Chronic illness is a crazy thing. God's been teaching me a lot through this time, and wow, did I need to learn. It's far too easy to arrogantly "solve" people's problems, rather than really taking the time to understand them.
https://t.co/CvtnR3CTsT
Read @samjones217 wonderful response to @douglaswils proposal to add a deeply broken amendment to the Constitution regarding abortion.
https://t.co/WGurI0E3rk
@ImKingGinger@megbasham Though I have no love for The Servant Foundation, you're placing more power and weight on it, and DAFs in general, than they actually hold.
You're stopping the money trail before reaching the end. Something isn't bad/good just because The Servant Foundation gave funds.
@ImKingGinger@megbasham Which is a donor-advised fund. AKA: a donation pass-through for tax purposes. AKA: not an organization that freely decides what to do with the money.
You have to follow the money back to the donors themselves, who are often using such funds to hide their involvement.
Christ. Do you think that brother/sister of a different "race" is a "lesser choice" for marriage? What absurdity to say about another human covered by the righteous blood of Christ! What an insult to HIS BRIDE!
These sorts of "not God's ideal, but not sinful" end up judging God
Sinners & God couldn't be more separated. God has called sinners to be his bride. He died for her before she was washed, & even once covered by His blood, she still sins. She is still hideous. He sees perfect beauty. There will never be a more "mixed" marriage.
To say "interr...
"interracial marriage" is "not God's intended design," "not ideal," or is "unwise," is to expose a clear lack of understanding of our position before a holy God. WE are ALL the unworthy ones, yet God saved us and made us His bride. We are a new family, covered by the bood of...
@PrestonSprinkle As a scholar, you should know that a critical question is "What is the context of this statement?" In this case, "[my country] first" is not a religious statement or statement of final allegiance. It's a statement of civics regarding who a government's first responsibility is to.
@KirkCameron And yes, I do think your video here is a distraction that does more to shut down conversation, rather than encourage it. However, that's one of the reasons I'm offering to receive your input, in order to cut through distractions.
@KirkCameron Kirk, I'm working on 2 episodes covering Annihilationism, covering what it claims, responding to those claims, and exploring how it interacts with other doctrines.
Open invitation to join me or send me some of your thoughts/concerns.
Questions are fine, yet your issue seems to be with people's conclusions. This is an attempt to get one side (the side he disagrees with) to be quiet, & push the conversation to exist within his supposition.
Working on 2 episodes on Annihilationism, & Kirk is encouraged to join
@AbolitionRising To be human is to have moral responsibility. To deny murder is to deny the moral nature, and thus to deny part of her humanity. AKA: their logic is dehumanizing (or, to put it in their language: victimizing)
@AbolitionRising You cannot "create the conscience." God created that as an essential part of humanity. To deny guilt is to deny the conscience (and thus part of her humanity). That runs women into the arms of abortion, as they've been supported in the denial of their conscience (and humanity)
You cannot respond to supposed bad-faith engagement by doing what you accuse those people of. There's no evidence here, no substance.
It's bothersome how often this happens on X, & we all need to do better about engagement here.
@WesleyLHuff, I hope you can see what I'm saying
This is sadly a strawman ("yet to see anyone actually give a rebuttal that shows me..."), appeal to authority ("heresy is to say that John Stott, Edward Fudge, F. F. Bruce... are all heretics."), and appeal to emotion (Again, you "lose" those men if you call it heresy).
With @KirkCameron announcing his position on conditionalism Iโm seeing a lot of people attempting to critique it. I hold to ECT, but I do understand the topic of conditional immortality and I have yet to see anyone actually give a rebuttal that shows me theyโve interacted with the arguments and biblical reasoning from the other side. To condemn conditionalism/annihilationism as heresy is to say that John Stott, Edward Fudge, F. F. Bruce, potentially even Athanasius of Alexandria, are all heretics. This is, with all due respect, ridiculous. While the position might be unorthodox it is not heresy. If you actually want to interact with someone who knows the topic reach out to my friends @datechris and/or @DanPaterson7. Both are solid, fair minded, well educated and articulate holders of conditionalism.
And, @PrestonSprinkle, as always, you have my contact info, and I'm willing to hear out, publicly or privately, any critiques you have of my content covering you.
I think I never sent you that episode, due to not finishing the companion article, so apologies for that.
This graphic presupposes:
1: Annihilation is true & Hell is wrong
2: The passages reference Annihilationism
3: Those passages cannot fit Hell
4: An attempt to overwhelm, not engage with the actual debate
Graphics like this usually share those issues.
Source below, and more:
Source:
"The Annihilation View of Hell"
https://t.co/Wyap2n7znG
My review of Preston's views on Hell (more than just Annihilationism)
https://t.co/qgWLQ2OzJC