What are your thoughts on this?

[ozso]

Christians claim that they go to heaven when they die…they’re all set!
But you’d like us to talk-nice about you when you won’t offer love and compassion to those whom you deem “lost”, and yet somehow people who try to get you to hold to a better standard are “the bad guys”.

Enjoy your privilege.

Approval of decadence is a worldly standard, not a Christian one.

As for the lost, they reject salvation in favor of the sin that condemns them. And Jesus and the apostles said a great deal of negative things about such people.

 

[Pommer]

And diagnose people with made up psychological conditions in the process?

You’re going to have to explain this to me as I cannot imagine where this might be going.

 

[ozso]

You’re going to have to explain this to me as I cannot imagine where this might be going.

"homophobic".

 

[Pommer]

Approval of decadence is a worldly standard, not a Christian one.

As for the lost, they reject salvation in favor of the sin that condemns them. And Jesus and the apostles said a great deal of negative things about such people.

What? Such people go to heck?
Okay, that’s the “next life”; what about here? Earth? Today?
Don’t look down on us until you’re actually up in Heaven, please.
Thank you.

 

[Pommer]

"homophobic".

It’s a colloquialism and could only be considered a “psychological disorder” if it drove a person to hurt other people they perceive as “homosexual”.

 

[ozso]

What? Such people go to heck?
Okay, that’s the “next life”; what about here? Earth? Today?
Don’t look down on us until you”re actually up in Heaven, please.
Thank you.

Today is what it's all about because there might not be a tomorrow for whomever. That's why the truth is spoken to them and of them now. Jesus told us we would be hated by the world for it, just as the world hates him. The real him. Not the hippie love guru they falsely describe him as. Read my signature, it explains the difference. No Christian should ever go by what someone who rejects Christ, says about how a Christian should act.

 

[ozso]

It’s a colloquialism and could only be considered a “psychological disorder” if it drove a person to hurt other people they perceive as “homosexual”.

It's a made up label used to coerce people into staying silent.

 

[Bradskii]

The first one on the list, which you said was false, was an exact face match. You got thrown off by aliases.

OK, listen in. I've been busy. We'll go through these one by one.

First guy: Name is shown as David Shawn Wallace. A picture was shown from the choir at 1:04 in the video. I don't think it looks like the offender but running through the video again, there is zero indication who the choir picture is actually of. It's just a random guy that the low life who edited the video thought looked the same. There is a record of a David Eugene Wallace in the Megans Law site.

Second guy: Choir name shown as Raymond Mark Gonzales. No picture shown so we have no idea what he looks like. Offender in Megans Law is Raymond Ramon Gonzalez.

Third guy: Choir name shown as Keith Pepper. No picture (but we do know what he looks like). Offender's name is Keith Aaron Pepper, who is 65 years old. How do we know what Keith looks like? Well, we have a Facebook entry from him - raising money for the choir. See here: Facebook. Hey, maybe you think he looks pretty sharp for 65. What do you think? Well, he must have had some serious surgery done as he looks nothing like the offender.

Fourth guy: Choir list is Luis Cuadra. No picture. Offender is Luis Rodolfo Cuadra.

Fifth guy: Choir list is J. David Lowe. No picture. There are three offenders named David Lowe. None of them J. David Lowe. The picture shown of the offender has details telling us that he is in violation of his registration as a sex offender. No doubt hiding out in plain site in the tenor section.

Sixth guy: Choir list as Chris Smith. No picture. Offender is Christopher Joseph Smith. And hey, he has a 'subsequent felony incarceration'. Seeing as he was last released a couple of years ago, I'd say that that might mean he's back inside and not singing much.

Seventh guy: Choir name as David A Diaz. No picture. Offender as David Diaz. No middle name.

Eighth guy: Choir name is Earl Friedberg. The offenders list at Megans Law has zero information of anyone with that name. Not even with that surname.

So let's summarise that. Firstly, we only have one picture to compare and we have no idea who the guy in the choir is. And we have NO pictures of anyone else except Pepper and he plainly isn't the guy in the mugshot.

Secondly, NONE of the names match, including all known aliases of the offenders. And do you really want to suggest that someone trying to avoid their past will simply change or drop their middle name? Seriously?

You cannot maintain this farce that the video was genuine. It's simply not possible.

 

[ozso]

OK, listen in. I've been busy. We'll go through these one by one.

First guy: Name is shown as David Shawn Wallace. A picture was shown from the choir at 1:04 in the video. I don't think it looks like the offender but running through the video again, there is zero indication who the choir picture is actually of. It's just a random guy that the low life who edited the video thought looked the same. There is a record of a David Eugene Wallace in the Megans Law site.

Second guy: Choir name shown as Raymond Mark Gonzales. No picture shown so we have no idea what he looks like. Offender in Megans Law is Raymond Ramon Gonzalez.

Third guy: Choir name shown as Keith Pepper. No picture (but we do know what he looks like). Offender's name is Keith Aaron Pepper, who is 65 years old. How do we know what Keith looks like? Well, we have a Facebook entry from him - raising money for the choir. See here: Facebook. Hey, maybe you think he looks pretty sharp for 65. What do you think? Well, he must have had some serious surgery done as he looks nothing like the offender.

Fourth guy: Choir list is Luis Cuadra. No picture. Offender is Luis Rodolfo Cuadra.

Fifth guy: Choir list is J. David Lowe. No picture. There are three offenders named David Lowe. None of them J. David Lowe. The picture shown of the offender has details telling us that he is in violation of his registration as a sex offender. No doubt hiding out in plain site in the tenor section.

Sixth guy: Choir list as Chris Smith. No picture. Offender is Christopher Joseph Smith. And hey, he has a 'subsequent felony incarceration'. Seeing as he was last released a couple of years ago, I'd say that that might mean he's back inside and not singing much.

Seventh guy: Choir name as David A Diaz. No picture. Offender as David Diaz. No middle name.

Eighth guy: Choir name is Earl Friedberg. The offenders list at Megans Law has zero information of anyone with that name. Not even with that surname.

So let's summarise that. Firstly, we only have one picture to compare and we have no idea who the guy in the choir is. And we have NO pictures of anyone else except Pepper and he plainly isn't the guy in the mugshot.

Secondly, NONE of the names match, including all known aliases of the offenders. And do you really want to suggest that someone trying to avoid their past will simply change or drop their middle name? Seriously?

You cannot maintain this farce that the video was genuine. It's simply not possible.

Isn't it all just satire then?

 

[Bradskii]

Isn't it all just satire then?

No. The editing of the video is a shameful, gutter level and disgusting attempt to portray some men as child rapists. For no other reason than they are gay. It's beneath contempt. And now you are in no doubt that it's a lie. Is it too much to ask that you finally got acknowledge that fact?

 

[Pommer]

Today is what it's all about because there might not be a tomorrow for whomever. That's why the truth is spoken to them and of them now. Jesus told us we would be hated by the world for it, just as the world hates him. The real him. Not the hippie love guru they falsely describe him as. Read my signature, it explains the difference. No Christian should ever go by what someone who rejects Christ, says about how a Christian should act.

I have to go to people’s profiles to see their signatures since I have that option ticked to “off”, but having done so, I think that while the sentiment is reasonable, the theology a bit suspect but I’m a heathen, so what do I know?

The thing that irks me is that Christians seem to want this carve-out for their beliefs to keep from having to engage in polite-society without any social-repercussions for championing yesteryear’s morality; yet demand that people who’d like to be free enough to make their own “mistakes” or just have enough wriggle-room to not label themselves this (or that, or any other) way, conform to these old-timey “norms”.

Enjoy your day.

 

[ozso]

No. The editing of the video is a shameful, gutter level and disgusting attempt to portray some men as child rapists. For no other reason than they are gay. It's beneath contempt. And now you are in no doubt that it's a lie. Is it too much to ask that you finally got acknowledge that fact?

Satire in bad taste is still satire. Many certainly found the chorus part of the video in extreme bad taste which you yourself called tolling. And the article you posted that said they were confirmed begs to differ with you regarding four of the names you covered.

"While the matches could be coincidental — some offenders may just happen to have the same name as members of the choir — The Western Journal unearthed at least four credible matches: David Wallace, Lawrence Earl Friedberg, Luis Cuadra and Keith Pepper."

Gay Men’s Choir That Sang ‘We’re Coming for Your Children’ Rushes to Cover After Pedophilia Accusations

Several members of this choir are believed to be convicted sex offenders.

www.newswars.com

And what about the mobs in the streets chanting "we're here, we're queer, we're coming for your children!"?

 

[Bradskii]

Satire in bad taste is still satire. Many certainly found the chorus part of the video in extreme bad taste. And did you check out the four names in the article you posted that said they were confirmed?

You have been given evidence that the editing to the video was a lie. Not bits of it were a lie. Not that some of it was a lie. All of it was. I would expect some sort of acknowledgement of that fact.

 

[ozso]

You have been given evidence that the editing to the video was a lie. Not bits of it were a lie. Not that some of it was a lie. All of it was. I would expect some sort of acknowledgement of that fact.

Well there's what you say, and then there's what journalist Michael Austin says. Is there some reason why you should be considered more reliable?

And of course the mobs in the streets chanting "we're here, we're queer, we're coming for your children!" has yet to be addressed.

 

[ozso]

I have to go to people’s profiles to see their signatures since I have that option ticked to “off”, but having done so, I think that while the sentiment is reasonable, the theology a bit suspect but I’m a heathen, so what do I know?

The thing that irks me is that Christians seem to want this carve-out for their beliefs to keep from having to engage in polite-society without any social-repercussions for championing yesteryear’s morality; yet demand that people who’d like to be free enough to make their own “mistakes” or just have enough wriggle-room to not label themselves this (or that, or any other) way, conform to these old-timey “norms”.

Enjoy your day.

The lack of morality that progressivism wants to achieve, existed back when the New Testament was written and before. There's nothing new about it. It gets out if control to the point where society finally crawls out of the gutter and goes back to those old timey norms. But we also know from scripture that eventually it will come to a point of no return.

 

[RileyG]

If I wanted, for example, to have sex outside marriage, then I wouldn't be looking for your approval. Just as if I was gay, I wouldn't be looking for a thumbs up from you. What you believe and why you believe it holds no interest to me. What you think of me or my friends or my family likewise has no interst to me whatsoever. I really could care less. But how you describe my friends and family and how you act towards them does.

Not agreeing with someone's lifestyle or thinking it's wrong doesn't mean anyone has to comment on it. IT's wrong to drink and drive but I had family and friends who have done it. People have a right to voice their views on that.

 

[Bradskii]

Well there's what you say, and then there's what journalist Michael Austin says. Is there some reason why you should be considered more reliable?

Yes, because I have checked each claim and they haven't. Austin is literally repeating what someone else said. He is doing exactly what you did. 'Gee, look at this - ain't it terrible. And they're gay, so it must be true. No need to check!'

Wanna got through this again? From that article (the one that wasn't fact checked);

'The Western Journal unearthed at least four credible matches: David Wallace, Lawrence Earl Friedberg, Luis Cuadra and Keith Pepper.'

First up, note that he didn't even bother to watch the video so that he'd know there were 8 people mentioned. Again, he's just repeating what he's heard without any thought or investigation whatsoever.

The name given for Wallace in the choir is different to the offender and there is no evidence that the picture the edited video showed was Wallace. None at all.

There is no record of any Friedberg being charged with child assault and the name is not the same anyway.

The name Cuadra does not match the offender.

Pepper is obviously not the same person as the one shown for the offender and the names are different.

Let's face it, none - and I mean literally none of the names match. And there are no named pictures available for individuals from the choir, except for Pepper. And nobody could confuse the picture of the offender with the picture we have of Pepper. Literally nobody. And quite frankly, we only needed one to be proved false for the whole lie to come crashing down. Why would someone edit in 8 people they thought were child offenders and then obviously lie about one of them.

And another question: It is so obviously a lie about Pepper. There's no farcical suggestion that aliases might be involved (even though the names are in fact different) that would change the fact that we can actually see he's not the offender. And it takes a minute or two to find out what he looks like. So why do you think your 'sources' for accusing these guys don't even do the most basic of fact checking? The work experience kid in the NewsWars office could have done it in his coffee break on his laptop.

Well, it's obvious. Just as it's obvious that you kept refusing to check it yourself. Just as it's obvious that every news outlet that pushed this garbage didn't check it. Just as you now still refuse to accept it. It's because everyone pushing this dross wanted it to be true. And if they took a few minutes to do what they should have done right from the outset then they wouldn't have a story about gays being child molesters.

That's the story that you wanted as well. That's why you are still trying to convince yourself it might be true. That's why all we'll have left is 'Well whatabouthis..? and you'll make no concession that you were wrong and make no admission that the video you originally posted was a lie.

 

[Bradskii]

Not agreeing with someone's lifestyle or thinking it's wrong doesn't mean anyone has to comment on it. IT's wrong to drink and drive but I had family and friends who have done it. People have a right to voice their views on that.

You might think that your first sentence would tend to support my view. Although I would argue that your second sentence (which looks like it contradicts the first) is the one I would support. If you disagree with someone's lifestyle and you are concerned for their well being (physical, mental or spiritual) then I would say that you have a right to talk to them about it. As in the drink driving case. And as that is plainly dangerous to the driver and his passengers and other road users I would say that you are obliged - notwithstanding that they would be breaking the law.

But that's it. It will ultimately be their choice how they live their life. If you have evidence to suggest that they will come to harm (physical, mental or spiritual), then offer it. But you can do no more.

 

[RileyG]

You might think that your first sentence would tend to support my view. Although I would argue that your second sentence (which looks like it contradicts the first) is the one I would support. If you disagree with someone's lifestyle and you are concerned for their well being (physical, mental or spiritual) then I would say that you have a right to talk to them about it. As in the drink driving case. And as that is plainly dangerous to the driver and his passengers and other road users I would say that you are obliged - notwithstanding that they would be breaking the law.

But that's it. It will ultimately be their choice how they live their life. If you have evidence to suggest that they will come to harm (physical, mental or spiritual), then offer it. But you can do no more.

You're right, it is their choice. I choose not to comment on it, but I'm not going to tell someone how to live their life. That DOES NOT MEAN I have to support their choices or actions. Period.

 

[ozso]

Yes, because I have checked each claim and they haven't. Austin is literally repeating what someone else said. He is doing exactly what you did. 'Gee, look at this - ain't it terrible. And they're gay, so it must be true. No need to check!'

Wanna got through this again? From that article (the one that wasn't fact checked);

'The Western Journal unearthed at least four credible matches: David Wallace, Lawrence Earl Friedberg, Luis Cuadra and Keith Pepper.'

First up, note that he didn't even bother to watch the video so that he'd know there were 8 people mentioned. Again, he's just repeating what he's heard without any thought or investigation whatsoever.

The name given for Wallace in the choir is different to the offender and there is no evidence that the picture the edited video showed was Wallace. None at all.

There is no record of any Friedberg being charged with child assault and the name is not the same anyway.

The name Cuadra does not match the offender.

Pepper is obviously not the same person as the one shown for the offender and the names are different.

Let's face it, none - and I mean literally none of the names match. And there are no named pictures available for individuals from the choir, except for Pepper. And nobody could confuse the picture of the offender with the picture we have of Pepper. Literally nobody. And quite frankly, we only needed one to be proved false for the whole lie to come crashing down. Why would someone edit in 8 people they thought were child offenders and then obviously lie about one of them.

And another question: It is so obviously a lie about Pepper. There's no farcical suggestion that aliases might be involved (even though the names are in fact different) that would change the fact that we can actually see he's not the offender. And it takes a minute or two to find out what he looks like. So why do you think your 'sources' for accusing these guys don't even do the most basic of fact checking? The work experience kid in the NewsWars office could have done it in his coffee break on his laptop.

Well, it's obvious. Just as it's obvious that you kept refusing to check it yourself. Just as it's obvious that every news outlet that pushed this garbage didn't check it. Just as you now still refuse to accept it. It's because everyone pushing this dross wanted it to be true. And if they took a few minutes to do what they should have done right from the outset then they wouldn't have a story about gays being child molesters.

That's the story that you wanted as well. That's why you are still trying to convince yourself it might be true. That's why all we'll have left is 'Well whatabouthis..? and you'll make no concession that you were wrong and make no admission that the video you originally posted was a lie.

This is starting to sound like a conspiracy theory.