@RandalRauserSteve Hays doesn't know for a fact that Mayor Pete is not promiscuous.And I don't know for a fact that Steve Hays isn't a child molester.See the problem with raising questions about the character of people in this manner? It's absolute *poison*.Angry Calvinist Steve Hays offers the following response to my question: "Does Rauser know for a fact that Mayor Pete is not promiscuous?"Hey Steve, do you know otherwise? If not, then shut up. There's nothing worse than "Christians" slandering others.
i) It's amusing to see Rauser's duplicity on public display. Rauser is the one who stipulated that Mayor Pete is in a monogamous marriage to a man. He's the one, not me, who made this a character issue. He's the one who insinuated an invidious contrast between Buttigieg's character and Trump's.
ii) BTW, many homosexuals have open "marriages". That's widely reported. That' admitted by homosexuals. They go into "marriage" with that caveat. Which doesn't mean Mayor Pete is necessarily promiscuous, but there's no presumption that he is, given gay male sexuality in general.
Rauser made an assertion about Mayor Pete's monogamy. It's perfectly legitimate to ask what evidence he has to back up that assertion. Otherwise, he should just "shut up". After all, that's a key assumption of his comparison.
iii) The allegation of "slander" is unwittingly revealing on Rauser's part. From the standpoint of biblical ethics, homosexual promiscuity isn't morally worse than (hypothetical) homosexual monogamy–or fidelity to one catamite. To revert to my illustration, if a pederast only abuses one minor on a regular basis, that doesn't make it good–compared to abusing multiple minors.
This is one of Rauser's blindspots. He acts like heterosexual and homosexual activity are morally analogous or even equivalent, so that if monogamy is a virtue in heterosexual relationships, then it's a virtue in homosexual relationships.
iv) Then we're treated to Rauser's robotic "angry Calvinist" trope. What makes Rauser think I have to be angry to comment on his stuff? Does Rauser only critique a position or person when he's enraged?
Lol. You're right.
ReplyDeleteThat seems to be a deeply embedded thought among leftists. If you disagree with me, it's simply out of anger! You're emotional! Not me, the guy who can't calm down enough to interpret my opponent clearly!
ReplyDeleteSeems bizarre to employ the word "monogamous" in reference to gay union.
ReplyDeleteIts not monogamous because its not marriage.
How about this for a meme: "faithful sin."
1. Pretending to be a Christian homosexual in a "monogamous marriage" is more sinful than a flat out homosexual who doesn't claim to be a Christian because the former is blasphemous in claiming God's approval. Isn't that a violation of the 3rd Commandment? Taking the name of Yehovah/Yahweh/YHVH in vain? In this case associating God's name with something extremely wicked. It's an oxymoron like "Christian Adulterer".
ReplyDelete2. Moreover, there's the other sin of redefining what a marriage is. Which is a covenant between a man and a woman. Which is included in the general sin of distorting and denying the teaching and authority of the Bible. Something which the Bible warns is a serious sin.
3. Then there's the sin of promoting/advocating it publicly. It's one thing to sin privately, but another thing to do so publicly so as to lead other people astray. Which he would be in a greater position to do if he became president. So, that magnifies the sin because he's trying to become the most powerful world leader on the globe.
4. Then there's the negative effects that homosexuality has on society. Which he's unintentionally pushing with his advocacy.
5. Then there's the harm he's doing to his own soul and the soul of the man he's sinning with. Which, if unrepented of, will lead to both their damnation.
Oops, I didn't mean to say that he's "pretending" to be a Christian. I suspect that he really thinks willful homosexuality and Christianity are compatible. Though, it's not beyond the realm of possibility he's faking it. But again, I doubt it. He seems sincere.
DeleteMaybe Rauser is so defensive because he is a homosexual... just a thought.
ReplyDeleteTouché
Delete--See the problem with raising questions about the character of people in this manner? It's absolute *poison*.--
ReplyDeleteIsn't this exactly what the entire impeachment was based on? Trump needing to 'prove he didn't collude with Ukraine', Pelosi asserting that he needs to "show your innocence".
The basis for Steve's questioning Pete's monogamy is the fact that statistically, most homosexual men have multiple partners (even when already in a relationship). It's perfectly reasonable to make assumptions based on generalities.
For example, I dare assume Rauser is a human male despite never having corroborated or even started to investigate this issue - because you guys refer to Rauser as 'he' and the overwhelming majority of commentors are humans (rather than say, robots or whales).