If yuo want the video, search James Talarico trans abortion and it'll pop up somewhere.
I'm sorry, but this dude seems to check most of the boxes Dan claims make a CN, but folx like Dan will support this genius without question.
I am legitimately curious as to how a human being who does not and never has had functioning Fallopian tubes, ovaries, a cervix, and a uterus could possibly "need" an abortion? It seems like shoving the equipment up the urethra might cause damage, and to the bladder as well. I could absolutely be wrong, but I guess that PP could charge some "trans" guy to pretend to give him an abortion for "mental health" reasons, but I feel like that might be a bridge too far. Even for an organization so devoted to making money as PP.
I'm thrilled that Crockett lost, got unhinged, and stormed out of her own event blaming the GOP. Although her in the general would have been amazing.
But this guy is pretending to be a Christian, is totally ignorant of biology, and has the potential to fool people. This clip is going to be gold in the general and in any debates.
https://x.com/jamestalarico/status/1589406716994916352
More bizarre eisegesis.
https://x.com/teamtalaricohq/status/2029374101614215407?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
If this was a GOP candidate, the ASPL would be screaming that he was a Christian Nationalist.
https://x.com/robertajgagnon1/status/2029373092607234475?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
"This is the person who defeated Jasmine Crockett in a race to the bottom for the Demo(n)crat nomination for a Texas US Senate seat. Yes, from leftist seminaries like Austin Presbyterian Seminary you too can get this dumb and blasphemous. That's not all. He also argues that Jesus and the authors of Scripture didn't think the issue of "gay marriage" was something worth opposing, because there's not a word about it in the Scriptures. Talarico can't figure out for himself that the reason why Jesus and biblical writers didn't talk about "gay marriage" was the same reason why they didn't talk about marriage with your mother or sibling or child: Any sexual behavior of the sort, whether in a one-time act or in an attempt at a committed relationship was prohibited as an extreme sexual sin abhorrent and detestable to God. This is logic 101. Only a daft and utterly clueless person determined to impose his or her ideology on the biblical text could possibly use this as an argument for claiming that same-sex "marriage" would be of little concern (much less something good) in the mind of any biblical writer (and Jesus). Jesus thought that a male-female prerequisite for marriage was so important that he used it as the foundation for rejecting any sexual bond involving more than two persons (whether concurrent or serial). According to Jesus, the twoness of the sexes, the sexual binary, God's intentional design of two and only two sexual counterparts, is the basis for limiting the number of persons in a marriage to two. That's Jesus' moral logic behind his citation of "male and female he (God) made them," confirmed by the same use of the same one-third of Genesis 1:27 by the Essenes. Talarico's idea of determining the significance of sexual issues by counting up the number of references is juvenile hermeneutics (for example, compare the paucity of condemnations of bestiality). Some sexual offenses are so extreme that the very mention of them is viewed as scandalizing. How many times have you heard a sermon about why you shouldn't have sex with your parent, sibling, or child? I'm guessing never, but not because your pastor regards such behavior as acceptable or only marginally bad. As for abortion, Scripture is clear that humans are made in God's image and that already in the womb God is at work shaping the young child. The Bible affirms that God cares for babies in the womb whom he meticulously forms (Psalms 139:13-16; 22:10; Job 31:15), including even calling prophets (Isaiah, Jeremiah) and apostles (Paul) from their existence in the womb (Isaiah 49:1, 5; Jeremiah 1:5; Galatians 1:15). The Bible doesn't mention every issue in society. The absence of mention of abortion is no more significant than its absence of mention of the cruelty of infant exposure. The evidence that we do have from both Testaments of Scripture and from the unified witness of early Christian texts in the period from the second century A.D. on leave little doubt about the church's consistent stance against abortion as a grave wrong. [An early Israelite law from the "Book of the Covenant" does treat the penalty to be imposed on a man who, striking a pregnant woman accidentally, causes "what is to be born in her" to die (Exodus 21:22-25). The unborn child is given significant enough value that the one who brings about that child's death, even accidentally, can be crippled with debt sufficient to throw him into indentured servitude (debt slavery). And that is for an accidental blow.] Talarico's assertion that God gave Mary the option in Luke 2 of aborting the Son of God conceived in her womb is laughable. In Talarico's warped theological thinking, he pictures in his head God saying through his angel: "Hey Mary, if you want to go ahead and kill the Son of God in your womb, that's fine with me. I respect your choice in the matter. I'm 'pro-choice' all the way!" This is so monumentally absurd that it qualifies (along with his "gay marriage" claim) for the oft-quoted lines in the movie Billy Madison: "What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard.... Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.""
https://x.com/libsoftiktok/status/2029233487597773253
https://x.com/collinrugg/status/2029234363314098679?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
More of what this genius believes.
https://x.com/afpost/status/2029353944908976305?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
Now he’s quoting the gospel of Thomas as it it is equally authoritative as the NT.,
61 comments:
Not just a heretic, but a perverse joke of a human being, no less moronic than Crockett. Texas needs to get their collective heads our of their backsides. This guy isn't a Christian. And how can Cornyn still be in the race?
Ummm... there ARE many in the trans community who have fallopian tubes, etc.
"Trans men make up approximately 34% to 36% of the adult transgender community in the United States, according to recent data. Recent studies indicate the U.S. trans population is roughly split, with transgender men (34.2%), transgender women (32.7%), and non-binary adults (33.1%) forming roughly equal proportions of the transgender population."
WHO is it that doesn't understand biology?
[Rolls eyes]
Tell Rico specified “trans” woman in his sermon, which I believe is a biological male.
I know that you’re committed to misrepresenting what I’ve said to push your narrative, but if you actually read for understanding, you would’ve noticed that my post only referred to “trans” without a fully functioning female reproductive system.
That there is a decent chance that a biological woman will be rendered in fertile by all of the hormones and other drugs is another matter entirely. I am curious as to how a elected official giving a sermon in a church is somehow not a problem when that elected official is a democrat.
Voice/text clearly had a problem with Talarico and I didn’t proofread. My bad.
Yet he’s preaching a sermon and no one on the left has a problem with it.
Sigh...
What he said...
"Our trans community needs abortion care, too...
When I use the word, woman, it should not be used as an exhaustive term, but rather as a lens through which to understand, examine and interrogate patriarchy. "
He is clearly speaking of trans folks who STILL HAVE A UTERUS in the context of his words.
Do you seriously think he was speaking of people without a uterus needing abortion services potentially?
Or is all of this just another instance of finding an opportunity to demean the LGBTQ community and their supporters/allies?
Regardless, YOU should make clear that this was either an inept joke or your own failure to, once again, understand what people are actually saying.
Craig...
I am curious as to how a elected official giving a sermon in a church is somehow not a problem when that elected official is a democrat
Again, read for understanding.
Most of us on the progressive side are fine with politicians speaking and delivering a sermon in a church.
Did you somehow not know that?
Where we objectively is when it becomes partisan. Addressing abortion, war, peace, economic policies? That's all fine.
Saying that the democrats are going to hell and so are you if you support them! Not okay.
And just to be more clear, in case you just don't know, many understand the trans umbrella are gender fluid and entirely capable of having a baby. THAT, at least in part, is who Talarico is speaking of. People with uteruses who may not identify as a woman, but who may have need for an abortion.
Again, no shame in admitting, Oh. I misunderstood... and apologizing.
The only shame would be clinging to ignorance intentionally after having it explained to you.
If you say so. If you are correct, then he’s simply stupid. People with functioning female reproductive systems already have access to abortion. But yes, just like biological males are demanding gynecological care, claiming to have periods, it’s likely that he’s defining people without female reproductive organs as women.
No, it’s an opportunity to use his own words against him in an election.
Your confidence in concluding that only you can understand what he is actually saying is astounding. As is your partisan spin.
Because y’all have a conniption fit when a GOP candidate speaks in a church and y’all get tingly when you spew the church/state BS.
If this was Ted Cruz, you’d label him a CN and be freaking out.
Now you’re just making shit up and pretending that you know what he really meant.
Given that infertility is one of the major effects of the drugs and hormones, I’m sure there are vast numbers of “trans” abortions needed.
Of course they already have access for the ones whose female reproductive organs haven’t been damaged.
Talarico is being pushed as a moderate Christian in hopes of winning the seat in TX. It’s things like this, and if this is out there there’s more, that are going to make the general difficult for him.
Crockett would have been a nightmare, but funny as hell.
Speaking of Jazzy, how come y’all never talk about voter fraud unless you lose?
IN CASE YOU DIDN'T KNOW IT, MANY WHO ARE UNDER THE TRANS UMBRELLA ARE
GENDER FLUID AND
NOT ON ANY MEDICATION AND
HAVE A UTERUS AND
ARE ENTIRELY CAPABLE OF BEING IMPREGNATED.
Do you need me to hold your hand and get out some little dollies to explain this to you? Come on. Don't be daft. I've already given you the answer at least three or four times. You messed up. Admit it. Move on.
GOD have mercy. You can't POSSIBLY be this daft. Do you need help going to the bathroom, son? Bless your heart.
As to candidates in churches, this has been long settled by both traditional baptist/separation of church types of conservatives and progressives.
https://chrissanderslaw.com/blog/how-churches-can-engage-in-public-policy-without-violating-irs-rules/
Also, as to this from the Accuser:
But this guy is pretending to be a Christian
Says who, accuser? Because he dares to disagree with your human religious traditions? Those who agree with you are NOT pretending to be a Christian, but those who disagree with your little human opinions are, pretending to be a Christian?
Do you think YOU are the decider?
It appears he's serious enough about his Christianity to get a masters of divinity degree and is an ordained Christian minister, raised in a Baptist tradition and currently connected to the Presbyterian church.
What makes his faith, "pretend..."?
Do you have ANY reason to make such a claim, other than you disagree with his opinions on faith and policy?
We KNOW who the original Accuser was. Are you part of his tribe?
Craig:
Now you’re just making shit up and pretending that you know what he really meant.
You see, one of the differences between you and me is I read to try to understand. Here we have a man who is an ally with the LGBTQ community and, presumably, rather well-informed about their concerns. GIVEN THAT, I read his comments and where YOU read them and guess "WOW. That guy must think that people without a uterus can have babies, because he was talking about trans people might need abortions." Which is, of course, nonsense.
I look at it and recognize that this man is almost certainly not an idiot (how many Masters degrees do YOU have?) and thus, clearly could not be speaking of trans women and was of course talking about those in the trans community who DO have the possibility of getting pregnant.
It's just common sense IF one is beginning with reason and good faith.
Don't be obtuse. You made a mistake. Admit it and move on.
If you say so. But again, the confidence and arrogance displayed by suggesting that you alone have "the answer" and know exactly what Talarico "really" meant is impressive.
By all means, let's see the scientific, peer reviewed, objective, proof that there are (as Talarico claims) 6 genders.
Your missing the point, spectacularly as it turns out, that biological females already have access to abortion care. If they've got the biological ability to be pregnant, and do actually conceive a child, they have access to an abortion.
"When I use the word, woman, it should not be used as an exhaustive term, "
Yet, from a biological/scientific/physical/material perspective the term woman/female is exhaustive. Genetically, anatomically, biologically the term woman/female actually has a specific meaning. To go beyond that "exhaustive" meaning seems to indicate that Talarico is saying that the term "woman" can mean biological male as many in the "trans" world insist.
Based on your piece, it could be argued that by platforming Talarico that the church was engaged in directly supporting a specific candidate.
The point is that y'all have done political campaign rallies in churches for decades and accepted it is normal. Yet when a GOP candidate speaks in a church y'all start in with the separation of church and state nonsense.
I find it hard to believe that Talaricos church gave equal access to any of his opponents, which seems to contradict the spirit of the no direct support of a candidate.
I don't know and don't care who his "accuser" was.
The simple fact is that Talarico said what he said in a public place and it was recorded for everyone to see.
I have not made "such a claim" I posted one version of many available which show the clip in question. Obviously I disagree with the faith beliefs he's spoken about publicly. Especially his various attempts to use Scripture out of context to suggest that YHWH encourages abortion. Further I do disagree with his political views.
I was unaware that accurately allowing someone to represent their views on faith and policy while they are running for political office was somehow out of bounds.
I do object (as should you based on what you've said) to his repeated use of proof texts from Scripture to advocate for specific policies which he believes should be made law.
Thank you for making my point. All you see is an "ally" and you immediately make assumptions about what he really meant based on your social/political/religious opinions.
Again your confidence or arrogance that leads you to believe that your biased hunches about what he really meant are correct beyond the ability of anyone else to discern them is impressive.
I'm not taking his comments in a vacuum. I'm taking them in the context of "trans women" (without female reproductive organs/biological males) insisting that they can have periods, lactate, and should receive gynecological care. I'm taking them in the context of those who demand acceptance of the notion that a "man" (with female reproductive organs/biological female) can get pregnant.
But you do you, and keep pretending that you are somehow all knowing when it comes to other people's thoughts.
I have to admit that your missing of the point here is impressive, even for you. (I guess it's theoretical that you get the point but are arguing your narrative instead)
My problem with your appeal to "common sense" is that my "common sense" as well as the scientific disciplines of biology, genetics, physiology, forensics, medicine, and anatomy tell me that changing sex from male to female isn't possible.
My "common sense" tells me that redefining a term with a specific meaning that has been consistently accepted (again biology, genetics, physiology, etc) to mean something completely different doesn't change the reality of the thing being redefined. Calling an apple and orange (or injecting it with chemicals to change the color and taste of the apple to resemble an orange) doesn't make an apple an orange.
The LGBTQ++++ community cannot be any more demeaned than by the fact they choose to be LGBTQ++++. What Dan refers to as "demeaning" is simply expressing truth.
He was clearly speaking politically in his "sermon". Cut the crap, Dan. Try being honest or at least acting like it once in a while.
And just to be factually honest and completely accurate, as if you just don't know, those who "understand" the trans umbrella are gender fluid and entirely capable of having a baby are as much liars as YOU are, Dan.
It doesn't really matter the alleged political persuasion of any who espouse the flawed understanding of T. Jeff's words regarding the "wall of separation between church and state" so common to those with Dan's level of disdain for the truth of Scripture. Jefferson was NOT insisting there should be no religious influence in politics, nor political discourse from the pulpit.
"What makes his faith, "pretend..."?"
As with you Dan and your troll, it's the perverse corruption of Scripture for the purpose of furthering his marxist agenda. Nothing in Scripture promotes, enables or tolerates the perversions you defend...illegal border crossings, abortion, sexual perversions of the LGBTQ++++ type, raiding the purses of the wealthy to fund your pet marxist projects, etc
Art, I'll disagree a bit on this. I think that it is clear that Talarico has some sort of faith in something. Who knows what exactly his faith is in, but even atheists have faith. Having faith isn't the problem, it's more about the object of one's faith. I think that many ultimately put their faith in themselves.
I guess it comes down to whether or not words mean things. Can a stump speech be a sermon? Is the church the proper place for stump speeches? If so, should the stump speech be a part of a service? If the church only opens itself up for stump speeches from one candidate or party, is that acceptable? Could a church hold a debate between all candidates running for office? Can an elected official (or one running for office) preach a sermon without it being a stump speech or appeal for votes?
It'll be interesting to see how Adam Hamilton handles this. He is currently the pastor of a huge church in a KC suburb who recently announced that he's running for office. Without knowing his politics or anything, I would argue that he needs to immediately step down from the pulpit, and separate himself from the day to day operation of the Church. If I was on the governing board, I would advocate for an unpaid leave of absence for the duration of the campaign and wait to see what happens if he wins.
But that's just me. As I understand the current restrictions based on the parameters of keeping their tax status, presuming that was important, I think that the above would protect them.
Obviously the argument about doing away with those restrictions or tax status is a separate discussion.
Dan would never lie or say anything that wasn't 100% objectively True and is always prepared to provide objective proof for everything he says.
"You see, one of the differences between you and me is I read to try to understand."
It's nice to hear you continue to practice. It hasn't done you much good thus far, but keep it up.
This due, who you think is beyond criticism because of his degree(?) should by that degree be wiser and more honest. His pronouncements demonstrate neither. There are no shortages of charlatans with divinity degrees, as your very own troll is an example. He's supporting both disorder as normalcy AND abortion, and thus he's no Christian. We who ARE Christians and/or strive to be do not enable sinfulness. We rightly recognize the disorder of the LGBTQ community and seek to them receive the treatment they need, but not the medical funding by tax dollars they do not deserve. Is that what he means when he speaks of concern for the "trans" community? Go ahead and try to make that case. Seems pretty clear that he's promoting the community and their ability to murder their own children in utero. Again, he's no Christian. Like you, he's exploiting the term for political/ideological gain.
So while you pretend you're scoring points over the question of whether or not the "trans" patients of which he speaks are biological men or women, the fact it is doesn't matter, as he defends the enabling of these disordered people and their fictional "right" to murder their own children in utero. There's nothing whatsoever "Christian" about that.
Art, my point is that the leftists are quick to cry about separation of church and state, to whine about Christian Nationalists in churches, and about using Scripture as the primary reason for a particular policy, when conservatives do it. When it's folx on their side (especially when old white folx go to a black church and cosplay the accent and style of black preachers) they don't seem too bothered by it.
For someone who makes this claim regularly, it seems strange that he so often doesn't understand things and misrepresents them as opposed to asking for clarification.
You make a good point, which I think I've also made.
Talarico and Wilson are both "wolves in sheep's clothing" and should be dealt with on that basis from the standpoint of their "Christianity". Jesus, Paul, and others warned us about people like this and we should absolutely compare what they say to what Scripture says and (like the Bereans) hold fast to Scripture and not to false teachings. That is the "in house" part of the conversation. We should be fighting false teaching with the Truth, regardless of the specifics of the teaching.
The other piece is the political side. Talarico is seeking high elective office and is running on a platform using proof texts from Scripture to justify the left wing policies he's promoting. From where I sit, if it's wrong for Wilson to do so when he's not holding public office or any government position, it's equally wrong for Talarico to do so. Similarly from a political perspective, we can deploy the Truth as the means to campaign against him. To make sure that the voters have access to his True positions and do so using his own words.
The difference, I think, is that I don't want to prevent Talarico from saying what he wants, or from being involved in the process because I object to his theological underpinning for his leftist policies. I believe that sunlight is the greatest disinfectant and that exposing Talaricos positions to scrutiny is the best option both politically and theologically. I want him to lose elections, but not to be barred from making his case before the electorate or prevented from serving based on his theology.
I don't understand what the Facebook link has to do with the discussion.
It’s the video of Talarico’s sermon where he’s insisting that “trans” people need more access to abortion than they already have.
I clicked on the link several times and each time it went to a different page!
Interesting. I am not sure what happened to the link, I will try to post a different link tomorrow. For now a Google search of Tallarico trans abortions will probably take you to at least one of the places where the video is floating around.
Well, I am informed as to Tallarico and his heresy and nonsense so I followed the conversation, I just couldn't understand the link!
In the meantime, here's an analysis of just what a perfect fraud he is, and why he's Dan's kinda guy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVci6-pYNzg
Lots of YouTube interruptions, but it's clear to see that this guy is just as perverse in his willful corruption of Scripture as our very own host of the Blog of Lies and Perversions. The tortured manner in which he twists Scripture to rationalize his non-Christian positions appears to have come from the same playbook from which Dan gets his "understandings". Clearly no one in his congregation actually reads Scripture, much less studies it.
From a Christian perspective, there's nothing in life which is separate from God in the sense that all of life is worthy of commentary from a Christian point of view. It is right and just for a Christian to, unlike this heretic, totally rebuke any and all support for abortion in legislation, as well as those like Talarico who would legislate to protect this fictitious "right" to murder. Indeed, it is just this kind of preaching which led the execrable LBJ to push for tax consequences for pastors who so choose to guide their flocks politically, as if politics doesn't mix with faith. That's not what the 1st Amendment was intended to prohibit. That law, in which a church's tax status is put at risk for speaking God's Truth as it relates to the political is wholly unAmerican and I have no doubt the founders would have rejected that vile crap.
Then I'm assuming you've seen the video.
Yeah, he's pretty bad. It's amusing because a GOP candidate saying these things would be eviscerated by Dan and the ASPL. It won't be as hilarious as a campaign against Jazzy would have been, but he's given the GOP plenty of material for campaign ads.
Obviously that is True, and our faith should inform every aspect of our lives. It is absolutely appropriate for Christians in office to work to minimize or eliminate abortions. However, in this post Christian world, I think that being able to make (a-la Charlie Kirk) the argument against abortion based on science and logic is incredibly helpful. While the ASPL will immediately tune out an argument for abortion based in Christian faith, (although they'll cling to an argument for abortion based on "Scripture"), they might be more willing to at least consider arguments based elsewhere.
The law is what it is, and absent a change, it's pointless to complain. As noted, the left has no problem with their own candidates cosplaying in churches, maybe the right should push the envelope as well.
I've seen the video, unless there is more than one.
The one thing that made me guffaw about Tallarico was his being a pastor of a Presbyterian church! Has to be PCUSA and he is no more of a Christian pastor than is Satan himself!
Then I'm not going to try to find another link.
I have an outstanding link that just arrived in my email this morning:
https://thefederalist.com/2026/03/05/17-times-james-talarico-made-us-wonder-if-he-was-created-in-a-lab/
Between the heresy and the abject rejection of biology and everything else he teaches, the man is certifiable.
https://patriotpost.us/articles/125642
Yeah, glad I escaped the PCUSA. It's a dying denomination because of it's theology.
I'm only sorry that TX doesn't have a better candidate to run against him. The material for ads and debates is amazing.
The end of that where the author pointed out the hypocrisy of his running against and defeating a black woman is hilarious.
Well, while I don't disagree on your tactics, I would insist that it won't prevent any lefty from presuming to dismiss science based arguments against leftist social issues as being solely faith-based, because they know the science doesn't support their perversions. On FB, for example, I never mention my faith until a lefty accuses me of being a "Christian bigot" or some such crap. I'll take a long time before I'll offer that info without such a false insult coming first. Indeed, I prefer the scientific facts be considered before doing so because once they're presented, it's easy to tie them to Biblical truths.
It really doesn't matter for most of them. They eventually dismiss it all because they favor the lie.
I just wonder if we'll ever see that objective proof before God calls me home.
Unlike Dan, I'm well aware of your point wherever I haven't asked you to clarify it for me.
At the same time, I'm well aware of Dan's points despite his attempts to insist it's different than what his own words indicate they are.
He's certainly pretending he's a moderate expressing Biblical truth. It's far worse if he actually believes his own drivel, which certainly is likely.
I really know next to nothing about Wilson, so I won't comment on things he's said or said to have said.
I also don't wish to stifle the stupid or the false from expressing their stupidity and false claims...even with regard to Scripture. Like you, I stand ready to call them out or to hold them up as false priests to the sheep who find them alluring.
This guy is slicker than Crockett and thus, a far greater danger to the nation should he win that seat.
Are you referring to TX Dems? As much as I'd hate to see him win another term, I'd still favor Cornyn over this boob. I'd prefer Paxton, but I've heard it suggested that Trump could tap him to replace Bondi, which many would most likely like to see. I think had that third candidate dropped out as he should have, Paxton would be the GOP nominee. Clearly that third guy sought to remove Cornyn as much as to be Senator himself. But with less that 20% support, he could at least have ensured Cornyn's defeat by bowing out and supporting Paxton.
Anyway....way off topic now. Sorry.
No. I can’t believe that TX doesn’t have better GOP options.
They’ve got enough ammunition that it shouldn’t be too bad, but neither seems awesome.
Wilson is essentially Driscoll with friends in DC. He’s a false teacher which is all I need to know.
Yes, he’s being presented as a moderate and those who don’t know any better might buy the BS. But that doesn’t mean that he doesn’t have some sort of faith.
Post a Comment