality”.
Again assume whatever you want, read your preconceived notions into the text, just stop pretending like your hunches are “reality”.
I’m not wasting time arguing about stuff you made up.
I will note that you live these texts so much that you feel compelled to rewrite them based on your opinions.
Do you believe in the real world, demons sometimes take possession of human souls? Bodies?
Cute little sci fi/horror theory. Any data to support it?
Have you captured a demon imp before and interrogated him/her to verify it WAS a demon, not indigestion or an angel or an alien?
Craig:
I acknowledge and agree with doctrines help throughout Christian history.
Yes, you DO affirm the religious human traditions of many who identify as Christian throughout religious history. Me, too. I'm not in the majority, especially as it regards various human Christian traditions, but we both are affirming other believers who came before us.
As to your suggestion that I was "imposing a 21st century 'environmentalist' point of view on Scripture, I then asked you these questions:
Do you suspect that Jesus did NOT love this beautiful creation of God's?
That Jesus did not find nature beautiful and wondrous and attesting to God's good love and grace?
That God's Holy Spirit does not move amongst and within this beautiful beating heart of Creation?
And you apparently answered "no, no, no..." so presumably, you and I agree that God loves God's creation and the beauty of nature, so then, how is that imposing 21st century ideals on Scripture? Are those not universal truths recognized by many believers throughout the centuries?
Craig, reading but failing to understand, said:
As you haven’t demonstrated the “historical reality” that Jesus was incapable of distinguishing between demon possession and “mental illness”, I see no reason to blindly accept your hunch.
I didn't say Jesus was incapable of anything. Did I?
I noted the observable historic reality that ancient people did not have an understanding of mental illnesses or natural phenomena that we do. That's not a theory, it's just reality.
And so, people saw someone behaving in a very strange or self-harming way and they often decided they were "demon-possessed." That's just how it was back then and right up until the last couple hundred of years. Right? People saw an eclipse and thought the gods must be crazy or they experienced a flood and concluded the gods must be angry. They just didn't have all the tools or experience to understand natural phenomena in the way we do.
Do you think that the mentally ill are "demon"-possessed?
Danny says he's "a huge fan of his words and teachings and stories" but all I have seen in the several years of reading his comments is that he as a "huge fan" of mangling and reinterpretation of every thing Jesus said!
Nice job dodging the issue.
You made the claim that these are the “mentally ill”, so prove your claim.
Jesus was “The Truth”, why would He treat the “mentally ill” as if they were possessed by demons when they were not?
The difference appears to be that I’m in alignment with the vast majority of experts regarding Christian doctrine, while you stand alone or in a tiny minority. Given that, the burden of proof is on you.
A bunch of blather which didn’t address your imposition of 21st century environmentalism on the text. It’d just you imagining things.
No, you insisted that your hunch was “historical reality” without proving your claim or without proof that your hunch applied to the specific people Jesus healed.
No. I think that the mentally ill are mentally ill and the demon possessed are demon possessed.
But feel free to provide objective proof of your hunch. Not some vague, general, blather that you impose on the text.
As long as it’s “rightly interpreted” by Dan. Dan's intimate knowledge of Biblical Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek is spectacular and allows him to add all sorts of things to Jesus’ words so that Dan can love Dan’s interpretations of Jesus.
Craig:
You made the claim that these are the “mentally ill”, so prove your claim.
Well, for starters, there ARE no such things as "demons." We've never seen one, we've never spoken with one, there is NO HARD DATA to suggest they are a real world phenomena. Yes, there are old stories that refer to "demons" just as there are old stories that refer to Centaurs. Doesn't mean that those are real.
IF you want to make the claim that there are actually "demons" who "possess" people, that is the outsider (outside of known knowledge) claim. The burden is really on you to support the irrational mythical claim. Treating magic beings in ancient literature is the outlier position, you know this, right?
Jesus was “The Truth”, why would He treat the “mentally ill” as if they were possessed by demons when they were not?
You'll have to ask Jesus that. He hasn't told me or any of us any of his reasons why he dealt with the world he was in rather than the world as it should be much of the time. He also didn't warn the people of his day about the dangers of fossil fuel overuse, of climate change, of nuclear weapons... There are a LOT of things that an all-knowing God would have known but didn't choose to make known.
Why do you think Jesus didn't warn the people then about all those things?
These are unanswerable questions, since none of us are in direct conversation with Jesus giving us literal direct answers and clarifications. Right?
You can GUESS as to why he didn't tell them about all manner of things. Why didn't Jesus make clear that slavery was a great an awful human rights atrocity? Why didn't Jesus make clear that harshly patriarchal sexism/misogyny is a great evil? We don't know, do we?
My guess is that Jesus generally didn't try to make ancient people aware of all the knowledge and reality that people would eventually know and recognize is because it was not their time... that minds exposed to ideas and realities that are far beyond their capacity or experience would only be further confused by such attempts at explanations.
Jesus himself said that the church would do even greater things than Jesus could... My guess is that is part of this. That world was not ready for the more complete idea of human rights, of women rights, of mental health, of environmental health. That kind of paradigm and knowledge shift can only come with time. But again, that's a question for Jesus.
If he tells you, be sure to let me know.
Glenn:
Danny says he's "a huge fan of his words and teachings and stories" but all I have seen in the several years of reading his comments is that he as a "huge fan" of mangling and reinterpretation of every thing Jesus said
Likewise, I think you all regularly mangle and belittle the actual teachings of Jesus and basic morality and decency. But I don't think you do it because you hate Jesus or his teachings. But rather, as that great feminist, Mary Wollstonecroft, once said: " no one chooses evil, because it is evil; he only mistakes it for happiness, the good he seeks."
That is, you sincerely seek Jesus but you mangle his teachings in your efforts to follow Jesus... NOT because you intend to mangle his teachings, but because you confuse your ideas/interpretations of his teachings with the good you actually seek.
Wise words, eh?
Craig:
The difference appears to be that I’m in alignment with the vast majority of experts regarding Christian doctrine, while you stand alone or in a tiny minority. Given that, the burden of proof is on you.
I'm more than glad to concede that, IN YOUR HUMAN RELIGIOUS TRADITION, your explanations are the more accepted. But you do not speak authoritatively for Christianity, nor does your particular human tradition.
But I'm also glad to hear you affirm that when someone is offering a wildly outsider opinion beyond the realm of all modern researchers, that the burden of proof is on you. IF you believe in "demons" and "possessions," you really need to provide some proof of them. AND, if you can't, you need to, in good faith, admit, "No, there is no objective proof of actual demons... it's just something I accept because it's part of my human religious tradition."
I don't see how it's reasonable to presume that an outsider unfamiliar with anything would find Dan's take a more accurate representation of what the Bible teaches us about God/Jesus than Craig's take, especially given Dan rejects so much of Scripture those outsiders would include in their own assessment regarding the two takes.
I took some time to see what the internet offers in terms of evidence of demons. Before I go on, this condescending, self-satisfying posturing by Dan as too sophisticated to believe in demons or demon possession belies his claim to be a faithful follower of Jesus and lover of Scripture. For him to say he loves the quotes from Jesus is meaningless in and of itself as regards him being an actual "Christian" as that word is most commonly understood. Many atheists "love the words of Jesus". So what? To then further posture by saying "Hallelujah" and "Amen" over and over isn't at all persuasive and is actually demeaning and insulting. It could be that Dan's Bible is that which was put together by Thomas Jefferson in which all of the miraculous and spiritual aspects were removed. I'm still not certain that Tommy rejected them, but perhaps wanted to focus on the moral and behavioral teachings of Jesus.
Anyway...
In looking for articles speaking of evidence for demonic possession, I came upon a few which I saved for later study (they're long and technical) and they mostly seem (at this point) to hedge by saying things like "further study is necessary".
But then I found this:
https://www.cnn.com/2017/08/04/health/exorcism-doctor/
The news source which offers this story is, of course, impeccably reliable given it's among Dan's list of sainted journalistic organizations, but it's notable for the even handedness of the subject of the article in expressing his opinions. He also affirms what I've noted many, many times regarding the ability of science to confirm anything about the supernatural, given science deals with the natural only.
"As to your suggestion that I was "imposing a 21st century 'environmentalist' point of view on Scripture..."
Craig wasn't suggesting anything beyond the fact that there is nothing in the Gospels which addresses Jesus' regard for nature. I can't think of any examples. None of the verses he presented suggest any attention to the subject. Thus, you're intentionally "imposing a 21st century 'environmentalist' point of view on Scripture". Just one more example of you corrupting Scripture to serve your ends, regardless of how innocuous this particular example might be.
"I noted the observable historic reality that ancient people did not have an understanding of mental illnesses or natural phenomena that we do. That's not a theory, it's just reality."
No, it's not. It's another example of how you want reality to be. How did "crazy people" know Jesus was "the Holy One of God" or "You are the Son of God"???? Does mental illness make one a mind reader?
"Do you think that the mentally ill are "demon"-possessed?"
You've no basis for asking this question, as nothing Craig said so much as hinted at such a thing. This is how you "embrace grace".
I’m going to note something here. I’ve literally posted the exact words of Jesus as recorded in Mark. I haven’t added editorial comments, nor have I attempted to redefine terms.
I’m literally not even having a “take”, merely reading the words.
In general, Dan isn’t down with anything supernatural. I suspect that he doesn’t really believe that the healings recorded are supernatural.
As Jesus created nature, I suspect that He holds nature in some regard as it’s an expression of His nature. I suspect that He didn’t worship it, and I also suspect that He wasn’t pleased by how His perfect creation had been affected by Sin.
Based on the text, it seems like His primary goal was to be alone and away from the crowds to commune with His Father.
So, Dan isn’t going to prove his original claim and he’s going to add another unproven claim to the first.
I’m literally just quoting the Scriptural text. You’re the one adding things and redefining terms. That’s a burden of proof for you.
The hubris involved in referring to one’s own words as “wise” is astounding.
Likewise the arrogance to pretend that quoting the word recorded in Mark is somehow “mangling” them, while simultaneously redefining terms is the height of arrogance.
Your ability to take your individual hunch as if it isn’t the fringe/outside position, then to pretend that the theology of the vast majority of experts is somehow the fringe position is a demonstration of incredible arrogance.
You acknowledge that your position represents a tiny fraction of Christian thought, while refusing to apply the demands you make of others to yourself.
Hubris, arrogance, and hypocrisy.
No humility at all. No grace either.
Once again we see Dan questioning the Scripture he pretends to love in favor of his false god "science". If science doesn't prove the supernatural, then there no such thing as supernatural.
We also see, once again, that Dan making a truth claim and hiding behind "my opinion", which in this case he expresses as "my guess is". And still, he doesn't respond to the challenge of how mental illness can make one psychic or able to read minds such that the "mentally ill" in the verses nonetheless knew Jesus was the Son of God. Should I meet a mentally ill person, I'll have to ask him to given me the next PowerBall numbers.
My "guess" is Dan's not a Christian at all, but simply a fraud who exploits the name of "Christian" to legitimize his perversions. My "guess" is that when Jesus said, "Many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord'..." He had people like Dan in mind.
When Dan responds to allegations of mangling Scripture, he speaks of his "guesses" or "opinions" or "if we assume God is...", while from us he demands proof for everything.
No grace, nor any actual evidence of any kind to support his alternative notions. In DanWorld, "human religious tradition" is a phrase reserved for all those who do not agree with Dan's nonChristian corruptions.
Craig...
Hubris, arrogance, and hypocrisy.
No humility at all.
..Says the guy who apparently believes in literal "demons" who literally can "possess" a human body and yet, who is not willing to even acknowledge he has no hard data to support the theories or admit that this is an extreme outlier position. (I say, Seem to, because, as typical for you, you're being vague or simply ignoring the rational questions).
How is disagreeing with your particular set of human religious feelings "arrogant, " but you disagreeing with basic science, as well as other human traditions NOT arrogant?
Is your rebuke just based upon an appeal to numbers (and choosing those numbers from exclusively the subset of humans who happen to affirm your personal preferences) and, if so, how is that not a logical fallacy?
Dan’s good at making direct, specific, fact/Truth claims then immediately hiding behind weasel words.
That he readily admits that the things he emphatically states as fact/Truth/reality are really guesses makes me wonder why he bothers.
Marshal:
Craig wasn't suggesting anything beyond the fact that there is nothing in the Gospels which addresses Jesus' regard for nature. I can't think of any examples.
I can.
Consider the lilies of the field, consider the ravens of the air;
consider the sparrows;
consider the number of nature references in Jesus' teachings;
consider the number of references to shepherds and tending sheep;
Consider the ~dozen or so times that Jesus retreated to the wilderness, to the mountains, to the lake, to the sea;
consider that Jesus began his ministry by meeting with John the Baptist out there in the wilderness (Cousin John, who himself nearly exclusively lived in the wilderness as it's reported in the Biblical texts);
consider that Jesus began his ministry by a 40 day retreat into the wilderness;
consider the garden of Gethsemane...
Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Creator feeds them.
Are you not much more valuable than they? Can any one of you by worrying add a single hour to your life?
“And why do you worry about clothes?
See how the flowers of the field grow.
They do not labor or spin.
Yet I tell you that not even Solomon
in all his splendor was dressed like one of these.
If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, will he not much more clothe you—you of little faith?
Jesus is clearly a man well acquainted with the natural world, as we find in the Biblical text.
Jesus is clearly a man who has learned from or see the wisdom inherent in the natural world... Nature's glory is part of what he regularly uses to teach his followers and he's able to do so because he has spent time there.
And, Jesus is clearly a man who spent time there, in solitude and with friends, to seek a quiet place, to meditate, to pray.
Now, you may guess that Jesus had no great regard for nature and I can't prove Jesus' motivations for getting out into nature and speaking so regularly of natural themes and lessons, but it certainly seems to be a stretch to suggest that Jesus did not hold the natural world in regard - and not as a mere place to "get away" (although it is certainly, beautifully that!) but for its own wisdom and beauty.
You mortal men, in ALL your glory, as not adorned as one of these flowers.
It's a relatively moot point, but it seems like a strange thing for Christians - even conservative Christians - to push back against.
Dan demands grace, but doesn’t extend it. Dan demands 100% objective irrefutable proof, but doesn’t provide what he demands. Dan imposes his redefinitions, hunches, and guesses on the text, and pretends that we’re the ones mangling it.
I’ll simply note that Dan doesn’t argue treat he isn’t full of hubris, arrogance, hypocrisy or that he lacks humility and grace.
Instead he attacks me for not imposing his redefinitions and eisegesus on the text of Mark.
Can Dan prove that his hunches and guesses are objectively correct, no. So Dan resorts to these sorts of attacks and misdirection.
The complete lack of self awareness and ignorance of engaging in the very behavior he bitches about is both pathetic and amusing.
As noted earlier, Jesus created nature. I have no doubt that Jesus was aware of His surroundings and the natural beauty of them.
That Scripture uses examples of nature to make points about the nature of YHWH, isn’t the flex you seem to think it is.
Jesus clearly was seeking solitude, which He achieved by going where there were no people.
But if you want to impose your guesses on these texts as well, I can’t stop you from fantasizing.
Craig, in a state of irrational fragility, said:
Instead he attacks me for not imposing his redefinitions and eisegesus on the text of Mark.
You mean, me asking you QUESTIONS that are reasonable questions is somehow, in your mind, an attack? Or, WHAT "attack..."?
And we live in a modern world. We recognize that "demons" don't actually exist. Any more than a flat earth exists.
And given that, when someone suggests "Hey, you're redefining the Bible which clearly speaks of a flat earth!" I respond, NO, I'm just recognizing the reality that the earth is not flat. And so, if there is a text that MIGHT be interpreted by some humans (especially ancient humans) that the earth is flat, well, that does not demand that we agree with them. Indeed, the onus is on them to prove a flat earth, as if they could.
Likewise for "demon possessions." It's not redefining the Bible. It's recognizing that a literal reading of some texts is simply not supported by reality.
If a flat earther were to get angry at you or emotionally distraught and consider it an attack if you waved off the notion of a flat earth... if they accused you of "redefining" biblical texts for not taking the passages that, to them, suggest a flat earth... would you be in the wrong for telling them, "If you want to suggest something contrary to known reality, the onus is on you to support it... but you can't rationally expect us to go along with your bad eisegesis theory. Short of that, we are not being disrespectful of biblical text or your theory, nor are we redefining texts... we're just acknowledging reality..."?
No, you wouldn't. You probably agree.
Apparently, the difference would be that you DO think that the earth is not flat and it's bad biblical interpretation and bad reasoning to suggests it should be considered flat simply because someone points to a bible verse. We don't need a Bible verse to dismiss that theory. It's objectively wrong in the real world as the data shows. And yet, on the other hand, you apparently don't think that theories of actual "demons" is equivalent to theories of a flat earth.
Regardless, your view is the outlier to the rational world. If you want to rebuke me for simply recognizing what we can see in the real world, then the onus is on you to support this rather incredible and unbelievable theory.
How am I mistaken? Where is the "attack" in asking you questions and noting if you want to prove something, that's on you?
Craig theorized (and pretended he had the facts) saying:
Jesus clearly was seeking solitude, which He achieved by going where there were no people.
That is a fine theory, if that's what you want to guess. But the reality is, you simply don't know that "solitude" was the sole reason for Jesus' going to nature. The text doesn't say that (that it was the SOLE reason).
I am not alone in my faith tradition of going to the woods to pray. And I pray, I find solitude, I find God's presence, NOT by sitting and saying words of prayer. I pray with each step on the duff and humus beneath my tired feet. I rejoice in a creator God and a world full of song sparrows and amazing indigo buntings and fascinating pileated woodpeckers, amazing in their strength and beauty. In the curl of vines around young trees and, in time, the curl left in older trees from those young vines. Creation shaping and sharing creation. This is prayer. This is meditation. This is finding God, in ALL of God's creation.
This is Spirit and spirituality. It is a higher plane, right here on Earth. It is a bit of God's good heaven, here and now. If one reads the writings of the naturalists and nature-lovers and the natural poets, one finds people who have found God in natural beauty. Jesus' words ring true to those naturalists and poets and song-writers - people who've learned to create music by listening to God's tender voice in nature.
Now, again, you're free to guess that ALL Jesus cared about was being alone. And a port-a-potty would have served just as well as a wilderness area. That is certainly a guess and something you can theorize about. I just find it a weird "flex."
Are you gentlemen NOT nature lovers? Do you NOT find God in the created glory of this beautiful world of God's?
My "hard data" for the reality of demons and demon possession...aside from my link in an above comment...is Scripture. I regard God, Jesus and the Biblical authors He inspired to be honest, intelligent and capable of relating history accurately, until some fake Christian can provide overwhelming evidence that what Scripture relates is in any way false or in error.
"How is disagreeing with your particular set of human religious feelings "arrogant, " but you disagreeing with basic science, as well as other human traditions NOT arrogant?"
When will we ever see "basic" scientific evidence which refutes Scripture?
The text presented by Craig states that the Spirit drove Him out into the wilderness. It makes no suggestion He went out to "commune with nature" or to "take in the view" or anything which would compel a normal person to regard the passage as suggestive of "Jesus (here and elsewhere) as a nature lover". It's comically absurd belies any claim of "serious" study of Scripture. There's no legitimate reason to impose that notion on the passage or any of the above attempts to defend that absurdity. Worse, it's dishonest to suggest such can be drawn from the passage rather than the reality that you imposed it upon the passage to legitimize your hippy Jesus fiction.
Does Jesus love nature? Hard to suppose He doesn't. But nothing of what you've posted suggests such a thing in the slightest. Those verses aren't focused on nature at all simply because He references it to teach whatever truth He has in mind to do so. I suppose it's not the worst example of your penchant for eisegesis, but it's eisegesis nonetheless and you've no authority and less permission to do so. This behavior does, however, provide more evidence that you see what you want to see, rather than accept what actually is.
Craig, missing the point, said...
I’ll simply note that Dan doesn’t argue treat he isn’t full of hubris, arrogance, hypocrisy or that he lacks humility and grace.
What I'm saying is that merely disagreeing with a fellow mortal over his opinions and the religious traditions he aligns with ISN'T arrogant or hypocritical. It's simply disagreeing.
On the other hand, the suggestion that disagreeing with Human Tradition X is being arrogant... that IS arrogant. By definition.
Understand the distinction.?
Again, I respectfully ask: WHERE is the arrogance in daring to disagree with your human traditions?
Another question to go unanswered.
Craig...
That Scripture uses examples of nature to make points about the nature of YHWH, isn’t the flex you seem to think it is.
Well, that's certainly a human theory you hold there. Sort of cute, if lacking in any textual depth.
Here's what is reasonable...
People talk about those topics that are important for them. For Jesus, those are clearly...
1. The realm of God/the beloved community of God
And
2. The poor, the marginalized, the "least of these....
3. And, conversely, expressing concern about the abuses against the poor and marginalized at the hands of the oppressive rich and powerful.
Just, pound for pound, this is where Jesus spent most of his time teaching upon.
But right behind and along with that, time with God's beautiful creation, nature and what we can learn from spending time within nature. That may or may not be number 4, but it's somewhere right near the top. (Peacemaking and simple living are up there, too. But then, ALL of that is of one cloth. )
You know what ISN'T at the top of Jesus' teaching time? Human theories of atonement... Gay folks getting married. Inerrancy.
For starters.
Danny Girl denies the existence of demons even though the Bible specifically mentions them many times. "Mental Illness" is his claim without any justification or evidence. But wouldn't satan deny there are demons? Danny Girl proves again that he is a minion of the devil.
By all means, Glenn, PROVE that "demons" exist and sometimes "possess" humans.
Hint: The Exorcist is not an authoritative source. Indeed, it's fiction. Perhaps you missed that?
It's like I'm having a discussion with medieval peasants.
It's important to note that not one single one of you have even TRIED to prove "demons" exist.
[Rolls eyes]
Glenn...
Danny Girl denies the existence of demons even though the Bible specifically mentions them many times.
The Bible also mentions/tells stories explaining how slavery is acceptable, how to sell YOUR CHILDREN into slavery, that it's okay to kidnap the virgin girls of your enemies to force them to be your wife (ie, rape them). But just because there is a line mentioning how to sell your children or an instance of "demons" or a flat earth, doesn't make ANY of that factually or morally correct.
Y'all take literally all the wrong passages.
Prove your demons or admit you can't.
Glenn...
"Mental Illness" is his claim without any justification or evidence.
The evidence is....
1. Demons, unicorns and Puff the Magic Dragon don't exist!
2. As recently as in our lifetime, irrational humans have dealt with fellow humans with actual mental illness by saying they're "possessed by little demons!"
Irrational, uneducated accusations don't make reality. Data does.
YOU all are the ones making crazy, outlier claims... YOU have the onus of proof.
Dan is very convinced that his confidently asserted hunches are reality. Plus redefining terms at his whims.
The arrogance and hubris required to demand that we accept your unproven hunch as reasonable is massive.
But it’s cute that you think you have this much power.
It’s literally in the text, as opposed to your flights of fancy.
The difference is that I’m acknowledging a both/and while you’re insisting on an either or. The problem is that your hunch isn’t even mentioned in the text.
Again with wishing that one’s fantasies would be True.
My proof that demons exist is the Bible. Mental "Illness" is bogus because the mind can't be ill --it's intangible.
Those are some cute hunches.
Dans living in a fantasy world at this point, just making things up.
The text makes it clear that Jesus was seeking solitude and wanted to escape the crowds. Anything else is just you reading into the text.
Good point, mental illness isn’t quite as specific and definable as physical illness.
[Rolls eyes]
I guess you boys rely mostly on witch doctors and magic talismans and whatnot.
Good to know.
Just don't expect rational adults to go along with your imaginary magic voodoo silliness.
Myself, I don't care if people believe in voodoo and demons and unicorns. Those are sorta fun little beliefs.
I just don't want y'all anywhere near policy-making.
If you can't objectively prove your demons or flat, 6000 year old earth's, don't bother bringing them up to modern adults.
Glenn, Craig...
My proof that demons exist is the Bible. Mental "Illness" is bogus because the mind can't be ill --it's intangible...
Good point, mental illness isn’t quite as specific and definable as physical illness.
And I assure you, I'm trying very hard NOT to find your answers ridiculous or make fun of y'all... it's just that this sort of silly, backwards belief systems can have real, harmful consequences in the real world. You almost certainly agree when the ancient superstitions are from some source NOT aligned with your specific religious traditions.
The flat farther, you don't want them running NASA or airlines, right?
The female genital mutilation advocates, you probably find those religious traditions horrifyingly backwards and harmful, right? You wouldn't want such a person broadcasting "medical advice" for girls and families, right?
Well, same for these religious traditions of yours.
If you can't support it with actual objective data, it's best to hold those opinions for yourself alone and if you don't, you shouldn't be amazed to find that people write you off as anti-science crackpots.
It’s cute when you play these little games and try to misrepresent what we’ve said.
You demand objective data, while refusing to provide objective data. But you’ve put a bit of effort into your straw man, I’ll grant you that.
Marshal cited a story about a devout Catholic...
https://www.cnn.com/2017/08/04/health/exorcism-doctor/
By all means, have this "expert" (who is NOT respected in his field as reliable, if you research him) produce his videos of "levitating possessed people" and a 90 lb woman throwing a 200 lb man across the room. THEN (not that he can or has done that), offer the proof that it was a demon doing it and not a ghost or an alien or some other boogey man.
The problem with such "experts" is that they make clear they are NOT skeptics (even if they call themselves such) by their sloppy non-scientific "research."
But the first time you provide a video of a demon-possessed girl levitating and lifting up a car with one hand, I will affirm a great deal of interest.
Ghost stories are fun and people WANT to believe them.
Unfortunately, none of you all have any kind of serious documentation. Like, at all. Personal testimonies only get you so far.
We've had video recording capabilities for over a century with "paranormal" investigators actively "researching" demons, ghosts and ghoulies that whole time. Why is there NO support for these ghosty stories beyond personal testimonies?
Same for healing testimonies for "faith healers..." IF they are real, why aren't they working in a hospital, side by side with the doctors. I can guarantee you that doctors and nurses who had someone who could cure cancer or grow back someone's amputated leg, they would LOVE to have their assistance.
These ghost stories and demon stories just fail on so many rational levels. If THAT is where you want to plant your flag, you have to expect that people just won't take you seriously.
There OBJECTIVELY ARE NO DEMONS, GHOSTIES or Demon possessions. The evidence is the complete and total absence of them. I'm making it easy for you. I'm saying point blank and quite clearly, THEY DO NOT EXIST. Now, ALL you have to do is bring one out and introduce him to me or other rational adults. ALL you have to do is film a demon entering a girl's body and causing her to throw a car to the moon. IF evidence exists, THEN it's on you to provide the data. Given that the rest of rational humanity does not SEE any demons, all we can say is, "We see no evidence to support your ghost stories."
What part of "if you want to prove crazy claims, then YOU have to prove crazy claims with DATA..." do you not understand?
Dan clearly proves to us his belief in God is subordinate to his belief in science...or what he thinks science is. The fact is he's not a Christian at all. He merely appropriates the name to legitimize his marxist ideology. The uninformed, the gullible, those moronic...such people may fall for Dan's crap and to his eternal condemnation, he will lead those people astray rather than speak truthfully about God and His Word and Will as revealed to us in Scripture, which to him is of no more value than used toilet paper.
Again, he's not a Christian, but a fraud who postures as one in order to bullshit others. He'll question Scripture all day long, rejecting as he so often does, all which doesn't support his "progressive" ideology, but doesn't question the science he claims has proven so much of Scripture wrong...though it's never done that ever.
So Dan now demands evidence that demons exist. Does he need evidence of evil? If evil exists, how can that possibly be proven? He can't prove it, but in his attempt, he'll have to cite that which proves people aren't good, or that his notion of evil is merely a matter of consensus opinion and nothing more.
Apparently, Dan wants us to believe there's a supernatural Good, but no supernatural evil. The Gospel authors are liars. They speak of Jesus describing both eternity in heaven AND in hell. Dan says there's no hell...no demons...evidently no Satan/Lucifer/devil/Evil One. So the Gospel writers are liars when they describe Jesus speaking of such, or they recorded the words of the Great Liar Jesus.
Without basis or evidence to support what truly is a wild "human theory" he invented to dismiss the teachings of Scripture, he insults those who trust in the Word of God and the reliability of Scripture, which has been supported by various scientific disciplines, the most damning of Dan's recalcitrance and condescension is archaeology.
I'm done bringing solid evidence Dan will only piss on like a snot-nosed little whiny girl. My vote is Dan needs to bring a receipt now and then or he must just go pound sand.
The absence of evidence that you will subjectively accept is not evidence that non corporeal beings exist.
It's absolutely hilarious to watch you arrogantly move the topic away from the text of Mark, which you claim to "love", and onto this entirely different topic. Based solely on your unproven hunches about what Jesus and the author of Mark really meant and how ignorant they were about "mental illness". Because clearly "mental illness" did not exist in 1st century Israel.
You don't prove your claims with "DATA" (though Art offered DATA and you simply chose to attack the author, not the DATA) either, yet you demand that others do what you won't.
Strangely enough, there are multiple TV shows driven by the notion that ghosts exist. Hell, we've had celebrity scientists offer "aliens" as a plausible explanation for creation. Scripture is replete with mention of angels/demons and other beings that exist outside of our perceived reality. But you continue to pretend as if there aren't plenty of people who are highly invested in supernatural beings.
I understand that you have elevated your preconceived notions about the existence of the supernatural to the level of unquestionable reality, yet simply announcing this hunch doesn't make it True.
Just because Dannielle hasn't seen any demons, he claims that is objective fact that there are none. Which means, to him, that no one can be demon-possessed!. Yet many people who are called "mentally ill" often exhibit actions that in the past would have been called demonic possession. Demon's in the Bible often used "pronouns" which were plural, sort of the way demented perverts today say their personal pronouns are "they" or "them," etc.
I regards to no such thing as mental illness: IF there are medical issues causing bad thinking, etc, then it is the brain with a defect rather than the mind being ill. Freud started the whole lie of "mental illness" and he was a pervert himself. The whole Psych field is a fraud, as I have demonstrated through a series on my blog, and also several other articles on my blog.
https://watchmansbagpipes.blogspot.com/search/label/Psychology
To put it simply, the type of "evidence" Dan demands from us does not exist for things like "global warming", "peak oil", "macro evolution", "naturalism/materialism", or "trans". Yet he proudly touts the existence of "consensus" as if that represents the pinnacle of "scientific" proof, and touts the seriously flawed and corrupt "peer review" system as if it is some gold standard.
Dan is functionally a "materialist/naturalist" and functionally denies the supernatural. Despite the Scripture he claims to "love" being full of supernatural beings and phenomenon. Ultimately, Dan's inability to provide the sort of evidence he demands of others for his hunches makes his sound and fury signify nothing.
How do you prove God exists, Dan? It's important to note that you haven't even TRIED to prove God exists.
"The Bible also mentions/tells stories explaining how slavery is acceptable, how to sell YOUR CHILDREN into slavery, that it's okay to kidnap the virgin girls of your enemies to force them to be your wife (ie, rape them)."
It not only doesn't do this, this has nothing to do with the fact that demons exist and can possess people.
You're very subjectively selective as to the three or four passages you take literally.
Prove God exists or admit you can't. Prove there's any significant difference between Jesus referencing God and His referencing of demons that allows you to assert One exists and the other doesn't.
"The evidence is....
1. Demons, ... don't exist!"
That's not evidence. That's a premise. Prove it.
"The evidence is....
2. As recently as in our lifetime, irrational humans have dealt with fellow humans with actual mental illness by saying they're "possessed by little demons!""
The claim of the irrational is not evidence against the existence of the demonic.
"YOU all are the ones making crazy, outlier claims... YOU have the onus of proof."
No. We're affirming Jesus wasn't lying or mistaken about having healed the demon possessed by driving out the demons, nor that the Gospel writer was in his reportage. The truly outlier crazy claim is that Jesus was lying. It's also a crazy claim to assert that all people of the time of Christ were unable to understand mental illness and that every example of it was automatically written off as demon possession.
This comment is another case of you asserting a win by citing others who agree with you. If the shrink described is no longer respected by sophisticates because he's now not skeptical about the existence of demons, that's hardly a basis for determining his reliability.
"The problem with such "experts" is that they make clear they are NOT skeptics (even if they call themselves such) by their sloppy non-scientific "research.""
This is the "No Scotsman" fallacy.
As is the case with your laughable "belief" in God, you demand demons act on your terms in order to truly believe in their existence. As is the case with evidence and proofs, there is none you'll accept to convince those who choose against belief.
It's a good point and it aligns with Dan's belief in God's existence as no more proven than that of demons. I do not believe I recall him questioning the existence of angels.
The first three chapters of Mark have a common thread running through them. That thread being the supernatural. From YHWH speaking audibly at Jesus' baptism, to the spirit's guidance and the angel's attendance in the wilderness, to Jesus' temptation by the Satan we see the supernatural. Then we see Jesus healing many people of physical illness or injury and we see Jesus casting out demons. Not only that but the text is clear that the demons are commanded NOT TO TELL PEOPLE WHO Jesus is.
This raises an obvious question. Are the references to the supernatural accurate reflections of reality, or are they not? If they are, then wouldn't logic dictate that they all be treated in the same way? If not, then wouldn't logic dictate that they all be treated as being not representative of reality? Is there any logical construct where it makes sense to accept the supernatural healing as accurate, but the casting out of demons as inaccurate? Is there a logical construct where the healing is not supernatural?
I cannot see how it is possible to cling to the healing as proof of Jesus social gospel, while denying the possibility of demon possession when both are presented in the same way in the same narrative.
Dan did recently diminish angels as merely being "messengers" and ignoring the fact that Scripture is clear (Especially in Luke 1&2) that the "messenger" had come from the very presence of YHWH. Of course, Dan's inconsistency on these things is legendary.
Dan can't or won't prove any of his claims with the type of evidence he demands of us. He won't even attempt to do so, he'll just hide behind "It's my opinion.". Yet he'll insist that his opinion is "reality".
Dan has a history of engaging in these sorts of personal attacks against experts when they disagree with him. It's much easier to mock people than to actually engage with them and what they say.
The misogynist, Glenn, (who appears to think women's names are some sort of demeaning pejorative... WOULD that you could be more lady-like and fiercein the way of women):
Just because Dannielle hasn't seen any demons, he claims that is objective fact that there are none.
Not what I said. I said: THERE IS NO OBJECTIVE, RESEARCH-DRIVEN DATA to support the claim of "demons." There is no proof of dragons, unicorns, demons or little men living on the moon, either. I'm merely noting the reality that you have NO proof of such entities and, quite frankly, you sound a little backwards to not only promote "demons" and "demon possession," but to continually go on and on about it.
Don't be angry at me that you can't prove your little boogeymen. That's on you all. Again, you're claiming something beyond the known reality, it's on YOU to support such a weird claim. You can't be surprised if people write you off as superstitious and, frankly, odd. And not in a good way.
Craig:
This raises an obvious question. Are the references to the supernatural accurate reflections of reality, or are they not?
We quite frankly can not know, not in any objective sense. When Jesus tells a story where he says those who ignore the needs of the poor and marginalized will be literally told "Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels..." can we objectively KNOW that such abusers/abandoners of the poor and marginalized literally abandoned Jesus and will literally burn in an eternal fire?
What do you think?
If they are, then wouldn't logic dictate that they all be treated in the same way?
So, when Jesus said he'd come to preach good news to the poor and marginalized, why do you not take that literally? Is it the case that you don't think all passages ought to be taken literally? No matter how common sense and obvious they are... how consistent to Jesus' teachings?
If not, then wouldn't logic dictate that they all be treated as being not representative of reality?
No. We have no basis to say "All stories in the biblical texts ought to be considered literally correct in every way or all should NOT be taken literal in ANY way." That would be poor textual study.
Is there any logical construct where it makes sense to accept the supernatural healing as accurate, but the casting out of demons as inaccurate?
I tend to have NO opinions on supernatural stories from Jesus or other parts of these ancient texts. In some cases (a flat earth, demons, dragons, a 6,000 year old universe created in six days), we just know that these aren't reality - there is NO data to support them in any serious way. But I'm also agnostic about things like healings where we can't prove it one way or the other. I have no huge reason to dismiss them but no huge reason to embrace them. They are, in many ways, irrelevant to Jesus' message. The MAIN point Jesus' healing stories help drive home (as it relates to his overarching message) is that God is on the side of the poor and marginalized, which would include the sick and mentally ill.
That you don't find that in the texts says a lot about your worldview.
Is there a logical construct where the healing is not supernatural?
We simply don't know. Was the dead girl literally dead or nearly dead? We have no data to form an opinion. And, as noted, it's really rather irrelevant to Jesus' good news.
Just to answer those questions to, again, show you how to answer questions as adults do in respectful adult conversations.
Craig:
I cannot see how it is possible to cling to the healing as proof of Jesus social gospel, while denying the possibility of demon possession when both are presented in the same way in the same narrative.
I do not "cling" to the healings as proof of Jesus' gospel. As I've been clear about, I'm rather agnostic to unproven supernatural events in the biblical texts. I think the main point of the healing stories - in the greater context of all of Jesus' teachings - is it reaffirms what Jesus says throughout his ministry: that God is preaching literal good news to the literal poor and marginalized. God cares about the poor and marginalized as demonstrated in his working with the sick, the mentally ill, with the outsiders, with the poor and abused and oppressed. That is SUCH a common thread throughout the Gospel stories is that to try to dismiss a literal concern for the literal poor is to dismiss the point of Jesus' gospel.
On the other hand, a "gospel" that only a few will be saved and most will be tortured for eternity... well, what in the name of all that is holy and good is GOOD about that? That is HORROR story-level bad news!
What of the damage to the literal text of Jesus by y'all denying good news in this way - or totally redefining "good..."?
As to this false claim:
Dan is functionally a "materialist/naturalist" and functionally denies the supernatural.
No, I do not deny the supernatural, the unknown or the spiritual. Rather, I simply will not state something is an objective fact if there is not significant objective proof of it.
The case for climate change, peak oil, etc, are all reason and data-driven. The case for "demons" and "blood sacrifice to effect salvation" are all human opinions that SOME humans have drawn from their particular readings (or misreadings) of ancient texts and then, they assign the stamp of God on their misreadings.
I'm not willing to concede as a fact something that, on the face of it, seems so entirely NOT based in reality or any at all proven data. Does that mean I think "Jesus was lying..."? Of course, not.
That sort of thinking just confirms that you all are lacking in adult, rational nuance when it comes to reading comprehension. No insult intended, it's just where the data leads.
As I said, Dan is “functionally” a “Naturalist’ who denies the supernatural. That he allows a tiny possibility of things doesn’t change the underlying worldview. The question is why he won’t embrace it.
I could compile an extensive list of climate claims that have come True, but these are readily available.
The bottom line is that the climate narrative is based on consensus, and models derived from consensus.
Thank you for making my point. You cling to the supernatural healings because you can force them to fit your social gospel. You can claim that the healings were more about eliminating poverty than about demonstrating Jesus’ power. You assume that all of the healed were “marginalized”, when there is no reason to, and ignore Jesus’ specific words regarding healing and forgiveness of sins.
I know that the Scripture describing a Gospel that isn’t universal rubs you the wrong way, but that’s not my problem.
I’m not going to bother to attempt to figure out what in the world your last rambling means.
Dan's ACTUAL viewpoint:
No, I do not deny the supernatural, the unknown or the spiritual. Rather, I simply will not state something is an objective fact if there is not significant objective proof of it.
Craig's false version, EVEN AFTER Dan clarified for him that he was mistaken:
As I said, Dan is “functionally” a “Naturalist’ who denies the supernatural.
The fact remains that I do NOT deny the supernatural, the unknown, the mystery. I love it! I simply do not insist that something unproven IS an objective fact.
What's rather odd is, does that mean that you ARE okay with being offered an unproven theory (there are unicorns on the moon, farting rainbows!) and you will respond: "Well, it's NOT proven in any sense, but I WILL accept it as an objective fact because it fits in to my human religious traditions..."?
I mean, that's what the flat earthers will do, but I thought you were beyond that.
Do you understand the principle you're promoting? OR, will you gladly and clearly admit, "I do NOT think something is objectively proven even if it has not been objectively proven..." (ie, will you acknowledge reality?)
And again I would ask you, another way: Do you think that "demons" "possessing" humans is an objective proven fact?
Feel free to not answer that. Again.
Craig:
The bottom line is that the climate narrative is based on consensus, and models derived from consensus.
Well, that IS how science works: According to the best data we have now, global climate change is a reality and there are anthropological impacts that are causing or inflating the consequences of this reality.
IF and when better science comes along, we will adapt our theories in fitting with the new data. The point being, it's data-driven and based on best knowledge at the time.
For those who are 'climate-deniers' or "demonic possession" supporters, they have no current best data to support their theories.
And that is the difference between scientific reasoners and religious/human tradition imagineers.
Glenn's not disparaging women (unless he's actually comparing you to them, which would indeed be insulting to decent women everywhere)...he's merely noting you're not much of a man. It's a reasonable critique.
Glenn said, "Just because Dannielle hasn't seen any demons, he claims that is objective fact that there are none."
Dan responded, "Not what I said."
Dan also said:
"There OBJECTIVELY ARE NO DEMONS, GHOSTIES or Demon possessions." ...on January 25, 2026 at 6:02 PM
We don't have to prove anything about the existence of demons because we have faith in the reliability of Scripture. Thus, Scripture is evidence of the reality that demons exist because we believe Scripture is a reliably written record of actual events, which records Jesus' encounters with demon possessed people as one of them. We're not required to prove Jesus (or the Gospel writers) was lying or speaking to placate allegedly moronic 1st century people and that the possessed were merely mentally deranged. We're not required to prove the Gospel writers got the story wrong. The onus of THAT is on you, and to say "we've no evidence" doesn't get that done.
Craig:
As I said, Dan is “functionally” a “Naturalist’ who denies the supernatural.
Here is an example to help clarify the distinction.
I believe in an afterlife.
I believe the soul is eternal.
I believe God welcomes all who will into that beloved realm that extends beyond our time on earth.
BUT, none of that is objectively proven, OR anything like objectively proven.
ALL of that is, at this point, unknowable and unknown.
And, for sure, ANY specific details about what a theoretical afterlife is like is entirely unknown. Objectively so.
Do you disagree with ANY of that?
If you have objective proof of an afterlife and even ONE detail about it that is objectively proven, I can't TELL you who delighted I would be for you to provide that data. That kind of data would be world changing and incredible.
And, when you don't provide any objective proof (because you can't, because it doesn't exist currently) AND
you don't admit it
THEN we will see you're not arguing in good faith.
Do you understand that?
If, on the other hand, you agree with me and admit, NO, we can't objectively prove an afterlife or its details or a soul, even... THEN you will be doing the same as me, right? You'll be affirming, I believe in this supernatural theory, BUT I'm admitting I can't prove it is an objective fact.
Same as me.
That ball is in your court, sir.
I DO love the title of Naturalist, though, thanks. It's not the insult you appear to think it is! Would that there were more of us!
It's just that I'm a naturalist who does NOT deny the supernatural.
AND, I'm an adult who does not insist that supernatural things are a proven reality when they are not.
"...to dismiss a literal concern for the literal poor is to dismiss the point of Jesus' gospel."
Good thing no one here does that, except that concern for the materially poor is not the point of Christ's Gospel.
...and models created to procure a desired consensus.
Dan does indeed deny the supernatural by at least downplaying it as an insignificant distraction from accepting his marxist corruption of the faith. But none of Scripture it is true or of any value when rejecting, denying or downplaying it because the supernatural aspects of Scripture speak to God's power and glory. Our bodily resurrection will be a supernatural event which we can't prove. But as our salvation depends upon God's power and glory, it is of far greater importance than doling out bowls of soup at the soup kitchen can ever be.
Below is the extensive list of climate claims that have come True:
I hope this helps.
FYI, since you mentioned "climate change"--the narrative of man-caused climate change was nothing but lies to get more government control. I compiled a whole collection of links exposing it for the fraud it is/was.
https://agotoblog.blogspot.com/2015/08/global-climate-change-nonsense.html
Now Danny Girl is calling me misogynist because I called him a girly name. Well, I actually fight against misogynistic LEFTIST who claim men can be women. No I call him a girl's name, because he acts so feminine and feminist in his support of every sexual perversion and every other evil before God rather than behave as a man and fight agains the ungodliness he supports.
Craig:
You assume that all of the healed were “marginalized”, ...
1. No, I don't assume that all of the healed were marginalized. For instance:
* The Nobleman/Royal Official (John 4:46-54): A high-ranking official (likely working for Herod Antipas) whose son was healed from a distance by Jesus.
* Joanna, Wife of Chuza (Luke 8:3): A woman of high status within Herod’s household who was healed of evil spirits and supported Jesus's ministry financially.
For starters. You can tell that I don't think ALL of the healed were marginalized by the way that I never said that.
when there is no reason to
2. On the other hand, of course, there is reason to assume that those who were healed by Jesus were likely, generally poor and marginalized. We can see the "demon possessed" people LITERALLY living at the margins, in cemeteries and the wilderness. For instance. But beyond that, because we know in that day and time, IF you were blind, deaf, had leprosy, MOST of the time, you were living a life at the margins. The lepers LITERALLY had to stay away from people and IF anyone came close to them, they'd have to holler out, "Stay away, I'm leprous!" Other poor folks whose families could not support them were reduced to begging, as indeed, we see in Jesus' stories.
I can't imagine you don't know this, but traditional scholars regularly note that the "diseased and infirmed" were regularly living as outsiders in a culture that often considered illness a curse from God!
https://dsq-sds.org/article/id/1203/
and ignore Jesus’ specific words regarding healing and forgiveness of sins.
No, I'm not ignoring Jesus' specific words. I'm disagreeing with the spin you're putting on them.
I'm noting that Jesus SAID clearly, he'd come to preach good news to the poor and marginalized;
Jesus lived a life of ministry to and with and alongside the poor and working class, the outsiders, the outcasts, the unwelcomed, the otherwise marginalized;
That Jesus specifically had ministries to those with illnesses and disabilities and changed their lives by healing them. AND we don't know the details of those healings. Were they supernatural ZAPs of healing power? Were they folksy placing of mud over darkened eyes that somehow changed things? We simply don't know ANY details of the specifics of the healings. What we DO know is that Jesus regularly ministered to and alongside the marginalized and disabled and empowered them in ways that were affirming and, I say, primarily by not treating them as outcasts and "cursed of God" but welcoming them into the beloved realm of God. THAT we can see in the texts repeatedly and consistently.
That I'm not willing to state authoritatively "WE KNOW that the healing was a magical healing..." when I don't know that and the story doesn't insist upon that just means that, nothing more.
Is it not the case that you push back WAY more against the literal "Jesus came to preach good news to the poor and marginalized" that I cite (along with the other consistent teachings in the Gospels) than I do at an insistence upon literal healings (keeping in mind, I'm NOT saying that they WEREN'T supernatural healings, just recognizing the reality that we don't know the details and can't prove anything about it)?
I don’t think that Dan understands the term “functional” in this context.
I also think Dan missed the point I was making when I brought up climate change.
Marshal, failing to understand:
But none of Scripture it is true or of any value when rejecting, denying or downplaying it because the supernatural aspects of Scripture speak to God's power and glory.
That MAY be true IF one is chasing a lesser god of power and control and cruel whimsy, a god who is jealous/needy for affirmation and unwilling (impotent?) to forgive without a blood sacrifice.
But IF one is worshiping a God of love, grace and welcome, then, no, that's not factually true.
Not everyone approaches sacred texts with your human traditions as the guide to understanding.
Woman-hater Glenn...
I call him a girl's name, because he acts so feminine and feminist
You fail in your attempts to condemn me as "too feminine and too feminist" because I am a proud feminist and WISH I was as strong as our fierce, powerful women out there fighting the patriarchy and misogyny of impotent, vulgar, irrational men every day for centuries... of men who confuse bullying and childish name-calling and being castrated by their hyper-emotional responses to actual strength and dignity. I wear feminine as a badge of honor, so your attempts to be insulting are a failure.
You would do well to learn some balance and control from more women, Glenn.
But thanks.
It seems clear that Dan also doesn’t understand the implications of bringing committed to presuppositional naturalism as a worldview, as opposed to simply being a nature lover.
Well, Glenn has cited a BLOG to suggest that the scientific consensus about climate change if false. That's cute.
And in that blog (I assume it's not a peer-reviewed blog), the guy (woman?) cites John Clauser - a Nobel-Award winning scientist!! - as someone who doesn't believe in climate change.
The problem? Clauser's expertise is NOT in climate.
"Clauser fits a recognizable type of climate denier, what Cook calls a "fake expert." These are people who have laudable achievements in their fields, but they're not climate scientists. Clauser may know about photons and quantum physics, but he has never published a peer-reviewed paper on the topic of climate change."
I started with Clauser because he was the only scientist they cited from THIS CENTURY.
Going backwards in time, they cited Kary Mullis - ALSO a Nobel Prize winning scientist, ALSO NOT AN EXPERT IN CLIMATE STUDIES."
Seriously children, do you take your tractor to your dentist to get repaired?
So, epic fail on your citing a "blog" as your expert opinion, Glenn.
But climate science - a topic NONE of us are experts in, and certainly, none of y'all - is not the topic here. Y'all are the outlier, non-experts in denouncing the research and data driven conclusion of actual experts. You'll have to take up your religious disbeliefs in their area of science with them.
[rolls eyes]
Don't you all even WANT to be taken seriously? How does making junk arguments without any actual support make you all anyone worth listening to?
Here's someone addressing the claims of another non-expert skeptic from the middle of last century:
https://skepticalscience.com/ivar-giaever-nobel-physicist-climate-pseudoscientist.html
You used the term, Naturalist, which has a commonly accepted meaning. I am glad and honored to be called a naturalist. Thanks.
If you want to talk about OTHER ideas, feel free to say so.
Fyi, I'm not a presuppositional naturalist, as I've already made clear when I pointed out the reality of believing in a soul and an afterlife, both which might be called supernatural.
Ironically: IF reality matters to you!
What a bunch maroons!
I don't concern myself with how heretics a supporters of perversion and infanticide approaches the sacred texts they exploit for the purpose of furthering their agenda.
It is you who chases "a lesser god", A.K.A. your false god while insulting and slandering the One True God of the Scripture you pervert as you now describe Him.
You're right. Glenn was incorrect in suggesting you act feminine and feminist. More accurately you act like a heretic, a supporter of sexual perversion and infanticide and covetousness and like a petulant little girl. What you DON'T project is mature, Christian manhood and masculinity which strives to defend and promote truth and righteousness as God expects of us all.
As he continues to prove, there's much he either doesn't understand or much he prefers was beyond easy understanding because it confounds his marxist, of-the-world fake Christianity.
If reality mattered to you, you’d be dealing with what I actually said , not with what you want to believe I said.
And since you all REALLY seem to be unnaturally aroused by climate change science and trying to deny it and a belief that "them dum scientists don't know nothin'!"...Here's NASA on the accuracy of climate change predictions (I know, NASA is just part of the Pizza Gate "woke" "science" that Q-anon has warned you fellas about...)
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/features/202001_accuracy/
and other sciencey types that you all don't trust as much as a minister with a degree in "demonology"...
https://news.berkeley.edu/2019/12/04/early-climate-modelers-got-global-warming-right-new-report-finds/
and the crazy idealogues over at NOAA:
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/monthly-report/global/202505
Well, I guess demonstrating that you completely missed my point is fine.
FYI, the "Pizza gate" was one of multiple false narratives/conspiracy theories put forth by the Clinton/P-BO campaigns. Virtually every single one of these narratives/conspiracy theories have been proven false.
If Art wants to argue about this, he's welcome to, as my reason for bringing up climate change has nothing to do with it's failures.
No one here is dismissing concern for the literal poor as a facet of a Christian life. Disagreement about whether it is the single, central, focus of Christ's teaching and Gospel is just disagreeing with your human, subjective, hunch.
Dan apparently felt he had to write a novella in order to make the point that he thinks that the vast majority of those Jesus healed with "marginalized and poor". But whatever, as long as Dan can spin the text of Mark to fit his preconceived notions, who cares.
The problem is that I'm simply quoting them, not putting a spin on them. While you are spinning and eisegeting as much as you think you can get away with.
I'm noting that NOT ONCE in the first three chapters of Mark (the first/source for Matthew and Luke), does Jesus say what you claim He says. It's not that He's vague or unclear, it simply doesn't exist. He clearly says OTHER THINGS about why He's come and what He's doing, but not that. That you've taken your eisegesis from the other Gospels and imposed in on Mark, seems strange. Strange, but not unexpected.
An entire novella, and nothing of substance. Just more of the "I" centered eisegesis that Dan is known for.
Again, you "functionally" deny the supernatural. You are clearly hedging your bets by claiming that it is theoretically possible, but that you'll only go beyond your equivocation if you have some level of proof that is presented directly to you so that you can evaluate it yourself.
No.
I understand the principle that I am "promoting", although I doubt that you understand what I am saying. Therefore, for you to make these bizarre claims about what I am "promoting" strikes me as operating from a position of ignorance at minimum.
I think that you're asking the wrong question, based on an unrealistic standard of proof. I see no reason to humor you by answering a nonsense question.
How foolish of me to think that science involved rigorous, repeatable and falsifiable testing rather than mere consensus.
Nonetheless, I appreciate you agreeing that climate change is simply the consensus of some scientists and "experts".
As for the rest of your nonsense, I'll pass.
Your arrogance and hubris comes into play when you assert things as "fact or reality" or that others are "wrong, mistaken, or don't align with reality" without proving that your hunches are actually objectively correct.
Danny Girl says he is a feminist!!! LOLOLOL!! Oh, and DannyGirl, I have quite a few women friends and none are LEFTIST feminists (no other kind of feminist, by the way)
Hence my point. You "believe" in those things, yet operate as if they are not objectively real. You operate functionally as if the only things that are real are those which you can "prove" based on your individual threshold for proof.
Your 'beliefs" don't seem to affect or modify how you interact with anyone or anything, they just sit off in some portion of your worldview that you hope might end up being true in some way.
Hey ignorant Danny boy. The blog is not written by me. It is a collection of links to articles from all over the place PROVING there is no man-caused climate change. But, typical of LEFTISTs, you judge the blog without looking at a single article linked to. You are despicable.
NASA was exposed for faking data to support the LEFTIST agenda. Keep up with the new, crybaby Dan.
Dan does have a problem with this sort of thing. He big on killing the messenger (metaphorically). If someone writes a blog post, and fills it with links to the primary sources, Dan dismisses the whole thing as a mere "blog post", while ignoring that links included. Likewise, if I post a Twitter post which contains a CNN video he'll dismiss the CNN video simply because it was embedded in a Tweet. At times he seems incapable on understanding that when an MSM outlet posts a story on Twitter (or any social channel) that the story is still "real journalism" put out by a "real journalism" purveyor. Dan clearly need to maintain "veto power" over the medium which conveys a story with little or no regard for the actual Truth that has been communicated.
If I remember correctly both US and UK data has been inconsistently gathered and reported to say the least. When the most basic aspects of gathering the information is so open to criticism, it's hard to take the conclusions seriously.
Craig...
the "Pizza gate" was one of multiple false narratives/conspiracy theories put forth by the Clinton/P-BO campaigns. Virtually every single one of these narratives/conspiracy theories have been proven false.
!!!!
!!!???!!!
HOLY crap! Are you serious?! Is this just a memory slip on your part or are you entirely delusional??
Pizzagate was a false attack AGAINST the Clinton's about a deep state pedophile ring run by Democrats that was a precursor to conservative insane Q-anon types.
Tell me you don't actually mean what you wrote!
Insane slander is one thing.
BLAMING the slander on the victims of the slander, that's just double crazy. And not a little bit depraved and evil.
The Clinton's are responsible for lies about the Clinton's.
Renee Good and nurse Pretti are responsible for their killers murdering them.
Good is bad.
Evil is good.
Up is down.
Shit tastes great...
Y'all are deeply detached from reality.
Lord have mercy!
In case - somehow! - you truly don't know the reality of the rightwing PG conspiracy theory...
https://abcnews.go.com/US/trump-retweets-alt-activist-pushed-pizzagate-conspiracy/story?id=49221083
https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-38156985#product-navigation-menu
But, please, tell me you're not THIS disconnected from reality.
Look at this guy! He dares speak of "junk arguments" when all of his consist of nothing more than "Nyuh uh!"
Had to cut through reams of links all seemingly parroting the same leftist angle Dan supports, until I cam upon this:
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1112950/
and this...
https://electroverse.info/climate-change-denying-statements-by-former-ipcc-scientists/
No I don't want to argue about anything, but will content myself with waiting for Dan to prove something. Well...I'm not really waiting, because Dan won't do anything but repeat his "Nyuh uh" mantra, even when the source is Scripture.
Bringing up "experts" is a waste of time as well, as the only "experts" which are exist are "experts" Dan chooses to cite, and all others, including the Biblical authors, the early church fathers and all scholarly theologians since the beginning are simply rubes.
My bad. When I'm dealing with all of your random and off topic garbage, I occasionally make mistakes. However, my point remains mostly intact in noting that the P-BO and Clinton campaigns engaged in multiple false smear campaigns against Trump and that those lies, smear campaigns, and conspiracy theories have virtually be proven false.
When you can get as worked up about false conspiracy theories from your side, you might regain a shred of credibility.
Again, I apologize for confusing this "gate" with the multiple anti Trump "gates".
There are plenty of "sciencey types" making arguments to counter the narrative, but Dan will simply dismiss any of those because that's what he does.
That's exactly my point. Dan lives and breathes the climate change narrative simply because there is a "consensus" from some "experts". He insists that that narrative is True and must be believed, despite the fact that many/most of the claims have failed to materialize when predicted. Further, the fact that the vast majority of the energy from the climate change folx is aimed solely at the US and not at the countries which are actually high pollution.
Yet, Dan dismisses the consensus of tens/hundreds or thousands of experts in Christian theology over a period of over 2000 years as nothing.
If "expert consensus" is considered "proof" of one thing, then why would it not be "proof" of other things.
I recently posted a couple of pieces on "sciencey types" who've been disassociating themselves from the whole climate change narrative as well.
Dan seems theoretically willing to "follow the science". But only as long as "the science" leads the way he thinks it should.
Craig:
Dan lives and breathes the climate change narrative simply because there is a "consensus" from some "experts".
That you don't how ridiculous and steeped in anti-science ignorance and funny (in a pathetic, sad way) this is... well, it's just sad.
Worst "apology" ever.
Smug pride and arrogant evil goeth before a fall.
Y'all are heading towards a fall.
Coming from someone who never apologizes, this is freaking hilarious. I apologized, twice I believe, and explained the reason for my error.
I did not, despite it being a factor, invoke the fact that I was responding on my phone, while working, and that resulted in my paying less attention to your off topic diversion than I should have. Again, I apologize for my mistake.
Well, of you say so...
That you have to resort to lies and slander just makes this all the better.
Post a Comment