Tristan

Read "The Necessity of Chivalry" by CS Lewis

[Tristan @GreenRedKnight]

"Jesus said just be a heckin' nice and decent person bro!"
- The most hateful and vindictive person you've ever met.

[Martin @MartinTweats]

The claim that God cannot exist without evil is not a claim made by Christians.

To make such a claim is redefine God as not-God. It makes the ontological existence of God contingent on a thing outside of Himself, i.e., God could fail to exist.

Stop lying about Chrisitans.

[Tristan @GreenRedKnight]

@thebiglechowski @MrsCMFrancis You mean like we already do?

[WompTomp @Womp_Tomp]

can any of these people actually define “religion” 😭

[Bart Frederick @bartcf1]

"I slap labels on worldviews I don't like so I don't have to contend with them, and then pretend my answers are the default."

Great way to put it. The last clause is the key to what we call "secularism," or "secular humanism." We pretend that secularism is a neutral default, when in fact it's riddled with assumptions that, by nature, must go unquestioned because to question them would immediately expose secularism as every bit a "religion" as the worldviews that have deities.

[Tristan @GreenRedKnight]

@sarahtexe Is this whole account just stealing posts from other people?

[The Reverend Mister @turtology]

Thinking that learning the Bible in school is equivalent to “the government establishing religion” is like thinking that reading Homer is equivalent to the government establishing ancient Greek mythology.

Though I guess most kids aren’t reading Homer these days either.

[Tod Ashby @TodAshby]

Scripture actually speaks to all four subjects with far more nuance.

Care for the sick? Absolutely. But it never prescribes a government-run healthcare system.

Love the stranger? Absolutely. But Scripture also recognizes the legitimacy of nations, borders, and civil authority.

Feed the hungry? Absolutely. But the primary responsibility falls on individuals, families, and the covenant community, while Scripture also upholds stewardship and personal responsibility.

Care for the poor? Absolutely. Yet the Bible simultaneously condemns oppression and laziness, extols generosity and diligent labor. Those are not contradictions.

[Tristan @GreenRedKnight]

@DoniTheMisfit What's wrong with kings and empires?

[That Anne Girl 🇺🇸⚓️🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 @AnneOfTheBooks]

Anyway. I took a class in high school on Greek Mythology, and everyone loved it and no one was pressured to worship Zeus or Apollo and we all came away with a better understanding of western literature as a whole.

[Travis Kling @Travis_Kling]

One of toughest pills for atheists to swallow is that the Christian church-

1- Invented universities; then
2- Effectively invented the scientific method; then
3- Christians made the overwhelming majority of contributions in the Scientific Revolution.

They really hate this.

[Tristan @GreenRedKnight]

@DavidAFrench You need a mirror

[Eve Keneinan 𝛗☦️ن @EveKeneinan]

The problem with these modern intellectuals who think that Christian moral teaching is bad or insufficient is that they are already culturally steeped in the Christian moral understanding of things.

They think it is "worthless" because they think it teaches "basic things that everyone already knows."

And so it does — at least in the Christian West.

But again and again, the Western moderns believe that the Christian principles they too espouse are merely "universally human" principles.

But they are not, and we will be destroyed if we keep blindly insisting that they are.

[Wes Fulton @CoolBreezeFL]

@ChristianHeiens One of the funniest South Park episodes was the one where Cartman travels to the far future and the whole world has embraced atheism…and they’re in the middle of a planet-wide religious war over whose version of atheism is correct.

[Christian Heiens 🏛 @ChristianHeiens]

Reddit Atheists only appear to have “won” if you accept their presupposition that materialism is true.

Every debate these people have ever had began with them presupposing their own metaphysics to be correct like that was just laying out the rules of the debate rather than a subtle attempt to rig the entire thing from the start.

And they got away with it so often because they were debating a specific strain of Evangelical Protestants who had become so ingrained in dualistic thinking over the centuries that they had basically no frame of reference to push back.

It was like trying to debate a liberal who presupposes that history has ended without pushing back before any conversation could be had about liberalism itself. Of course you’d “lose” such a debate. This is exactly what has happened to conservatives over the last 30+ years.

But I’ve never once seen a Reddit Atheist enjoy debating the presuppositions of their own worldview. How many of them want to debate the Observer Effect or the Measurement Problem? Or Bell's and Leggett's inequalities? Or the Hard Problem of Consciousness? Or the implication of Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorems on their physicalist worldview? Or whether science can justify scientism?

None of these things prove organized religion as we commonly understand it to be true, much less Evangelical Protestantism. But they do show that the metaphysical picture which Reddit Atheists usually put forward as obvious right from the start is actually not obvious at all. That’s where the entire debate has to begin, and the Reddit crowd wants to skip this step entirely because it gets in the way of making themselves feel intellectual by dunking on people who think the Earth is 7,000 years old.

But the moment the debate shifts from them tearing down strawmen in the form of sky daddy to whether the foundation of their own belief system is valid, their teleology crumbles apart because the entire premise is built upon the incredibly disingenuous attempt to pretend they have none.

But everyone has a teleology, including Atheists. Atheism itself is not pure negation, no matter how many times they try to insist otherwise. It’s a worldview of its own, with its own presuppositions and its own axioms. And those axioms almost always entail materialism, liberal humanism, scientism, or progressivism, which are very much open to attack.

[Tristan @GreenRedKnight]

@ZachWLambert They're not "requiring to teach the Bible" they're including famous excerpts of it in historic literature courses but something tells me you already knew that and don't care.

[Thomas Nuckles @ThomasNuckles]

@ZachWLambert Your entire article is based a a false premise. https://t.co/AkYaT1Pigl

[David Kicinski @David_Kicinski]

Says the guy who's been going out of his mind over Texas mandating Bible reading in schools.

[Thomas Nuckles @ThomasNuckles]

@bonhoefferchild The public debate has nothing to do with the curriculum. The vast majority that both support and object to it don't even understand it.

https://t.co/AkYaT1Pigl

[SongEternal | Balanced Takes🎙️ @SongEternal]

It's not requiring Christianity.

Not anymore than assigning Shakespeare is requiring Shakespeareanism.

It's just assigned reading material that's an integral part of the culture.

I wish people would stop flipping out. 🤣

[Tristan @GreenRedKnight]

@JadeAtrophis I knew other kids weren't paying attention in History class when they mention the Vedas or 5 Pillars, but I had no idea it was THIS many!