Biden and Gay Marriage

[TinMan]

More Magnification?

.

ah it was that video

 

[BlessedPeace]

President Biden is Pro- abortion and pro-late term abortion.He speaks publicly against what are contrary to Christian tenets because,in my view,his mind is so affected by dementia that he merely reads what is written on the teleprompters.

Poor thing can't even fully lift his feet to walk. It's sad.

He knows not what he does.

 

[Reggie Belafonte]

Devil ! Biden is a Anti-Christ !
Such is peddling a deception in fact !
Re defining ? spastic ! it's the lowest common denominator being the set standard !
Sin ? The wagers of Sin is death !

That black dude is totally correct what he is saying.

 

[BarneyFife]

You have had you tubers say your marriage was a the equivalent to pedophilia and a danger to society?

I have been marginalized on Youtube; hasn't everyone? And I would much rather have something like that happen to me than many things I have actually suffered in my life. My experience doesn't define sin, anyway.

If the shoe fits.

Do you think Romans 1 and Leviticus 18 are hate-based talking points?

Do you think same sex couples are comparable to pedophiles?

It is not my business to make such a distinction. God knows the differences and similarities between various sins and the Judge of the earth will do right (Genesis 18:25).

Because I say the video exhibits no violence toward a person or people groups, you make the mistake of assuming that all opposers of sin think and act alike.

I say "violence" because I'm becoming more and more aware that the word "hate" has been thoroughly weaponized.

Don't you hate hate? Or is it okay to hate some things, like pedophilia or, even pedophiles, providing that hate doesn't turn into sin? (Psalm 4:4)

what does it say about bigotry?

The principle is certainly condemned in the Bible, especially in terms of ethnicity, sex (male and female), and religious culture but the dictionary defines it as an obstinate or unreasonable belief in a religious practice, which is very convenient for those who seek to justify sin.

So "bigotry" has also been weaponized (as can and has happened with many words). Anyone can claim that any religious belief or practice is obstinate and unreasonable and find a broad base of supporters for their claim. Using the word "bigot" to define those who point out sin was practically unheard of pre-postmodernism.

The Bible is the only safe regulator of morality.

.

 

[TinMan]

I have been marginalized on Youtube; hasn't everyone?

My marriage has never been associated with pedophilia. Has yours?


Let's pretend that it was, how does that justify it happening to same sex couples?

And I would much rather have something like that happen to me than many things I have actually suffered in my life. My experience doesn't define sin, anyway.

What exactly happened that was worse than having you and your family associated with child sexual abuse?

Do you think Romans 1 and Leviticus 18 are hate-based talking points?

Comparing same sex marriage to pedophilia is a hate based talking point very popular with homophobes.
Denouncing equal rights as persecution in disguise is a hate based talking point very popular with bigots.
Advocating that LGBT people don't deserve the same right and legal protections that everyone else enjoys is a talking point of hate mongers.
Lying and saying that LGBT people are a danger to themselves, the family and society itself is also a popular is a hate based talking point
Attempting to say in hate speech is somehow OK as long as you are holding a bible is very much based in hate.

It is not my business to make such a distinction. God knows the differences and similarities between various sins and the Judge of the earth will do right (Genesis 18:25).

Because I say the video exhibits no violence toward a person or people groups, you make the mistake of assuming that all opposers of sin think and act alike.

If a poster here comparing black people to rapists and saying they spread sexually transmitted diseases and good Christians should be free to discriminate how would you as a moderator here deal with that? Would you pretend that such a post isn't hateful at all?

I say "violence" because I'm becoming more and more aware that the word "hate" has been thoroughly weaponized.

Don't you hate hate? Or is it okay to hate some things, like pedophilia or, even pedophiles, providing that hate doesn't turn into sin? (Psalm 4:4)

Maybe because hate speech itself is a weapon.

The principle is certainly condemned in the Bible, especially in terms of ethnicity, sex (male and female), and religious culture but the dictionary defines it as an obstinate or unreasonable belief in a religious practice, which is very convenient for those who seek to justify sin.

Is hate a sin?

So "bigotry" has also been weaponized (as can and has happened with many words). Anyone can claim that any religious belief or practice is obstinate and unreasonable and find a broad base of supporters for their claim. Using the word "bigot" to define those who point out sin was practically unheard of pre-postmodernism.

The Bible is the only safe regulator of morality.

Comparing a minority to the sexual abuse of children isn't pointing out sin and you know it. Pretending it is such is a lie. do you think false witness isn't sinful if it's applied to a minority?

 

[BarneyFife]

1:07 Guaranteeing civil rights for all people "I'm sorry to break I to you Mr. President but that was not a good day" "A day of grief"

What is "a final step toward equality, liberty, and justice for everyone?" Are the poor, hungry, widowed, and fatherless now protected?

Where is the call for malice and violence?

1:45 the marriages of some are not to be respected

Magnification

Where is the call for malice and violence?

1:50 the marriages of this minority are not "true"

Opinion, based on the Bible's definition of marriage

Where is the call for malice and violence?

3:28 Gay marriage means "Marriage means absolutely nothing"

Not even what he's saying

Where is the call for malice and violence?

4:10 Equating same sex marriage with child sexual abuse

4:20 Insofar as "bad" is equal to "very, very bad"

Where is the call for malice and violence?

4:35 States should have the right to deny certain minorities form getting married.

Not even what he's saying, at least, not very well at all

Where is the call for malice and violence?

4:50 even thought the church is a private institution and not part of the government those evil homosexuals will force good churches into preforming marriages they don't want to

Here you invalidate your previous point by recognizing what the video doesn't.

Where is the call for malice and violence?

5:08 they will make the church the enemy of the state

An opinion based on an assumption that may or may not be correct

Where is the call for malice and violence?

5:19 LGBT is a danger to society, it is a danger to the family its a danger to the individual

An opinion based on the Bible's model of family and society

Where is the call for malice and violence?

5:35 Good Christians will be censored by You Tube and persecuted for lying and preaching bigotry.

Already happening

Where is the call for malice and violence?

.

 

[BarneyFife]

My marriage has never been associated with pedophilia. Has yours?

No, why would it be?

Let's pretend that it was, how does that justify it happening to same sex couples?

Why would it?

Let's not pretend that consideration of barely possible hypotheticals can create a clear image of the holy grail of "fairness."

What exactly happened that was worse than having you and your family associated with child sexual abuse?

None of your business

Your logic here seems to be that since I've never suffered same-sex marriage discrimination that I couldn't possibly have ever suffered anything worse.

Do you think that's reasonable?

Comparing same sex marriage to pedophilia is a hate based talking point very popular with homophobes.
Denouncing equal rights as persecution in disguise is a hate based talking point very popular with bigots.
Advocating that LGBT people don't deserve the same right and legal protections that everyone else enjoys is a talking point of hate mongers.
Lying and saying that LGBT people are a danger to themselves, the family and society itself is also a popular is a hate based talking point
Attempting to say in hate speech is somehow OK as long as you are holding a bible is very much based in hate.

But do you think Romans 1 and Leviticus 18 are hate-based talking points?

If a poster here comparing black people to rapists and saying they spread sexually transmitted diseases and good Christians should be free to discriminate how would you as a moderator here deal with that? Would you pretend that such a post isn't hateful at all?

I'm not a moderator—not even close.

Is hate a sin?

You're a Christian. You tell me.

I believe what the Bible says about hate.

And I'm becoming less and less impressed by the use of the postmodern, weaponized version of the word "hate," which ironically is causing me more and more to separate the annoying and, quite possibly, exploitative expressions of fanatical activism from the actual hardships of those caught in the web of perversion and appreciate them more. Doubtless, you'll find much to mock here.

Comparing a minority to the sexual abuse of children isn't pointing out sin and you know it. Pretending it is such is a lie. do you think false witness isn't sinful if it's applied to a minority?

I'm not in the comparison business. It is not wise (2 Corinthians 10:12).

And the way he compared homosexuals to child molesters was favorable, unless you believe "bad" and "very, very bad" are equal.

.

 

[TinMan]

What is "a final step toward equality, liberty, and justice for everyone?" Are the poor, hungry, widowed, and fatherless now protected?

Where is the call for malice and violence?



Magnification

Where is the call for malice and violence?



Opinion, based on the Bible's definition of marriage

Where is the call for malice and violence?



Not even what he's saying

Where is the call for malice and violence?



4:20 Insofar as "bad" is equal to "very, very bad"

Where is the call for malice and violence?



Not even what he's saying, at least, not very well at all

Where is the call for malice and violence?



Here you invalidate your previous point by recognizing what the video doesn't.

Where is the call for malice and violence?



An opinion based on an assumption that may or may not be correct

Where is the call for malice and violence?



An opinion based on the Bible's model of family and society

Where is the call for malice and violence?



Already happening

Where is the call for malice and violence?

.

 

[TinMan]

No, why would it be?

Why are LGBT marriages?

and why is that OK?

Why would it?

Let's not pretend that consideration of barely possible hypotheticals can create a clear image of the holy grail of "fairness."



None of your business

Your logic here seems to be that since I've never suffered same-sex marriage discrimination that I couldn't possibly have ever suffered anything worse.

Do you think that's reasonable?

You said you suffered worse. And that somehow dismisses the message of hate from the video. Again why is that. why does your supposed "worse" experiences" justify comparing anyone's marriage to the sexual abuse of children?

But do you think Romans 1 and Leviticus 18 are hate-based talking points?



I'm not a moderator—not even close.

Avoidance.

Truthfully I never expected an actaul response from you.

You're a Christian. You tell me.

I believe what the Bible says about hate.

And yet here you are defending it.

And I'm becoming less and less impressed by the use of the postmodern, weaponized version of the word "hate," which ironically is causing me more and more to separate the annoying and, quite possibly, exploitative expressions of fanatical activism from the actual hardships of those caught in the web of perversion and appreciate them more. Doubtless, you'll find much to mock here.

Mocking is what you do.

I'm not in the comparison business. It is not wise (2 Corinthians 10:12).

And the way he compared homosexuals to child molesters was favorable, unless you believe "bad" and "very, very bad" are equal.

.

Wow.

 

[BarneyFife]

Why are LGBT marriages?

and why is that OK?

You said you suffered worse. And that somehow dismisses the message of hate from the video. Again why is that. why does your supposed "worse" experiences" justify comparing anyone's marriage to the sexual abuse of children?

Avoidance.

Truthfully I never expected an actaul response from you.

And yet here you are defending it.

Mocking is what you do.

Wow.

Despite the wildly growing accusations here, I'm simply trying to show that your imaginary evil in this particular case is just that—imaginary.

There is no malice or violence called for toward any person or people group in the video. I offered a defense of your list of talking points and you replied with a disinterested smiley.

And reasoning from cause to effect (however misapplied it may or may not be) might be remotely similar to comparing (which I don't do because it is unwise) but it is not the same as likening/"equating," which you seem to have conveniently replaced with "comparing" since I pointed out the difference between "bad" and "very, very bad," as they are described in the video.

Furthermore, urging endless hypothetical judgment calls is pointless, since I'm not interested in judging—merely warning.

But perversion is a sin that God will judge. And all the squirming and objections and appeals to fairness in the world aren't going to stop that. And the Judge of all the earth will do right when He judges—not as hypocritical fanatics would do.

And, speaking of avoidance, do you think Romans 1 and Leviticus 18 are hate-based talking points?

.

 

[TinMan]

Despite the wildly growing accusations here, I'm simply trying to show that your imaginary evil in this particular case is just that—imaginary.

There is no malice or violence called for toward any person or people group in the video.

is direct malice and threats of violence the only ways hate manifests itself. Of course it isn't and you know that. Why are you dishonestly pretending otherwise.

as for malice any honest person can recognize that calling the LGBT people or any minority a danger to society, a danger to the family and a danger to themselves is malice period.

I offered a defense of your list of talking points and you replied with a disinterested smiley.

you went on a denial laden rant

And reasoning from cause to effect (however misapplied it may or may not be) might be remotely similar to comparing (which I don't do because it is unwise) but it is not the same as likening/"equating," which you seem to have conveniently replaced with "comparing" since I pointed out the difference between "bad" and "very, very bad," as they are described in the video.

reasoning from cause and effect?

Furthermore, urging endless hypothetical judgment calls is pointless, since I'm not interested in judging—merely warning.

Bull

But perversion is a sin that God will judge.

So is hate

And all the squirming and objections and appeals to fairness in the world aren't going to stop that.

and no amount of denial and deflection will change bigotry into something good no matter how hard you try.

And the Judge of all the earth will do right when He judges—not as hypocritical fanatics would do.

And, speaking of avoidance, do you think Romans 1 and Leviticus 18 are hate-based talking points?

.

I never said they were and you know that.

 

[BarneyFife]

is direct malice and threats of violence the only ways hate manifests itself.

I don't even know what you mean when you say "hate."

Because it seems to be a word folks can get a lot of use from to condemn other folks who are against justifying behavior that is condemned in the Bible.

And the problem with that is that God hates some behaviors and even some people.

(We're not too good at it, but He is able to hate people and love them at the same time. Of course, postmodern Bible scholars don't like that and prefer to see the word "hate" ascribed to God as figurative in some way.)

And He is not at all interested in justifying any behavior that is condemned in the Bible.

The word "hate" has been socially re-engineered to introduce ambiguity and confusion into conversations about what should and should not be considered acceptable behavior in civil society.

And I don't know what "direct malice" is, either. As if there were such a thing as "indirect malice." If you don't want to be clear about terms, don't blame me for the strained communication. Answering questions containing unclear terms is a good way to end up in a trap, which I suspect has occurred to you.

I can understand your frustration that I'm not signing off on your imaginary evil but if you can't put some meat on your "hate" bones, there's not much I can do about that.

Of course it isn't and you know that. Why are you dishonestly pretending otherwise.

And the "you know that" statements just betray your mistaken assumption that you can read minds.

as for malice any honest person can recognize that calling the LGBT people or any minority a danger to society, a danger to the family and a danger to themselves is malice period.

MALICE

Definitions from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition.

1. noun A desire to harm others or to see others suffer; extreme ill will or spite.
2. noun The intent to commit an unlawful act without justification or excuse.
3. noun An improper motive for an action, such as desire to cause injury to another.

This is absent from the video. You're just indulging in some more magnification here.

reasoning from cause and effect?

Again, however misapplied or misguided, the man in the video is reasoning from cause TO effect that the change from the definition of marriage from one man with one woman to any two persons who profess love to each other will make the change to other forms of marriage seem more acceptable in the future. This is not the same as likening or "equating," as you put it, same-sex marriage to pedophilia, and no amount of spirited objection or magnification is going to change this reality, which you facilitated by your use of the word "equate." If you'd like to withdraw the "equate" specification, it would certainly be a step in the direction of more effective communication.

The slippery slope argument is not completely without merit here, as it was urged at the conclusion of the Obergefell v. Hodges decision that the definition of marriage was unchanged and that SCOTUS was just ruling that the law be applied as it always should have been. The LGBT folks seemed to be quite satisfied with this logic, as well they should have been, for obvious reasons. But the due process mentality didn't sit too well with some individual states and it looks to me like this new initiative is designed to make a show of hedging bets to secure votes, albeit at the inevitable expense of the due process concept fundamental to the OvH decision. It's a mess that's not likely to be cleaned up anytime soon. If the government is going to persist in sanctioning sins of perversion, things are going to get more and more confused—it's an immutable law of Divine nature.

I never said they were and you know that.

My question wasn't predicated on you saying that they were.

If I thought you said they were there would be no point in asking the question.

And you still can't seem to signify that they aren't.

——————

Take a look at your post:

is direct malice and threats of violence the only ways hate manifests itself. Of course it isn't and you know that. Why are you dishonestly pretending otherwise.

as for malice any honest person can recognize that calling the LGBT people or any minority a danger to society, a danger to the family and a danger to themselves is malice period.


you went on a denial laden rant

reasoning from cause and effect?

Bull

So is hate

and no amount of denial and deflection will change bigotry into something good no matter how hard you try.

I never said they were and you know that.

It's fairly typical of your posts, wouldn't you say?

I enjoy life here on this earth. There's some really great stuff going on.

But I prioritize getting people to live forever on an earth made new with no sin and suffering where Jesus walks around and talks to the people He created and died for.

You've expressed no interest in that whatsoever.

It's natural that we're having trouble communicating.

I think you're confused.

You think I'm just hateful.

I wish it were not so.

But it is.

I'm trying not to come across as a denial-laden rant.

Popcorn?

.

 

[TinMan]

I don't even know what you mean when you say "hate."

Hate is an intense negative emotional response towards certain people, things, or ideas.

Hope that helps

Because it seems to be a word folks can get a lot of use from to condemn other folks who are against justifying behavior that is condemned in the Bible.

And the problem with that is that God hates some behaviors and even some people.

Amazingly these people say exactly the same thing. That what they are doesn't isn't hate at all they are just following the word of God.

(We're not too good at it, but He is able to hate people and love them at the same time. Of course, postmodern Bible scholars don't like that and prefer to see the word "hate" ascribed to God as figurative in some way.)

And He is not at all interested in justifying any behavior that is condemned in the Bible.

The word "hate" has been socially re-engineered to introduce ambiguity and confusion into conversations about what should and should not be considered acceptable behavior in civil society.

So basically it's somehow different when you do it.

And I don't know what "direct malice" is, either. As if there were such a thing as "indirect malice." If you don't want to be clear about terms, don't blame me for the strained communication. Answering questions containing unclear terms is a good way to end up in a trap, which I suspect has occurred to you.

I can understand your frustration that I'm not signing off on your imaginary evil but if you can't put some meat on your "hate" bones, there's not much I can do about that.



And the "you know that" statements just betray your mistaken assumption that you can read minds.

I can imagine your frustration in that I don't share your personal prejudices. I do hate to be the one to tell you that good people anywhere don't share you r prejudices either.

MALICE

Definitions from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition.

1. noun A desire to harm others or to see others suffer; extreme ill will or spite.
2. noun The intent to commit an unlawful act without justification or excuse.
3. noun An improper motive for an action, such as desire to cause injury to another.

This is absent from the video. You're just indulging in some more magnification here.

It is true that the person in the video isn't openly calling for the mass killing of LGBT individuals. But injury isn't doesn't need to be physical.
Calling black people a danger to society and a danger to the family is malice
Calling Jews a danger to society and a danger to the family is malice
Calling the handicapped a danger to society and a danger to the family is malice

Again, however misapplied or misguided, the man in the video is reasoning from cause TO effect that the change from the definition of marriage from one man with one woman to any two persons who profess love to each other will make the change to other forms of marriage seem more acceptable in the future.

Any two persons who profess love to each other?
I don't know of anyone advocating that. So the "reasoning" is at best faulty.

This is not the same as likening or "equating," as you put it, same-sex marriage to pedophilia, and no amount of spirited objection or magnification is going to change this reality, which you facilitated by your use of the word "equate." If you'd like to withdraw the "equate" specification, it would certainly be a step in the direction of more effective communication.

Doing so would be dishonest as the comparison in the video to a 60 year old man and a 12 year old girl was immediate and described in the video as a dangerous result of same sex marriage. So it is equating and pretending otherwise is certainly a step in the wrong direction for more effective communication.

The slippery slope argument is not completely without merit here, as it was urged at the conclusion of the Obergefell v. Hodges decision that the definition of marriage was unchanged and that SCOTUS was just ruling that the law be applied as it always should have been.

Just like in Loving v. Virginia

The LGBT folks seemed to be quite satisfied with this logic, as well they should have been, for obvious reasons. But the due process mentality didn't sit too well with some individual states and it looks to me like this new initiative is designed to make a show of hedging bets to secure votes, albeit at the inevitable expense of the due process concept fundamental to the OvH decision. It's a mess that's not likely to be cleaned up anytime soon. If the government is going to persist in sanctioning sins of perversion, things are going to get more and more confused—it's an immutable law of Divine nature.

Horrors. Next thing you know they might sanction the perversion of interracial marriage.

My question wasn't predicated on you saying that they were.

If I thought you said they were there would be no point in asking the question.

And you still can't seem to signify that they aren't.

I apologize for not falling for your very clumsy attempt at a "gottcha"

——————

Take a look at your post:



It's fairly typical of your posts, wouldn't you say?

I enjoy life here on this earth. There's some really great stuff going on.

But I prioritize getting people to live forever on an earth made new with no sin and suffering where Jesus walks around and talks to the people He created and died for.

You've expressed no interest in that whatsoever.

It's natural that we're having trouble communicating.

I think you're confused.

A convenient way of dismissing anything I have said and while still being condescending.

You think I'm just hateful.

If you were saying the same things about black people it would be called hateful
If you were saying the same things about Jews it would be called hateful
If you were saying the same things about handicapped people it would be called hateful
If you were saying the same things about Buddhists it would be called hateful
If you were saying the same things about left handed people it would be called hateful

I wish it were not so.

But it is.

I'm trying not to come across as a denial-laden rant.

sadly you are failing at that.

 

[Cassandra]

President Biden is Pro- abortion and pro-late term abortion.He speaks publicly against what are contrary to Christian tenets because,

He knows not what he does.

Where does he say he is pro late term abortion. Gotta be from the horse's mouth. I would love to see the quote.

in my view,his mind is so affected by dementia that he merely reads what is written on the teleprompters.

Poor thing can't even fully lift his feet to walk. It's sad.

What a load of hoo ha. He does fine.
I hope you are praying for him instead of dogging on him on a christian (!) forum because everyone else thinks its ok. We are supposed to pray for our leaders.

 

[BlessedPeace]

Where does he say he is pro late term abortion. Gotta be from the horse's mouth. I would love to see the quote.

‘Factcheckers’ Keep Lying about Biden’s Abortion Position | National Review

Joe Biden supports the right of unlimited abortion, funded by the taxpayers, up until the moment of birth.

www.nationalreview.com

National Review
By DAVID HARSANYI
August 26, 2020 11:56 PM
Joe Biden supports the right of unlimited abortion, funded by the taxpayers, up until the moment of birth.

What a load of hoo ha. He does fine.
I hope you are praying for him instead of dogging on him on a christian (!) forum because everyone else thinks its ok. We are supposed to pray for our leaders.

 

[BarneyFife]

Hate is an intense negative emotional response towards certain people, things, or ideas.

Hope that helps

I'm afraid it's not very helpful at all and it reflects perfectly the weaponization the word "hate" has undergone at the hands of postmodern philosophers.

Hate is an emotion—not a response.

Folks who allow themselves to be changed by Christ and bear the fruit of the Spirit—namely, self-control—are not at the mercy of their emotions and are free to choose not to act on them. Emotions can arise suddenly, without intentional cause.

The hate = emotional response mentality is just a variation on the emotion = action problem that has so many thinking they must do whatever their hearts say is right.

So basically it's somehow different when you do it.

Having an intense negative emotional response towards certain people, things, or ideas, you mean?

I honestly don't think I'm going that far here, and I don't think the guy in the video is quite there, either.

Amazingly these people say exactly the same thing. That what they are doesn't isn't hate at all they are just following the word of God.

It is true that the person in the video isn't openly calling for the mass killing of LGBT individuals. But injury isn't doesn't need to be physical.

If you were saying the same things about Jews it would be called hateful

If you were saying the same things about handicapped people it would be called hateful
If you were saying the same things about Buddhists it would be called hateful
If you were saying the same things about left handed people it would be called hateful

It's interesting that you draw a parallel between folks like me and the guy in the video, and the klan since they do, in fact, call for the mass killing of the people they hate while you concede that video guy, at least, doesn't.

But injury isn't doesn't need to be physical.
Calling black people a danger to society and a danger to the family is malice
Calling Jews a danger to society and a danger to the family is malice
Calling the handicapped a danger to society and a danger to the family is malice

I'm not forgetting your claim that there's still injury involved even if it's not physical but then you call that injury "malice," which we can't verify or quantify because the injury is hypothetical.

Then you attach it to groups that are just being what they were born as and we're off to the races again. The groups you're citing aren't being held up as dangerous to biblical family structure, either so we're back to not only hypothetical, but irrelevance.

Any two persons who profess love to each other?
I don't know of anyone advocating that. So the "reasoning" is at best faulty.

This critique would be legitimate if you weren't just seizing on my negligence in not specifying "adult persons," which has already been established, and should have been assumed. And I'm already on record that the basic slippery slope reasoning may or may not be faulty.

Doing so would be dishonest as the comparison in the video to a 60 year old man and a 12 year old girl was immediate and described in the video as a dangerous result of same sex marriage. So it is equating and pretending otherwise is certainly a step in the wrong direction for more effective communication.

Immediate comparison = equate means "bad" = "very, very bad."

And I don't think so.

.

 

[Cassandra]

‘Factcheckers’ Keep Lying about Biden’s Abortion Position | National Review

Joe Biden supports the right of unlimited abortion, funded by the taxpayers, up until the moment of birth.

www.nationalreview.com

National Review
By DAVID HARSANYI
August 26, 2020 11:56 PM
Joe Biden supports the right of unlimited abortion, funded by the taxpayers, up until the moment of birth.

Where does Biden say it? Straight from the horse's mouth--where is that?

And still in your Christianity, you make fun of him. Hope you are making your fellow evangs laugh with this stuff. I didn't even look at the gaffes. There are videos of gaffes of the previous Administration too.

 

[TinMan]

I'm afraid it's not very helpful at all and it reflects perfectly the weaponization the word "hate" has undergone at the hands of postmodern philosophers.

Hate is an emotion—not a response.

a response to people who are different.

Folks who allow themselves to be changed by Christ and bear the fruit of the Spirit—namely, self-control—are not at the mercy of their emotions and are free to choose not to act on them. Emotions can arise suddenly, without intentional cause.

The hate = emotional response mentality is just a variation on the emotion = action problem that has so many thinking they must do whatever their hearts say is right.

Exactly. And it is exactly what you are doing.

Having an intense negative emotional response towards certain people, things, or ideas, you mean?

I honestly don't think I'm going that far here, and I don't think the guy in the video is quite there, either.

Maybe if you listened to him honestly.

It's interesting that you draw a parallel between folks like me and the guy in the video, and the klan since they do, in fact, call for the mass killing of the people they hate while you concede that video guy, at least, doesn't.

That would get his video banned so I am sure he keeps his feelings of killings under wraps.

But again the point of the comparrison is that like the you tube poster and you the klan claims that they don't hate any anyone that they are just following the word and will of God

I'm not forgetting your claim that there's still injury involved even if it's not physical but then you call that injury "malice," which we can't verify or quantify because the injury is hypothetical.

It's not hypothetical. When minorities are attacked like this it is with the specific goal to make them afraid, to shut them down and to gain control.

Then you attach it to groups that are just being what they were born as and we're off to the races again. The groups you're citing aren't being held up as dangerous to biblical family structure, either so we're back to not only hypothetical, but irrelevance.

And LGBT people are just being what they are too.

This critique would be legitimate if you weren't just seizing on my negligence in not specifying "adult persons," which has already been established, and should have been assumed. And I'm already on record that the basic slippery slope reasoning may or may not be faulty.



Immediate comparison = equate means "bad" = "very, very bad."

And I don't think so.

.

it is legitimate because it is exactly what is said in the video.

 

[BarneyFife]

a response to people who are different.

Exactly. And it is exactly what you are doing.

Maybe if you listened to him honestly.

That would get his video banned so I am sure he keeps his feelings of killings under wraps.

But again the point of the comparrison is that like the you tube poster and you the klan claims that they don't hate any anyone that they are just following the word and will of God

It's not hypothetical. When minorities are attacked like this it is with the specific goal to make them afraid, to shut them down and to gain control.

And LGBT people are just being what they are too.



it is legitimate because it is exactly what is said in the video.

A convenient way of dismissing anything I have said and while still being condescending.

Well, despite your accusations, I'm just here to counteract any influence that might discourage others from seeking out Christ as the Way to eternal life on an earth made new with no sin and suffering where Jesus walks around and talks to the people He created and died for, which I think I might have accomplished sufficiently for the time being. I certainly don't expect you to agree.

.

 

[BarneyFife]

2Ti 3:1-5 KJV 1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. 2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, 3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, 4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; 5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.