I trust that God will preserve the Church, the community of Christians of all denominations. Even shattered as the Church is, we will, for the most part, stick to right doctrine and belief in the places it matters most. But not online. Online-ianity is already lost.
I am starting to think that Online-Christians and Christians who happen to be online are different things. I think Online-Christianity, with its strange mix of factionalism and heterodox individualism which encourages the weirdest idiosyncrasies, is not Christianity at all.
And it's dangerous in this way: when Christians can believe anything about matters of faith and morals, Christianity is not anything at all. There is certainly adiaphora, but there must be lines drawn. People can't convert to Christianity if "Christianity" doesn't mean anything.
@not_our_guy He had a major part in starting, or at least popularizing, all this nonsense among my generation, and ruined American politics, now he's backtracking. I do hope for the guy, but eventually he has to take accountability.
@SpencerKlavan I'm not particularly looking forward to this but, personally, I respect if an artist wants to tell a story from another time or culture in a more informal register in order for it to connect more with a contemporary audience. With some stories (not all), it can be effective.
It can be proved that God exists.
The distinctive articles of the Christian faith cannot be proved except by appeal to divine authority, but the fact that there is a God can be proved by reason alone.
@not_our_guy If the Jewish ritual and ceremonial laws were not about symbolizing the Israelites' separation from the peoples (Lev 20:25-26), but rather because such things were *actually* "unseemly and contrary to the Divine purpose," wouldn't that mean the laws should still apply?
@EidolonOracle@NeilShenvi Perhaps, but C.S. Lewis was not an ethnonationalist if that's what you mean. He did value cultural and national differences, but he still did want people to "get over the colour bar."
@jfecteaux@jarldietrich Why did God become man and die for us?
Because there were sinners who could not, by their own free will, avoid damnation, it was in accordance with God's nature, His mercy, to do what had to be done to offer the grace to save us.
That would be true for one man or a million.
@jfecteaux@jarldietrich If His goodness led Him to die for mankind at all, even in our sinfulness, there is no logical reason why He would not have suffered to save fewer men, or even one. There is no threshold besides a fallen sinner, any fallen sinner, even one, needing a savior.
@OVTweetmarck I think we should call Asia "the Far East." Actually, now that I think of it, the name "Middle East" is actually incomprehensible without "the Far East" as a reference point. Why did we keep Near East and Middle East but not Far East?
@TheOrthoEnsign Even as a non-EO, I get why you call them modernists, nearly no-one before, like, 1800 ever held the view that God being just makes Him mean and therefore evil. What's weird is that the same people who think that (Orthobros, etc.) are also often really cruel, genuine bigots.
@kayser728 Friend, Muhammad was not a true prophet, but an agent of hate and destruction, either insane or deceptive. Following him has never brought you or anyone love or goodness. But there is one who does love you, and wish you good: Jesus. Read the Gospels.
The Bible is incredibly clear not only that immigration under certain restrictions and circumstances is just and permissible, but that God is particularly compassionate towards righteous aliens and resident foreigners, and that God desires such foreigners be treated as natives.
@JayCCalhoun@not_our_guy For the sake of the argument, let's say he's not Irish; he's an immigrant who "had a home and left it" to come to Ireland. Do you not believe it is possible for an immigrant living in public housing to be innocent? That's an impossible position for a Christian to hold.