The Creepy Freaks of ‘Social Justice’

Posted on Comments

 

Perhaps “Sarah” Nyberg (@srhbutts) thinks I’m stupid. Or perhaps Ms. Nygberg has been fooling people for so long now, Ms. Nyberg thinks that bogus little “victim” act will never fail. At any rate, after I was first suspended from Twitter for a five-month-old tweet about Ms. Nyberg, I had hoped that my response would caution Ms. Nyberg against further aggressions. Alas, as Benjamin Franklin said, experience keeps a dear school but fools will learn in no other. Some genuinely frightening people have tried to shut me up in the past, and have learned that I am not easily frightened. In fact, some of those people are in federal custody now because this is not a game that Homey D. Clown plays.

 

It appears Ms. Nyberg is leveraging friendships with Twitter support personnel in order to delete any mention of Ms. Nyberg’s male past and male name. You will call Ms. Nyberg “Sarah” on Twitter or else you will be shut down. The faux-female does not wish it known that he is faux, you see. And so it was that, after my first suspension on Friday, I was locked out of my account again Sunday. In order to log onto Twitter this morning, I had to delete two tweets:

 

This isn’t going to work, Sarah Nyberg. You are trying to evade the consequences of your own folly — using the pseudonym “Sarah Butts” while trying to shut down 8chan.net — and hope to conceal what was learned about you as a result of that blunder.

Just in case anyone has forgotten what we learned:

[“Sarah”] tried to shut down funding for the website 8chan.net, which had supported #GamerGate, by falsely accusing them of hosting child pornography.  However, he/she failed to anticipate the reaction,i.e., that the people he/she had attacked would figure out who he/she actually was, connect the dots, and expose [“Sarah’s”] unsavory background. It appears that “Sarah” had been something of a nuisance in various online forums circa 2006/2007, allegedly engaging in discussions about pedophilia and sex with dogs.
One of these discussions was about lowering the age of consent to 12, and Sarah said someone who had “a positive, fulfilling, non-abusive sexual relationship with an adult as a child are more likely to realize such relationships are not inherently abusive, and be more likely to admit they’re attracted to kids.” Sarah said that while “most people aren’t ready at 12,” this is not “a valid reason to outlaw sex at said age.” Sarah asserted that “most people” don’t understand “childhood sexuality,” because it doesn’t involve “full-blown intercourse” and therefore it is “inherently less dangerous and virtually impossible to lead to pregnancy, etc.” Sarah said “childhood sex play” is “nothing harmful” and that “what’s harmful is society pretending children are asexual.”

Have any of Ms. Nyberg’s friends ever asked him/her to explain that? Perhaps it was just a moot hypothetical discussion. Or not.

If we look at the forum where that discussion took place, we find that it was inspired by news about a fringe political party in the Netherlands, (Partij voor Naastenliefde, Vrijheid en Diversiteit, PNVD). Widely known as the “Pedo Party,” PNVD advocated lowering the age of consent from 16 to 12. It would appear Ms. Nyberg was enthusiastic about this idea, but perhaps I am misinterpreting his/her comments. The problem is that (a) it does not seem Ms. Nyberg has ever adequately clarified his/her views on the subject, but instead (b) is pretending to be a victim of harassment in order to (c) play a game of “Let’s Erase the Evidence” and also (d) depict anyone raising these questions as a hateful bully.

You may fool some people into believing your act, Nyberg, but you can’t fool everyone, and you sure as hell will never fool me.

DARVO — Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender — it’s a rather well-documented tactic, and when I see people (a) with sexual idiosyncracies (b) allying themselves with a “social justice” movement and (c) claiming that people who tell the truth about them are “bullies,” my suspicion is (d) they’re just angry their shady hustle got busted and (e) they’re trying to exploit sympathy by (f) posing as a victim.

A Martyr for the Sacred Cause! This is a game I’ve seen “social justice” types play many times before, and Homey don’t play that, see?

Was there a case a mistaken identity? Are you . . .“Sarah” Nyberg, the same Sarah who wrote so enthusiastically about “childhood sexuality”? If so, were your statements about having “a positive, fulfilling, non-abusive sexual relationship with an adult as a child” based upon your own personal experience?

Simple questions, really. Why aren’t they being asked? Meanwhile, a Reddit commenter quotes the Twitter rule behind my suspension:

Personal information includes full names, locations, phone numbers, email addresses, etc. Things that aren’t linked together on social media count as personal information. For example, if someone’s name isn’t linked to their Twitter bio, it’s safe to assume that posting it would count as dox. If you’re uncertain of whether or not a post is as liability for including personal information, please message the mods.
This extends to posting links to pages which contain such information.

What this rule was presumably intended to do was to prevent “doxxing,” and I am anti-“doxxing,” but this rule is written so broadly that, if applied as written, I could change my Twitter identity to “Latonya Q. Robinson” with a photo of a black woman as my avatar and then demand Twitter punish anyone who mentioned that I am, in fact, a white man named Robert Stacy McCain. Ah, but you see, this rule is not applied consistently, and is being used by “social justice” activists to protect themselves from critical scrutiny. Favoritism has been alleged by supporters of #GamerGate who say that their enemies are unethically exploiting personal connections with Twitter personnel:

SushiLuLu (also known as Stephanie Greene) was forced to delete tweets critical of Randi Harper in order to have her Twitter account reactivated. Randi Harper has demonstrated her unusual control over Twitter support before, and it turns out that Randi Harper and Del Harvey, Vice President of Trust and Safety at Twitter, are connected.
She has . . . become vocal against anti-GamerGate personalities such as Randi Harper,proprietor of the GGAutoBlocker, which labels prominent GamerGate voices such as Breitbart’s Milo Yiannopoulos as “shitlords” and their followers as “sheeple.” SushiLuLu even went so far as to write a three-part series solely on Randi Harper, focusing on the irony of someone who regularly flames her opponents (particularly Chris von Csefalvay, who did the statistical analysis on GamerGate) on Twitter having the gall to start the Online Abuse Prevention Initiative
Unfortunately, on the night of March 17th, SushiLuLu found out that Randi Harper has powerful friends. . . .
It appears on the night on March 17th, SushiLulu’s account became locked, and when she attempted to deactivate it, she was told to delete five tweets which were negative toward Randi Harper. . . .

You can and should read the whole thing.

Every responsible and intelligent person familiar with Randi Harper regards her as a disgusting and arguably dangerous individual. So far as I can discover, nobody actually likes Randi Harper. By striking a posture of victimhood and attacking #GamerGate, however, she made herself useful to the “social justice” cause which needs self-declared victims of “bullying” and “harassment,” because this is the argument they use to silence their critics. Randi Harper resorted to totalitarian tactics to suppress #GamerGate supporters, creating a videogame industry blacklist that “branded some 10,425 Twitter accounts, including those of journalists, as harassment ‘offenders’ in a humiliatingly ill-conceived attempt to provide a ‘blocking tool’ to its members”:

The blocking tool, which has been widely mocked online for its lack of sophistication and “blanket ban” approach, was assembled by Randi Harper, a persistent online agitator. The tool prevents users from seeing not only the tweets of users Harper has decided are implicated in harassment, but also many accounts who simply follow those users, by blocking a list of thousands of users with the use of an automated “bot.” . . .

Randi Harper is a clumsy, hateful thug, and you can click here to see Twitter conversations between Sarah Nyberg (@srhbutts) and Randi Harper (@randileeharper). Bad causes attract bad people, and these two are part of a clique of bad people with no discernible talent who are using “social justice” politics in a dishonest attempt to shake down the video game industry. They are losing, because they deserve to lose, and they are desperately trying to silence #GamerGate supporters who have exposed them and their “social justice” allies as miserable frauds.


Well, let Harper and Nyberg run squawling to Del Harvey, whining about how mean Mister McCain told the truth about them. They are liars and creepy freaks who should never be trusted.

“God gave them up unto vile affections . . . God gave them over to a reprobate mind . . .”
— Romans 1:26-28 (KJV)

Beware of reprobate minds. Crazy people are dangerous.





 

173 comments

  1. Hey. Calm that down. I can remember black and white TVs, Howdy Doody, Cisco Kid, Hopalong Cassidy, Lone Ranger, nothing but black bakelite phones with rotary dials, prop driven airliners (crossed the Atlantic twice in DC-6s, which the USAF called C-118s) and no ARPAnet. Obviously I’m senior to you and I’m telling you to quit thinking you’re all that old.

  3. Blindly latching on to your own opinions in lieu of doing the research and keeping a slightly open mind has nothing to do with truth.

  4. Translation: If you don’t my political “science” you are a hater.

    Sorry, but truth simply is. Telling someone mentally ill they are OK is not kindness or respect.

  5. Sure, when you make a move. What you have offered is stupidity in place of reasoned argument. Your analogies don’t even rise to level of lame, and you wish intelligent people to accept something the APA refuses to deal with for political reasons.

    Give it up dude. You’ve already presented your best, and it is less than nothing.

  6. Alright, now you’re just trolling me. Take your anger and your disgust and go back and sit in your hole and sulk.
    Me, i’m’na go help Carly Fiorina or Scott Walker turn this country around.

  7. It ceased being a professional organization because it quit acting professionally. I am licensed in two learned professions and recognize professionalism when I see it. My “opinions” have been confirmed over and over again by people in other learned professions and people accept the APA in court simply because they have managed to con people into thinking they are something they are not.

    As I said earlier, you’ve presented your best and it’s all been repeatedly knocked down. If you want to have your mental illness accepted as something it isn’t, this isn’t the place for that. Reality is what you will get here.

  8. And you presume to know what that truth is. Wow. That’s something else.

    I know what I believe — I came to believe it after YEARS of study and prayer. As for you… I still see nothing to convince me you’ve even looked at the research, or considered more than your own side.

  9. I’m not trolling you. I’m as close to resident here as one can get. You’re simply reacting poorly to someone that has called your stupidity and is unwilling to call it the way you wish it to be accepted.

    Sorry about your luck there, but I don’t roll that way. I am about as dispassionate as I can be in this. Your projecting your own disgust on me. If I feel anything, it’s simply sadness that a person like yourself has swallowed so many lies.

  11. My friend, I am a Theologian. I use my licenses to make a living, but the study of scripture and theology is what I would rather spend most of my time doing.

    But, since you put it in those terms, you’ve missed a lot in scripture to reach the conclusions you have. It is a an abomination for a man to even wear the clothing of a woman, much less pass himself off as a woman. It only begins there.

    And, God is a God of Love, but He is also a God of justice and not everyone who says “Lord, Lord” will enter the Kingdom. Many of those people are going to hear the saddest words anyone could ever hear – “depart from me your worker of lawlessness, I never knew you.” If you have been honest in what you’ve said here, you will hear those words.

  13. I worked in the medical field I actually had an interesexed patient. However the vast majority of people who think they are a different sex then their body are simply experiencing a delusion. One does give hormones or do dangerous surgery to treat a delusion that is simply barbaric.

  15. Indeed he does. But what is seen on the outside testifies of what is on the inside. People that pat sinners on the back and tell them they are OK, when God says otherwise, will find themselves hearing those words.

    You’ve obviously missed the most important parts of scripture in your quest of seeking how you can get God to buy off on what He has called an abomination. His character does not change. The law is a reflection of His character, and what was sin then, is sin now.

  18. Ack I almost posted where then realize my barcaroles would contact them and tell them how hateful and evil I am. It’s just a local Bible school that is well thought of in my parts.

  20. Darn ios buttons… Even small fingers don’t help. ._.

    Anway. You’re missing a few… Man looks at the outside, but the LORD looks at the heart. When we were yet unborn, He knew us and who we are.

    Oh, and the verse goes no further than to say “it is an abomination for a man to wear women’s clothes”. You inferred the rest. So if in God’s eyes I am a woman – I’m golden.

    As for if I am a woman in God’s eyes — if I was born this way – if my mind and soul are female – I cannot be otherwise. And if, as ALL the research, brain studies, and science shows, I *was* born this way, I’m living as God intended for me in this.

    I’ve also considered many other things in the Bible. One of the common ‘clobber verses’ folks like you tend to throw out is the one about “male and female created he them”, which is quickly followed by “and not including Trans”, but never by “but totally including intersex”. So it’s kinda irrelevant.
    Plus there’s the whole matter of eunuchs, which the New Testament seems to love (Huh! And here y’all were going on about how horrible it was to surgically eliminate biological functions a moment ago).

    so yeah. I’ve done my research. I’ve prayed and cried out to God and felt peace with my conclusion. And by the way, I set out to dissuade myself of this path, not to continue down it, as my Christian counselor will tell you. So please don’t assume I tried to bolster pre-existing opinions.

  21. He is. And throughout Biblical history a whole lot of legalistic folks have assumed that means he agrees with their interpretation of events.

  23. So you open with another demonstrably false line and criticize others for not making rational arguments? Genitalia are the organs of reproduction and lopping them off (in the cases of most trans people) , or ripping them out removes their biological function completely.

    I now feel comfortable in making the determination that you are also objectively stupid.

    Looks like we’re just about done here, genius.

  24. In God’s eyes you are what you were born, male. God could not care less what sort of garbage vomited by man you posit when you stand before Him. You will find yourself dealt with summarily in spite of all your lame excuses. Paul dealt with “science, so-called.” It wasn’t dealt with kindly.

    All of us have tendencies to sin, and if we come to God sincerely, repenting our sins, he will give us the power to overcome the tendencies. Your tendencies and temptations may be different than mine, but God expects each of us to turn our back on sin and follow Him, not our fleshly passions. If you refuse and try to play the buffoonish game you are playing, then you will pay for eternity for your foolish games.

    No I did not infer anything. You can wish that all you like, however.

  25. Pleas reread what I wrote, including the word “Sterile” this time. Then get back to me with how exactly I’m any different, in terms of number of biological functions, to the naturally-occurring sterile men and women you accept without reservation.

  26. Accusation of legalism from a man like yourself simply shows the lengths to which you will go to avoid the commands of God. Scripture is written to be understood. But, understood God’s way, not in the manner of some like yourself who are simply looking to avoid God’s truth.

    There are ways we can understand scripture the way God expects us to, but what you have found is simply a way, you think, to avoid what God expects. God hasn’t changed, and you won’t change Him either.

    Your appeal to “legalism” is simply an attempt to evade the truth.

  27. You inferred the following words:
    “even… much less pass himself off as a woman.”
    Which takes the verse in question from a condemnation of crossdressing to a condemnation of transgenderism in general. Which is quite the leap.

    As for my salvation – I put my trust in the same Savior you do for the forgiveness of sins, and I endeavor to follow Him as best I know how. If both a Catholic and a Protestant stand in the ranks of the saved on Judgment Day, despite having such radically different views on so many far more important elements of scripture, then I will stand with them.

  28. I read *all* the scripture on the subject, sir. You, however, conveniently ignore the bits that disagree with you – the bits about eunuchs, and God knowing our inner selves, and that we are fearfully and wonderfully made – birth defects and differences from the norm included.
    Edit: also quite rude. I didn’t call you a stuck-in-his-ways Pharisee, despite it having significantly more basis in reality than you calling me a man does.

  29. It is a leap for someone looking to excuse their sin. Not for someone that is looking to know the character of God.

    When you refused to abandon sin, you placed your trust in another Jesus. Go ahead and keep on keeping on, you WILL be brought face to face with your stupidity when it is far too late to do anything about it. There will be no ranks you stand in. You will simply find yourself submerged in the darkness you refused to abandon in this life.

  30. You finally got something right. The APA is a joke. The DSM is a joke. The APA is the same body which says that homosexuality is a disorder and then later says that homophobia is a disorder. I suppose you think that slapping “ology” on the end of a word and adopting all the trappings of science actually makes it science.

    There is no real statistical argument here. Way more than one medical professional has disavowed this nonsense, but you’re just more interested in confirming your bias.

    Hundreds of thousands of others have lived within the spectrum of crazy. So what? There are plenty of people with numerous psychological disorders who are functional in life. Hell, ever heard of a functional alcoholic? You’re not special. Get over it.

    And no, I haven’t defined anything, unlike your numerous attempts to warp the language. Inability to grasp reality is not my definition, Champ.

    You can reject my premises all you want. My premises are based in objective reality. Argue against that all you want.

    Knock yourself out Tiger.

  31. What you meglect is that there is very little scripture that is not relevant on the subject of sin.

    There are several levels of context:
    1. Local
    2. Chapter
    3. Book
    4. Testament
    5. Entire Bible.

    Calvinistic soteriology, for example, fails on #5 in that list because of what God has revealed about Himself. that God hates sin, and hates those who willfully refuse to abandon it, is also a fact of scripture. he resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble. A man, like yourself, that refuses to abandon sin, is humble. So, you’ll learn what it means to experience the resistance of God.

  32. You.. You can’t be serious. You’re calling alcoholics crazy now? Really? That’s like calling any sexual regret evidence of rape.

    I suppose you think that an organization disagreeing with you discounts them as a professional organization.

  33. If I believed I was living in sin and did not abandon it, I would be willfully refusing, as you claim. I do not believe I am living in sin, however. Like so many others before me, I believe I know God’s truth. And like so many others before me, I have come to this belief by prayer, and reading of scripture.
    Yes, we have come to different views of the situation. Yours is a very pharisaical view of things — no salvation but through rigid adherence to a subset of what the Scripture does not forbid! — and mine is not. But I have to wonder what sort of God you believe you worship, who would care more about who guesses the right answer to what God meant on questions of scriptural details than about who put their faith in the Son He sent to bypass just that sort of legalism.

    What sort of loving God, sir, would separate saint from sinner by virtue of what amounts to works, when He claimed to save by grace, and faith alone?

  34. Yet another strawman right off the bat. Your comment is what happens when an obviously stupid person (as evidenced by your poor understanding of anatomy in another post) tries to construct a rational argument.

    My political leanings are completely irrelevant and will remain so, no matter how many stupid zingers you think you can toss out there. Trump? Really?

    The fact that you use silly postmodernist neologisms like “heteronormative” really tells everyone here quite a bit about you. You don’t seem to understand language. I didn’t assert any of the things that you have. You’re just beating up on strawmen.

    As for your delicate little flower friends whoo “fear” me because you don’t actually understand what the word “hate” means, that’s their problem, not mine. Do you really think you’re going to concern troll your way around an argument?

    If you, or your friends’ political ideologies are predicated upon who likes you, you’ve got a shitty basis for your political convictions.

  35. I don’t need to reread it. The “sterile” comment is completely irrelevant and I treated it as such. If you think that natural sterility is comparable to rendering oneself sterile (regardless of reason), then there’s no point in continuing.

    Get back to me when you can focus.

  36. I see your reading comprehension seems to be getting worse as your emotions really crank into high gear. Maybe take the night off, get some rest. Come back when you’re refreshed and not in the state of mind to willfully misread what people are writing.

  37. You’ve truly gone clownish. The effects of sin you have bought into is gnostic to it’s core. You need to read the book of James. Desperately. then, take it to heart. Knowing that what is on the inside will come out on the outside is quite in tune with scripture. It’s hinted at in Romans, but is quite overt in James.

    Dualism is foreign to scripture. God expects those that come to Him to abandon sin. If you do not, then you remain a sinner. The way you live is habitual sin, no matter what you think you learned in “prayer” and “study.” Wresting scripture will get nothing but a one way ticket to eternal misery, loneliness and the utter darkness you refused to abandon in this life.

  38. Calling me an idiot. Cute. If you must know, I’m graced with an IQ in the mid 140s; a job in computer science; and various creative and intellectual pursuits not least of which is, in fact, puns and zingers like the above. (They amuse me)

    As for neologisms – they have their uses. It doesn’t serve to dismiss things out of hand – while it may (again) help you feel superior, it rarely wins hearts, minds, elections, or arguments.

  39. The Bible certainly seems to think rendering oneself sterile (regardless of reason) is a worthy pursuit. I leave it to you whether the Good Book is authority enough for this situation.
    Regardless, you haven’t blunted my point in the slightest: I have made myself equivalent to any of a number of men and women who you have no problem referring to as such. If you truly were honest with yourself, the reason you respect them and not me is that *what* I am is irrelevant to you. You just don’t like that I altered my physical state in this specific way (you’ve proven earlier you have no issue with other physical alterations of purely cosmetic nature).

    Thus, you must throw all arguments about it being unnatural or similar out the window – I’ve proven logically that neither the end state of transgenderism (sterility) nor the process of altering one’s physical body through surgery (eg rhinoplasty, curing blindness, etc.) pose a problem to you; it is merely this specific situation that bothers you. Which is fine – it’s a perfectly acceptable interpretation of scripture. It does not, however, give you any authority to call me crazy, insult, or denigrate me, outside of your own personal beliefs. (Which, as has been so often proven, extend to the limit of your own mind and no further)

  40. Yes yes, everyone’s a genius on the internet. Beautiful and rich too.

    No, Sport, I can only judge based on your output here and you are demonstrating that you do not know how to formulate a rational argument (strawman, flawed assumptions abound), that you are ignorant of middle school level anatomy, and that your ability to use analogous reasoning is handicapped at best.

    You’ve demonstrated your stupidity for the reasons I’ve already pointed out. That’s more than fair.

    And yeah, if that’s what you can do creatively, let’s hope your IT skills make up for that and your poor display of intellect so far.

    Though you’re right about neologisms in the abstract, “heteronormative” isn’t one of them. A good rule of thumb is: if you learned it in the Humanities, it’s bullshit. Break it down by roots and do about a 9th grade level application of statistics and you’ll see just how bullshit it is.

    I trust you can accomplish that one, eh genius?

  41. I quote (inferrences in parentheses): “Hundreds of thousands of others have lived within the spectrum of crazy.
    (The following example is an example of the spectrum of crazy) So what? There are plenty of people with numerous psychological
    disorders who are functional in life. (Psychological disorders are part of the spectrum of crazy) Hell, ever heard of a functional
    alcoholic? (Functional alcoholics are a psychological disorder, and therefore based on the previous statements part of the spectrum of crazy)”

  42. So now you’re appealing to the Bible. You do realize the Bible isn’t exactly an authority on anatomy and physiology, right?

    Sorry, but I stopped reading after such an absurd paragraph right off the bat. I’m confident I didn’t miss anything.

  43. You might want to reread. You’ve trapped yourself in a logical pickle where the only authorities to whom you can appeal to support your dislike of transgendered individuals *are* the Bible, or phobia. I gave you the benefit of the doubt. Clearly you wish to remove it.

  44. I really don’t have time to give you an English lesson, but since you seem to read at a late high school level, I can at least do you the service of letting you know where to start honing your reading skills.

  45. For heaven’s sake, stop trying to replace debate with insult. It doesn’t work as a general rule.
    If you have a point to make, prove it. Calling me dumb doesn’t prove anything, except that you like to feel superior on the internet.

  46. Sorry Chief, the English language isn’t yours to mangle.

    Phobia is Greek, meaning fear. I don’t fear trans people. I actually
    feel compassion for them, more now than ever since they are not getting
    the help they need.

    I never said I disliked trans people, but you can go ahead and impute bad motives into my position and pretend like you have the first clue as to what “logic is.

    Looks like we’re just about to wrap this up.

  47. Stop trying to characterize what you’re doing as debate.

    I have pointed out exactly why I think you’re stupid. You demonstrate extreme ignorance. You demonstrate faulty reasoning. You use fallacious arguments. You mangle the very language.

    These are all things a stupid person does. This is not an insult, but a simple observation. Pretending I have not done what I have clearly done isn’t helping you.

  48. Everyone says it, so that someone’s saying it now means it must not be true, clearly. There’s a fallacy there for sure.
    But because relying on pointing out fallacies is itself a fallacy, I’ll simply have to go with that you’ll have to take my word – and my having graduated cum laude from Wheaton – on this one. (I could find my degree and take a photo of it, but anonymity and such)

    You do well at accusing me of straw men. You do poorly at pointing them out. The attempt you made mistook humor for declaration, which is a poor showing. (Yes, “trump” was a joke.)

    As for ‘middle school anatomy’ – please. Middle school anatomy teaches that you’re born male or female, and those parts are in all cases meant to create babies. It’s only later on that one learns the stunning truth – that not everyone is created equal on the plane of baby-making existence.

    And – on humanities – here you go again with the snide dismissals out of hand. Ad hominem is not a valid response to an argument, sir; please stop attempting to use it. Yes, several things within the humanities are wrong. That doesn’t make it wrong as a whole, or in part.

    In sum – it may surprise you to learn this, but one does not ‘demonstrate another’s stupidity’ by accusing them of it. One must provide concrete examples. You have yet to do so. I, meanwhile, have provided MYRIAD logical arguments to support my opinions, few if any of which have been defrayed for all your posturing and insults.

  49. For one who ‘feels compassion’, you certainly seem to go out of your way to denigrate and insult the objects of your supposed compassion.
    Regardless, when logic and scientific study are not on your side, and you have refused a religious argument, how exactly do you intend to support your view on the subject? ‘Feeling compassion for’ someone is not a good reason to believe them wrong, or crazy, and you have precious few reasons left.

  50. Your views on Paul vs James are questionable, to say the least. I happen to have read both, and agree with my childhood mentors: salvation through works is invalid. Works are a product of salvation, not the cause of it; further, as James himself learned, those works will not always follow the deuteronomic standards of the Old Testament.

    My life is not dark at all, sir. It’s joyous and overflowing with happiness, given and received. You’d know that if you knew me.

Comments are closed.