Boylan's "sexual sin" hypocrisy?

[Marcus]

Maybe someone could hint privately to him that when he dislikes people, calling one person's mother a 'ball of dung' and another person's wife a 'human cum stain' is not appropriate?

When his blog was removed by blogspot and then reinstated he removed a bunch of the more nasty posts. Then he just made more about different people. The guy is so off his rocker that losing access to what is, at this point, his life's work, proved to be inconsequential in deterring his unscrupulousness.

Boylan maintains close relationships with many Mopologists who present themselves as moderate and reasonable. As far as I can tell, they make no effort to moderate his impropriety, some seem to encourage it.

So, they may be taking advantage of his issues, to get him to say things they can't say.

[drumdude]

Wow. He pissed off someone enough to troll Boylan with a fake woman’s account… those screenshots are extremely embarrassing and cringe.

I want to laugh at this but it’s just sad. Boylan is clearly neurodivergent. It feels way below the belt to expose how his disability has affected his relationship (or lack thereof) with women.

I have no way to know if the woman is fake or not.

I also have no way to know if Boylan has any kind of disability, unless he has been open about a formal diagnosis? We can speculate but I don't know for sure.

What I do know for certain is that Boylan revels in exposing what he perceives to be the sexual sin of others (along with all his other nasty behaviors). This is just his chickens coming home to roost. The dude is guilty of the very thing he attacks others for.

F around, find out, as they say.

[IWMP]

That boylan can't talk. (He's a hypocrite because he talks about others sinning when he appears to also be a sinner as per their definition of sexual sin).

I think that was just a cover to embarrass Boylan. The hypocrisy is a side issue, this was about payback for Boylan’s years of smearing Christians online.

AHH. I see. That would explain the amount of text and the vivid language.

[Tapir Rodeo]

So, they may be taking advantage of his issues, to get him to say things they can't say.

I can't say for sure, but I think he does operate as an "intimidator" in the mopologetics sphere. I find this comical in a way, since he doesn't seem like he could intimidate anyone in real life.

[Tapir Rodeo]

I think that was just a cover to embarrass Boylan. The hypocrisy is a side issue, this was about payback for Boylan’s years of smearing Christians online.

The blog author makes it clear that wasn't his motivation. The question now is, do we believe it or not?

[drumdude]

I think that was just a cover to embarrass Boylan. The hypocrisy is a side issue, this was about payback for Boylan’s years of smearing Christians online.

The blog author makes it clear that wasn't his motivation. The question now is, do we believe it or not?

What Boylan said is fairly tame, he really had to stretch to make it about sexual sin. It ironically confirms a suspicion that I’ve had for some time, that Boylan has some trouble with the ladies.

[IWMP]

The blog author makes it clear that wasn't his motivation. The question now is, do we believe it or not?

What Boylan said is fairly tame, he really had to stretch to make it about sexual sin. It ironically confirms a suspicion that I’ve had for some time, that Boylan has some trouble with the ladies.

I wouldn't consider the text conversations that are a bit flirty as being sexual sin unless he was married and cheating. And even then, is it a sexual sin?

[Tapir Rodeo]

The blog author makes it clear that wasn't his motivation. The question now is, do we believe it or not?

What Boylan said is fairly tame, he really had to stretch to make it about sexual sin. It ironically confirms a suspicion that I’ve had for some time, that Boylan has some trouble with the ladies.

Boylan's trouble with the ladies is pretty obvious and probably stems from his seeming belief that they are little more than child production objects.

It is fairly tame by non-Christian standards but Boylan's standard is set forth by Jesus in Matthew 5:28. He seems to enjoy ex-mos committing sexual sin as if it is proof that Mormonism is true. But apparently his own sin isn't a problem. Boylan is incredibly harsh towards others. He doesn't extend any grace to the people who's sexual sin he highlights in his blog, instead he celebrates their fall. The blog post exposing Boylan lacks this harshness.

[Tapir Rodeo]

I wouldn't consider the text conversations that are a bit flirty as being sexual sin unless he was married and cheating. And even then, is it a sexual sin?

I guess whether it is sin or not would depend on if someone thinks lust is a sin. If Boylan's standard is Matthew 5:28, then it is certainly sin. If he can find a way to excuse himself from that standard, then maybe he can argue he is in the clear. Either way, he is a hypocrite on some level.

[IWMP]

I wouldn't consider the text conversations that are a bit flirty as being sexual sin unless he was married and cheating. And even then, is it a sexual sin?

I guess whether it is sin or not would depend on if someone thinks lust is a sin. If Boylan's standard is Matthew 5:28, then it is certainly sin. If he can find a way to excuse himself from that standard, then maybe he can argue he is in the clear. Either way, he is a hypocrite on some level.

Well yes, to call him a hypocrite you'd have to judge his actions by the same standards he expects of everyone else.