RevSeeker

Christian, Husband, Father, Grandfather, American, Veteran, in that order.

[CJ the palmer worm; wife,mother, researcher. @thepalmerworm]

🧵What Is Man? What Is Man For?

If you’ve read the works of Francis Bacon, Stanford Research Institute’s ‘Changing Images of Man’ and the ‘First Principles & Values of Evolving Perennialism’ - you’ll recognize that question as fundamental to their enterprises - the enterprise of re-making man. Transitioning man to something else, in their aspiration, something ‘more’. However, what is not plainly stated in these Promethean enterprises is the jurisdictional structure within which the understanding of man, juridically speaking, operates and all that entails for downstream implications and consequences throughout civic infrastructure; Education, Law, Governance and increasingly, Health/Medicine. No one draws attention to the line which by necessity, requires holding with regard to limiting principles and their direct relationship to answering, upholding and defending man from subjugation. That line is anthropological and ontological. The American Founders stated that it was the civic duty and telos of Education to ensure The People were fully formed in their understanding and embodying of that line.
https://t.co/pitUB55MYT

[Jeremiah Knight @iamrjknight]

Think about it honestly. How many times have we chosen sin because it promised something sweet in the moment, only to discover later that it left a bitter taste in the soul. Sin never presents itself as ruin. It comes dressed as comfort, relief, satisfaction, or escape. But what it gives is never what it promises. “But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust. Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when sin is accomplished, it brings forth death” (James 1:14-15).

Moses understood this clearly when he turned away from the passing pleasures of sin and chose instead to suffer with the people of God, because he saw beyond the moment and weighed the outcome rightly (Hebrews 11:25). That is where most of us fail. We see the moment, but we do not see the end.

Sin always works like this. It promises relief but produces bondage. It offers pleasure but leaves behind guilt. It appears small but carries consequences that reach further than we expect. “For the wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23). Not just physical death, but the slow corruption of the heart, the dulling of the conscience, and the distancing of the soul from God.

And yet we return to it again and again, not because it satisfies, but because we forget. We forget what it cost us last time. We forget how empty it left us. We forget that what we are chasing is already offered to us in a far greater way in Christ. “You make known to me the path of life; In Your presence is fullness of joy; In Your right hand there are pleasures forever” (Psalm 16:11).

This is the real issue. It is not that sin is too strong. It is that our sight is too short. We trade what is lasting for what is temporary. We exchange what is pure for what corrupts. And every time we do, we taste again that bitterness we should have learned to avoid.

So the call is not merely to resist sin, but to see it clearly. To strip away the illusion and recognise it for what it is. A false promise that cannot satisfy, and a path that never leads where it claims.

[🌟🇺🇸Nancy Hamm🇺🇸🌟 @nancy_hamm1]

Imagine an atheist confidently hits a Christian apologist with the ultimate gotcha question:
'Okay, but where did GOD come from?' 😏

[Jeremiah Knight @iamrjknight]

Anger often promises justice but quietly destroys the one who carries it. The thing that provoked the anger may pass quickly, yet the anger itself continues to wound the heart, poison the mind, and damage relationships. Scripture warns us about this because anger easily grows beyond the original cause. “The anger of man does not achieve the righteousness of God” James 1:20.

Uncontrolled anger blinds judgment and leads to words and actions that cannot be taken back. That is why the Bible repeatedly calls believers to restraint. “He who is slow to anger has great understanding, but he who is quick tempered exalts folly” Proverbs 14:29.

There is a righteous anger that reflects God’s holiness, but most of the anger we carry is rooted in pride, wounded ego, or impatience. When anger takes control, it harms the one holding it more than the situation that produced it. The wiser path is the one Scripture commends. “Be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger” James 1:19.

[Insurrection Barbie @DefiyantlyFree]

https://t.co/8XDMiECl0D

[J.C. Ryle @JCRyle]

I've been part of the "Reformed movement" for over 15 years. I've seen many "controversies" take place over that period of time, including seismic ones related to the "Reformed" Woke left (2015ish) and now the "Reformed" Woke Right (2025ish).

My advice, "Avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless." (Titus 3:9). You simply cannot "reason" or "debate" with individuals who are drunk on "white privilege" or "kinism." More than likely, those who fall into these camps are unregenerate and are simply being used by Satan to cause division and unnecessary quarreling. Just simply look at their behavior on X and how most of them hide behind "anonymous accounts." Note their language, demeanor, cockiness, harsh language etc...Jesus said you would know them by their FRUIT, and/or their character/demeanor and how they conduct their way of life and how they detrimentally impact others. Think the "Woke left and Work right" mind virus. And trust me, there's a version of the Woke Left and Woke Right mind virus in the Reformed movement. Anyone who spends 24 hours on X can clearly see it.

God's heavy judgment is upon our land, and Americans, even "professing Christians" are being given over to false teachers, false teachings, and are being "made merchandise of" (2 Peter 2:3). This doesn't just happen in the hyper-charismatic/pentecostal movement, it's also happening in "Reformed circles." These Reformed charlatans will not have you "sow a seed" to their ministry, but rather, they will see you their books, promote their conferences (which are HUGE $$$ makers), substack memberships, uncomely behavior on social media to make $$$ etc...In many camps, it pays very well to "make merchandise of others" and since the Lord is clearly judging our nation and professing church, there are "Christian suckers born every minute" to make merchandise of.

My advice: Stick to the basics. Focus on growing in holiness and devotion unto the Lord. If you have a family, invest mightily in them (Family devotions, homeschooling etc...). Don't waste your "spiritual energy" debating random reprobates on social media. Share the gospel in your community. Attend a solid Biblical church and invest in it. Invest in flesh and blood relationships. Fast and pray for our nation. Suffer reproach for Christ. Be willing to stand for truth and don't compromise your Biblical convictions.

-Bryan Schrank (moderator of Ryle's X page)

[Faithfulness Okom @AttorneyF_]

Why does God even want worship? Isn’t that… needy? I was rewatching The Chosen weeks ago, the scene with the Samaritan woman and that question wouldn’t leave me alone. Jesus says, “The Father is seeking those who will worship Him in spirit and in truth.” It hit me harder than usual. Almost made me teary.

And then an intrusive thought slid in: Why does He care so much about worship?
So I sat with it. And slowly, something started to untangle.
We live in a world obsessed with creators and ownership. Artists sign their paintings. Musicians copyright their songs. Companies defend their patents. Architects protect their signature designs. Not because they’re insecure. Because authorship matters.
We instinctively know that to erase an author’s name from their work is wrong, and to twist their creation beyond recognition is violation.
That clicked for me.

If flawed humans protect the integrity of what they make… how much more would the God who authored galaxies guard His?
Reality itself is His masterpiece. Every law of physics, every spark of beauty, every heartbeat, signed, authored, claimed.
So when Scripture calls God jealous, it’s not describing a fragile deity craving applause. It’s describing a Creator who refuses to let His signature be erased from what He made.
Not insecurity, integrity. Not ego, essence.
He is jealous for us, not of us. Because when creation forgets its Creator, everything breaks. Meaning unravels. Purpose distorts. Worship misfires.
God’s “jealousy” isn’t about Him needing attention. It’s about Him refusing to let us live on lies. He knows that life only works when it aligns with Truth. And He is that Truth.

So when Jesus says the Father is seeking worshipers, it’s not desperation. It’s love. It’s rescue. It’s the God who authored reality inviting us back into alignment with it.
Divine jealousy isn’t proof of God’s weakness. It’s proof of His love. A love that protects. A love that refuses to hand us over to counterfeits. A love that will not let His creation forget who made it.
The universe is a signed masterpiece. Erase the signature, and you erase meaning itself. God refuses to let that happen. That’s where I landed. And honestly? It made me worship more, not less.

[Darwin to Jesus @darwintojesus]

It’s obvious when you think about it.

[Mark W. Williams @markwwill]

Men judge our inside by our outside; our heart by our work; but God judges our outside by our inside, our works by our heart.

—Ralph Venning

[RevSeeker @RevSeeker]

@farmingandJesus @CNN It serves their purposes. They want to obscure the trans angle. However they seem to be caving to the mob and "correcting" the issue. Because no matter how heinous the crime the delusion must be honored.

[Mike Belcher @MikeBelcher14]

If your concept of the sociopolitical cannot account for the particularities we all know exist - culture, tradition, heritage, faith, etc - by whatever name we call it, and substitutes a nebulous "love" for the idea of the state where love of the real people of it should be...

[Donnie Discerned @DonnieDarkened]

People picture Satan as this monster who just wants blood, chaos, and carnage.

But that caricature actually hides his real strategy.

Lucifer doesn’t sell destruction,
he sells liberation.

In his worldview, Yahweh is the tyrant who chained humanity in flesh, in limits, in laws.

The material world is seen as a prison, and the serpent in Genesis 3 is reframed as the liberator, the one who gave man the key of gnosis, the chance to “be like God.”

That’s the foundation of Gnosticism, the occult, and the New Age.

Pride, self-deification, and the idea that divinity can be seized rather than received.

It’s the same voice that told Christ to take the kingdoms of the world without the cross.

So when you really look at it, Lucifer is the ultimate Gnostic theologian.

He builds a whole inverted worldview where pride is virtue, rebellion is enlightenment, and Yahweh is the villain.

And the genius of it is that it doesn’t look satanic at all.

It looks heroic.
It looks like light, freedom, and self-empowerment.

That’s why people fall for it.

Lucifer’s destruction isn’t through obvious brutality.

It’s through convincing mankind that he’s the real savior, and that the true God is the enemy.

[RevSeeker @RevSeeker]

@sonnydayzzzz @WassonWatch I think it if you wanted an actual opinion you would link the article rather that a screenshot of the headline. That way a person could decide for themselves if there is validity to it, or if it is just another headline based on scant information to evoke an emotional response.

[RevSeeker @RevSeeker]

@truthstreamnews off*

[RevSeeker @RevSeeker]

@truthstreamnews I like to call it a Brave New 1984, just sort of rolls of the tongue. 👍

[RevSeeker @RevSeeker]

Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

John 20:29 KJV

[RevSeeker @RevSeeker]

14 I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
15 I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from evil.

John 17:14-15 KJV

[RevSeeker @RevSeeker]

*unto
Also subtract a you

[RevSeeker @RevSeeker]

These things I have spoken into you you, that in me ye might have peace. in the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer, I have overcome the world. John 16:33 KJV

[Wasson Watch Co. @WassonWatch]

Liberalism vs. Post Liberalism: The philosophical public policy debate that will define the future of Western Civilization

The meaning of the word "liberal" has shifted significantly in the last century, but classical liberalism (hereafter described as "liberalism") is generally the idea that individuals have inherent value, and rights, that government (which should be limited in nature) should protect those individual rights, and that equality under the law is a good thing.

It is said that liberalism originates from the enlightenment of the 17th and 18th centuries, but I will argue that it has a much older origin here shortly.

Post liberalism is, at its core, a challenge against, or even outright rejection of liberalism. It highlights the common good, rather than individual value or rights, and casts individual autonomy and free markets as harmful to societies. It also tends to emphasize the importance of national, and sometimes ethnic identity.

Just a bit of my editorial commentary on post liberalism before I proceed: I believe the basic premise of post liberalism is based on a strawman. For example, post liberal advocate, Charles Haywood says in his "Foundationalist Manifesto," that, "Only when the Enlightenment, political philosophy based on false claims of wholesale human emancipation from all unchosen bonds, is both gone and wholly discredited is a new thing possible..."

Here's what I mean by calling it a strawman. When Haywood says, "wholesale human emancipation from all unchosen bonds," what he's describing is inherently not liberalism. It's unfettered libertarianism. It's anarchy. The fundamental basis of liberalism is not "emancipation from all unchosen bonds." It is the limitation of bonds, such that the individual rights of man are protected, so that he is not oppressed. The hallmark of liberalism is the US Constitution, which, in concert with the extant colonial laws at the time it was published, placed all sorts of bonds on individuals, whether they were chosen or not.

Another premise of the post liberal argument that should be addressed is the claim that things are as bad as they are now because of liberalism, but that's simply not true. Many of the ills of modern society are directly due to shifts away from liberalism to either lawlessness, or in some cases, even post liberalism itself.

Take Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) for instance. The post liberal advocate may argue that, "We live in a liberal society, and it has produced DEI, which is objectively bad, therefore liberalism is bad." But liberalism has not produced DEI. On the contrary, DEI has been produced by a shift to post liberalism. DEI is the top-down, authoritative exercise of governmental and institutional power over subordinate individuals and institutions, requiring adherence to a collective "ethic" or "virtue" at the expense of individual rights and opportunity. DEI says, "You can't hire that person. You have to hire this person instead, based on our criteria, not your own."

The more you look into specific, systemic problems in our society, the more you see that many of them are fueled by post liberalism.
- Radical environmentalism/climate hoax-ism: Post liberal
- LGBTQ+ agenda in schools: Post liberal
- Burdensome CAFE standards on cars: Post liberal
- Unconstitutional, restrictive gun laws: Post liberal
- Crippling taxes: Post liberal

Now that I've addressed some of the strawman premises of post liberalism, I want to shift to the substantive argument around liberalism itself. Frankly, post liberalism argues from a negative, pitting itself against liberalism, but often lacking specificity around the proposed solutions. Conversely, it's quite clear what liberalism is. So we should then ask, is liberalism good or bad?

My position: Liberalism is good. I will discuss why.

Many would just argue based on results. The rise of the West in general, and the United States in particular has happened under the premise of liberalism. A focus on individual human rights and limited government has ushered in an era of human flourishing beyond historical comparison. Some of the most catastrophic failures in modern, Western Civilization, have been due to the move away from liberalism to post liberalism in the form of authoritarianism (see Fascist Germany and Italy, Communism in Eastern Europe, and modern race Marxism across much of Europe). Frankly, arguing from the position of "results" makes for a fantastic argument, but it's not the primary argument I'm going to make.

I think that liberalism is good because it's Biblical.

We talk about liberalism originating in the 1600s, but it really didn't. It originated about 3,500 years ago, when God gave his law to the people of Israel through Moses.

That's right.

Individual human rights, including private property rights, are Biblical.

The original "Bill of Rights" is the Mosaic law. Here are a few examples:

- Right to life (you shall not murder): Exodus 20:13
- Private property rights (you shall no steal): Exodus 20:15, 22:1-5
- Right to life in the womb: Exodus 21:22-25
- Liability for negligent harm to others or private property: Exodus 21:28-36
- Equality under the law: Exodus 23:6-9
- Due process (requiring more than one witness): Numbers 35:30

These are just a few examples. There are many other instances of God codifying specific, individual, human rights in his law. Importantly, there is a specific basis for human rights under God's law, which God shares with us in the very first chapter of the Bible.

Genesis 1:27 says,

"So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them."

Human rights don't exist in a vacuum. The exist as a direct response to the infinite value of each individual human. God, himself, provides this exact legal justification for his codification of the right to life in Genesis 9:6:

"Whoever sheds the blood of man,
by man shall his blood be shed,
for God made man in his own image."

Codified, individual human rights are absolutely Biblical. But that's not the final extent of Biblical commentary on this subject. Let's look to a couple examples:

Private Property Rights: In 1 Kings 21, Ahab, the king of the Northern Kingdom of Israel, sees a vineyard that belongs to a man named Naboth, and he decides he wants it. So he offers to buy it. Naboth refuses, and King Ahab gets all sad and mopey, until his evil wife, Queen Jezebel notices, and says, "Do you now govern Israel? Arise and eat bread and let your heart be cheerful; I will give you the vineyard of Naboth the Jezreelite."

She has Naboth killed, and takes the vineyard, and gives it to Ahab. God then speaks to the Prophet Elijah, and tells him to go condemn Ahab for what he did, saying, "Have you killed and also taken possession?"

No one, perhaps in the history of humankind, has had greater authority to rule than the kings of Israel and Judah. All government is established by God (Romans 13), but the kings of Israel and Judah were specifically ordained by God to rule, and were given specific instructions, including the admonition from Deuteronomy 17:20, "that his heart may not be lifted up above his brothers."

Despite his ruling status, Ahab did not have the right or authority to overrule the private property rights that had been ordained by God, and certainly not to murder Naboth in order to take that property. His decision to ignore those individual human rights was directly condemned by God, and no special consideration was given for his status as regent.

Limiting Government Authority: King David made a pretty famous mistake. In 2 Samuel 11 it's recorded that while David was taking a stroll on his rooftop he saw Bathsheba, the wife of his neighbor (Uriah the Hittite), bathing and he saw that she was beautiful, so he sent for her. She came, and he slept with her, and she got pregnant. Uriah was actually one of David's soldiers, and as far as we can tell from the text, an honorable man who was previously in good standing with David and others. Rather than owning up to his sin, David told Uriah's commander to organize a retreat in which Uriah would be left behind to fight alone in battle, and therefore be killed, a plan which was successfully carried out shortly thereafter.

As with Ahab, God condemned David for his sin, and not just killing Uriah, but taking that which was not his (Bathsheba).

There's an argument that could be made, especially based on the system of government at that time, that the king had a responsibility, even a right to marry many women, and have many children to ensure the security of his royal line. But that's not how God saw it. David used his position as King to abuse his authority and take Uriah's wife, and this was wholly unacceptable and sinful. To make matters more interesting, Uriah wasn't even an ethnic Jew. He was a Hittite. But God had commanded the people of Israel not to oppress the sojourners (foreigners who chose to live peaceably and in submission to God's laws in their midst).

The Bible describes liberalism in a nutshell. It describes and codifies individual rights, and it provides examples of their violations along with condemnation.

Post liberalism is antithetical to these ideals. Post liberalism sees individual rights as an obstacle to human flourishing, rather than a vehicle for it, despite all historical evidence to the contrary. Post liberalism elevates the power of the state to the detriment of individual human rights in a way that God specifically condemns.

Much to my own chagrin, many proponents of post liberalism falsely wrap it in the flag of Christianity. They emphasize the shared Biblical ethic as an important, societal good, and highlight the need for the increase in state power to enforce this shared ethic.

As a Christian, I WHOLEHEARTEDLY AGREE that the Bible is the true Word of God, and that it should be a primary source in determining right from wrong.

But the post liberal prescribed solution is not Biblically based. Rather, it's derived from people like Carl Schmitt, the German philosopher and jurist who was one of the legal/political architects of - don't miss this - the Nazi Party. His major contribution to this enterprise: The concept of the unhindered executive who would rise above the fray and restore order and justice to the land. Schmitt's prescription is textbook post liberalism, and its implementation was integral to the rise and fall of the Third Reich.

In other words, wrapping post liberalism in Christianity is a Trojan Horse to convince Christians to let it in, but as it turns out, once inside the gates it opens up and it's full of Fascist or Marxist authoritarians who will happily kill millions of people to achieve their goals.

Like all humans, I long for a world of simple, clear truths. Complexity, and nuance, and the endless quagmire of gray areas is frankly exhausting. But we can't be children. We have to be adults. There are complexities, and nuances, and gray areas, and we need to work through that.

I wholeheartedly reject post liberalism as un-Biblical, and frankly evil. I associate it with Marxism, Fascism, and authoritarianism, and if it catches on in America it will lead to those things.

I pray that this debate is settled soon, and that post liberalism is wholly rejected by Americans.

However, that does not mean that there is no debate to be had around liberalism. Liberalism highlights human rights, and it limits government, but remember what I said? It's not unfettered libertarianism. It's not anarchy. In society there should be rules. Biblically there are rules, and not everyone agrees on all those rules. The debate should not be whether or not there should be human rights, or whether or not government should be limited.

No, the debate should be around which laws and restrictions are just, or unjust, societal goods, or societal ills. I base my positions on these laws on the Bible. Others may not. We may vehemently disagree. But the parameters of the disagreement should take place in the context of liberalism, not post liberalism.

Why do I care about all this, and why should you care?

As I've previously discussed, humans are made in God's Image. Every human being is precious in God's sight, and should be precious in the sight of other humans. Post liberal constructs like Marxism and Fascism are disastrous vehicles of death and destruction that have led to the deaths of many millions of people. They do not lead to human flourishing. They lead to Hell on Earth.

God gave us the greatest Commandment, to love Him with all our heart, soul, and might, and he said another command is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself.

For me, loving my neighbor means working to promote human flourishing, and prevent Hell on Earth.

SOLI DEO GLORIA