The Nehor

Okay, who performed the summoning ritual to bring smac back? I’m not mad, I just want to know. Also, does it work like the bat-signal? Because that would be pretty neat. Grok doesn’t assess or summarize from a complete whole. It parrots based on probability. You could cut out a few words and replace them and it would also work to argue for keeping in place school segregation or to defend the constitutionality of anti-sodomy laws or to argue against giving women the right to vote or to allow black people to serve in the military. This is all fear-mongering of potential ramifications and is a well-worn trope where the horrible fantasies of the doomsayer never happen. Based on rubbish though. The idea that sex and gender being inseparable are somehow millennia old religious teachings is silly. First off sex and gender are words that were repurposed. This isn’t a linguistics issue. If we made up a new word and assigned it the meaning we now give to “gender” it wouldn’t satisfy people that they weren’t defying some ancient church teachings. There are lots of linguistic issues the openness of transgender people create (amab and afab are clunky and misleading terms but we don’t have anything better yet) but they can be figured out. I am reminded of someone who was ostensibly serious arguing that a child being adopted by two fathers or two mothers would lead to confusion because there would be two people with the same title. I can personally attest that there are solutions to these pressing problems. As to the idea in the abstract the whole idea was rarely challenged in the environment in which Abrahamic monotheistic religions grew up in and when Christianity encountered groups that had more nuanced ideas of what we would now call gender colonialism dealt with them swiftly and decisively. And Christianity in particular has a strange history with gender and sex. The gnostics had some fun ideas in this realm. I giggle at the bit at stuff like this from the gospel of Thomas: Simon Peter said to him, "Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life." Jesus said, "I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven." You heard it here first folks. Transmasc guys enter the kingdom of heaven! Also the idea that something is old makes it worth keeping around is one of the reasons it took us so long to get rid of slavery. The Christian slaveholders had a better biblical argument than the Christian abolitionists. Also did we just abandon the teaching about the Great Apostasy at some point. We are seriously pointing to how old the teachings of apostate Christendom are as a kind of proof of their validity? Really? This kind of tension is the price of living in a pluralistic society. I think the Church is unwise to back Christians in power who want to give their religion unique privileges as a kind of national religion. That isn’t likely to end well for religious minorities like the Church. So churches want to be authentic to themselves and share what they really believe to be true and to represent themselves as they see themselves despite outward governmentally-sanctioned pressures to conform to a more socially acceptable presentation? Huh….that sounds vaguely familiar. So it isn’t about transgender people? It is just about queer people in general? This doesn’t actually prevent a conflict from existing. It just means a few more people will be involved in these questions when they come up? Hardly a compelling argument that this will help in any way. I disagree. I agree. This is the likely result. Sadly.

Probably. It is pleasurable and reinforces emotional bonds. Even if it doesn’t lead to reproduction why end it? Because Plato thinks it will distract us from philosophy?

If the Christian Nationalists that are influential in the Evangelical movement win out and manage to hold onto their political power and seize more of it as they make the United States into a “Christian nation” they will start to target religious groups who were former allies. It is mostly a question of whether they go after the Mormons or the Catholics first. I don’t think they will succeed in the first place but if they do they will narrow down what it means to be Christian. This is an alliance of convenience and I am disappointed in how many church members think it is genuine friendship and tolerance on the macro level. There is a reason the founders didn’t want religious tests for government office and didn’t make it a “Christian nation”. They wanted to avoid having the Wars of Religion that had caused a lot of death and persecution and hatred in Europe. Those can happen here too. Whatever they want to do? You want to let the Woke mindvirus destroy western civilization? That is their goal you know! /s The religious and those who feign religion are wielding the power of government to further marginalize an already marginalized group. There is a good faith argument to be had about transgender people in professional sports but that is for professional sports leagues to figure out. At schools just let the kids play. Also one side is stirring up hatred. I have transgender friends who have been attacked by horrible people who these high-minded church leaders are providing rhetorical cover to. If you are a Christian siding with the powerful against the marginalized doesn’t that seem off somehow? No, they shouldn’t and no one is asking them to or compelling them to. They can kick transgender people out of their churches. I think what churches want is protection from social scorn for doing this. That is not something the government can or should legislate though many are trying to. They are hard at work butchering part of the First Amendment while claiming to save another part that was never in any real danger. If they want to function without federal funding they can. This may end up being like desegregating schools again. On one side you have people afraid for their lives and safety. On the other hand you have people worried about not getting federal funding and wanting to avoid social scorn. I am going to favor the former until they no longer have to be afraid for their lives and safety.

I’d walk if this happens. Not necessarily because I liked the old conception of the Second Coming better. I think I might like this new version better…..maybe. I would just lose trust that any of the leaders have any idea what they are talking about. If they can flipflop on that much revelation in the canon and in repeated apostolic teaching then nothing is sure.

True, but I don’t think that will always universally work.

“Dozens of people were crushed by prayers this morning……”

So when I idly came up with a sophisticated plan for world domination before laughing it off I was moved to the same tier as this guy. I like him now and want to be his friend.

The false dichotomy. You either follow the divine laws on sex or you end up having nightly orgies. There is no middle ground. This goes all the way back to the Bible.

There is probably something behind this. Reportedly sometime in 2026 or 2027 the Church has to renew their trademark. They may have a bit of a problem since they have actively been renaming or retiring a lot of the initiatives and uses of the word “Mormon” they used in previous renewals. You can’t claim copyright if you aren’t actively using the trademark. Another bit of evidence is that you are actively protecting your trademark. My guess is that this is why the Church is doing this. To prove they are defending it.

If it was written during the Maccabean Revolt as many believe I expect the best identification would be the successor kingdoms. At this point the Seleucids were the ones doing a lot of the stuff in the book of Daniel like violating the temple and dedicating it to Zeus.

Thank you for asking. It was excruciatingly painful.

Dan McClellan ticks off just about everybody.

Potato, potahto.

Is posting one word per line some kind of Nazi identifier thing?

I would be glad to hear a rebuttal on where I am wrong. Also you can follow through on your declarations that you are going to ignore me any time you like. Not sure what is holding you back. Maybe I am just too entertaining? Boredom? The palpable sexual tension between us? A need to seethe in rage at someone? Satan keeps tempting you to? Reading my posts is so boring it helps you sleep? Whatever need it is that I am meeting, you are welcome.

How about instead of being an ‘enlightened centrist’ that intuitively assumes the truth must be smack dab in the middle we find out what is actually correct? The idea that both sides of any debate are psychopathic partisans and can be safely dismissed on that basis is toxic. Instead we should be dismissing people on the basis of them being liars and charlatans and similar things of that nature after we determine they are wrong. Appealing to “both sides equally bad” arguments is often a confession that the person isn’t very secure about where they stand. They have a vague sense that their case is shoddy so it is easiest to make everyone into villains to even the playing field. However, this is just more psychology and figuring out why someone is wrong is best done after you determine that they are actually wrong. Otherwise you slip into Bulverism.

Dan McClellan.

And unsurprisingly those that venerate him are right of center members. Bulverism, the true equalizer of all viewpoints. “You believe that because you are XXXXXXX” It dulls the intellect, places reason below speculative psychology, and C.S. Lewis thought it could doom the world.

Bah, the idea that the Saints of God could be duped by an ignorant, confused, and deluded demagogue that flatters them and their worldview is absolutely ludicrous.

Abuse victims often rationalize away the abuse at first or blame themselves. That is not as vindicating as it sounds.

Pretty much all of them weren’t young earth creationists.

Something about underage parties on an island somewhere? Something about that rings a bell.

False dichotomy. Set the bar so high for the ‘bad’ outcome and your favored ‘good’ outcome becomes probable by default. I don’t see how his countersuits are likely to expose him. Discovery is happening with or without the countersuits. This is just totally wrong. Seriously, read the text exchanges. He wasn’t training anyone to act like a “sexual pervert”. The stuff he was doing was all very vanilla and was ostensibly entirely about him and the woman being able to convince people they were a couple. He was creepily pressing for doing more things to supposedly be better at faking this bond. As a certified sexual pervert I can say the stuff they were doing wouldn’t make her ready even for the ethical side of the kink world. There was nothing about getting her to act like a predator. And, of course, it is nonsensically stupid to use this ruse in the first place. You don’t have to have a romantic partner to set up a child predator party. He only did this so he could do this fake flirting thing. I have no idea how far he planned on taking it. Even if it didn’t go all the way guys like Ballard feed on the attention and being desired. My guess if he could get them to go all the way they would. The only times they were degraded and humiliated were with him. Not in the actual sting. That should show exactly how necessary it was. It may be time for serious self-examination if you are defending predatory sex pest behavior as a necessary evil to achieve a “higher good”. It is stupid and morally reprehensible. “Thou shalt not commit adultery or lust after a woman in your heart unless it is part of unnecessary preparatory method acting for a hamfisted sex trafficking sting that won’t put a dent in actual sex trafficking.” -Jesus (probably)

Oops, responding to old stuff. Probably shouldn’t be posting at 3 in the morning.